ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2026
What matters to society when making decisions about reimbursing drugs for prostate cancer: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe use of surrogate outcomes to support treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness in localized prostate cancer has the potential to shorten time to access for new medicines, but it may be associated with greater uncertainty. We sought to understand how members of society might trade off drug efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness, and evidence strength when asked to consider funding new treatments for localized prostate cancer.
methodsA discrete choice experiment among the Australian general population was conducted. Treatment choices were described by cost-effectiveness, government cost, adverse events, patients expected to benefit from treatment, nature of benefits, completeness of data available, and the extent of follow-up. Responses were analyzed using mixed logit and latent class models to assess heterogeneity.
resultsThe survey was completed by 1003 participants. Respondents favored interventions that benefited a high proportion of patients (OR = 2.44, 95% CI = 2.10 to 2.69), were cost-effective (OR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.98), low cost to government (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.82), and with long follow-up time (OR = 1.25, 95% CI = 1.12 to 1.39). Respondents showed aversion to ongoing studies (OR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.88). Respondents were willing to accept less certain evidence if associated with a lower cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Latent class analysis revealed 2 subgroups with different preference patterns.
conclusionsThe analysis found preference for interventions with maximum benefits while minimizing costs. Respondents preferred studies with longer follow-up time for reimbursement decisions despite consequent treatment delays. Notably, respondents were willing to accept the uncertainty associated with surrogate outcomes-reflected through study length and completeness of evidence-provided the intervention demonstrated a favorable ICER.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.