ArticleFuture oncology (London, England)2025
Oncologists' preferences for first-line treatment of ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC in the United States: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in Future oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTradeoffs between efficacy, safety, and administration may influence decision-making for first-line (1L) treatments for ALK+ mNSCLC. This study explored heterogeneity in provider preferences.
methodsA survey of US oncologists treating ≥1 ALK+ mNSCLC patient was conducted June-August 2024. Participants answered 12 questions comparing 1 L profiles characterized by eight treatment attributes for patients without brain metastases. Attributes included 3-year PFS, intracranial duration of response (iDOR), 16-month risk of edema, myalgia, or cognitive effects, grade ≥3 interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis, 2 L+ treatment options, and administration. Relative attribute importance (RAI) (0-100%) was calculated for aggregate efficacy and safety attributes. Latent class analysis (LCA) explored preference heterogeneity and differences in respondent characteristics.
resultsIn total, 201 oncologists completed the discrete choice experiment. Oncologists emphasized the efficacy over safety (RAI = 47.0% vs 39.0%). LCA identified two classes, placing similar importance on efficacy (RAI = 44.5% vs 48.2%) and safety (RAI = 39% vs 41.2%), but preferring different levels in five attributes. Class 1 oncologists (61%) preferred 3-year PFS of 64% over 43-46%, while Class 2 oncologists (39%) did not differentiate. Conversely, Class 2 focused on iDOR.
conclusionWe identified two oncologist groups with distinct preferences for treatment attributes. Given various 1 L ALK+ mNSCLC treatments, clinical decision-making balances multiple objectives.
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.