ArticleBMC urology2026
Treatment preferences of patients and physicians for early-stage and adjuvant treatment of urothelial carcinoma and renal cell carcinoma in Asia-Pacific: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC urology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe management of early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC has undergone a paradigm shift with the availability of multiple treatment options. However, there is limited understanding about the treatment attributes preferred by patients and physicians in these settings in Asia-Pacific.
methodsThis cross-sectional web-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey aimed to assess treatment preferences for early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC in Asia-Pacific. Participants were patients (aged ≥ 18 years, RCC: n=50, UC: n=50) and physicians (medical oncologists: n=46; urologists: n=44). The DCE included 8 attributes covering efficacy, risks of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and mode of administration (MOA). Relative preference weights, relative importance (RI), and minimum acceptable benefit were analyzed using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression.
resultsBoth patients and physicians placed higher importance on efficacy attributes: one-year disease-free survival (DFS) (patients: RI=25.1%; physicians: RI=36.3%) and overall survival (OS) (patients: RI=27.6%; physicians: RI=22.1%). Among patients, this was followed by risks of treatment-related fatigue (RI=9.9%), and risk of long-term/permanent TRAEs (RI=9.4%). For physicians, it was risk of treatment-related skin rash (RI=8.5%) and risk of treatment-related fatigue (RI=8.0%). Patients would accept a 5-35% risk increase in treatment-related fatigue for 11.4% DFS/0.67-year OS increase, and a 1-15% risk increase in long-term/permanent TRAE (1%-15%) for 10.8% DFS/0.64-year OS increase. Physicians would accept 5-25% risk increases in treatment-related skin rash for 8.0% DFS/0.74-year OS increase and in fatigue for 6.1% DFS/0.56-year OS increase. Most patients (87-92%) and physicians (88-96%) would initiate earlier systemic treatment for UC/RCC than at the advanced or metastatic stage.
conclusionPatients and physicians valued efficacy attributes over TRAE-attributes. Both groups would trade higher risks for greater efficacy, though these trade-offs vary based on TRAE type. This indicates a need for shared decision-making for early-stage and adjuvant UC and RCC in Asia-Pacific.
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.