ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2026
Challenges in Conducting Quantitative Patient-Centered Benefit-Risk Assessments: A Case Study in Ph + ALL with Immature Efficacy Data.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative benefit-risk assessment (qBRA) can reveal how patients balance benefits and risks of cancer treatments. To align with qBRA good practice guidelines, researchers must address challenges including attribute value dependence, double counting, attribute dominance, and uncertainty associated with immature clinical trial outcomes. We present a case study illustrating these challenges in a qBRA of treatment preferences among patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). First, we explain how we mitigated potential dominance of survival outcomes by narrowing the range of overall survival (OS) durations that each participant considered. Second, we describe how we acknowledged the conceptual interaction between OS and duration of remission (DOR) attributes and tested for a statistical interaction. Third, we detail how we conducted qBRA with uncertain efficacy data using bivariate sensitivity analysis. Bivariate sensitivity analysis based on DCE-elicited preferences and head-to-head clinical performance data showed that if the considered treatments - ponatinib + chemotherapy and imatinib + chemotherapy - had equivalent efficacy, 52.9% (95% CI: 52.5%-53.4%) of DCE participants would be expected to choose ponatinib over imatinib. If ponatinib offered 10-month longer DOR and 20-month longer OS vs. imatinib, 71.6% (95% CI: 67.2%-76.0%) would choose ponatinib. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of ≥ 70% of patients preferring ponatinib is 77.5% if ponatinib offers 15-month longer OS and DOR and 93.0% if it offers 45-month longer OS and DOR. Preference heterogeneity analyses identified that the overall choice probability results hold for all subgroups in nearly all scenarios.
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.