ArticlePatient preference and adherence2020
Analysis of Patient Preferences in Lung Cancer - Estimating Acceptable Tradeoffs Between Treatment Benefit and Side Effects.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
55 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Summary of present design of discrete choice experiments for patient preferences in lung cancer based on the ISPOR ESTIMATE checklist.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Six polymorphisms in the lncRNA H19 gene and the risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Deep learning algorithm-based multimodal MRI radiomics and pathomics data improve prediction of bone metastases in primary prostate cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024Trial
- Common sense oncology values to action: a patient-led framework for randomized clinical trial design.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2026Article
- The correlation between pain and function in cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Patient, Physician, and Caregiver Preferences for Lung Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Exercise training mitigates age-related cognitive decline by attenuating TMAO-induced inflammation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- What Matters Most to Patients with NSCLC When Choosing Anticancer Treatments in China? A Best-Worst Scaling Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Article
- Integrative Multi-omics Analysis and Mendelian Randomization Reveal Potential Therapeutic Targets and their Stratification in Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Oncologists' preferences for first-line treatment of ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC in the United States: a discrete choice experiment.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Immunogenicity of a recombinant subunit COVID-19 vaccine: A prospective, multi-centre, longitudinal study in Chinese Alzheimer's disease patients.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2025Article
- The influence factors on the resolution of pulmonary embolism by CT pulmonary angiography.Thrombosis journal · 2025Article
- Impact on clinical biomarkers, immune recovery, and HIV reservoir dynamics of switching to EVG/c/FTC/TAF versus maintaining a non-INSTI-based regimen in virologically suppressed individuals.Infectious diseases & immunity · 2025Article
- The downregulation of ubiquitin-specific peptidase 2 indicates a poor prognosis and promotes the progression of gastric cancer through focal adhesion and ECM pathway signaling.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Quantifying Preferences for CAR-T Compared to Standard of Care as a First-Line Treatment Among Patients With Multiple Myeloma.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Dysbiosis of gut microbiota with enriched pro-inflammatory species in children with idiopathic short stature: a case-control study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- 1,25(OH)₂D₃ inhibits ferroptosis in nucleus pulposus cells via VDR signaling to mitigate lumbar intervertebral disc degeneration.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Chidamide in Combination With DCAG With or Without Venetoclax for Relapsed/Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Topical neurokinin-1 receptor antagonism ameliorates ocular pain and prevents corneal nerve degeneration in an animal model of dry eye disease.Pain reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIncreased treatment options and longer survival for lung cancer have generated increased interest in patient preferences. Previous studies of patient preferences in lung cancer have not fully explored preference heterogeneity. We demonstrate a method to explore preference heterogeneity in the willingness of patients with lung cancer and caregivers to trade progression-free survival (PFS) with side effects. PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients and caregivers attending a national lung cancer meeting completed a discrete-choice experiment (DCE) designed through a collaboration with patients. Participants answered 13 choice tasks described across PFS, short-term side effects, and four long-term side effects. Side effects were coded as a one-level change in severity (none-mild, mild-moderate, or moderate-severe). A mixed logit model in willingness-to-pay space estimated preference heterogeneity in acceptable tradeoffs (time equivalents) between PFS and side effects. The study was reported following quality indicators from the United States Food and Drug Administration's patient preference guidance.
resultsA total of 87 patients and 24 caregivers participated in the DCE. Participants would trade 3.7 month PFS (95% CI (CI): 3.3-4.1) for less severe functional long-term treatment side effects, 2.3 months for less severe physical long-term effects (CI: 1.9-2.8) and cognitive long-term effects (CI: 1.8-2.8), 0.9 months (CI: 0.4-1.4) for less severe emotional long-term effects, and 1.8 months (CI: 1.4-2.3) for less severe short-term side effects. Most participants (90%) would accept treatment with more severe functional long-term effects for 8.4 additional month PFS.
conclusionParticipants would trade PFS for changes in short-term side effects and long-term side effects, although preference heterogeneity existed. Lung cancer treatments that offer less PFS but also less severe side effects might be acceptable to some patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.