Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36372823›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2023

Patient Preferences in Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Cancers: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

Shan Jiang, Ru Ren, Yuanyuan Gu, Varinder Jeet, Ping Liu, Shunping Li

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Developing a patient-based utility value set for the EORTC QLU-C10D using the OPUF method in Chinese cancer patients.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Patient versus physician preferences for lipid-lowering drug therapy: A discrete choice experiment.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Shan Jiang *School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1015-1278
Ru Ren *Centre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, China.
Yuanyuan GuMacquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School & Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. yuanyuan.gu@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3816-9106
Varinder JeetMacquarie University Centre for the Health Economy, Macquarie Business School & Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3765-5310
Ping LiuCentre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, China.
Shunping LiCentre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, 250012, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTargeted pharmacotherapy has been increasingly applied in cancer treatment due to its breakthroughs. However, the unmet needs of cancer patients are still significant, highlighting the urgency to investigate patient preferences. It is unclear how patients deliberate their choices between different aspects of targeted therapy, including cost, efficacy, and adverse events. Since discrete choice experiments (DCEs) have been widely applied to patient preference elicitation, we reviewed DCEs on targeted therapy for different cancers. We also synthesized evidence on the factors influencing patients' choices and their willingness-to-pay (WTP) for survival when treated by targeted therapy.

methodsWe searched databases, including PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE, up to August 16, 2022, supplemented by a reference screening. The attributes from the selected studies were categorized into three groups: outcomes, costs, and process. We also calculated the relative importance of attributes and WTP for survival whenever possible. The purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance (PREFS) checklist was used to evaluate the quality of the included DCE studies.

resultsThe review identified 34 eligible studies from 13 countries covering 14 cancers, such as breast, ovarian, kidney, prostate, and skin cancers. It also reveals a rising trend of DCEs on this topic, as most studies were published after 2018. We found that patients placed higher weights on the outcome (e.g., overall survival) and cost attributes than on process attributes. On average, patients were willing to pay $561 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $415-$758) and $716 (95% CI $524-$958) out-of-pocket for a 1-month increase in progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. PREFS scores of the 34 studies ranged from 2 to 4, with a mean of 3.38 (SD: 0.65), suggesting a reasonable quality based on the checklist. However, most studies (n = 32, 94%) did not assess the impact of non-responses on the results.

conclusionsThis is the first systematic review focusing on patient preferences for targeted cancer therapy. We showcased novel approaches for evidence synthesis of DCE results, especially the attribute relative importance and WTP. The results may inform stakeholders about patient preferences toward targeted therapy and their WTP estimates. More studies with improved study design and quality are warranted to generate more robust evidence to assist decision making.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPatient PreferenceChoice BehaviorFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.