ArticleBMC cancer2026
Patient preference for first-line treatments of ALK-positive metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC cancer, 2026. 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.
- ALK-fusion-positive non-small cell lung cancer concomitant with 5q deletion myelodysplastic syndrome: a case report.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
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
backgroundFor patients with ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC, targeted therapy with ALK inhibitors is a recommended first-line treatment. Three generations of ALK-TKIs are now available, varying in efficacy and side effects. It is important to identify patients’ priorities and the benefit-risk trade-offs among potential treatment options.
methodsA discrete choice experiment was conducted in China to elicit the preferences of patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC and their family members (both decision-makers for the treatment). Respondents completed multiple hypothetical treatment profiles characterized by 7 attributes. Data were analyzed using mixed logit model. Analysis of minimum acceptable benefit and scenario simulation were conducted. Subgroup analysis was also employed.
resultsRespondents (N = 115) placed most value on PFS (RI = 58.13%), followed by reduced risk of brain metastasis (RI = 13.04%). Attributes of side effects were considered less critical. When the degree of side effects was altered from mild to moderate, respondents require a minimum increase of 5.34 months in PFS as compensation. Scenario analysis estimated 97.06% of respondents would endorse the new treatment option if the PFS was improved from 36 months to 60 months. Subgroup analysis revealed that the preference patterns of patients and their families are similar. However, respondents’ preferences exhibit heterogeneity for patients with different brain metastasis status, age, and annually household income.
conclusionThis is currently among the first patient preference DCE study for first-line treatments of ALK-positive mNSCLC. Understanding patients’ preferences can enhance shared decision-making between patients and clinicians, fostering personalized prophylactic treatment plans that may optimize adherence and improve clinical outcomes.
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.