Patient preferences for adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: a discrete-choice experiment.

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Future oncology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-12 DOI:10.1080/14796694.2025.2463276
Shawna R Calhoun, Caroline Vass, Kelley Myers, Kentaro Imai, Cooper Bussberg, Rituparna Bhattacharya, Cathy Anne Pinto, Christine Poulos
{"title":"Patient preferences for adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: a discrete-choice experiment.","authors":"Shawna R Calhoun, Caroline Vass, Kelley Myers, Kentaro Imai, Cooper Bussberg, Rituparna Bhattacharya, Cathy Anne Pinto, Christine Poulos","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2463276","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To quantify patients' preferences for adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Preferences were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment requiring RCC patients to choose between 2 hypothetical treatments. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients (<i>n</i> = 250) preferred treatments that increase disease-free and overall survival (OS), are taken less frequently, require no concomitant medication, have a shorter duration, and have lower side-effect risks. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Patients were generally tolerant of increases in the risks of treatment-related severe diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue and were willing to accept increases in these risks in exchange for improvements in overall or disease-free survival. Latent-class analysis identified 3 classes: class 1 (37.5%) and class 2 (26.9%) preferred not to opt out of treatment and prioritized increased OS and disease-free survival, respectively; class 3 (35.5%) preferred to opt out and prioritized mode, duration, and risks.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Heterogeneity suggests patient-physician discussions are important when considering RCC treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"843-851"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11921160/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2463276","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: To quantify patients' preferences for adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments.

Patients and methods: Preferences were elicited using a discrete-choice experiment requiring RCC patients to choose between 2 hypothetical treatments. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.

Results: Patients (n = 250) preferred treatments that increase disease-free and overall survival (OS), are taken less frequently, require no concomitant medication, have a shorter duration, and have lower side-effect risks. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Patients were generally tolerant of increases in the risks of treatment-related severe diarrhea, dizziness, and fatigue and were willing to accept increases in these risks in exchange for improvements in overall or disease-free survival. Latent-class analysis identified 3 classes: class 1 (37.5%) and class 2 (26.9%) preferred not to opt out of treatment and prioritized increased OS and disease-free survival, respectively; class 3 (35.5%) preferred to opt out and prioritized mode, duration, and risks.

Conclusions: Heterogeneity suggests patient-physician discussions are important when considering RCC treatments.

肾细胞癌患者对辅助治疗的偏好:一个离散选择实验。
目的:量化患者对辅助肾细胞癌(RCC)治疗的偏好。患者和方法:采用离散选择实验,要求RCC患者在两种假设的治疗方法中进行选择。数据分析采用随机参数logit和潜类模型。结果:患者(n = 250)倾向于增加无病生存期和总生存期(OS)的治疗方法,治疗频率较低,不需要同时用药,持续时间较短,副作用风险较低。分析还强调了他们在这些利益和风险之间进行权衡的意愿。患者通常能够忍受治疗相关的严重腹泻、头晕和疲劳风险的增加,并且愿意接受这些风险的增加,以换取总体生存或无病生存的改善。潜在分类分析确定了3个类别:1类(37.5%)和2类(26.9%)不选择退出治疗,分别优先考虑提高OS和无病生存期;第3类(35.5%)倾向于选择退出,并优先考虑模式、持续时间和风险。结论:异质性表明,在考虑肾细胞癌治疗时,医患讨论很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Future oncology
Future oncology ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.00%
发文量
335
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Future Oncology (ISSN 1479-6694) provides a forum for a new era of cancer care. The journal focuses on the most important advances and highlights their relevance in the clinical setting. Furthermore, Future Oncology delivers essential information in concise, at-a-glance article formats - vital in delivering information to an increasingly time-constrained community. The journal takes a forward-looking stance toward the scientific and clinical issues, together with the economic and policy issues that confront us in this new era of cancer care. The journal includes literature awareness such as the latest developments in radiotherapy and immunotherapy, concise commentary and analysis, and full review articles all of which provide key findings, translational to the clinical setting.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信