Oncologists' and urologists' 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: 2025-02-13 DOI:10.1080/14796694.2025.2464485
Caroline Vass, Cathy Anne Pinto, Kelley Myers, Kentaro Imai, Cooper Bussberg, Rituparna Bhattacharya, Shawna R Calhoun, Christine Poulos
{"title":"Oncologists' and urologists' preferences for adjuvant therapy in renal cell carcinoma: a discrete-choice experiment.","authors":"Caroline Vass, Cathy Anne Pinto, Kelley Myers, Kentaro Imai, Cooper Bussberg, Rituparna Bhattacharya, Shawna R Calhoun, Christine Poulos","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2464485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To quantify physicians' preferences for adjuvant renal cell carcinoma (RCC) treatments.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A discrete-choice experiment was administered online to board-certified/eligible physicians. Physicians chose between pairs of hypothetical adjuvant therapies for a high-risk patient who had recently undergone a radical nephrectomy. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Physicians (<i>n</i> = 250; 64% oncologists; 36% urologists) placed most importance on improvements in the chance of 5-year overall survival, followed by increased median disease-free survival and reduced risk of side effects. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Physicians 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. Subgroup analysis revealed heterogeneity between oncologists and urologists, and latent-class analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among the whole physician sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most physicians in this study would recommend adjuvant therapy to a typical high-risk postnephrectomy RCC patient.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"833-842"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11916416/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2464485","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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

Materials and methods: A discrete-choice experiment was administered online to board-certified/eligible physicians. Physicians chose between pairs of hypothetical adjuvant therapies for a high-risk patient who had recently undergone a radical nephrectomy. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit and latent-class models.

Results: Physicians (n = 250; 64% oncologists; 36% urologists) placed most importance on improvements in the chance of 5-year overall survival, followed by increased median disease-free survival and reduced risk of side effects. The analyses also highlighted their willingness to make tradeoffs between these benefits and risks. Physicians 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. Subgroup analysis revealed heterogeneity between oncologists and urologists, and latent-class analysis revealed significant heterogeneity among the whole physician sample.

Conclusions: Most physicians in this study would recommend adjuvant therapy to a typical high-risk postnephrectomy RCC patient.

肿瘤学家和泌尿科医生对肾细胞癌辅助治疗的偏好:一个离散选择实验。
简介:量化医生对辅助肾细胞癌(RCC)治疗的偏好。材料和方法:对注册医师/合格医师进行在线离散选择实验。医生为最近接受根治性肾切除术的高危患者选择了两种假设的辅助疗法。数据分析采用随机参数logit和潜类模型。结果:医生(n = 250;肿瘤学家64%;(36%泌尿科医生)认为最重要的是改善5年总生存率,其次是增加中位无病生存期和降低副作用风险。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。医生通常能容忍治疗相关的严重腹泻、头晕和疲劳风险的增加,并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。亚组分析显示肿瘤科医生和泌尿科医生之间存在异质性,潜在类分析显示整个医生样本之间存在显著的异质性。结论:在本研究中,大多数医生会推荐对典型的高危肾切除后肾细胞癌患者进行辅助治疗。
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