早期乳腺癌患者对治疗途径的偏好:离散选择实验的应用。

IF 3 4区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Christian Jackisch, Chikako Shimizu, Emuella Flood, Oliver Will, Susan McCutcheon, Stella Mokiou, Xavier Guillaume, Emily Mulvihill, Kathleen Beusterien
{"title":"早期乳腺癌患者对治疗途径的偏好:离散选择实验的应用。","authors":"Christian Jackisch, Chikako Shimizu, Emuella Flood, Oliver Will, Susan McCutcheon, Stella Mokiou, Xavier Guillaume, Emily Mulvihill, Kathleen Beusterien","doi":"10.1080/14796694.2025.2517000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study assessed patient preferences for four clinical trial pathways, which include multiple sequential treatments, in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early-stage breast cancer (eBC). It presents an innovative application for a discrete choice experiment (DCE), yielding single-preference weights for complex pathways.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>Patients in Germany, Italy, and Japan with stage II/III BC completed an online DCE, which included a series of choice tasks with two hypothetical treatment profiles that varied in attributes associated with four eBC treatment pathways: overall pathway (event-free survival, fixed versus flexible, duration) and treatment-specific (side effects, regimen). Bayes modeling was used to estimate preference weights for each attribute level. Preferences for different eBC pathways were calculated by summing the respective pathway and treatment weights, adjusted for the duration of the respective treatments along the pathway. Mean pathway preference weights were compared among the four pathways and countries using analyses of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pathway preferences were highly sensitive to treatment toxicity and surgical response. Additionally, a flexible pathway was preferred as it can mean a shorter pathway duration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Discussions with patients should be personalized per individual preferences and should cover the entire treatment pathway, not just the initial treatment step.</p>","PeriodicalId":12672,"journal":{"name":"Future oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient preferences for treatment pathways in early-stage breast cancer: application of a discrete choice experiment.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Jackisch, Chikako Shimizu, Emuella Flood, Oliver Will, Susan McCutcheon, Stella Mokiou, Xavier Guillaume, Emily Mulvihill, Kathleen Beusterien\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/14796694.2025.2517000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study assessed patient preferences for four clinical trial pathways, which include multiple sequential treatments, in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early-stage breast cancer (eBC). It presents an innovative application for a discrete choice experiment (DCE), yielding single-preference weights for complex pathways.</p><p><strong>Materials & methods: </strong>Patients in Germany, Italy, and Japan with stage II/III BC completed an online DCE, which included a series of choice tasks with two hypothetical treatment profiles that varied in attributes associated with four eBC treatment pathways: overall pathway (event-free survival, fixed versus flexible, duration) and treatment-specific (side effects, regimen). Bayes modeling was used to estimate preference weights for each attribute level. Preferences for different eBC pathways were calculated by summing the respective pathway and treatment weights, adjusted for the duration of the respective treatments along the pathway. Mean pathway preference weights were compared among the four pathways and countries using analyses of variance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pathway preferences were highly sensitive to treatment toxicity and surgical response. Additionally, a flexible pathway was preferred as it can mean a shorter pathway duration.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Discussions with patients should be personalized per individual preferences and should cover the entire treatment pathway, not just the initial treatment step.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2517000\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14796694.2025.2517000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究评估了人类表皮生长因子受体2阴性早期乳腺癌(eBC)患者对四种临床试验途径的偏好,其中包括多种顺序治疗。它提出了一个创新的应用离散选择实验(DCE),产生单一偏好权重的复杂路径。材料和方法:德国、意大利和日本的II/III期BC患者完成了在线DCE,其中包括一系列选择任务,包括两种假设的治疗方案,其属性与四种eBC治疗途径相关:总体途径(无事件生存,固定与灵活,持续时间)和治疗特异性(副作用,方案)。使用贝叶斯模型估计每个属性级别的偏好权重。对不同eBC通路的偏好是通过将各自的通路和治疗权重相加来计算的,并根据通路上各自治疗的持续时间进行调整。使用方差分析比较了四种途径和国家之间的平均途径偏好权重。结果:通路选择对治疗毒性和手术反应高度敏感。此外,灵活的途径是首选的,因为它可以意味着更短的途径持续时间。结论:与患者的讨论应根据个人喜好进行个性化,并应涵盖整个治疗途径,而不仅仅是初始治疗步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient preferences for treatment pathways in early-stage breast cancer: application of a discrete choice experiment.

Aim: This study assessed patient preferences for four clinical trial pathways, which include multiple sequential treatments, in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative early-stage breast cancer (eBC). It presents an innovative application for a discrete choice experiment (DCE), yielding single-preference weights for complex pathways.

Materials & methods: Patients in Germany, Italy, and Japan with stage II/III BC completed an online DCE, which included a series of choice tasks with two hypothetical treatment profiles that varied in attributes associated with four eBC treatment pathways: overall pathway (event-free survival, fixed versus flexible, duration) and treatment-specific (side effects, regimen). Bayes modeling was used to estimate preference weights for each attribute level. Preferences for different eBC pathways were calculated by summing the respective pathway and treatment weights, adjusted for the duration of the respective treatments along the pathway. Mean pathway preference weights were compared among the four pathways and countries using analyses of variance.

Results: Pathway preferences were highly sensitive to treatment toxicity and surgical response. Additionally, a flexible pathway was preferred as it can mean a shorter pathway duration.

Conclusion: Discussions with patients should be personalized per individual preferences and should cover the entire treatment pathway, not just the initial treatment step.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信