探讨小肾肿块患者的治疗偏好:一项初步研究的结果。

IF 5.6 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Clara Diaz, Maryam Kandi, Philippe D Violette, Matthieu Gratton, Steven E Hanna, Amélie Tétu, Gordon Guyatt, Patrick O Richard
{"title":"探讨小肾肿块患者的治疗偏好:一项初步研究的结果。","authors":"Clara Diaz, Maryam Kandi, Philippe D Violette, Matthieu Gratton, Steven E Hanna, Amélie Tétu, Gordon Guyatt, Patrick O Richard","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Most patients diagnosed with a small renal mass (SRM) undergo definitive treatment, but active surveillance may be offered as an alternative. Our aim was to determine patient preferences regarding management of their SRM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter prospective pilot study, we conducted structured online interviews with patients with a new SRM diagnosis. During the interviews, patients reviewed outcome data and stated their preference for definitive treatment (thermal ablation vs partial nephrectomy). Then the patients reviewed hypothetical scenarios in a ping-pong approach and chose the maximum change in the probability of death from kidney cancer they would be willing to accept in order to decline definitive treatment.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Of the 41 participants interviewed, 71% (n = 29) preferred thermal ablation over surgery. While the median maximum increase in the probability of death from kidney cancer that patients were willing to accept to decline definitive treatment was 0.1% (interquartile range 0.1-2.5%) at 5 yr, 27% of patients reported a threshold ≥2%. Most patients (97%) preferred to review data in the form of a \"reduction in the risk of death\", rather than an \"increase in the risk of death\", or expressed no preference. Limitations include the small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach for evaluating the preferences of patients with SRMs and establishes a robust methodology for future studies. Results highlighted a strong preference for thermal ablation and for presenting data in terms of the reduction in mortality risk. Larger studies are required to validate our findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Management Preferences Among Patients with Small Renal Masses: Results from a Pilot Study.\",\"authors\":\"Clara Diaz, Maryam Kandi, Philippe D Violette, Matthieu Gratton, Steven E Hanna, Amélie Tétu, Gordon Guyatt, Patrick O Richard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Most patients diagnosed with a small renal mass (SRM) undergo definitive treatment, but active surveillance may be offered as an alternative. Our aim was to determine patient preferences regarding management of their SRM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter prospective pilot study, we conducted structured online interviews with patients with a new SRM diagnosis. During the interviews, patients reviewed outcome data and stated their preference for definitive treatment (thermal ablation vs partial nephrectomy). Then the patients reviewed hypothetical scenarios in a ping-pong approach and chose the maximum change in the probability of death from kidney cancer they would be willing to accept in order to decline definitive treatment.</p><p><strong>Key findings and limitations: </strong>Of the 41 participants interviewed, 71% (n = 29) preferred thermal ablation over surgery. While the median maximum increase in the probability of death from kidney cancer that patients were willing to accept to decline definitive treatment was 0.1% (interquartile range 0.1-2.5%) at 5 yr, 27% of patients reported a threshold ≥2%. Most patients (97%) preferred to review data in the form of a \\\"reduction in the risk of death\\\", rather than an \\\"increase in the risk of death\\\", or expressed no preference. Limitations include the small sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and clinical implications: </strong>This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach for evaluating the preferences of patients with SRMs and establishes a robust methodology for future studies. Results highlighted a strong preference for thermal ablation and for presenting data in terms of the reduction in mortality risk. Larger studies are required to validate our findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European urology focus\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European urology focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2025.07.008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:大多数诊断为小肾肿块(SRM)的患者接受明确的治疗,但主动监测可能作为一种替代方法。我们的目的是确定患者对SRM管理的偏好。方法:在这项多中心前瞻性先导研究中,我们对新诊断为SRM的患者进行了结构化的在线访谈。在访谈中,患者回顾了结果数据,并陈述了他们对最终治疗的偏好(热消融vs部分肾切除术)。然后,患者以乒乓法回顾假设情景,选择他们愿意接受的肾癌死亡概率的最大变化,以拒绝最终治疗。主要发现和局限性:在41名接受采访的参与者中,71% (n = 29)更倾向于热消融而不是手术。虽然在5年时,患者愿意接受放弃最终治疗的肾癌死亡概率中位数最大增幅为0.1%(四分位数范围为0.1-2.5%),但27%的患者报告阈值≥2%。大多数患者(97%)倾向于以“死亡风险降低”的形式审查数据,而不是“死亡风险增加”,或者没有表示偏好。局限性包括样本量小。结论和临床意义:这项初步研究证明了一种评估srm患者偏好的创新方法的可行性,并为未来的研究建立了一个可靠的方法。结果强调了热消融的强烈偏好,并在死亡率风险降低方面提供了数据。需要更大规模的研究来验证我们的发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Management Preferences Among Patients with Small Renal Masses: Results from a Pilot Study.

Background and objective: Most patients diagnosed with a small renal mass (SRM) undergo definitive treatment, but active surveillance may be offered as an alternative. Our aim was to determine patient preferences regarding management of their SRM.

Methods: In this multicenter prospective pilot study, we conducted structured online interviews with patients with a new SRM diagnosis. During the interviews, patients reviewed outcome data and stated their preference for definitive treatment (thermal ablation vs partial nephrectomy). Then the patients reviewed hypothetical scenarios in a ping-pong approach and chose the maximum change in the probability of death from kidney cancer they would be willing to accept in order to decline definitive treatment.

Key findings and limitations: Of the 41 participants interviewed, 71% (n = 29) preferred thermal ablation over surgery. While the median maximum increase in the probability of death from kidney cancer that patients were willing to accept to decline definitive treatment was 0.1% (interquartile range 0.1-2.5%) at 5 yr, 27% of patients reported a threshold ≥2%. Most patients (97%) preferred to review data in the form of a "reduction in the risk of death", rather than an "increase in the risk of death", or expressed no preference. Limitations include the small sample size.

Conclusions and clinical implications: This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of an innovative approach for evaluating the preferences of patients with SRMs and establishes a robust methodology for future studies. Results highlighted a strong preference for thermal ablation and for presenting data in terms of the reduction in mortality risk. Larger studies are required to validate our findings.

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
European urology focus
European urology focus Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
274
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: European Urology Focus is a new sister journal to European Urology and an official publication of the European Association of Urology (EAU). EU Focus will publish original articles, opinion piece editorials and topical reviews on a wide range of urological issues such as oncology, functional urology, reconstructive urology, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, endourology, female urology, andrology, paediatric urology and sexual medicine. The editorial team welcome basic and translational research articles in the field of urological diseases. Authors may be solicited by the Editor directly. All submitted manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by a panel of experts before being considered for publication.
×
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