One Fraction Size Does Not Fit All: Patient Preferences for Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy From a Discrete Choice Experiment.
- Publisher:
- Elsevier
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- Pract Radiat Oncol, 2022, 12, (1), pp. e24-e33
- Issue Date:
- 2022
Closed Access
| Filename | Description | Size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20980989_11014243600005671.pdf | Published version | 1.22 MB |
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Closed Access
This item is closed access and not available.
PURPOSE: Hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) is a standard of care option for localized prostate cancer. To inform clinical practice we quantified patients' preferences for convenience, efficacy, and toxicity risks, of conventional, moderate hypofractionation, and stereotactic radiation therapy regimens. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used a discrete choice experiment with a voluntary sample consisting of patients treated with EBRT for localized prostate cancer at our academic cancer center. In 2019, 58 participants, mean (SD) age of 72.9 (7.1) years, agreed to complete an in-person 1:1 discrete choice experiment. Each participant made 12 choices between 2 unique EBRT scenarios, each described by 5 attributes: (1) treatment time; (2) fiducial markers; and risk of (3) prostate specific antigen recurrence; (4) acute and (5) late GI or GU toxicity. Patient preferences were estimated using mixed multinomial logistic regression, and prespecified subgroups with conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: All attributes were statistically significant, thus influenced participants' choices. Risks of prostate specific antigen recurrence (β = -2.581), late (β = -1.854), and acute (β = -1.005) toxicity were most important to participants (P < .001 for each), followed by EBRT length (β = -0.728; P = .017) and fiducial marker implantation (β = -0.563; P = .004). Older (β = -0.063; 95% confidence interval, -0.12, -0.01) and rural (β = -0.083; 95% CI -0.14, -0.02) participants significantly preferred shorter EBRT and were less willing-to-extend treatment to reduce toxicity risk. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prostate cancer place importance on EBRT attributes, and some are willing to trade-off increased risk of toxicity for improved convenience. Our findings promote shared clinical decision-making because patients are interested in learning about the trade-offs involved.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: