DOI 10.1080/14796694.2025.2565497
Oncologists' preferences for frontline TKI treatment of Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a discrete choice experiment.
Аннотация
AIMS: To evaluate hematologist-oncologists' preferences for frontline treatment of Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph+ ALL) using tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) + chemotherapy.
PARTICIPANTS &
METHODS
An online discrete choice experiment was conducted among US-based hematologist-oncologists. Participants viewed profiles of hypothetical TKI + chemotherapy treatments with varied levels of benefit and risks (minimal residual disease-negative complete remission [MRD-negative CR], arterial occlusive events, grade 3-4 hepatotoxicity, grade 3-4 hematotoxicity) and chose their recommended treatment for five patient profiles: "less-complex" baseline; age ≥ 65; ECOG score 3; diabetes; hypertension. Data were analyzed using mixed multinomial logit models.
RESULTS
121 hematologist-oncologists participated. Increasing MRD-negative CR was most important to hematologist-oncologists, driving 65%-87% of decision-making across patient profiles. Relative importance of benefits/risks varied by patient profile. Pooled across patient profiles, hepatotoxicity was the most concerning risk, driving 14% of decision-making. Based on PhALLCON data and elicited preferences, hematologist-oncologists were predicted to select the profile of ponatinib + chemotherapy over imatinib + chemotherapy for all included patient profiles. Predicted probabilities of choosing ponatinib over imatinib ranged from 87%-98% across patient profiles.
CONCLUSIONS
Hematologist-oncologists prioritized achieving MRD-negative CR when recommending frontline treatments for Ph+ ALL, accepting some risks if offset by meaningful improvement in MRD-negative CR.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.