Differences between physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments: a systematic review.

Background

Cancer patients often need to choose from multiple treatment options with various health benefit and safety profiles. Patient preference thus plays an important role in such decision making [ 1 ]. Shared decision-making (SDM) explicitly considers patient preference and value and has been increasingly used in cancer care practice [ 2 – 4 ]. SDM involves the interaction and mutual information sharing between physicians and patients, where physicians provide evidence-based and rational treatment messages, and patients express their needs and preferences [ 5 ]. Through SDM, all useful information is considered and treatments are selected based on preferences, which helps to improve the treatment compliance and outcome [ 6 , 7 ]. However, this decision-making process becomes difficult when physician and patient’s preferences differ.

A few reviews have investigated how patients’ preferences were different from those of physicians. Montgomery and Fahey suggested that discordant preferences between patients and physicians always existed, and the magnitude of the differences varied with disease conditions [ 8 ]. Muhlbach and Juhnke also reported mixed degrees of differences between the preferences of patients and the judgements of physicians, where the physician judgements were defined as their evaluation on patients which is different from physician preferences [ 9 ]. Harrison et al. reviewed studies using discrete choice experiment (DCE) to elicit both patient and healthcare provider preferences, and found that healthcare providers weighed more on treatment outcome (e.g., mortality) and treatment structure (e.g., organizational structures, human resources), while patients placed more weights on the treatment process (e.g., risk, treatment regimen, waiting time) [ 10 ].

However, there lacks a comprehensive comparison of treatment preferences between physicians and patients with cancer. Therefore, we conducted a systematic literature review aimed at comparing patient preferences for cancer treatment with those of physicians.

Methods

This review was structured in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 11 ].

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus, from the inception of the databases to May 4, 2022. The search strategy combined Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms about “neoplasm” and free text pertaining to “cancer”, “physician”, “patient” and “preference”. Further search details can be found in Appendix 1. Reference lists of included papers were also manually searched.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if they directly compared physician and patient preferences for cancer treatments using established methods, including DCE, conjoint analysis (CA), the threshold technique, time trade-off (TTO), trade-off method (TTM), standard gamble (SG), prospective measure of preference (PMP), and self-designed questionnaire. Patients were those who were having cancer and facing treatment decisions.

Studies were excluded if they measured preferences for other health conditions (e.g., cancer-related chronic pains); measured preferences for cancer screening or diagnosis, instead of cancer treatments; or elicited preference from proxies (e.g., general public or family members). Non-research articles, including conference abstracts, letters, and editorials, as well as reviews were also excluded.

Study selection

Both title and abstract and full text screenings were conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers (MZ and XH). Any discrepancies between reviewers were discussed and resolved through consensus. If necessary, a third reviewer (JW) was consulted to make the final decision.

Appraisal and quality assessment

The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force was used to assess the DCE and CA studies, and the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) was used to assess other studies (Appendix 2 and 3) [ 12 , 13 ]. Two reviewers (MZ and XN) independently applied the guide/tool to each included study and recorded supporting information and justifications for assessments. Any discrepancies in judgements were resolved through consensus, with a third reviewer (JW) acting as an arbiter if necessary.

Data extraction and synthesis

A narrative synthesis of the included studies was conducted given the heterogeneity among these studies [ 14 ]. Basic information of each included study was extracted, including first author, publication year, study country, cancer type, elicitation technique, sample recruitment approach, sample size and mode of administration.

In DCE/CA studies, attributes and their levels were pre-defined, describing the alternative scenarios for participants, to investigate preferences, while in non-DCE/non-CA studies, generic or trade-off questions were used. These attributes and questions were abstracted and grouped into 6 categories in line with the systems-based framework which was used to assess the quality of healthcare [ 15 ] and operationalized in previous reviews in this area [ 9 , 16 , 17 ]: (1) health benefits –patients’ health outcomes and clinical benefits; (2) adverse effects – mainly treatment induced side effects; (3) treatment process – process-related factors (e.g., dosage form, dosing frequency, etc.); (4) cost – any types of treatment costs; (5) impact on quality of life - influences developed by treatment on patients’ daily activities and physical or psychological conditions; and (6) provider qualification – type of healthcare organization (e.g., specialist hospital, general hospital, etc.) and reputation of medical personnel.

Differences in preferences for cancer treatment between physicians and patients were summarized. For DCE/CA studies, the ranking of attributes, if reported, was extracted. For threshold technique/TTO/TTM studies, the threshold scores were extracted. For SG/PMP studies, the willingness-to-trade values were extracted. For questionnaire studies, the proportions of participants to specific question options were exacted. If statistic test was conducted to verify the significant difference between physicians and patients, corresponding P-values were extracted.

Results

The review identified 12,959 publications. After removing 4,669 duplicates, the title and abstract of 8,290 publications were screened for eligibility and 8,242 were excluded. A full-text screening was conducted on the remaining 48 publications, of which 34 were included in the review. Additional 3 studies were included through reviewing the reference lists of identified publications. The detailed selection process is shown in Fig. 1 .

Fig. 1 Flow chart of the study selection

In the quality assessment, for DCE and CA studies, the construction of choice tasks and clarification of preference elicitation were often partially reported. For other studies, sample size justification and non-respondent information were often not reported. The final assessment tables were in supplementary Tables 1–2.

Basic Information

As shown in Table 1 , the first study was published in 2003 and the number of studies has increased since 2017 with 11 (30%) conducted in the US. A total of thirteen types of cancer were the target conditions among these studies, including melanoma (n = 6, 16%), breast cancer (n = 6, 16%) and lymphoma (n = 5, 14%). DCE was the most frequently used preference elicitation technique (n = 23, 62%). Convenient samples were most frequently used (n = 20, 54%). The sample size of physicians ranged from 18 to 363 and that of patients varied from 30 to 456. In terms of the mode of administration, online survey was most common (n = 14, 38%), followed by face-to-face (n = 5, 14%) and postal survey (n = 3, 8%). Twelve studies (32%) used two modes, and in ten studies (27%), multiple modes was used for physicians and patients.

Table 1 Basic characteristics of included studies First Author Year Country Cancer type Elicitation technique Sample recruitment approach Sample size Mode of administration Physicians Patients Physicians Patients Physicians Patients Amin, S. 2022 US Breast cancer DCE Marketing survey company 117 169 Online Fernández, O. 2022 Spain Renal cell carcinoma DCE Sponsor company Hospital 67 105 Online/Paper Stellato, D. 2021 Canada Breast cancer DCE Sponsor company Patient advocacy groups 21 62 Online Post, C. C. B. 2021 Netherlands Endometrial cancer TTM Physician groups Primary physicians 63 171 Online/Paper Le, H. 2021 US Lymphocytic Leukemia DCE Marketing survey company Patient advocacy groups/ physician referral/online communities 151 220 Online Beusterien, K. 2021 US Breast cancer DCE Marketing survey company 200 300 Online Maculaitis, M. C. 2021 US Breast cancer DCE&BWS Marketing survey company 209 304 Online Hauber, B. 2020 US NSCLC DCE Marketing survey company 102 200 Online van der Valk, M. J. M. 2020 Netherlands Rectal cancer DCE Hospital 128 94 Online Weiss, J. 2020 German Melanoma Questionnaire Hospital 27 30 Postal Fifer, S. J. 2019 Australia Multiple Myeloma DCE Specialist healthcare research panels Patient advocacy groups 28 124 Online Stenehjem, D. D. 2019 US Melanoma DCE Registration database 20 233 E-mail/Postal Stellato, D. 2019 Canada Melanoma DCE Marketing survey company Patient advocacy groups 18 39 Online Ivanova, J. 2019 US Soft Tissue Sarcoma DCE Marketing survey company Physician referral/Patient advocate group 160 76 Online Nakayama, M. 2018 Japan Prostate Cancer DCE Marketing survey company 127 103 Online Gonzalez, J. M. 2018 US Renal Cell Carcinoma DCE Marketing survey company 142 201 Online Bröckelmann, P. J. 2018 France, German, UK Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma DCE Marketing survey company 281 289 Online Kennedy, E. D. 2018 Canada Low Rectal Cancer Threshold Technique Physician registration database Hospital 363 50 Postal Face to face Kahler, K. C. 2018 German Melanoma Threshold Technique Hospital 108 130 Face to face Liu, F. X. 2017 US Melanoma DCE Marketing survey company 150 200 Online Lee, J. Y. 2017 Korea Endometrial Cancer DCE&TTO Physician list Hospital 56 103 Online Face to face Gonzalez, J. M. 2017 US Colorectal Cancer DCE Marketing survey company 127 150 Online Vaz-Luis, I. 2017 US Breast Cancer Questionnaire Clinical trial 175 456 Online Telephone/Postal Pacchiana, M. V. 2017 Italy NSCLC Questionnaire NA 37 92 Face to face Landfeldt, E. 2016 German, Sweden Lymphocytic Leukemia CA Marketing survey company Patient list 72 44 Online Online/Telephone Blinman, P. 2016 Australia, New Zealand Endometrial Cancer TTO Clinical trial 44 83 Face to face Blinman, P. 2015 Australia Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer TTO Hospital 82 122 Face to face Kunneman, M. 2014 Netherlands Endometrial Cancer TTM Physician list Hospital 77 95 Online Face to face Krammer, R. 2014 German Melanoma Questionnaire Hospital 30 30 Face to face de Bekker-Grob, E. W. 2013 New Zealand Prostate Cancer DCE Physician list Hospital 50 110 Postal Park, M. H. 2012 Korea Renal Cell Carcinoma DCE Hospital 272 172 E-mail Face to face Thrumurthy, S. G. 2011 UK Esophagogastric Cancer DCE Hospital 90 81 Face to face Postal Shafey, M. 2011 Canada Follicular Lymphoma DCE Physician list Hospital 48 81 Postal Muhlbacher, A. C. 2011 German Follicular Lymphoma DCE Physician registration database Patient organization 243 282 E-mail/Postal Gandhi, S. 2011 Canada Breast Cancer Questionnaire NA Hospital 40 153 E-mail Face to face Harrison, J. D. 2008 Australia Rectal Cancer PMP Physician association Hospital 264 103 Postal Face to face Solomon, M. J. 2003 Australia Colorectal Cancer SG&TTO Physician association Hospital 146 110 Postal Face to face DCE: Discrete Choice Experiment; TTO: Time Trade-off; TTM: Trade-off Method; PMP: Prospective Measure of Preference Method; SG: Standard Gamble; CA: Conjoint Analysis.

Attribute identification

Of 24 DCE/CA studies (including 23 DCE studies and 1 CA study), a total of 142 attributes were identified (including duplicated attributes) with 3–8 attributes per study. Various qualitative methods were used to generate the attributes. Twenty studies (54%) developed the attribute list through a literature review and then confirmed them through clinical specialist and/or patient interview. Three studies (8%) only used the interview [ 18 – 20 ], one literature review only [ 21 ]; and two (5%) quantitative methods (i.e., principal component analysis, factor analysis and analyses of variance to finalize the attributes) [ 22 , 23 ]. Sixteen studies (43%) conducted the pilot test to further refine the attributes.

Amongst these attributes, 39 attributes (27%) were about health benefits, 63 adverse effects (44%), 25 treatment process (18%), 5 cost (4%), 8 impact on quality of life (6%), and 2 the provider qualification (1%) (Table 2 ). All but one study included the attributes of health benefit and adverse effects. Health benefits were commonly measured using survival outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS, n = 10, 26%), and overall survival (OS, n = 6, 15%). Seven studies (29%) used a generic term for all types of adverse effects such as degree of side effect, and others defined disease-specific adverse effects, including gastrointestinal perforation for kidney cell carcinoma [ 24 ] and permanent urinary incontinence for prostate cancer [ 25 ]. Mode and frequency of administration, dosing schedule/regimen and further therapies/monitoring were frequently used in the category of treatment process. Five studies (21%) measured the attribute of cost, with three on the cost paid by patients [ 26 – 28 ] and two on the cost by healthcare systems [ 29 , 30 ]. Six studies (25%) included the attribute about the impact on quality of life. Only one study measured provider qualification [ 31 ].

Table 2 Classification of attributes in 24 DCE/CA studies Health benefit N = 39 * Adverse effect N = 63 Treatment process N = 25 Cost N = 5 Impact on quality of life N = 8 Provider qualification N = 2 Amin, S. Median OS, Median PFS Risk of neuropathy, Risk of neutropenia, Risk of nausea, Risk of alopecia, Risk of immune-related AE Fernández, O. Progression survival gain Risk of SAE Mode of administration Monthly cost (healthcare system) HRQoL Stellato, D. Chance of progression-free over 24 months Improvement in pain, Chance of hot flashes, Chance of neutropenia, Chance of nausea Dosing regimen, Monitoring Le, H. Chance of 2-year PFS Risk of atrial fibrillation, Risk of infection, Risk of tumor lysis syndrome, Risk of bleeding, Risk of arthralgia/myalgia/ musculoskeletal pain, Risk of discontinue due to AES Duration and administration Beusterien, K. Chance of 5-Y invasive DFS Risk of nausea, Risk of diarrhea, Risk of neutropenia, Risk of alopecia Dosing schedule, Electrocardiogram monitoring Maculaitis, M. C. Risk of dose reduction due to AES, Risk of diarrhea, Risk of abdominal (belly) pain, Risk of III/IV neutropenia Regimen, Dosing schedule, Electrocardiogram monitoring Hauber, B Expected survival, Best-case survival, Worst-case survival Degree of fecal fatigue, Degree of nausea, Risk of febrile neutropenia van der Valk, M. J. M. DFS Degree of fecal incontinence, Degree of urinary dysfunction, Degree of sexual dysfunction Further therapies Worry about cancer recurrence Fifer, S. J. OS, Remission period Risk of SE Mode & frequency of administration Out of pocket (annual) Stenehjem, D. D. OS Risk of immunotherapy-related SE, Risk of skin toxicity, Risk of gastrointestinal toxicity Mode of administration Out of pocket (month) Stellato, D. Chance of cancer-free for 21 months, Chance of free of distant metastases for 21 months, Chance of alive for 36 months Risk of fever (≥ 39℃), Risk of diarrhea (4–6 episodes daily), Risk of thyroid problems with symptoms Dosing regimen Difficulties with work and daily activities Ivanova, J. OS, PFS, ORR Risk of hospitalization due to SE Treatment schedule Nakayama, M. Effect to keep disease stable Degree of SE Convenience of treatment QoL Gonzalez, J. M. PFS, 3Y-PL Degree of skin reactions, Degree of fatigue Mode & frequency of administration Co-payment (month) Bröckelmann, P. J. 5Y-OS, 5Y-PFS Risk of SE requiring treatment, Risk of peripheral neuropathy, Risk of infertility, Risk of permanent pulmonary toxicity Liu, F. X. MDT, ORR, PFS, OS Risk of III/IV SE Mode of administration, Dosing regimen Lee, J. Y. 5Y-recurrence rate Risk of lymphedema, Surgery-related systemic morbidity Gonzalez, J. M. PFS Risk of severe papulopustular rash, Risk of serious hemorrhage, Risk of cardiopulmonary arrest Landfeldt, E. OS, PFS Degree of fatigue, Degree of nausea, Risk of serious infections Mode & frequency of administration de Bekker-Grob, E. W. Effect of cure Risk of permanent urinary incontinency, Risk of permanent erectile dysfunction, Risk of other permanent side effects Frequency of PSA testing with a risk of new prostate biopsies Park, M. H. PFS Risk of bone marrow suppression, Risk of hand-foot skin reaction, Risk of gastrointestinal perforation, Risk of bleeding Mode of administration Thrumurthy, S. G. Mortality, Morbidity, Cure rate QoL Hospital type, Surgeon’s reputation Shafey, M. Median PFS & 5Y-PFS Degree of SE Mode & frequency of administration Health cost (healthcare system) Muhlbacher, A. C. Increase in life-span Degree of SE Further therapies, Self-medication, Breaks in treatment Emotional situation, Physical situation, Social situation QoL, Quality of Life; HRQoL, Health related quality of life, SE, Side Effect; AE, Adverse effect, SAE, Serious adverse effect, PFS, Progression-free Survival; 3Y-PL, Probability of Living at Least 3 Years; 5Y-OS, 5 Years Overall Survival; 5Y-PFS, 5 Years Progression-free Survival; MDT, Median Duration of Therapy; ORR, Objective Response Rate; OS, Overall Survival; III/IV SE, III/IV side effects * N was the number of attributes

Questions in non-DCE/CA studies were mostly self-developed based on clinical evidence and pretested. They focused on two main categories, namely health benefit and adverse effects, where health benefit was more about survival rate and life years, while adverse effects were about the risk of cancer recurrence. For instance, physicians and patients were asked to consider how much the extra chance of survival or the potential risk of local regrowth was, a certain treatment could be accepted [ 32 , 33 ].

Concordances and discordances in preference between physicians and patients

The ranks of attributes by physicians vs. patients in 20 DCE/CA studies are plotted in Fig. 2 (the original ranks were shown in supplementary Table 3 ). Among all categories, health benefit was valued most with the first rank by both physicians and patients (n = 10, 50%). Treatment process, cost and provider qualification were less important indicated by lower ranks.

Fig. 2 Relative rank of every attribute in 20 DCE/CA studies. Note: Every scatter indicates an attribute and the size of it is proportional to the number of studies with corresponding ranks

Table 3 Threshold scores in 8 threshold technique/TTO/TTM studies Preferences measurement question Objective point Threshold scores Consistency (P-value) Physicians Patients Post, C. C. B. 1 Accept chemoradiotherapy VS. radiotherapy alone 5Y-survival rate (over baseline rate) 5% 10% 0.024 Kennedy, E. D. 1 Accept nonoperative management VS. abdominal perineal resection 5Y-local regrowth rate 5.0% 20.0% NA 2 Accept nonoperative management VS. abdominal perineal resection 5Y-survival rate 75.0% 60.0% NA Kahler, K. C. 1 Accept interferon alfa-2a and 2b (IFN) with mild-to-moderate side effects VS. without any IFN treatment 5Y-DFS rate 42.3% 59.6% < 0.001 2 Accept interferon alfa-2a and 2b (IFN) with severe side effects VS. without any IFN treatment 53.6% 69.8% < 0.001 3 Accept mild-to-moderate side effects for adjuvant IFN Risk of recurrence 46.0% 65.0% 0.001 Lee, J. Y. 1 Accept no lymphadenectomy VS. routine lymphadenectomy Risk of recurrence 2.75% 3% 0.620 Blinman, P. 1 Accept the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to pelvic radiotherapy VS. no treatment (5 life years) Life years 6 years 6 years 0.400 2 Accept the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to pelvic radiotherapy VS. no treatment (8 life years) 9 years 9 years 3 Accept the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to pelvic radiotherapy VS. no treatment (50% survival rate at 5 years) Survival rate 57% 55% 0.030 4 Accept the addition of adjuvant chemotherapy to pelvic radiotherapy VS. no treatment (65% survival rate at 5 years) 75% 69% Blinman, P. 1 Accept the adjuvant chemotherapy VS. no treatment (3 life years) Life years 3.9 years 3.9 years NA 2 Accept the adjuvant chemotherapy VS. no treatment (5 life years) 5.9 years 5.9 years 3 Accept the adjuvant chemotherapy VS. no treatment (50% survival rate at 5 years) Survival rate 55% 55% 4 Accept the adjuvant chemotherapy VS. no treatment (65% survival rate at 5 years) 70% 70% Kunneman, M. 1 Accept surgery only VS. vaginal brachy therapy and surgery 5Y-recurrence rate 10% 2% < 0.001 Solomon, M. J. (TTO Part) 1 Accept laparoscopic surgery VS. open surgery Mortality risk 3.20% 5% NA 2 Accept local resection VS. colostomy 13.40% 17.20% 3 Accept surgery alone VS. surgery and chemotherapy 12.70% 21.40% 4 Accept chemoradiotherapy and no surgery VS. surgery and colostomy 16.65% 6.10% The preferences measurement questions refer to the trade-offs between two listed treatments. Taking the example of the Post’s study, the question would be “the desired 5-year overall survival benefit over the baseline rate to accept chemoradiotherapy relative to radiotherapy alone”. Then the value to this question, namely, the threshold score of physicians was 5%, lower than the corresponding rate of patients as 10%.

Among 20 attributes of health benefit with different ranks from patients and physicians, patients gave higher ranks in 11 attributes (55%) than their physicians did, including OS, PFS, ORR, cure rate, remission period, morbidity, chance of cancer-free and chance of distant metastases free. Patients also gave higher ranks among 11 out of 16 attributes (69%) for treatment process. While physicians placed higher importance on adverse effects. Among 38 attributes of adverse effects with different ranks, physicians valued 25 attributes (66%) higher than patients did. Due to the limited number of attributes on cost, impact on quality of life and provider qualification, no meaningful difference could be summarized.

Of 8 threshold technique/TTO/TTM studies (Table 3 ), one study showed the same threshold scores for both physicians and patients [ 34 ], and one study showed mixed results that physicians and patients held the same threshold scores towards life years but different scores towards survival rate [ 32 ]. The remaining 6 studies all showed discordance between physicians and patients with 3 reaching statistical significance [ 35 – 37 ]. Among 5 studies measuring the trade-off towards the risk of regrowth rate or recurrence rate, 4 studies reported higher threshold scores in patients than physicians [ 33 , 36 – 39 ]. Among 4 studies that valued the minimum survival to accept the treatment and with different threshold scores, patients had higher scores than physicians in two studies [ 35 , 36 ] while lower in the other two [ 32 , 33 ].

Five self-designed questionnaire studies showed physicians expected more health benefits from treatment, while patients rather accepted a treatment even with smaller health benefits (Table 4 ). Taking the example of Vaz-Luis’s study, only 18% of physicians considered 6 months of chemotherapy worthwhile for 1-month survival benefit, while 42% of patients considered so [ 40 ]. In addition, Krammer et al. showed that patients and physicians differed in their trade-off between survival and side effects [ 41 ]. When choosing from 16 weeks survival with moderate side effects and 8 weeks survival with mild side effects, 83% of physicians preferred the former, while 56% of patients did so [ 41 ]. Similarly, the willingness to trade in 2 SG/PMP studies revealed that patients preferred to use more remaining life years to avoid the treatment risk and treatment-related side effect on daily life (Table 5 ) [ 39 , 42 ].

Table 4 Results of 5 questionnaire studies Preferences measurement question Proportion Consistency (P-value) Physicians Patients Weiss, J. 1 19 months living with combination immunotherapy and severe side effects in 36% VS. 9 months living with standard immunotherapy and severe side effects in 15% 70%/30% 45%/55% 0.050 2 12 months living with combination immunotherapy and severe side effects in 36% VS. 11 months living with standard immunotherapy and severe side effects in 15% 15%/85% 17%/83% NA 3 24 months living with combination immunotherapy and severe side effects in 36% VS. 3 months of pain-free living without tumor therapy with palliative therapy 80%/20% 50%/50% 0.018 4 Agree to a treatment with many side effects at any time and with the very low prospect of prolonging life 60% 30% NA 5 Prefer to receive the infusions every three weeks rather than every two weeks with the equivalent effect 92% 83% 6 Prefer early palliative therapy to a therapy rich in side effects if there is no prospect of healing 59% 57% Vaz-Luis, I. 1 Whether 6 months of chemotherapy would be worthwhile for a 1-, 2-, 6-, 9-, 12-, and 24-month survival benefit 1-month: 18% 2-month: 37% 6-month: 86% 9-month: 93% 12-month: 97% 24-month: 97% 1-month: 42% 2-month: 57% 6-month: 79% 9-month: 87% 12-month: 93% 24-month: 96% NA Pacchiana, M. V. 1 Whether interested in maintenance therapy, rather than treatment-free 97% 75% 0.003 2 Whether interested in maintenance therapy if improving life expectancy by about 1 Month, 3 Month, 6 Month, 1 Year 1-month: 14% 3-month: 62% 6-month: 89% 1 Year: 100% 1-month: 46% 3-month: 61% 6-month: 76% 1 Year: 88% 1-month: <0.001 3-month: 0.910 6-month: 0.080 1 Year: 0.030 3 Whether interested in maintenance therapy if providing no survival benefit but would result in symptom control 78% 74% 0.630 4 Whether interested in maintenance therapy if providing no survival benefit but would result in radiologic tumor stabilization 38% 62% 0.010 Krammer, R. 1 16 weeks survival with moderate side effects with ipilimumab VS. 8 weeks survival with mild side effects with chemotherapy 83%/17% 56%/44% NA 2 3 months survival with mild side effects with chemotherapy VS. 3 months survival free of symptoms with palliative care 10%/90% 32%/68% 3 Spending €100.000 for ipilimumab VS. palliative care VS. skin screening VS. primary prevention 3%/21%/10%/66% 4%/4%/46%/46% Gandhi, S. 1 Minimum overall survival required to continue aromatase inhibitor 5 years <1%: 0% 1–2%: 45% 2–5%: 37.5% 5–10%: 12.5% 10–15%: 0% 15–20%: 2.5% >20%: 0% <1%: 30.1% 1–2%: 14.4% 2–5%: 11.8% 5–10%: 12.4% 10–15%: 3.9% 15–20%: 3.9% >20%: 17.0% NA 2 Minimum decrease in risk of cancer recurrence required to continue aromatase inhibitor 5 years <1%: 0% 1–2%: 2.5% 2–5%: 37.5% 5–10%: 35.0% 10–15%: 12.5% 15–20%: 0% >20%: 2.5% <1%: 27.5% 1–2%: 14.4% 2–5%: 13.1% 5–10%: 14.4% 10–15%: 4.6% 15–20%: 5.9% >20%: 14.4%

Table 5 Willingness-to-trade in 2 SG/PMP studies Preferences measurement question Willingness-to-trade Consistency (P-value) Physicians Patients Harrison, J. D. Proportion of remaining life expectancy could be traded to 1 Avoid abdominoperineal resection 14.3% 34.0% NA 2 Avoid anterior resection and chemoradiotherapy 9.7% 24.0% 3 Avoid anterior resection and chemotherapy 8.0% 20.0% 4 Avoid anterior resection and preoperative radiotherapy 8.3% 17.0% 5 Avoid anterior resection and postoperative radiotherapy 12.7% 20.0% Solomon, M. J. (SG Part) 1 Accept laparoscopic surgery relative to open surgery 1.50% 0.80% NA 2 Accept local resection relative to colostomy 9.50% 2.70% 3 Accept surgery alone relative to surgery and chemotherapy 5.85% 2.50% 4 Accept chemoradiotherapy and no surgery relative to surgery and colostomy 9.35% 0.80%

Discussion

This study systematically reviewed the discrepancies in preferences for cancer treatment between physicians and patients. Health benefit and adverse effects were key drivers of treatment preferences, and the trade-offs between them were the primary focus of the included studies. Compared to physicians, patients valued health benefit more and were willing to take on more risks of adverse effects. Patients also placed a higher weight on the treatment process than physicians did. The preference differences between physicians and patients varied across studies.

Current preference measurement studies focused on the trade-off between health benefit and adverse effects [ 16 , 43 ]. Existing threshold technique, such as TTO, TTM, SG or PMP, could only evaluate the tradeoffs between two attributes. Although DCE or CA can include more attributes, achieving clinical relevance might require detailed attributes, thereby increase the possible combinations of all attributes and the complexity of the experiment design, which could discourage researchers [ 44 ]. Further studies could consider other methods that can incorporate more attributes and be flexible in supporting real-world decisions. For example, adaptive conjoint analysis can include more attributes and customize the preference elicitation based on prior responses [ 45 ].

An important difference was that generally, patients placed a higher value on health benefit and physicians on adverse effects. As health care providers, physicians are process-oriented and focus on the whole treatment including safety. In contrast, patients are result-oriented, for whom survival benefit is the most important. The included studies showed that whether in active treatment aiming to keep functioning in the long term, or adjuvant treatment or maintenance therapy aiming to lower cancer recurrence risk, patients always expect survival benefits. Moreover, patients often preferred to seek active treatment and wanted to make sure they have tried every treatment option [ 46 , 47 ]. Patients also tended to behave as risk-takers and overlooked the concerns of having adverse effects [ 48 ]. When seeking treatments, patients may assume their own survival gains are more favorable and exceed the population average gain [ 49 , 50 ]. This “value of hope” also drives them to accept a higher risk [ 51 ]. While adverse effects of cancer treatment may have non-negligible impact on patient preferences [ 39 , 42 ]. For some patients, survival is preferred but conditional upon no worsening in quality of life [ 52 ]. Prior longitudinal research also found that patients with advanced cancer placed stronger emphasis on quality of life (vs. survival) as the treatment goal [ 53 ].

Patients also concerned more on treatment process than physicians, which were closely related to their daily life. The review conducted by Harrison et al. also reported that medication safety, delivery and timing of treatment, and treatment accessibility were more important to patients [ 10 ]. As a part of patient experience, treatment process is one of the most common indicators used to evaluate the healthcare services [ 54 ].

The differences in treatment preferences between physicians and patients varied across various studies. For example, both Stellato’s and Liu’s studies examined the preferences for melanoma treatment, and Stellato et al. concluded that the physician and patient had the same preferences [ 55 ], while Liu et al., showed physicians valued adverse effect most while patients valued survival most [ 56 ]. Even in DCE or CA studies, physician and patient preferences for the same attribute had heterogeneity across studies. Studies by Gonzalez et al., Brockelmann et al. and Park et al. all showed that physicians valued PFS more than patients [ 24 , 28 , 57 ], while the study by Landfeldt et al. indicated that patients valued PFS more [ 58 ]. And Liu et al. showed that physicians and patients weighed PFS similarly [ 56 ]. The preference differences may be correlated with the individual characteristics. Current preference studies focused on the aggerated level that revealed the sample average preference, other than the individual level and personal preference. Individual preference heterogeneity is remaining a salient topic [ 59 ]. The preference differences may be also impacted by patient’s treatment experience. Patients who have survived or recovered from previous treatments may develop positive experiences about the treatment and therefore tend to favor the choice they were offered rather than the alternative [ 60 , 61 ]. This generally resulted from normal psychologic processes called cognitive dissonance reduction and adaptation mechanisms [ 62 ]. Another possible explanation for this difference could be that in different studies, patients and physicians had different understandings of the survival or risk statistics in the questions. Using standard decision aids and consistent illustrations for statistics might help form the common understanding and increase the comparability across the studies.

The difference in cancer treatment preferences between physicians and patients may have important implications on treatment decision making. As physicians and patients are mainly concern about the benefit-risk trade-off, and always have different preferences on it, evidence on these two attributes should be carefully discussed in SDM [ 63 , 64 ]. Further to facilitate SDM, physicians may also need to master the ability of communicating evidence in a clear, understandable, and non-misleading manner [ 65 ]. Training physicians with sufficient SDM knowledge or skill is essential [ 66 ]. In addition, some tools have been developed to assist physicians with implementing SDM into their practice, like SHARE approach developed by the AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality) [ 67 ]. Moreover, patients should be encouraged to actively convey preferences and understand the importance of their participation [ 68 ]. The educational material could be distributed to improve the awareness and importance of SDM among patients [ 66 ]. Furthermore, the development of clinical practice guidelines that should take into account the discordance in preference between physicians and patients and discuss the implications on SDM.

There are some limitations in this review. First, qualitative studies were excluded. Second, non-quantitative synthesis was done due to the heterogeneity of included studies.

Conclusion

This review found that there were important differences in treatment preferences between physicians and cancer patients. Patients placed a higher weight on health benefit and treatment process, while physicians placed higher weight on adverse effects.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Acknowledgements

Not available.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the overall conceptualization and design of this study. Study selection, quality assessment and narrative synthesis were conducted by X.H and M.Z, with regular review by J.W and F.X. Manuscript was drafted by M.Z, and J.W, F.X, X.H provided critical revision. All authors contributed to manuscript preparation and have approved this version of the manuscript. J.W and X.H acted as the overall guarantor.

Funding

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71804122, No. 71673197, and No. 72174142).

Data Availability

The data analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not available.

Consent for publication

Not available.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Abbreviations

Shared decision-making

Discrete choice experiment

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Conjoint analysis

Time trade-off

Trade-off method

Standard gamble

Prospective measure of preference

International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research

Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

References

1. Monzani D Patient preferences for Lung Cancer treatments: a study protocol for a Preference Survey using Discrete Choice Experiment and Swing Weighting Front Med (Lausanne) 2021 8 689114 10.3389/fmed.2021.689114 34409049 PMC8365300

2. Wood DE Lung Cancer Screening, Version 3.2018, NCCN Clinical Practice guidelines in Oncology J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018 16 4 412 41 10.6004/jnccn.2018.0020 29632061 PMC6476336

3. Bach PB NCCN Roundtable:value-Based decision-making at the Bedside J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2015 13 5 Suppl 659 61 10.6004/jnccn.2015.0196 25995423

4. Sheridan SL Harris RP Woolf SH Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Am J Prev Med 2004 26 1 56 66 10.1016/j.amepre.2003.09.011 14700714

5. Kane HL Implementing and evaluating shared decision making in oncology practice CA Cancer J Clin 2014 64 6 377 88 10.3322/caac.21245 25200391

6. Arora NK Physicians’ decision-making style and psychosocial outcomes among cancer survivors Patient Educ Couns 2009 77 3 404 12 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.004 19892508 PMC3401045

7. Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care: Addressing the Challenges of an Aging, P. and S.I.o.M. Board on Health Care, Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis, L. Levit, et al., Editors et al. 2013, National Academies Press (US): Washington (DC). 24872984

8. Montgomery AA Fahey T How do patients’ treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care 2001 10 Suppl 1 i39 43 10.1136/qhc.0100039 11533437 PMC1765739

9. Muhlbacher AC Juhnke C Patient preferences versus physicians’ judgement: does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2013 11 3 163 80 10.1007/s40258-013-0023-3 23529716

10. Harrison M Do patients and health care providers have discordant preferences about which aspects of treatments matter most? Evidence from a systematic review of discrete choice experiments BMJ Open 2017 7 5 e014719 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014719 28515194 PMC5623426

11. Page MJ The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057 PMC8005924

12. Bridges JF Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force Value in Health 2011 14 4 403 13 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013 21669364

13. Downes MJ Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS) BMJ open 2016 6 12 e011458 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011458 27932337 PMC5168618

14. Higgins JPT, Chandler TJ, Cumpston J, Li M, Page T, Welch MJ VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021) . 2021; Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook .

15. Donabedian A The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA 1988 260 12 1743 8 10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033 3045356

16. Bien DR Patients’ preferences for outcome, process and cost attributes in Cancer Treatment: a systematic review of Discrete Choice experiments Patient 2017 10 5 553 65 10.1007/s40271-017-0235-y 28364387 PMC5605613

17. Donabedian A Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care 2005 83 4 691 729 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00397.x PMC2690293 16279964

18. Stellato D Preferences of Canadian patients and Physicians for treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced Breast Cancer Curr Oncol 2021 28 1 491 508 10.3390/curroncol28010051 33466914 PMC7903278

19. Le H Oncologist and patient preferences for Novel agents in First-Line treatment for chronic lymphocytic Leukemia: commonalities and disconnects Patient Prefer Adherence 2021 15 99 110 10.2147/PPA.S289139 33519195 PMC7837542

20. Beusterien K Patient, oncologist, and payer preferences for adjuvant endocrine therapy and CDK4/6 inhibitor regimens in early-stage Breast Cancer: a Discrete Choice Experiment Patient Prefer Adherence 2021 15 611 23 10.2147/PPA.S298670 33776424 PMC7987325

21. Ivanova J Patient and oncologist preferences for the treatment of adults with Advanced Soft tissue sarcoma: a Discrete Choice Experiment Patient 2019 12 4 393 404 10.1007/s40271-019-00355-0 30659513

22. Nakayama M Patient preferences and urologist judgments on Prostate Cancer therapy in Japan Am J Mens Health 2018 12 4 1094 101 10.1177/1557988318776123 29774804 PMC6131454

23. Muhlbacher AC Nubling M Analysis of physicians’ perspectives versus patients’ preferences: direct assessment and discrete choice experiments in the therapy of Multiple Myeloma Eur J Health Econ 2011 12 3 193 203 10.1007/s10198-010-0218-6 20107856

24. Park MH A comparison of preferences of targeted therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma between the patient group and health care professional group in South Korea Value Health 2012 15 6 933 9 10.1016/j.jval.2012.05.008 22999144

25. de Bekker-Grob EW Patients’ and urologists’ preferences for Prostate cancer treatment: a discrete choice experiment Br J Cancer 2013 109 3 633 40 10.1038/bjc.2013.370 23860533 PMC3738130

26. Fifer SJ Alignment of preferences in the treatment of Multiple Myeloma - a discrete choice experiment of patient, carer, physician, and nurse preferences BMC Cancer 2020 20 1 546 10.1186/s12885-020-07018-6 32527324 PMC7291736

27. Stenehjem DD Immunotargeted therapy in Melanoma: patient, provider preferences, and willingness to pay at an academic cancer center Melanoma Res 2019 29 6 626 34 10.1097/CMR.0000000000000572 30688762 PMC6887632

28. González JM Comparing the relative importance of attributes of metastatic renal cell carcinoma treatments to patients and Physicians in the United States: a discrete-choice experiment PharmacoEconomics 2018 36 8 973 86 10.1007/s40273-018-0640-7 29869777

29. Fernández O Preferences for renal cell carcinoma pharmacological treatment: a Discrete Choice experiment in patients and oncologists Front Oncol 2021 11 773366 10.3389/fonc.2021.773366 35070976 PMC8777125

30. Shafey M Preferences of patients and physicians concerning treatment options for relapsed follicular Lymphoma: a discrete choice experiment Bone Marrow Transplant 2011 46 7 962 9 10.1038/bmt.2010.225 20935681

31. Thrumurthy SG et al. Discrete-choice preference comparison between patients and doctors for the surgical management of oesophagogastric cancer Br J Surg, 2011. 98(8): p. 1124-31; discussion 1132. 10.1002/bjs.7537 21674471

32. Blinman P Patients’ and clinicians’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in endometrial cancer: an ANZGOG substudy of the PORTEC-3 intergroup randomised trial Br J Cancer 2016 115 10 1179 85 10.1038/bjc.2016.323 27764842 PMC5104894

33. Kennedy ED Patient and physician preferences for Nonoperative Management for low rectal Cancer: is it a reasonable treatment option? Dis Colon Rectum 2018 61 11 1281 9 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001166 30239397

34. Blinman P Patients’ and doctors’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in resected non-small-cell Lung cancer: what makes it worthwhile? Eur J Cancer 2015 51 12 1529 37 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.05.022 26059196

35. Post CCB et al. Patients’ and clinicians’ preferences in adjuvant treatment for high-risk endometrial cancer: Implications for shared decision making . Gynecol Oncol, 2021. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2021.03.004 33712276

36. Kahler KC The outweigh of toxicity versus risk of recurrence for adjuvant interferon therapy: a survey in German Melanoma patients and their treating physicians Oncotarget 2018 9 40 26217 25 10.18632/oncotarget.25439 29899854 PMC5995230

37. Kunneman M Treatment preferences and involvement in treatment decision making of patients with endometrial cancer and clinicians Br J Cancer 2014 111 4 674 9 10.1038/bjc.2014.322 24921911 PMC4134490

38. Lee JY Treatment preferences for routine lymphadenectomy Versus No Lymphadenectomy in Early-Stage Endometrial Cancer Ann Surg Oncol 2017 24 5 1336 42 10.1245/s10434-016-5729-7 28000075

39. Solomon MJ What do patients want? Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in the treatment of Colorectal cancer Dis Colon Rectum 2003 46 10 1351 7 10.1007/s10350-004-6749-0 14530674

40. Vaz-Luis I Survival benefit needed to undergo chemotherapy: patient and physician preferences Cancer 2017 123 15 2821 8 10.1002/cncr.30671 28323331 PMC5517352

41. Krammer R Heinzerling L Therapy preferences in Melanoma treatment–willingness to pay and preference of quality versus length of life of patients, physicians and healthy controls PLoS ONE 2014 9 11 e111237 10.1371/journal.pone.0111237 25369124 PMC4219712

42. Harrison JD Patient and physician preferences for surgical and adjuvant treatment options for rectal cancer Arch Surg 2008 143 4 389 94 10.1001/archsurg.143.4.389 18427027

43. Schmidt K Preferences of Lung cancer patients for treatment and decision-making: a systematic literature review Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016 25 4 580 91 10.1111/ecc.12425 26676876

44. Brown L Applying stated-preference methods to improve health systems in sub-saharan Africa: a systematic review Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2017 17 5 441 58 10.1080/14737167.2017.1375854 28875767

45. Sawtooth, Software, editors. Inc., ACA system for adaptive conjoint analysis . ACA Manual.

46. Chapple A Is ‘watchful waiting’ a real choice for men with Prostate cancer? A qualitative study BJU Int 2015 90 3 257 64 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2002.02846.x 12133062

47. Charles C, et al. Doing nothing is no choice: Lay Constructions of Treatment decision-making among women with early-stage Breast Cancer. Volume 20. Sociology of Health & Illness; 2010. pp. 71–95. 1.

48. Chu D-T Patient attitudes towards chemotherapy as assessed by patient versus physician: a prospective observational study in advanced non-small cell Lung cancer Lung Cancer 2007 56 3 433 430169 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.01.028 17346847

49. Lakdawalla DN How cancer patients value hope and the implications for cost-effectiveness assessments of high-cost cancer therapies Health Aff (Millwood) 2012 31 4 676 82 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.1300 22492883

50. Bruhn John G Therapeutic value of hope South Med J 1984 77 2 215 9 10.1097/00007611-198402000-00020 6701591

51. Johnson FR Something is Better Than nothing: the value of active intervention in stated preferences for treatments to Delay Onset of Alzheimer’s Disease symptoms Value Health 2019 22 9 1063 9 10.1016/j.jval.2019.03.022 31511183

52. Mertz S Progression-free survival and quality of life in metastatic Breast cancer: the patient perspective Breast 2022 65 84 90 10.1016/j.breast.2022.07.006 35870420 PMC9307669

53. Douglas S Patient–physician discordance in goals of care for patients with advanced cancer Curr Oncol 2019 26 6 370 9 10.3747/co.26.5431 31896935 PMC6927789

54. Rapport F What do patients really want? An in-depth examination of patient experience in four Australian hospitals BMC Health Serv Res 2019 19 1 38 10.1186/s12913-019-3881-z 30646962 PMC6332615

55. Stellato D Preferences of Canadian patients and physicians for adjuvant treatments for Melanoma Curr Oncol 2019 26 6 e755 65 10.3747/co.26.5085 31896946 PMC6927775

56. Liu FX Patient and oncologist preferences for attributes of treatments in advanced Melanoma: a discrete choice experiment Patient Prefer Adherence 2017 11 1389 99 10.2147/PPA.S140226 28860722 PMC5565374

57. Bröckelmann PJ et al. Patient and physician preferences for first-line treatment of classical Hodgkin Lymphoma in Germany, France and the United Kingdom . Br J Haematol, 2018. 10.1111/bjh.15566 PMC6585631 30239982

58. Landfeldt E Patient, physician, and general population preferences for treatment characteristics in relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic Leukemia: a conjoint analysis Leuk Res 2016 40 17 23 10.1016/j.leukres.2015.11.006 26654707

59. Deal K Segmenting patients and physicians using preferences from discrete choice experiments Patient 2014 7 1 5 21 10.1007/s40271-013-0037-9 24327338

60. Ludwig H Patient preferences for interferon alfa in Multiple Myeloma J Clin Oncol 1997 15 4 1672 9 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.4.1672 9193368

61. Slevin ML Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general public BMJ 1990 300 6737 1458 60 10.1136/bmj.300.6737.1458 2379006 PMC1663147

62. Stiggelbout AM De Haes JCJM Patient preference for cancer therapy: an overview of measurement approaches J Clin Oncol 2001 19 1 220 30 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.1.220 11134216

63. Kaul S Stockbridge N Butler J Benefit-Risk tradeoffs in Assessment of New Drugs and devices Circulation 2020 142 20 1974 88 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048933 33196311

64. Jen W-Y Qualitative study of factors affecting patient, caregiver and physician preferences for treatment of Myeloma and Indolent Lymphoma Patient Prefer Adherence 2020 14 301 8 10.2147/PPA.S241340 32109996 PMC7034971

65. Hoffmann TC Lewis J Maher CG Shared decision making should be an integral part of physiotherapy practice Physiotherapy 2020 107 43 9 10.1016/j.physio.2019.08.012 32026834

66. Légaré F Training health professionals in shared decision-making: an international environmental scan Patient Educ Couns 2012 88 2 159 69 10.1016/j.pec.2012.01.002 22305195

67. Faiman B Tariman JD Shared decision making: improving patient outcomes by understanding the benefits of and barriers to Effective Communication Clin J Oncol Nurs 2019 23 5 540 2 10.1188/19.CJON.540-542 31538972

68. Longtin Y Patient participation: current knowledge and applicability to patient safety Mayo Clin Proc 2010 85 1 53 62 10.4065/mcp.2009.0248 20042562 PMC2800278