A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Patient preferences for treatment modalities for localised prostate cancer. | LitMetric

Objectives: To assess the patient preferences and utility scores for the different conventional and innovative treatment modalities for localised prostate cancer (PCa).

Subjects And Methods: Patients treated for localised PCa and healthy volunteers were invited to fill out a treatment-outcome scenario questionnaire. Participants ranked six different treatments for localised PCa from most to least favourable, prior to information. In a next step, treatment procedures, toxicity, risk of biochemical recurrence and follow-up regimen were comprehensibly described for each of the six treatments (i.e. treatment-outcome scenarios), after which patients re-ranked the six treatments. Additionally, participants gave a visual analogue scale (VAS) and time trade-off (TTO) score for each scenario. Differences between utility scores were tested by Friedman tests with post hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results: Eighty patients and twenty-nine healthy volunteers were included in the study. Before receiving treatment-outcome scenario information, participants ranked magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiotherapy most often as their first choice (35%). After treatment information was received, active surveillance was most often ranked as the first choice (41%). Utility scores were significantly different between the six treatment-outcome scenarios, and active surveillance, non- and minimal-invasive treatments received higher scores.

Conclusions: Active surveillance and non-invasive treatment for localised PCa were the most preferred options by PCa patients and healthy volunteers and received among the highest utility scores. Treatment preferences change after treatment information is received.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9931535PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bco2.198DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

utility scores
16
localised pca
12
healthy volunteers
12
active surveillance
12
patient preferences
8
treatment modalities
8
modalities localised
8
localised prostate
8
prostate cancer
8
treatment-outcome scenario
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!