scholarly journals Population preferences for breast cancer screening policies: Discrete choice experiment in Belarus

PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. e0224667
Author(s):  
Olena Mandrik ◽  
Alesya Yaumenenka ◽  
Rolando Herrero ◽  
Marcel F. Jonker
2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14118-e14118
Author(s):  
Nathaniel Hendrix ◽  
A. Brett Hauber ◽  
Christoph I. Lee ◽  
Aasthaa Bansal ◽  
David Leroy Veenstra

e14118 Background: One of the emerging medical applications of artificial intelligence (AI) is the interpretation of mammograms for breast cancer screening. It is uncertain what attributes would result in acceptance of AI for breast cancer screening (AI BCS) among ordering clinicians. Methods: We performed qualitative interviews to identify the most important attributes of AI BCS for ordering clinicians. We then invited US-based primary care providers (PCPs) to participate in a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The experiment featured 15 choices between radiologist alone and two AI BCS alternatives where respondents traded better metrics on some attributes for worse metrics on others. Responses were analyzed using a mixed logit model adjusting for preference heterogeneity to determine the probability of recommending AI BCS. Results: In qualitative interviews, the six most important attributes to PCPs were AI sensitivity, specificity, radiologist involvement, understandability of AI decision-making, supporting evidence, and diversity of training data. Forty PCPs completed the DCE. Sensitivity was the most important attribute: a 4 percentage point improvement in sensitivity over the average radiologist increased the probability of recommending AI by 0.41 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.38-0.42). Specificity was approximately half as important. Respondents were indifferent to whether radiologists confirmed all or only screens likely to be abnormal. However, no radiologist involvement reduced the probability of recommendation by 0.31 (95% CI, 0.29-0.31). An AI developed using data from diverse populations increased the probability of recommendation by 0.38 (95% CI, 0.36-0.39). Lastly, an AI that is transparent in the rationale for its decisions increased the probability of recommendation by 0.41 (95% CI, 0.39-0.41). Conclusions: PCPs prefer AI BCS that improves sensitivity versus specificity, and involves radiologists in the confirmation of abnormal screens. Improving sensitivity alone, however, will likely not be sufficient to support widespread PCP acceptance – algorithms will need to be developed with diverse data and more transparent explanations of their decisions.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Peters ◽  
E van Grinsven ◽  
M van de Haterd ◽  
D van Lankveld ◽  
J Verbakel ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 102 (6) ◽  
pp. 972-980 ◽  
Author(s):  
L Hol ◽  
E W de Bekker-Grob ◽  
L van Dam ◽  
B Donkers ◽  
E J Kuipers ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (33) ◽  
pp. 2713-2722
Author(s):  
Bruce Feinberg ◽  
Skyler Hime ◽  
Jeff Wojtynek ◽  
Igoni Dokubo ◽  
Ajeet Gajra ◽  
...  

Aim: Guidelines list atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel (ANP) as the preferred first-line (1L) therapy for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) with PD-L1 expression ≥1%, but which clinical attributes impact ANP prescribing? Materials & methods: Medical oncologists participated in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with four hypothetical mTNBC clinical scenarios to assess influences of: PD-L1 expression, menopausal status, prior adjuvant therapy and bulky liver metastases. Results: A total of 47% chose ANP in 1L irrespective of menopausal status, prior adjuvant therapy or tumor bulk. PD-L1 expression was the only attribute with a significant impact on ANP preference, with 69% choosing ANP for those with ≥1% expression versus only 26% for those with <1% (p < 0.00001). Conclusion: ANP choice for 1L mTNBC deviated from guidelines.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146832092801
Author(s):  
Ilene L. Hollin ◽  
Juan Marcos González ◽  
Lisabeth Buelt ◽  
Michael Ciarametaro ◽  
Robert W. Dubois

Purpose. Assess patient preferences for aspects of breast cancer treatments to evaluate and inform the usual assumptions in scoring rubrics for value frameworks. Methods. A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed and implemented to collect quantitative evidence on preferences from 100 adult female patients with a self-reported physician diagnosis of stage 3 or stage 4 breast cancer. Respondents were asked to evaluate some of the treatment aspects currently considered in value frameworks. Respondents’ choices were analyzed using logit-based regression models that produced preference weights for each treatment aspect considered. Aggregate- and individual-level preferences were used to assess the relative importance of treatment aspects and their variability across respondents. Results. As expected, better clinical outcomes were associated with higher preference weights. While life extensions with treatment were considered to be most important, respondents assigned great value to out-of-pocket cost of treatment, treatment route of administration, and the availability of reliable tests to help gauge treatment efficacy. Two respondent classes were identified in the sample. Differences in class-specific preferences were primarily associated with route of administration, out-of-pocket treatment cost, and the availability of a test to gauge treatment efficacy. Only patient cancer stage was found to be correlated with class assignment ( P = 0.035). Given the distribution of individual-level preference estimates, preference for survival benefits are unlikely to be adequately described with two sets of preference weights. Conclusions. Although value frameworks are an important step in the systematic evaluation of medications in the context of a complex treatment landscape, the frameworks are still largely driven by expert judgment. Our results illustrate issues with this approach as patient preferences can be heterogeneous and different from the scoring weights currently provided by the frameworks.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document