Table 6.
Number of participants who were willing to trade a loss1 in their most important outcome for the largest gain2 in another outcome
| Most important outcome N Max 3 | Willingness to trade‐off smallest loss in most important outcome against largest gain in other outcome | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Five‐year survival N/N Total 4 (%) | Five‐year local control N/N Total (%) | Faecal incontinence N/N Total (%) | Sexual dysfunction N/N Total (%) | |
| Five‐year survival (N = 7) | – | 3/6 (50) | 1/1 (100) | 1/2 (50) |
| Five‐year local control (N = 23) | 16/18 (89) | – | 8/9 (89) | 4/7 (57) |
| Faecal incontinence (N = 30) | 10/15 (67) | 16/22 (73) | – | 6/8 (75) |
| Sexual dysfunction (N = 6) | 3/4 (75) | 2/2 (100) | 3/3 (100) | – |
1Range of loss: 66 vs. 70% (probability of survival); 94 vs. 99% (probability of local control); 40 vs. 20% (risk of incontinence); 40 vs. 30% (risk of sexual dysfunction in men); or 30 vs. 10% (risk of sexual dysfunction in women).
2Range of benefit: 70 vs. 65% (probability of survival), 99 vs. 89% (probability of local control), 20 vs. 80% (risk of incontinence), 30 vs. 60% (risk of sexual dysfunction in men), and 10 vs. 70% (risk of sexual dysfunction in women).
3 N Max shows the total number of participants who considered that outcome as most important.
4 N Total represents the number of participants who were consistent in the rank order of estimated outcome‐probability utilities, in the relevant pair of outcomes.