A new international study asked 267 people living with acute leukemia what they value most when choosing a treatment. Here’s what they said — and why it matters for you.

Countries studied: UK, USA, France, Germany, Italy    Participants: 267 adults with acute leukemia    Published: June 2026

Why was this study done?

When acute leukemia comes back after treatment — or doesn’t respond in the first place — choosing what to do next is one of the hardest decisions a patient and their family can face. New treatments exist, but they come with different trade-offs: some work better, some are easier to take, some have harder side effects.

Doctors and policymakers often make decisions about which treatments to approve or fund — but until recently, very little research had asked patients themselves what they actually want from a treatment. This study set out to change that, by collecting the views of hundreds of people living with acute leukemia across five countries.

What did the study ask?

Participants were shown pairs of imaginary treatments and asked to choose between them — again and again, with different combinations. This method, called a discrete choice experiment, is designed to reveal what people truly value by forcing realistic trade-offs. Five treatment features were tested:

• The chance of the treatment working
• How long the treatment response lasts
• Quality of life while receiving treatment
• Quality of life after responding to treatment
• How the treatment is given (tablet at home, outpatient injection, or hospital stay)

What did people with acute leukemia say?

Efficacy comes first — but it’s not the whole picture

Across all five countries and all types of acute leukemia, the single most important factor was the chance of the treatment working. This made up 62% of what drove people’s choices — far more than anything else. But patients cared about more than just response rates.

How patients ranked treatment factors:

Chance of responding to treatment	62%
Quality of life after responding	14%
How long the response lasts	9%
Quality of life during treatment	8%
How treatment is given	7%

Based on 267 participants (mixed logit model)

Interestingly, people cared more about how they would feel after treatment worked than how they felt during treatment itself. This tells us that patients are thinking ahead — they want life after leukemia to be as good as possible, not just to get through the treatment.

Taking treatment as a tablet at home was preferred over hospital-based injections, though this was less important than the treatment actually working.

Not all patients think the same way

The study found three different types of decision-makers among the participants. This is a reminder that there is no single “right” way to approach treatment — your priorities are personal, and they matter.

47% Efficacy-focused Almost all choices based on the chance of treatment working. Often recently diagnosed or had a relapse.

21% Convenience- & efficacy-focused Valued how long a response lasts and how easy treatment is to take, alongside the chance of response. More common among US participants.

32% Balanced decision-makers Considered nearly all factors: chance of response, quality of life during and after treatment, and how long the response lasts.

“Patients who had been diagnosed more recently, or who had experienced a relapse, were more likely to focus almost entirely on the chance of treatment working — suggesting that facing the disease head-on sharpens the focus on getting a response.”

Does it matter where you live?

The study found that patients in the UK and Europe had very similar views. But patients in the USA stood apart: they placed greater weight on how long a response lasts, quality of life after responding, and how the treatment is given.

The researchers believe this may be because hospital-based treatment in the US comes with significant personal financial costs — making the convenience of at-home treatment more important for American patients.

This matters because it shows that what works best for patients in one country may not be the same for patients in another. Treatment decisions are shaped not just by the disease, but by the healthcare system around you.

What does this mean for you?

Here are the key takeaways from this research for patients and their families:

• Your priorities are valid. Whether your focus is purely on the chance of treatment working, or on quality of life and convenience, you are not alone. This research shows that all of these are legitimate priorities.
• Talk to your clinical team. The variation in preferences found in this study underlines how important it is for clinicians to have individual conversations with patients — not to assume that one set of priorities fits everyone.
• Post-treatment quality of life matters. Many participants cared deeply about how they would feel after responding to treatment, not just whether they responded. Don’t be afraid to raise this with your doctor.
• Patient voices shape policy. Studies like this one are used by health agencies when deciding which treatments to approve and fund. The more patients participate in research, the better decisions become.

Read the full study

This study was published open access in Patient Preference and Adherence (2026) and can be read in full at no cost.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S599189