ArticleBMC cancer2009
Oncologist use of the Adjuvant! model for risk communication: a pilot study examining patient knowledge of 10-year prognosis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting cancer prognosis using interactive online tools: a systematic review and implications for cancer care providers.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2013Pooled it
- The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2011Trial
- Communication with physicians and family about breast Cancer recurrence.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Estimation of Risk of Recurrence and Toxicity Among Oncologists and Patients With Resected Breast Cancer: A Quantitative Study.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Breast cancer specialists' views on and use of risk prediction models in clinical practice: a mixed methods approach.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2015Article
- Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer chemotherapy.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2014Article
- The value of personalised risk information: a qualitative study of the perceptions of patients with prostate cancer.BMJ open · 2013Article
- Does use of the adjuvant! model influence use of adjuvant therapy through better risk communication?Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2011Article
- Are patients getting the "gist" in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer treatment.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur purpose was to collect preliminary data on newly diagnosed breast cancer patient knowledge of prognosis before and after oncology visits. Many oncologists use a validated prognostic software model, Adjuvant!, to estimate 10-year recurrence and mortality outcomes for breast cancer local and adjuvant therapy. Some oncologists are printing Adjuvant! screens to use as visual aids during consultations. No study has reported how such use of Adjuvant! printouts affects patient knowledge of prognosis. We hypothesized that Adjuvant! printouts would be associated with significant changes in the proportion of patients with accurate understanding of local therapy prognosis.
methodsWe recruited a convenience sample of 20 patients seen by 2 senior oncologists using Adjuvant! printouts of recurrence and mortality screens in our academic medical center. We asked patients for their estimates of local therapy recurrence and mortality risks and counted the number of patients whose estimates were within +/- 5% of Adjuvant! before and after the oncology visit, testing whether pre/post changes were significant using McNemar's two-sided test at a significance level of 5%.
resultsTwo patients (10%) accurately estimated local therapy recurrence and mortality risks before the oncology visit, while seven out of twenty (35%) were accurate afterwards (p = 0.125).
conclusionA majority of patients in our sample were inaccurate in estimating their local therapy recurrence and mortality risks, even after being shown printouts summarizing these risks during their oncology visits. Larger studies are needed to replicate or repudiate these preliminary findings, and test alternative methods of presenting risk estimates. Meanwhile, oncologists should be wary of relying exclusively on Adjuvant! printouts to communicate local therapy recurrence and mortality estimates to patients, as they may leave a majority of patients misinformed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.