Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26951322›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology2016

Patient-Reported Outcomes After Choice for Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy.

E Shelley Hwang, Tracie D Locklear, Christel N Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Dunya M Atisha

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E Shelley HwangE. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL. shelley.hwang@duke.edu.
Tracie D LocklearE. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Christel N RushingE. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Greg SamsaE. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Amy P AbernethyE. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Terry HyslopE. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Dunya M AtishaE. Shelley Hwang, Tracie D. Locklear, Christel N. Rushing, Greg Samsa, Amy P. Abernethy, Terry Hyslop, Duke University and Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC; and Dunya M. Atisha, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPMs) continues to rise, although there is little evidence to support improvement in quality of life (QOL) with CPM. We sought to ascertain whether patient-reported outcomes and, more specifically, QOL differed according to receipt of CPM.

methodsVolunteers recruited from the Army of Women with a history of breast cancer surgery took an electronically administered survey, which included the BREAST-Q, a well-validated breast surgery outcomes patient-reporting tool, and demographic and treatment-related questions. Descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, and regression analysis were used to evaluate the association of CPM with four BREAST-Q QOL domains.

resultsA total of 7,619 women completed questionnaires; of those eligible, 3,977 had a mastectomy and 1,598 reported receipt of CPM. Women undergoing CPM were younger than those who did not choose CPM. On unadjusted analysis, mean breast satisfaction was higher in the CPM group (60.4 v 57.9, P < .001) and mean physical well-being was lower in the CPM group (74.6 v 76.6, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the CPM group continued to report higher breast satisfaction (P = .046) and psychosocial well-being (P = .017), but no difference was reported in the no-CPM group in the other QOL domains.

conclusionChoice for CPM was associated with an improvement in breast satisfaction and psychosocial well-being. However, the magnitude of the effect may be too small to be clinically meaningful. Such patient-reported outcomes data are important to consider when counseling women contemplating CPM as part of their breast cancer treatment.

Indexed as

Age FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionProphylactic MastectomySelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID26951322
OpenAlexW2294786252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.