Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27059031›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2016

Impact of genomic testing and patient-reported outcomes on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy.

Chalanda N Evans, Noel T Brewer, Susan T Vadaparampil, Marc Boisvert, Yvonne Ottaviano, M Catherine Lee, Claudine Isaacs, Marc D Schwartz, Suzanne C O'Neill

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Benefits of introduction of Oncotype DXAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Chalanda N EvansDepartment of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
Noel T BrewerGillings School of Global Public Health, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Susan T VadaparampilMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Marc BoisvertMedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA.
Yvonne OttavianoFranklin Square Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
M Catherine LeeMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA.
Claudine IsaacsDepartment of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
Marc D SchwartzDepartment of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA.
Suzanne C O'NeillDepartment of Oncology, Fisher Center for Familial Cancer Research, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, 3300 Whitehaven Street, NW, Suite 4100, Washington, DC, 20007, USA. sco4@georgetown.edu.
Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer CenterGeorgetown University · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USMedStar Franklin Square Medical Center · USMedStar Washington Hospital Center · USUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

Funding

Tissue Culture Shared ResourceP30CA051008 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI STEPHEN W BYERS · 1990 to 2026
$71.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30CA05100NCI NIH HHS P30 CA051008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Practice guidelines incorporate genomic tumor profiling, using results such as the Oncotype DX Recurrence Score (RS), to refine recurrence risk estimates for the large proportion of breast cancer patients with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive disease. We sought to understand the impact of receiving genomic recurrence risk estimates on breast cancer patients' well-being and the impact of these patient-reported outcomes on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants were 193 women (mean age 57) newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. Women were interviewed before and 2-3 weeks after receiving the RS result between 2011 and 2015. We assessed subsequent receipt of chemotherapy from chart review. After receiving their RS, perceived pros (t = 4.27, P < .001) and cons (t = 8.54, P < .001) of chemotherapy increased from pre-test to post-test, while perceived risk of breast cancer recurrence decreased (t = 2.90, P = .004). Women with high RS tumors were more likely to receive chemotherapy than women with low RS tumors (88 vs. 5 %, OR 0.01, 0.00-0.02, P < .001). Higher distress (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.05-4.57, P < .05) and lower perceived cons of chemotherapy (OR 0.50, 95 % CI 0.26-0.97, P < .05) also predicted receipt of chemotherapy. Distressed patients who saw few downsides of chemotherapy received this treatment. Clinicians should consider these factors when discussing chemotherapy with breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantFemaleGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenetic TestingGuideline AdherenceHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk Assessment21-GeneBreast cancerChemotherapyTreatment decisions

Identifiers

PMID27059031
PMCPMC5065914
OpenAlexW2316127649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.