Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27256091›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

How do women trade-off benefits and risks in chemotherapy treatment decisions based on gene expression profiling for early-stage breast cancer? A discrete choice experiment.

Deborah A Marshall, Ken Deal, Yvonne Bombard, Natasha Leighl, Karen V MacDonald, Maureen Trudeau

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Role of the 21-Gene Recurrence ScoreCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The value of genomic sequencing in complex pediatric neurological disorders: a discrete choice experiment.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Deborah A MarshallDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Ken DealDeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Yvonne BombardLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Natasha LeighlDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Karen V MacDonaldDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Maureen TrudeauUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
University of Calgary · CAHealth Sciences Centre · CAMcMaster University · CAPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesGene expression profiling (GEP) of tumours informs baseline risk prediction, potentially affecting adjuvant chemotherapy decisions for women with early-stage breast cancer. Since only 15% will experience a recurrence, concerns have been raised about potential harms from overtreatment and high GEP costs in publicly funded healthcare systems. We aimed to estimate preferences and personal utility of GEP testing information and benefit-risk trade-offs in chemotherapy treatment decisions. DESIGN, SETTING AND

interventionBased on literature review and findings from our qualitative research (focus groups, interviews with patients with breast cancer and medical oncologists), we developed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey and administered it via an internet panel. The DCE included 12 choice tasks with 5 attributes and 3 alternatives considering orthogonality, D-efficiency and level balance.

participantsThe DCE survey was administered to 1004 Canadian women from the general population.

main outcome measuresPreferences were analysed using conditional logit and hierarchical Bayes and evaluated for goodness of fit. We conducted simulation analyses for alternative scenarios.

resultsGEP test score indicating likely benefit from chemotherapy was the most important attribute. Doctor's clinical estimate of the risk of cancer returning, trust in your cancer doctor and side effects of chemotherapy (temporary and permanent) were relatively less important but showed significant differences among levels. In the scenario analyses, 78% were likely to choose chemotherapy in a high-risk scenario, 55% in a moderate-risk scenario and 33% in a low-risk scenario, with the other attributes held constant. A high GEP score was more important in influencing the choice of chemotherapy for those at intermediate clinical risk.

conclusionsGEP testing information influences chemotherapy treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer and varies depending on clinical risk. Clinicians should be aware of these differences and tailor the use of GEP testing accordingly.

Indexed as

Chemotherapy, AdjuvantChoice BehaviorDecision MakingGene Expression ProfilingAntineoplastic AgentsBayes TheoremBreast NeoplasmsCanadaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPatient PreferenceRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesAntineoplastic AgentsDecision makingDiscrete choice experimentHEALTH ECONOMICSPatient preferences

Identifiers

PMID27256091
PMCPMC4893875
OpenAlexW2415587476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.