Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27757021›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016

Oncology providers' perspectives on endocrine therapy prescribing and management.

Stephanie B Wheeler, Megan C Roberts, Diane Bloom, Katherine E Reeder-Hayes, Maya Espada, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Carol E Golin, Jo Anne Earp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Adherence to Oral Hormonal Treatment among Breast Cancer Patients in Egypt.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephanie B WheelerDepartment of Health Policy and Management; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Megan C RobertsDepartment of Health Policy and Management.
Diane BloomDepartment of Health Policy and Management.
Katherine E Reeder-HayesLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
Maya EspadaDepartment of Health Policy and Management.
Jeffrey PeppercornDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Carol E GolinDepartment of Health Behavior; Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Jo Anne EarpLineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; Department of Health Behavior.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USSegeberger Kliniken · DEUNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center

Funding

UNC BIRCWH CAREER DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMK12HD001441 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BOGGESS, KIM A · 2000 to 2019
$9.3M
LINEBERGER CANCER CONTROL EDUCATION PROGRAMR25CA057726 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI EARP, JO ANNE L, RIBISL, KURT M. · 1992 to 2016
$8.0M
Training ProgramU54CA153602 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI GODLEY, PAUL A. · 2010 to 2015
$5.4M
NCI NIH HHS R25 CA057726NCI NIH HHS U54 CA153602NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD001441
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAdjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) can reduce the risk of recurrence among females with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Overall, initiation and adherence to ET are suboptimal, though reasons are not well described. The study's objective was to better understand ET decision making, prescribing, and patient management from oncology providers' perspectives.

methodsUsing purposive sampling, we recruited oncology providers who saw five or more breast cancer patients per week (n=20). We conducted 30-45-minute telephone interviews, using a semistructured guide to elicit perspectives on ET use. We used thematic content analysis to systematically identify categories of meaning and double-coded transcripts using Atlas.ti.

resultsProviders recommend ET to all eligible patients except those with contraindications or other risk factors. Providers base their ET prescribing decisions on the patient's menopausal status, side effects, and comorbidities. ET is typically discussed multiple times: at the onset of breast cancer treatment and in more detail after other treatment completion. Providers felt that the associated recurrence risk reduction is the most compelling argument for patients during ET decision making. While providers rarely perceived noninitiation as a problem, nonadherence was prevalent, often due to unresolvable side effects.

conclusionFrom the clinicians' perspectives, side effects from ET are the dominant factor in nonadherence. Efforts to improve adherence should focus on strategies to minimize side effects and ensure clinicians and patients are well informed regarding optimal side effect management. This finding has important implications for novel endocrine regimens that offer improved outcomes through longer duration or more intensive therapy.

Indexed as

breast cancerendocrine therapyoncologistoncologyqualitative interviews

Identifiers

PMID27757021
PMCPMC5053382
OpenAlexW2523929560

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.