Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30824471›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2019

Acceptability of Localized Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions Among Individuals at Average or High Risk for Cancer.

Goli Samimi, Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard, Shelley S Kay, Bonny Bloodgood, Kisha I Coa, Jennifer L Robinson, Bethany Tennant, Leslie G Ford, Eva Szabo, Lori Minasian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Precision Prevention Studies: A Targeted Approach to Cancer Prevention.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022
    Article
  6. Intranasal Iloprost Prevents Tumors in a Murine Lung Carcinogenesis Model.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Leukoplakia and Immunology: New Chemoprevention Landscapes?International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  9. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Goli Samimi *Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. goli.samimi@nih.gov.
Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard *Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Shelley S KayICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Bonny BloodgoodICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Kisha I CoaICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Jennifer L RobinsonICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Bethany TennantICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Leslie G FordDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Eva SzaboDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Lori MinasianDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
National Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Fairfax · US

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201400002BNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201400002C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals at high risk for cancer, including those already diagnosed with premalignant lesions, can potentially benefit from chemopreventive interventions to reduce cancer risk. However, uptake and acceptability have been hindered due to the risk of systemic toxicity and other adverse effects. Locally delivered chemopreventive agents, where direct action on the primary organ may limit systemic toxicity, are emerging as an option for high-risk individuals. While a number of clinical trials support the development of chemopreventive agents, it is crucial to understand the factors and barriers that influence their acceptability and use. We conducted 36 focus groups with 198 individuals at average and high risk of breast/ovarian, gynecologic, and head/neck/oral and lung cancers to examine the perceptions and acceptability of chemopreventive agents. Participants' willingness to use chemopreventive agents was influenced by several factors, including perceived risk of cancer, skepticism around prevention, previous knowledge of chemopreventive agents, support from trusted sources of health information, participation in other cancer-related risk-reduction activities, previous experience with similar modalities, cost, regimen, side effects, and perceived effectiveness of the preventive intervention. Our findings indicate that individuals may be more receptive to locally delivered chemopreventive agents if they perceive themselves to be at high risk for cancer and are given the necessary information regarding regimen and side effects to make an informed decision. Clinical trials that collect additional patient-centered data including side effects and how these interventions fit into an individual's lifestyle are imperative to improve uptake of chemopreventive agents.

Indexed as

Decision MakingHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Education as TopicRisk Reduction BehaviorChemopreventionFemaleHumansLife StyleMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID30824471
PMCPMC6445710
OpenAlexW2919994457

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.