ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2019
Acceptability of Localized Cancer Risk Reduction Interventions Among Individuals at Average or High Risk for Cancer.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- "That makes me feel human": a qualitative evaluation of the acceptability of an HIV differentiated care intervention for formerly incarcerated people re-entering community settings in South Africa.BMC health services research · 2022Trial
- Precision Prevention Studies: A Targeted Approach to Cancer Prevention.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Review
- Barriers to recruitment in a pre-surgical trial for ductal carcinoma in situ: an exploratory qualitative study of at-risk women, survivors, and providers.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Perceptions of Multicancer Detection Tests Among Primary Care Physicians and Laypersons: A Qualitative Study.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022Article
- Intranasal Iloprost Prevents Tumors in a Murine Lung Carcinogenesis Model.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022Article
- Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2021Article
- Leukoplakia and Immunology: New Chemoprevention Landscapes?International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Cancer Prevention in Primary Care: Perception of Importance, Recognition of Risk Factors and Prescribing Behaviors.The American journal of medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.