Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30840165›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2019

What does risk of future cancer mean to breast cancer patients?

Karen Kaiser, Kenzie A Cameron, Jennifer Beaumont, Sofia F Garcia, Leilani Lacson, Margaret Moran, Lindsey Karavites, Chiara Rodgers, Swati Kulkarni, Nora M Hansen and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. EBCC-13 manifesto: Balancing pros and cons for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2023
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Karen KaiserDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA. k-kaiser@northwestern.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6550-5240
Kenzie A CameronDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jennifer BeaumontTerasaki Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sofia F GarciaDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA.
Leilani LacsonDepartment of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 625 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2700, 60611, Chicago, IL, USA.
Margaret MoranOak Street Health, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lindsey KaravitesSinai Health System, Chicago, IL, USA.
Chiara RodgersAmerican Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, Chicago, IL, USA.
Swati KulkarniDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Nora M HansenDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Seema A KhanDepartment of Surgery, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy: The Patient Decision-Making ProcessR21CA175950 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI TEGEL, KAREN KAISER · 2014 to 2015
$370k
NCI NIH HHS R21 CA175950The National Institutes of Health R21 CA175950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNewly diagnosed breast cancer patients greatly overestimate their risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Better understanding of patient conceptions of risk would facilitate doctor-patient communication and surgical decision making. In this mixed methods study, we prospectively examined breast cancer patients' perceived risk of future cancer and the reported factors that drove their risk perceptions.

methodsWomen age 21-60 diagnosed with breast cancer without a BRCA mutation or known distant metastases completed a study interview between surgical consult and surgical treatment. Participants completed a 12-item Perceived Risk Questionnaire, which assessed 10-year and lifetime risks of ipsilateral local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence. Patients provided qualitative explanations for their answers.

resultsSixty-three patients completed study interviews (mean age 50.3). Participants were primarily White (85.7%) and 90.5% had attended college. Patients estimated their 10-year risk of CBC as 22.0%, nearly 4 times the established 10-year risk. Women attributed their risk perceptions to "gut feelings" about future cancer, even when women knew those feelings contradicted medically established risk. Perceptions of risk also reflected beliefs that cancer is random and that risk for local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence are the same.

conclusionsOur findings point to the need for novel ways of presenting factual information regarding both risk of recurrence and of new primary cancers, as well as the necessity of acknowledging cognitive and affective processes many patients use when conceptualizing risk. By differentiating women's intuitive feelings about risk from their knowledge of medically estimated risk, doctors can enhance informed decision making.

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMastectomyMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPerceptionPhysician-Patient RelationsProphylactic MastectomyProspective StudiesSocial ClassSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultBreast cancerContralateral prophylactic mastectomyPatient educationRisk

Identifiers

PMID30840165
PMCPMC6535122

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.