Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30872466›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2019

What Is Important When Making Treatment Decisions in Metastatic Breast Cancer? A Qualitative Analysis of Decision-Making in Patients and Oncologists.

Gabrielle B Rocque, Aysha Rasool, Beverly R Williams, Audrey S Wallace, Soumya J Niranjan, Karina I Halilova, Yasemin E Turkman, Stacey A Ingram, Courtney P Williams, Andres Forero-Torres and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Use of a Delphi process to formulate a pragmatic framework for care planning in older adults with advanced bladder cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Iterative Development of an Interactive Website to Support Shared Decision-Making in Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gabrielle B RocqueO'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA grocque@uabmc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4188-9785
Aysha RasoolSchool of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Beverly R WilliamsDivision of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Audrey S WallaceDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Soumya J NiranjanO'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Karina I HalilovaDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Yasemin E TurkmanSchool of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Stacey A IngramDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Courtney P WilliamsDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Andres Forero-TorresO'Neal Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Tom SmithThe Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Smita BhatiaInstitute for Cancer Outcomes and Survivorship, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Sara J KnightDivision of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USJohns Hopkins Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetastatic breast cancer (MBC) is an ideal environment for shared decision-making because of the large number of guideline-based treatment options with similar efficacy but different toxicity profiles. This qualitative analysis describes patient and provider factors that influence decision-making in treatment of MBC. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients and community oncologists completed in-person interviews. Academic medical oncologists participated in focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo. Using an a priori model based on the Ottawa Framework, two independent coders analyzed transcripts using a constant comparative method. Major themes and exemplary quotes were extracted.

resultsParticipants included 20 patients with MBC, 6 community oncologists, and 5 academic oncologists. Analysis of patient interviews revealed a decision-making process characterized by the following themes: decision-making style, contextual factors, and preferences. Patient preference subthemes include treatment efficacy, physical side effects of treatment, emotional side effects of treatment, cognitive side effects of treatment, cost and financial toxicity, salience of cutting-edge treatment options (clinical trial or newly approved medication), treatment logistics and convenience, personal and family responsibilities, treatment impact on daily activities, participation in self-defining endeavors, attending important events, and pursuing important goals. Physician decisions emphasized drug-specific characteristics (treatment efficacy, side effects, cost) rather than patient preferences, which might impact treatment choice.

conclusionAlthough both patients with MBC and oncologists considered treatment characteristics when making decisions, patients' considerations were broader than oncologists', incorporating contextual factors such as the innovative value of the treatment and life responsibilities. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggests the value of tools to facilitate systematic communication of preferences in the setting of MBC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Both patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and oncologists emphasized importance of efficacy and physical side effects when making treatment decisions. However, other patient considerations for making treatment decisions were broader, incorporating contextual factors such as the logistics of treatments, personal and family responsibilities, and ability to attend important events. Furthermore, individual patients varied substantially in priorities that they want considered in treatment decisions. Differences in perspectives between patients and oncologists suggest the value of tools to facilitate systematic elicitation of preferences and communication of those preferences to oncologists for integration into decision-making in MBC.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm MetastasisOncologistsDecision‐makingInterviewMetastatic breast cancerPatient preferencesQualitative

Identifiers

PMID30872466
PMCPMC6795158
OpenAlexW2921192143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.