ArticleGynecologic oncology2019
Women's preferences for cancer risk management strategies in Lynch syndrome.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Japanese society for cancer of the colon and rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2024 for the clinical practice of hereditary colorectal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Guideline
- Gynaecological cancer surveillance for women with Lynch syndrome: systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Understanding risk perception and risk-reducing decision-making for surgery among individuals with a genetic predisposition to epithelial ovarian cancer.Journal of genetic counseling · 2026Article
- Prevention strategies for hereditary gynaecological cancer in Lynch syndrome.Familial cancer · 2026Review
- Germline variant spectrum of hereditary cancer susceptibility genes in a Chinese cohort.Human genomics · 2025Article
- Outcomes of endometrial cancer prevention strategies in patients with Lynch syndrome: a nationwide cohort study in the Netherlands.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Perception about benefits and risks related to combined hormonal contraceptives use in women with Lynch syndrome.Annals of medicine · 2024Article
- Uptake of Aspirin Chemoprevention in Patients With Lynch Syndrome.JCO precision oncology · 2024Article
- Overweight and obese women's symptoms, knowledge, and preferences regarding endometrial biopsy for endometrial cancer detection: A threshold technique survey.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2024Article
- From the prodromal stage of multiple sclerosis to disease prevention.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2022Review
- Article
- Systemic Barriers to Risk-Reducing Interventions for Hereditary Cancer Syndromes: Implications for Health Care Inequities.JCO precision oncology · 2021Review
- Genetic cancer predisposition syndromes among older adults.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe assessed preferences for cancer risk management strategies for Lynch syndrome (LS) in LS-affected women.
methodsWomen with LS aged ≥25 years evaluated 9 cancer risk management strategies using a visual analog scale (VAS) and modified standard gamble (SG). For the VAS, women ranked each strategy ranging from 0 (least preferred) to 100 (most preferred). VAS scores were calculated by dividing the corresponding number by 100. Scores closer to 1.0 reflected more favorable strategies. For the SG, participants were asked to specify their expected threshold of lifetime risk of endometrial or colorectal cancer, ranging from 0 to 100%, at which they would consider undertaking each strategy. Strategies included chemoprevention, cancer screening, and preventive surgery. Cancer worry and perceived cancer risk measures were collected on a subset of participants.
resultsSixty-one women completed preference assessments. By VAS, annual combined screening was the most preferred, followed by annual screenings and chemoprevention with oral contraceptives. By SG, women were the most willing to endorse oral contraceptives and biannual screening strategies at the lowest threshold of lifetime risk followed by annual screening strategies. Surgical interventions were the least preferred strategies using both VAS and SG. Women with a family history of gynecologic or colorectal cancer were less likely to consider prevention or screening options compared to women without a family history. Cancer worry was higher among women with a positive family history of LS cancer.
conclusionUnderstanding women's preferences may facilitate optimal use and adherence to cancer risk management strategies.
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.