Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30876497›Full record

ArticleGynecologic oncology2019

Women's preferences for cancer risk management strategies in Lynch syndrome.

Charlotte C Sun, Larissa A Meyer, Molly S Daniels, Diane C Bodurka, Denise R Nebgen, Allison M Burton-Chase, Karen H Lu, Susan K Peterson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Charlotte C SunThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America. Electronic address: ccsun@mdanderson.org.
Larissa A MeyerThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Molly S DanielsThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Clinical Cancer Genetics, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Diane C BodurkaThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Denise R NebgenThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Allison M Burton-ChaseDepartment of Basic and Social Sciences, Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Albany, NY, United States of America.
Karen H LuThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Gynecologic Oncology and Reproductive Medicine, Houston, TX, United States of America.
Susan K PetersonThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Department of Behavioral Sciences, Houston, TX, United States of America.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USAlbany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Targeting the PI3K Signaling Pathway in Endometrial CarcinomaP50CA098258 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BROADDUS, RUSSELL R · 2003 to 2020
$32.0M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098258
6 · The paper itself

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

Patient PreferenceAdultColorectal Neoplasms, Hereditary NonpolyposisFemaleHumansMiddle AgedRisk Management

Identifiers

PMID30876497
PMCPMC6422049
OpenAlexW2922051230

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.