ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2020
Perception of Breast Cancer Risk in Over 11,000 Patients During Routine Mammography Exam.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Testing for All Breast Cancer Patients: The GET FACTS Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Assessing the Effect of a Mobile Application on Cancer Risk Health Literacy: A Cross-Sectional Study Design.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Awareness and Candidacy for Endocrine Prevention and Risk Reducing Mastectomy in Unaffected High-Risk Women Referred for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- The current status of risk-stratified breast screening.British journal of cancer · 2022Review
- The accuracy of breast cancer risk self-assessment does not correlate with knowledge about breast cancer and knowledge and attitudes towards primary chemoprevention.Preventive medicine reports · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To assess women's knowledge of personal breast cancer risk. Additionally, we aimed to determine how often physicians are discussing individualized risk assessments of breast cancer with their patients, and if those discussion affected risk perception. Surveys were distributed in radiology centers in New York and made available to patients presenting for routine mammography. As exact number of patients who viewed the survey is unknown, response rate could not be assessed. Data from the survey was used to calculate each patient's personal breast cancer risk using the National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool. Each patient's actual breast cancer risk was compared to her perceived risk. 15,006 subjects submitted the survey and 11,365 were included in the final analysis. Fourteen percent of women were accurate in their 5-year estimation as compared to calculated risk, and only 7% of respondents were accurate in their estimation of risk by 90 years of age. There was no association between time since discussion of breast cancer risk and accuracy of estimating personal breast cancer risk (p = 0.17). There was no difference in risk estimation accuracy between women who had ever or had never discussed risk with her physician (p = 0.1064). Patients' perceived personal risk of developing breast cancer does not match the Gail model calculated risk. These findings hold true whether or not her physician had discussed personal breast cancer risk with her in the past. Further studies should determine effective strategies to educate patients about their breast cancer risk.
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.