Trial reportBlood advances2022
Patient perspectives on testing for clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential.
Trial report in Blood advances, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01468246 (Helping Ourselves, Helping Others), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 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.
Helping Ourselves, Helping Others: The Young Women's Breast Cancer Study
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clonal hematopoiesis in the setting of sickle cell disease and its relevance to curative therapies.Seminars in hematology · 2026Article
- Clonal haematopoiesis and cardiovascular disease, defining risk, filling gaps, and framing the future.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2026Review
- CHIP clinics: a practical overview of structure and function.Blood cancer journal · 2026Review
- Clinical decisions in clonal hematopoiesis: a contemporary review for clinicians.Haematologica · 2026Review
- What's hidden in plain sight? Impact of clonal hematopoiesis on the risk and progression of nonhematologic cancers.Haematologica · 2026Review
- CHIP ahoy: charting a decade of discovery in clonal hematopoiesis.Haematologica · 2026Review
- Target practice: Opportunities for therapeutic intervention in CHIP and CCUS.Blood reviews · 2025Review
- Clonal haematopoiesis in cardiovascular disease: prognostic role and novel therapeutic target.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2025Review
- Ethical considerations for hematologic precursor conditions.Blood advances · 2025Article
- Clonal Hematopoiesis in Women With Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Clonal hematopoiesis in the setting of hematopoietic cell transplantation.Seminars in hematology · 2024Article
- Clonal Hematopoiesis in Young Women Treated for Breast Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Article
- Molecular and clinical aspects relevant for counseling individuals with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential and cardiovascular diseases: A review.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), an emerging biomarker for personalized risk-directed interventions, is increased in cancer survivors. However, little is known about patient preferences for CHIP testing. We surveyed participants in a prospective cohort study of young women with breast cancer (BC). The emailed survey included an introduction to CHIP and a vignette eliciting participants' preferences for CHIP testing, considering sequentially: population-based 10-year risk of BC recurrence, hematologic malignancy, and heart disease; increased CHIP-associated risks; current CHIP management; dedicated CHIP clinic; and hypothetical CHIP treatment. Preference changes were evaluated using the McNemar test. The survey response rate was 82.2% (528/642). Median age at time of survey was 46 years and median time from diagnosis was 108 months. Only 5.9% had prior knowledge of CHIP. After vignette presentation, most survivors (87.1%) recommended CHIP testing for the vignette patient. Presented next with CHIP-independent, population-based risks, 11.1% shifted their preference from testing to not testing. After receiving information about CHIP-associated risks, an additional 10.1% shifted their preference to testing. Preference for testing increased if vignette patient was offered a CHIP clinic or hypothetical CHIP treatment, with 7.2% and 14.1% switching preferences toward testing, respectively. Finally, 75.8% of participants desired CHIP testing for themselves. Among participants, 28.2% reported that learning about CHIP caused at least moderate anxiety. Most young survivors favored CHIP testing, with preferences influenced by risk presentation and potential management strategies. Our findings highlight the importance of risk communication and psychosocial support when considering biomarkers for future risk in cancer survivors. This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01468246.
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.