Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289750›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2024

Impact of an online decision support tool for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) using a pre-post design (AFT-25).

Elissa M Ozanne, Kellyn Maves, Angela C Tramontano, Thomas Lynch, Alastair Thompson, Ann Partridge, Elizabeth Frank, Deborah Collyar, Desiree Basila, Donna Pinto and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02926911 (Comparing an Operation to Monitoring, With or Without Endocrine Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT02926911 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Comparing an Operation to Monitoring, With or Without Endocrine Therapy (COMET) Trial For Low Risk DCIS: A Phase III Prospective Randomized Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAlliance Foundation Trials, LLC.Ran2017 to 2030Enrolled997ConditionsDCIS, Ductal Carcinoma in SituArmsSurgery, Active Monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

15 authors.

Elissa M OzanneDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Utah, Population Health Sciences, 295 Chipeta Way Rm 1N512, Salt Lake City, UT, 84108, USA. elissa.ozanne@hsc.utah.edu.
Kellyn MavesUniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Angela C TramontanoDivision of Population Sciences, Dana-Farber/Partners Cancer Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Thomas LynchDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Alastair ThompsonBaylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Ann PartridgeDana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA.
Elizabeth FrankAlliance Foundation Trials, LLC, Boston, MA, USA.
Deborah CollyarAlliance Foundation Trials, LLC, Boston, MA, USA.
Desiree BasilaAlliance Foundation Trials, LLC, Boston, MA, USA.
Donna PintoAlliance Foundation Trials, LLC, Boston, MA, USA.
Terry HyslopThomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Marc D RyserDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Shoshana RosenbergDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
E Shelley HwangDuke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Rinaa S PungliaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Dana-Farber/Partners Cancer Care, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute PCS-1505-30497 / CER-1503-29572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe heterogeneous biology of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as the variable outcomes, in the setting of numerous treatment options have led to prognostic uncertainty. Consequently, making treatment decisions is challenging and necessitates involved communication between patient and provider about the risks and benefits. We developed and investigated an interactive decision support tool (DST) designed to improve communication of treatment options and related long-term risks for individuals diagnosed with DCIS.

findingsThe DST was developed for use by individuals aged > 40 years with DCIS and is based on a disease simulation model that integrates empirical data and clinical characteristics to predict patient-specific impacts of six DCIS treatment choices. Personalized risk predictions for each treatment option were communicated using icon arrays and percentages for each outcome. Users of the DST were asked before and after interacting with the DST about: (1) awareness of DCIS treatment options, (2) willingness to consider these options, (3) knowledge of risks associated with DCIS, and (4) helpfulness of the DST. Data were collected from January 2019 to April 2022. Users' median estimated risk of dying from DCIS in 10 years decreased from 9% pre-tool to 3% post-tool (p < 0.0001). 76% (n = 101/132) found the tool helpful.

conclusionsInformation about DCIS treatment options and related risk predictions was effectively communicated, and a large majority participants found the DST to be helpful. Successfully informing patients about their treatment options and how their individual risks affect those options is a critical step in the decision-making process. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier NCT02926911.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingDecision Support TechniquesAdultAgedDecision MakingFemaleHumansInternetMiddle AgedPrognosisRisk AssessmentBreast cancerDecision makingDecision support toolDuctal carcinoma in situ

Identifiers

PMID39289750
PMCPMC11406870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.