ArticlePsycho-oncology2025
Understanding Cancer Treatment Decision Making Among Cancer Survivors: Weighing Cancer Recurrence Versus Cardiotoxicity.
Article in Psycho-oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Regulatory challenges and current policy for cardiotoxicity detection in oncology drug development.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNearly 20% of US cancer survivors develop cardiovascular disease (CVD) from cardiotoxic cancer treatments. Patients and providers may consider alternative treatments to lower cardiotoxicity risk, but these may be less effective at preventing relapse/recurrence, presenting a difficult tradeoff.
aimsThis study explored survivors' cancer treatment decision-making when weighing this tradeoff.
methodsUsing adjusted multivariable logistic regression, we examined 443 US survivors' risk perceptions (deliberative, affective, and intuitive) about cancer and CVD and associations of these with their selection between two hypothetical cancer treatments: Treatment A: 5% chance of cancer recurrence and 10% chance of CVD; Treatment B: 10% chance of recurrence and 5% chance of CVD. We explored the effects of delay discounting by randomizing to a condition describing cancer recurrence/CVD as either immediate or delayed.
resultsMore survivors (Mage = 48, range = 18-93; M = 10.8 years post-diagnosis) selected Treatment A than Treatment B (72% v. 28%). Timing of onset was not associated with treatment selection. Greater affective risk perception (worry) about cancer was associated with increased odds of choosing Treatment A, whereas greater CVD worry was associated with decreased odds (OR-cancer = 1.33, p = 0.006; OR-CVD = 0.72, p = 0.007). Neither deliberative nor experiential risk perceptions were associated with treatment choice.
conclusionsSurvivors were more likely to select the treatment that minimized recurrence rather than CVD-regardless of the timing of onset. Treatment decision was linked to both cancer- and CVD-related worry but not deliberative or experiential risk perceptions. During treatment discussions, clinicians should open conversations about the risks of treatment-associated cardiotoxicity, the probabilities, and patients' relative worries about cancer and cardiotoxicity.
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.