Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038122›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025

The development and comparative effectiveness of a patient-centered pathology report for breast cancer care: a randomized clinical trial.

Sara H Javid, Mark R Kilgore, Elizabeth J Austin, Elizabeth U Parker, Rebeca Alvarez, Meghan R Flanagan, Elena G Brewer, Catalina Gibbons, Sarah K Holt, Janie M Lee and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

13 authors.

Sara H JavidDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. sjavid@uw.edu.
Mark R KilgoreDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Elizabeth J AustinDepartment of Health Systems and Population Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Elizabeth U ParkerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Rebeca AlvarezDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Meghan R FlanaganDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Elena G BrewerDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Catalina GibbonsDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Sarah K HoltDepartment of Urology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Janie M LeeDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Amelia W DonlanDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lauren M DeStefanoSurgical Oncology, Cedars Sinai, Tarzana, CA, USA.
John L GoreDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePathology reports contain complex medical terminology that may be confusing or overwhelming for patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer. We evaluated the effectiveness of patient-centered pathology reports (PCPRs), which translate pathology results into patient-friendly language.

methodsSixty-six participants newly diagnosed with breast cancer were randomized to receive either a PCPR and standard pathology report (intervention arm) or a standard pathology report alone (control arm). Patients were surveyed at initial pathology disclosure and 1 month later to assess breast cancer knowledge and ratings of decisional confidence, conflict, and self-efficacy for treatment decision-making. Knowledge was assessed for four pathology domains independently.

resultsAccuracy of breast cancer knowledge across all domains trended higher for the intervention group compared with the control group (66% vs. 50%, p = 0.11); cancer type and surgical margin status knowledge domains exceeded 75% accuracy for the intervention group. No significant differences between groups were observed for patient-reported ratings of communication, decisional conflict, and decision self-efficacy.

conclusionsPCPRs in lay language appeared to improve patients' knowledge of their breast cancer diagnosis, were acceptable to patients and providers, and have the potential to be broadly applied in an effort to improve patient knowledge and improve the patient experience surrounding a breast cancer diagnosis.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient-Centered CareAdultAgedCommunicationDecision MakingFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSelf EfficacyBreast cancerKnowledgePathologyPatient

Identifiers

PMID40038122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.