ArticleJournal of geriatric oncology2026
Geriatric-specific considerations in treatment conversations with older adults with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast cancer.
Article in Journal of geriatric oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWomen ≥70 years with low-risk breast cancer face nuanced therapy decisions. Using qualitative analysis, we aimed to determine how oncologists and patients integrate geriatric considerations into complex treatment conversations. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe recruited women aged ≥70, newly diagnosed with clinical T1-2N0 hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative disease between October 2020 and March 2023 from a large cancer center and audio-recorded and transcribed their consults with surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists. We identified geriatric issues included in conversational content and the dynamics of patient/oncologist communication. Data collection and analysis were simultaneously performed. We also assessed participant decision-making preferences, frailty, and life expectancy.
resultsOf 48 eligible patients approached, 27 (56 %) participated with eight surgical oncologists, 17 with 11 medical oncologists, and four with three radiation oncologists (n = 48 consultations recorded). Fourteen patients (48 %) were ≥ 75 years, 23 were non-Hispanic White (76 %). Patients preferred to share (n = 15, 58 %) or make their own treatment decisions (n = 10, 39 %), rather than defer to the oncologist. Oncologists presented an explicit treatment choice in 16 conversations (35 %). Chronological age was discussed in 27 (56 %) conversations, comorbidities in 44 (92 %), and multimorbidity in two (4 %). Other geriatric considerations were discussed in the minority of conversations [physiologic age: 20 (42 %); function: 20 (42 %); quality-of-life: 5 (10 %); life expectancy: 5 (10 %); polypharmacy: 2 (4 %)]. DISCUSSION: Despite numerous treatment options, oncologists neither commonly offer older women with low-risk breast cancer explicit treatment choices, nor discuss geriatric issues besides comorbidity. Training oncologists in communication around geriatric issues may lead to more person-centered breast cancer care.
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.