Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41729321›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2026

Ovarian function suppression decision-making and uptake in premenopausal women with breast cancer: a mixed methods analysis.

N L Henry, L K Monkman, K Griffith, K Scheu, T Ghormley, J Armstrong, M Secor, D Jasthi, S T Hawley, T Guetterman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2026. 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

10 authors.

N L HenryDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. norahh@umich.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4771-5930
L K MonkmanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
K GriffithDepartment of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
K ScheuMichigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
T GhormleyMichigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
J ArmstrongMichigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
M SecorDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
D JasthiDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
S T HawleyDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
T GuettermanDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

XenograftP30CA046592 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Eric R. Fearon · 1988 to 2026
$178.2M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA046592
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOvarian function suppression (OFS) reduces the risk of recurrence of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer but increases the likelihood of toxicity and nonpersistence with endocrine therapy. In addition, rates of OFS utilization are lower than expected. To increase understanding of these issues, we sought to identify patient factors associated with the use of OFS injections, as well as treatment decision-making and education needs.

methodsIn this convergent mixed methods designed study, patients receiving OFS, who started then discontinued OFS injections, and who never initiated OFS injections underwent 1:1 semi-structured interviews and completed questionnaires on shared decision-making and medication beliefs.

resultsOf 33 enrolled participants, 30 completed both the questionnaires and the interview. Median age was 43 (range 32-55), 24 were white (80%), and 20 (66.7%) had received chemotherapy. Four key themes emerged. (1) There was concern about need for more education, especially about short- and long-term side effects of OFS. (2) For those receiving OFS injections, the decision to take OFS was mainly due to a desire to reduce cancer recurrence risk. (3) For those who stopped OFS, injections were often used as a stop-gap measure, with a preference for permanence of oophorectomy. (4) For those who never took OFS, there was often perceived lack of strong physician recommendation.

conclusionTailored support for patients is needed to optimize decision-making regarding OFS, related to both potential benefits and risks of OFS in addition to adjuvant endocrine therapy. Educational strategies such as peer mentors or decision aids should be explored in this clinical setting.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Agents, HormonalBreast NeoplasmsDecision MakingOvaryAdultFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMiddle AgedPremenopauseSurveys and QuestionnairesAntineoplastic Agents, HormonalBreast cancerDecision-makingGonadotropin-releasing hormone agonistOvarian function suppressionPremenopausal

Identifiers

PMID41729321
PMCPMC12929242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.