ArticleThe oncologist2026
Prognostic disclosure in metastatic breast cancer: a scoping review.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. 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.
- Time Toxicity in Advanced Breast Cancer: Psychological Burden, Psychiatric Vulnerability, and Implications for Patient-Centered Decision-Making.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic disclosure enables shared decision-making by keeping patients informed about their health and involved in treatment choices. Prognostic uncertainty is prominent in metastatic breast cancer (mBC) and is a known barrier to prognostic disclosure, yet knowledge about prognostic disclosure in mBC has not been systematically mapped.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to explore the literature on prognostic disclosure in mBC and highlight research gaps.
methodsWe followed Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework. Electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMED), Scopus, PsychINFO and CINAHL were systematically searched for peer-reviewed, published journal articles. Results are reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
resultsThe search yielded 1715 articles; ten met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative analysis identified 9 themes: Balancing Truth and Hope; Persistent Gaps Between Patient Informational Needs and Physician Responses; Using the Internet to Find Prognostic Information; the Role of Religious Beliefs; Challenges in Understanding Prognostic Information; Use of Empathy; Health Literacy and Satisfaction with Communication; Potential Harms; Structured Multidisciplinary Disclosure Interventions. Our findings suggest that the needs and preferences of patients with mBC regarding prognostic disclosure are influenced by emotional, psychological, religious, and existential factors, and change during the disease trajectory.
conclusionsBalancing truth and hope in prognostic disclosure with patients with mBC requires nuanced, emotionally attuned approaches. Clinicians could revisit patients' preferences at disease milestones or decision points. Research is needed to explore patient characteristics predicting prognostic preferences, to facilitate individualized communication, and to elucidate the impact of targeted treatments, immunotherapy, and the associated prognostic uncertainties on prognostic disclosure in mBC.
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.