ArticleJCO oncology practice2026
Patient- and Physician-Identified Considerations for Clinical Implementation of a New Risk-Based Prediction Tool to Guide Surveillance Mammography in Breast Cancer Survivors.
Article in JCO oncology practice, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePatient, tumor, and treatment factors can help predict the chance that a woman with a history of breast cancer diagnosis will be diagnosed with a second breast cancer within a year of a negative mammogram. This qualitative study elucidates breast cancer survivor and multispecialty physician perspectives on barriers/facilitators to clinical implementation of a risk-prediction tool to support surveillance decisions. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe enrolled women who completed primary breast cancer treatment and physicians from November 2023 to April 2024. Participants were recruited through Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium's registries; patients participated in one of four focus groups and physicians participated in individual semistructured interviews. Participants were presented with information about an interval cancer risk prediction tool and were prompted to share perspectives on facilitators and barriers to using such a tool. To identify salient themes, thematic analysis was undertaken by three research team members.
resultsParticipants included 40 physicians and 23 patients. Three themes emerged: (1) evidence needed for tool acceptance, (2) tool features to facilitate usage, and (3) barriers to tool adoption. Both cancer survivor and physician groups were accepting of risk prediction tool use for surveillance imaging when tool development information was available; they perceived the tool would fit within workflows, and data integrity could be verified. Both groups anticipated structural (time) and technological barriers (magnetic resonance imaging availability) could impede adoption.
conclusionQualitative findings from focus groups and interviews analyzed thematically suggest implementing a risk prediction tool for surveillance imaging requires evidence transparency, health record integration, data integrity protection, and system supports to promote ease of use in clinical settings while mitigating unintended consequences. All are important to consider during tool development and implementation planning.
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.