Improving communication of breast cancer recurrence risk

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Volumn 133, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 553-561

  Brewer, Noel T ^a,b   Richman, Alice R ^c   DeFrank, Jessica T ^a,b   Reyna, Valerie F ^d   Carey, Lisa A ^b,e  

^a IL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Genomic testing; Health literacy; Icon array; Recurrence risk; Risk communication

Indexed keywords

HORMONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER STAGING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOMICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL ERROR; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECURRENCE RISK; STANDARD; VIGNETTE;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; GENETIC COUNSELING; GENETIC TESTING; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; NEOPLASM STAGING; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RISK;

EID: 84863716805     PISSN: 01676806     EISSN: 15737217     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1791-9     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Oakman C, Bessi S, Zafarana E et al (2009) New diagnostics and biological predictors of outcomes in early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 11:205-216
2. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817-2826
3. Wolf I, Baruch NB, Shapira-Frommer R et al (2008) Association between standard clinical and pathologic characteristics and the 21-gene recurrence score in breast cancer patients. Cancer 112:731-736
4. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S et al (2006) Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:3726-3734
5. Morris SR, Carey LA (2007) Gene expression profiling in breast cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 19:547-551
6. Henry LR, Stojadinovic A, Swain SM et al (2009) The influence of a gene expression profile on breast cancer decisions. J Surg Oncol 99:319-323
7. Asad J, Jacobson AF, Estabrook A et al (2008) Does Oncotype DX recurrence score affect the management of patients with early-stage breast cancer? Am J Surg 196:527-529
8. Brewer NT, Edwards AS, O'Neill SC, Tzeng JP, Carey LA, Rimer BK (2009) When genomic and standard test results diverge: implications for breast cancer patients' preference for chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:25-29
9. Buyse M, Loi S, van't Veer L et al (2006) Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1183-1192
10. Foekens JA, Atkins D, Zhang Y et al (2006) Multicenter validation of a gene expression-based prognostic signature in lymph node-negative primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:1665-1671
11. van't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530-536
12. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ et al (2002) A geneexpression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999-2009
13. Peters E, Dieckmann N, Dixon A et al (2007) Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Med Care Res Rev 64:169-190
14. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2008) Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer 113:3382-3390
15. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA (2010) A demonstration of ''less can be more'' in risk graphics. Med Decis Mak 30:661-671
16. Belia S, Fidler F, Williams J et al (2005) Researchers misunderstand confidence intervals and standard error bars. Psychol Methods 10:389-396
17. Reyna VF (2008) A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Mak 28:850-865
18. Bass PF, Wilson JF, Griffith CH (2003) A shortened instrument for literacy screening. J Gen Intern Med 18:1036-1038
19. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC et al (1997) The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammogra-phy. Ann Intern Med 127:966-973
20. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1173-1182
21. Tzeng JP, Mayer D, Richman AR et al (2010) Women's experiences with genomic testing for breast cancer recurrence risk. Cancer 116:1992-2000
22. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Angott AM, Ubel PA (2011) The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:79-87
23. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ (2006) Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl 12:179-195
24. Gurmankin AD, Domchek S, Stopfer J et al (2005) Patients' resistance to risk information in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2. Arch Intern Med 165:523-529
25. O'Neill SC, Brewer NT, Lillie SE et al (2007) Women's interest in gene expression analysis for breast cancer recurrence risk. J Clin Oncol 25:4628-4634
26. Chao C, Studts JL, Abell T et al (2003) Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: how presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. J Clin Oncol 21:4299-4305
27. Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R et al (2006) Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13:608-618
28. Cuite CL, Weinstein ND, Emmons K et al (2008) A test of numeric formats for communicating risk probabilities. Med Decis Mak 28:377-384
29. Han PK, Klein WM, Lehman T et al (2011) Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Mak 31:354-366
30. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McAuliffe TL (2006) The influence of graphic format on breast cancer risk communication. J Health Commun 11:569-582
31. Reyna VF, Mills B (2007) Converging evidence supports fuzzy-trace theory's nested sets hypothesis, but not the frequency hypothesis. Behav Brain Sci 30:278-280
32. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ (2008) Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learn Individ Differ 18:89-107
33. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2004) Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal 24:311-322
34. Reyna VF, Nelson WL, Han PK, Dieckmann NF (2009) How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychol Bull 135:943-973
35. Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, Edwards A, Peppercorn JM, Rimer BK (2009) Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication. Med Decis Mak 29:157-166
36. Lillie SE, Brewer NT, Rimer BK et al (2007) Retention and use of breast cancer recurrence risk information from genomic tests: the role of health literacy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16:249-255