Conveying genomic recurrence risk estimates to patients with early-stage breast cancer: Oncologist perspectives

Psycho-Oncology

Volumn 22, Issue 9, 2013, Pages 2110-2116

  Spellman, Elizabeth ^a   Sulayman, Nadiyah ^a   Eggly, Susan ^b   Peshkin, Beth N ^a   Isaacs, Claudine ^a   Schwartz, Marc D ^a   O'Neill, Suzanne C ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

21 gene; breast cancer; communication; oncology; physician; qualitative

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER RECURRENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PERCEPTION; RECURRENCE RISK; REVIEW;

21-GENE; BREAST CANCER; COMMUNICATION; ONCOLOGY; PHYSICIAN; QUALITATIVE;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMMUNICATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RISK; SPECIALTIES, SURGICAL; TRUTH DISCLOSURE;

EID: 84883158297     PISSN: 10579249     EISSN: 10991611     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pon.3264     Document Type: Review

References (52)

1. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Breast Cancer. Version 1. 2012. (Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician-gls/pdf/breast.pdf [cited 7 May 2012]).
2. Chen JY, Tao ML, Tisnado D, et al., Impact of physician-patient discussions on patient satisfaction. Med Care 2008; 46: 1157-1162.
3. Cleator S, Ashworth A,. Molecular profiling of breast cancer: clinical implications. Br J Cancer 2004; 90: 1120-1124.
4. Hornberger J, Cosler LE, Lyman GH,. Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am J Manag Care 2005; 11: 313-324.
5. Lyman GH, Cosler LE, Kuderer NM, Hornberger J,. Impact of a 21-gene RT-PCR assay on treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer: an economic analysis based on prognostic and predictive validation studies. Cancer 2007; 109: 1011-1018.
6. Sparano JA, Paik S,. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical practice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 721-728.
7. Albain KS, Paik S, van't Veer L,. Prediction of adjuvant chemotherapy benefit in endocrine responsive, early breast cancer using multigene assays. Breast 2009; 18 Suppl 3: S141-S145.
8. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al., Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11: 55-65.
9. Dowsett M, Cuzick J, Wale C, et al., Prediction of risk of distant recurrence using the 21-gene recurrence score in node-negative and node-positive postmenopausal patients with breast cancer treated with anastrozole or tamoxifen: a TransATAC study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1829-1834.
10. Whelan T, Levine M, Willan A, et al., Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA 2004; 292: 435-441.
11. Duric VM, Fallowfield LJ, Saunders C, Houghton J, Coates AS, Stockler MR,. Patients' preferences for adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer: what makes it worthwhile? Br J Cancer 2005; 93: 1319-1323.
12. Fagerlin A, Lakhani I, Lantz PM, et al., An informed decision? Breast cancer patients and their knowledge about treatment. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 64: 303-312.
13. Hawley ST, Janz NK, Hamilton A, et al., Latina patient perspectives about informed treatment decision making for breast cancer. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73: 363-370.
14. Sepucha K, Ozanne E, Silvia K, Partridge A, Mulley AG, Jr., An approach to measuring the quality of breast cancer decisions. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 65: 261-269.
15. Burke W, Laberge AM, Press N,. Debating clinical utility. Public Health Genomics 2010; 13: 215-223.
16. Freedman AN, Wideroff L, Olson L, et al., US physicians' attitudes toward genetic testing for cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet A 2003; 120A: 63-71.
17. Vadaparampil ST, Wideroff L, Olson L, Viswanath K, Freedman AN,. Physician exposure to and attitudes toward advertisements for genetic tests for inherited cancer susceptibility. Am J Med Genet A 2005; 135: 41-46.
18. Ahmed H, Naik G, Willoughby H, Edwards AG,. Communicating risk. BMJ 2012; 344: e3996.
19. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA,. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1436-1443.
20. Garcia-Retamero R, Okan Y, Cokely ET,. Using visual aids to improve communication of risks about health: a review. ScientificWorldJournal 2012; 2012: 562637.
21. Hildon Z, Allwood D, Black N,. Impact of format and content of visual display of data on comprehension, choice and preference: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care 2012; 24: 55-64.
22. Lipkus IM,. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 696-713.
23. Nelson W, Reyna VF, Fagerlin A, Lipkus I, Peters E,. Clinical implications of numeracy: theory and practice. Ann Behav Med 2008; 35: 261-274.
24. Wallsten TS, Budescu DV, Zwick R, Kemp SM,. Preferences and reasons for communicating probabilistic information in numerical or verbal terms. Bull Psychonomic Soc 1993; 31: 135-138.
25. Brewer NT, Richman AR, Defrank JT, Reyna VF, Carey LA,. Improving communication of breast cancer recurrence risk. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 133: 553-561.
26. Han PK, Klein WM, Arora NK,. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Decis Making 2011; 31: 828-838.
27. Hulvat MC, Hansen NM, Jeruss JS,. Multidisciplinary care for patients with breast cancer. Surg Clin North Am 2009; 89: 133-76, ix.
28. Komatsu H, Nakayama K, Togari T, et al., Information sharing and case conference among the multidisciplinary team improve patients' perceptions of care. Open Nurs J 2011; 5: 79-85.
29. Peairs KS, Wolff AC, Olsen SJ, et al., Coordination of care in breast cancer survivors: an overview. J Support Oncol 2011; 9: 210-215.
30. Singh S, Butow P, Charles M, Tattersall MH,. Shared decision making in oncology: assessing oncologist behaviour in consultations in which adjuvant therapy is considered after primary surgical treatment. Health Expect 2010; 13: 244-257.
31. Sandelowski M, Sample size in qualitative research. Res Nurs Health 1995; 18: 179-183.
32. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE,. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15: 1277-1288.
33. Rogers EM,. Diffusion of Innovations. (5th edn) Free Press: New York, 2003.
34. Leard LE, Savides TJ, Ganiats TG,. Patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening. J Fam Pract 1997; 45: 211-218.
35. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH, Shared Decision-Making Workgroup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention: a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Am J Prev Med 2004; 26: 56-66.
36. U.S. Office of the Legislative Counsel. Compilation of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [as Amended through May 1, 2010]. (Available from: http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf [cited 7 March 2012]).
37. Politi MC, Studts JL, Hayslip JW,. Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know? Oncologist 2012; 17: 91-100.
38. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S,. Shared decision making-pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 780-781.
39. O'Neill SC, Valdimarsdottir HB, DeMarco TA, et al., BRCA1/2 test results impact risk management attitudes, intentions, and uptake. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 124: 755-764.
40. Barratt A, Evidence based medicine and shared decision making: the challenge of getting both evidence and preferences into health care. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 73: 407-412.
41. Spring B, Health decision making: lynchpin of evidence-based practice. Med Decis Making 2008; 28: 866-874.
42. Gurwitz D, Lunshof JE,. Personalized participatory medicine: sharing knowledge and uncertainty. Genome Med 2011; 3: 69.
43. Shaha M, Cox CL, Talman K, Kelly D,. Uncertainty in breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer: implications for supportive care. J Nurs Scholarsh 2008; 40: 60-67.
44. Babrow AS, Kline KN,. From "reducing" to "coping with" uncertainty: reconceptualizing the central challenge in breast self-exams. Soc Sci Med 2000; 51: 1805-1816.
45. Epstein RM, Hadee T, Carroll J, Meldrum SC, Lardner J, Shields CG,. "Could this be something serious?" Reassurance, uncertainty, and empathy in response to patients' expressions of worry. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22: 1731-1739.
46. Henry MS,. Uncertainty, responsibility, and the evolution of the physician/patient relationship. J Med Ethics 2006; 32: 321-323.
47. Mendick N, Young B, Holcombe C, Salmon P,. Telling "everything" but not "too much": the surgeon's dilemma in consultations about breast cancer. World J Surg 2011; 35: 2187-2195.
48. Thind A, Maly R,. The surgeon-patient interaction in older women with breast cancer: what are the determinants of a helpful discussion? Ann Surg Oncol 2006; 13: 788-793.
49. Collins ED, Moore CP, Clay KF, et al., Can women with early-stage breast cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy? J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 519-525.
50. Feero WG, Green ED,. Genomics education for health care professionals in the 21st century. JAMA 2011; 306: 989-990.
51. Lloyd FJ, Reyna VF,. Clinical gist and medical education: connecting the dots. JAMA 2009; 302: 1332-1333.
52. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ,. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl 2006; 12: 179-195.