PURPOSE: We examined how women incorporate potentially differing genomic and standard assessments of breast cancer recurrence risk into chemotherapy decisions. METHODS: 165 women previously treated for early-stage breast cancer indicated their interest in chemotherapy regimens to prevent recurrence of breast cancer in response to six hypothetical vignettes that presented breast cancer recurrence risk estimates from standard criteria and a genomic test, some of which were discordant. RESULTS: Standard and genomic test results each elicited greater interest in chemotherapy when they indicated high rather than low risk for recurrence (89% vs. 26%, and 87% vs. 22%, respectively, Ps < 0.001). Genomic test results had a larger impact on chemotherapy preferences than standard measures to predict recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Some women may be reluctant to forgo chemotherapy when genomic tests indicate low recurrence risk but standard criteria suggest high risk. Additional research including replication of the findings of this small, vignette-based study is needed.
PURPOSE: We examined how women incorporate potentially differing genomic and standard assessments of breast cancer recurrence risk into chemotherapy decisions. METHODS: 165 women previously treated for early-stage breast cancer indicated their interest in chemotherapy regimens to prevent recurrence of breast cancer in response to six hypothetical vignettes that presented breast cancer recurrence risk estimates from standard criteria and a genomic test, some of which were discordant. RESULTS: Standard and genomic test results each elicited greater interest in chemotherapy when they indicated high rather than low risk for recurrence (89% vs. 26%, and 87% vs. 22%, respectively, Ps < 0.001). Genomic test results had a larger impact on chemotherapy preferences than standard measures to predict recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Some women may be reluctant to forgo chemotherapy when genomic tests indicate low recurrence risk but standard criteria suggest high risk. Additional research including replication of the findings of this small, vignette-based study is needed.
Authors: Michael A Andrykowski; Jessica L Burris; Erin Walsh; Brent J Small; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N T Brewer; J T Defrank; W K Chiu; J G Ibrahim; C M Walko; P Rubin; O A Olajide; S G Moore; R E Raab; D R Carrizosa; S W Corso; G Schwartz; J M Peppercorn; H L McLeod; L A Carey; W J Irvin Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2014-01-22 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Catharine Wang; Erynn S Gordon; Tricia Norkunas; Lisa Wawak; Ching-Ti Liu; Michael Winter; Rachel S Kasper; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Deborah J Bowen Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Alice R Richman; Jessica T DeFrank; Valerie F Reyna; Lisa A Carey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kay Schreuder; Anne Kuijer; Sanne Bentum; Thijs van Dalen; Sabine Siesling Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Catharine Wang; Erynn S Gordon; Catharine B Stack; Ching-Ti Liu; Tricia Norkunas; Lisa Wawak; Michael F Christman; Robert C Green; Deborah J Bowen Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 2.486