BACKGROUND: Accurate breast cancer recurrence risk perceptions might motivate health-promoting behaviors and alleviate undue anxiety. Although a few studies have examined early-stage breast cancer survivors' perceived risk of recurrence, none have assessed the accuracy of survivors' perceived risk of recurrence. METHODS: First primary ductal carcinoma in situ and early-invasive breast cancer survivors reported their perceived risk of recurrence during 6- and 12-month postsurgery interviews. We estimated the patients' 10-year risk of recurrence from published clinical trials, and for early-invasive breast cancer patients, risk of distant recurrence was based on their breast cancer-specific mortality calculated using Adjuvant! Online. Patients' perceived risk was compared with their calculated risk and categorized as "Accurate," "Underestimated," "Overestimated," and "Uncertain." Multinomial logit marginal effect models were fitted using Accurate as the reference. RESULTS: Only 17% of 531 patients accurately perceived their risk at 6 months, most of whom inaccurately perceived their risk at 12 months (P = 0.0143). Patients who were nonwhite [odds ratio (OR), 1.70; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.12-2.56] and received radiation therapy (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.07-3.77) were more likely to underestimate their risk. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.79), [corrected] lower social support (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.95), and anxiety (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.47) were more likely to overestimate their risk. CONCLUSION: Few breast cancer survivors accurately perceived their risk of recurrence. IMPACT: The accuracy of perceived risk may be increased by better physician-patient communications about their prognosis, provision of social support, and treatment for coexisting anxiety.
BACKGROUND: Accurate breast cancer recurrence risk perceptions might motivate health-promoting behaviors and alleviate undue anxiety. Although a few studies have examined early-stage breast cancer survivors' perceived risk of recurrence, none have assessed the accuracy of survivors' perceived risk of recurrence. METHODS: First primary ductal carcinoma in situ and early-invasive breast cancer survivors reported their perceived risk of recurrence during 6- and 12-month postsurgery interviews. We estimated the patients' 10-year risk of recurrence from published clinical trials, and for early-invasive breast cancerpatients, risk of distant recurrence was based on their breast cancer-specific mortality calculated using Adjuvant! Online. Patients' perceived risk was compared with their calculated risk and categorized as "Accurate," "Underestimated," "Overestimated," and "Uncertain." Multinomial logit marginal effect models were fitted using Accurate as the reference. RESULTS: Only 17% of 531 patients accurately perceived their risk at 6 months, most of whom inaccurately perceived their risk at 12 months (P = 0.0143). Patients who were nonwhite [odds ratio (OR), 1.70; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.12-2.56] and received radiation therapy (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.07-3.77) were more likely to underestimate their risk. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.11-2.79), [corrected] lower social support (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.95), and anxiety (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.01-2.47) were more likely to overestimate their risk. CONCLUSION: Few breast cancer survivors accurately perceived their risk of recurrence. IMPACT: The accuracy of perceived risk may be increased by better physician-patient communications about their prognosis, provision of social support, and treatment for coexisting anxiety.
Authors: H Bartelink; J C Horiot; P Poortmans; H Struikmans; W Van den Bogaert; I Barillot; A Fourquet; J Borger; J Jager; W Hoogenraad; L Collette; M Pierart Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eileen Rakovitch; Edmee Franssen; John Kim; Ida Ackerman; Jean-Philippe Pignol; Lawrence Paszat; Kathleen I Pritchard; Cindy Ho; Donald A Redelmeier Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Joan Houghton; W D George; Jack Cuzick; Catherine Duggan; Ian S Fentiman; Margaret Spittle Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bernard Fisher; Stewart Anderson; John Bryant; Richard G Margolese; Melvin Deutsch; Edwin R Fisher; Jong-Hyeon Jeong; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-10-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ann H Partridge; Joann G Elmore; Debbie Saslow; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Stuart J Schnitt Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-04-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Karen Kaiser; Kenzie A Cameron; Jennifer Beaumont; Sofia F Garcia; Leilani Lacson; Margaret Moran; Lindsey Karavites; Chiara Rodgers; Swati Kulkarni; Nora M Hansen; Seema A Khan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2019-03-06 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Erika A Waters; William M P Klein; Richard P Moser; Mandi Yu; William R Waldron; Timothy S McNeel; Andrew N Freedman Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2010-11-26
Authors: Ying Liu; Maria Pérez; Mario Schootman; Rebecca L Aft; William E Gillanders; Donna B Jeffe Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-05-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kathryn A Martinez; Yun Li; Ken Resnicow; John J Graff; Ann S Hamilton; Sarah T Hawley Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-12-22 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Shoshana M Rosenberg; Michaela S Tracy; Meghan E Meyer; Karen Sepucha; Shari Gelber; Judi Hirshfield-Bartek; Susan Troyan; Monica Morrow; Lidia Schapira; Steven E Come; Eric P Winer; Ann H Partridge Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sandi L Pruitt; Amy McQueen; Anjali D Deshpande; Donna B Jeffe; Mario Schootman Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2012-07-26 Impact factor: 2.506