Mary E Ropka1, Jess Keim, John T Philbrick. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA. mer2e@virginia.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women at high risk of breast cancer face the complex decision of whether to take tamoxifen or raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention. We investigated what is known about decisions of women regarding chemoprevention. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PSYCINFO, plus reviewing reference lists of relevant articles, in December 2009 we identified 13 studies that addressed patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention, were published in 1995 or later, were peer-reviewed primary clinical studies, and reported rates at which participants showed interest in (hypothetical uptake) or accepted (real uptake) chemoprevention medications. RESULTS: Nine studies provided information about hypothetical breast cancer chemoprevention decisions (mean uptake rate, 24.7%) and five provided information about real decisions (mean uptake rate, 14.8%). The range of rates was wide, and each of the hypothetical uptake studies assessed interest differently. A logistic regression model found significant correlation with uptake of decision type (hypothetical versus real, odds ratio [OR] = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.16), educational or decision support intervention (provided v not, OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.27), and cohort risk for breast cancer (high-risk v general population, OR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.75). Perceived vulnerability to breast cancer was consistently correlated with increased uptake, and concern for adverse effects was correlated with reduced uptake. All studies used a correlational/descriptive design, and most studies used convenience sampling strategies. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer chemoprevention uptake rates are low and variation is wide. Hypothetical uptake rates are higher than real uptake, and interventions markedly reduce uptake. Research is needed that uses reproducible sampling methods and examines decision support strategies that lead to quality decisions.
PURPOSE:Women at high risk of breast cancer face the complex decision of whether to take tamoxifen or raloxifene for breast cancer chemoprevention. We investigated what is known about decisions of women regarding chemoprevention. METHODS: Using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PSYCINFO, plus reviewing reference lists of relevant articles, in December 2009 we identified 13 studies that addressed patient decisions about breast cancer chemoprevention, were published in 1995 or later, were peer-reviewed primary clinical studies, and reported rates at which participants showed interest in (hypothetical uptake) or accepted (real uptake) chemoprevention medications. RESULTS: Nine studies provided information about hypothetical breast cancer chemoprevention decisions (mean uptake rate, 24.7%) and five provided information about real decisions (mean uptake rate, 14.8%). The range of rates was wide, and each of the hypothetical uptake studies assessed interest differently. A logistic regression model found significant correlation with uptake of decision type (hypothetical versus real, odds ratio [OR] = 1.65; 95% CI, 1.26 to 2.16), educational or decision support intervention (provided v not, OR = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.27), and cohort risk for breast cancer (high-risk v general population, OR = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.75). Perceived vulnerability to breast cancer was consistently correlated with increased uptake, and concern for adverse effects was correlated with reduced uptake. All studies used a correlational/descriptive design, and most studies used convenience sampling strategies. CONCLUSION:Breast cancer chemoprevention uptake rates are low and variation is wide. Hypothetical uptake rates are higher than real uptake, and interventions markedly reduce uptake. Research is needed that uses reproducible sampling methods and examines decision support strategies that lead to quality decisions.
Authors: Victor G Vogel; Joseph P Costantino; D Lawrence Wickerham; Walter M Cronin; Reena S Cecchini; James N Atkins; Therese B Bevers; Louis Fehrenbacher; Eduardo R Pajon; James L Wade; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; Joan James; Scott M Lippman; Carolyn D Runowicz; Patricia A Ganz; Steven E Reis; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Leslie G Ford; V Craig Jordan; Norman Wolmark Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-06-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Celia Patricia Kaplan; Jennifer S Haas; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Steven E Gregorich; Carol Somkin; Genevieve Des Jarlais; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-04-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary E Ropka; Jennifer Wenzel; Elayne K Phillips; Mir Siadaty; John T Philbrick Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Vijayan Nair; Holly A Derry; Jennifer B McClure; Sarah Greene; Azadeh Stark; Sharon Hensley Alford; Paula Lantz; Daniel F Hayes; Cheryl Wiese; Sarah Claud Zweig; Rosemarie Pitsch; Aleksandra Jankovic; Peter A Ubel Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Kala Visvanathan; Rowan T Chlebowski; Patricia Hurley; Nananda F Col; Mary Ropka; Deborah Collyar; Monica Morrow; Carolyn Runowicz; Kathleen I Pritchard; Karen Hagerty; Banu Arun; Judy Garber; Victor G Vogel; James L Wade; Powel Brown; Jack Cuzick; Barnett S Kramer; Scott M Lippman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laura L Reimers; Parijatham S Sivasubramanian; Dawn Hershman; Mary Beth Terry; Heather Greenlee; Julie Campbell; Kevin Kalinsky; Matthew Maurer; Ramona Jayasena; Rossy Sandoval; Maria Alvarez; Katherine D Crew Journal: Breast J Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Richard G Roetzheim; Ji-Hyun Lee; William Fulp; Elizabeth Matos Gomez; Elissa Clayton; Sharon Tollin; Nazanin Khakpour; Christine Laronga; Marie Catherine Lee; John V Kiluk Journal: Breast Date: 2014-12-06 Impact factor: 4.380