Y Bombard1, L Rozmovits2, M E Trudeau3, N B Leighl4, K Deal5, D A Marshall5. 1. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON. 2. Independent qualitative researcher. 3. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON. 4. University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. ; Division of Medical Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON. 5. McMaster University, DeGroote School of Business, Hamilton, ON.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Determining the likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer patients depends on estimating baseline recurrence risk. Gene expression profile (gep) testing of tumours informs risk prediction, but evidence of its clinical utility is limited. We explored patient perceptions of gep testing and the impact of those perceptions on chemotherapy decisions. METHODS: We conducted one focus group (n = 4) and individual interviews (n = 24) with patients who used gep testing, recruited through clinics at two hospitals in Ontario. Data were analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS: Patients' understanding of gep testing was variable, and misapprehensions were common. Patients valued the test because it provided them with certainty amidst confusion, with options and a sense of empowerment, and with personalized, authoritative information. They commonly believed that the test was better and fundamentally different from other clinical tests, attributing to it unique power and truth-value. This kind of "magical thinking" was derived from an amplified perception of the test's validity and patients' need for reassurance about their treatment choices. Despite misperceptions or magical thinking, gep was widely considered to be the deciding factor in treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tend to overestimate the truth-value of gep testing based on misperceptions of its validity. Our results identify a need to better support patient understanding of the test and its limitations. Findings illustrate the deep emotional investment patients make in gep test results and the impact of that investment on their treatment decisions.
INTRODUCTION: Determining the likely benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancerpatients depends on estimating baseline recurrence risk. Gene expression profile (gep) testing of tumours informs risk prediction, but evidence of its clinical utility is limited. We explored patient perceptions of gep testing and the impact of those perceptions on chemotherapy decisions. METHODS: We conducted one focus group (n = 4) and individual interviews (n = 24) with patients who used gep testing, recruited through clinics at two hospitals in Ontario. Data were analyzed using content analysis and constant comparison techniques. RESULTS:Patients' understanding of gep testing was variable, and misapprehensions were common. Patients valued the test because it provided them with certainty amidst confusion, with options and a sense of empowerment, and with personalized, authoritative information. They commonly believed that the test was better and fundamentally different from other clinical tests, attributing to it unique power and truth-value. This kind of "magical thinking" was derived from an amplified perception of the test's validity and patients' need for reassurance about their treatment choices. Despite misperceptions or magical thinking, gep was widely considered to be the deciding factor in treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS:Patients tend to overestimate the truth-value of gep testing based on misperceptions of its validity. Our results identify a need to better support patient understanding of the test and its limitations. Findings illustrate the deep emotional investment patients make in gep test results and the impact of that investment on their treatment decisions.
Authors: Juhi Asad; Allyson F Jacobson; Alison Estabrook; Sharon Rosenbaum Smith; Susan K Boolbol; Sheldon M Feldman; Michael P Osborne; Kwadwo Boachie-Adjei; Wendy Twardzik; Paul I Tartter Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Janice P Tzeng; Deborah Mayer; Alice R Richman; Isaac Lipkus; Paul K Han; Carmina G Valle; Lisa A Carey; Noel T Brewer Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lida Mina; Sharon E Soule; Sunil Badve; Fredrick L Baehner; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Drew Watson; Mei-Lan Liu; George W Sledge; Steve Shak; Kathy D Miller Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-10-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Xiao-Jun Ma; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Wilson Wang; Li Ding; Dennis C Sgroi; Richard A Bender; C Kent Osborne; D Craig Allred; Mark G Erlander Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Luigi Marchionni; Renee F Wilson; Spyridon S Marinopoulos; Antonio C Wolff; Giovanni Parmigiani; Eric B Bass; Steven N Goodman Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2007-12
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Alrick S Edwards; Suzanne C O'Neill; Janice P Tzeng; Lisa A Carey; Barbara K Rimer Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Leonard R Henry; Alexander Stojadinovic; Sandra M Swain; Sheila Prindiville; Rose Cordes; Peter W Soballe Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2009-05-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Shelly S Lo; Patricia B Mumby; John Norton; Karen Rychlik; Jeffrey Smerage; Joseph Kash; Helen K Chew; Ellen R Gaynor; Daniel F Hayes; Andrew Epstein; Kathy S Albain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marc Buyse; Sherene Loi; Laura van't Veer; Giuseppe Viale; Mauro Delorenzi; Annuska M Glas; Mahasti Saghatchian d'Assignies; Jonas Bergh; Rosette Lidereau; Paul Ellis; Adrian Harris; Jan Bogaerts; Patrick Therasse; Arno Floore; Mohamed Amakrane; Fanny Piette; Emiel Rutgers; Christos Sotiriou; Fatima Cardoso; Martine J Piccart Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-09-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Chalanda N Evans; Noel T Brewer; Susan T Vadaparampil; Marc Boisvert; Yvonne Ottaviano; M Catherine Lee; Claudine Isaacs; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Susan Garfeld; Michael P Douglas; Karen V MacDonald; Deborah A Marshall; Kathryn A Phillips Journal: Per Med Date: 2015-01-01 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: S Pérez Ramírez; M Del Monte-Millán; S López-Tarruella; N Martínez Jáñez; I Márquez-Rodas; F Lobo Samper; Y Izarzugaza Perón; C Rubio Terres; D Rubio Rodríguez; J Á García-Sáenz; F Moreno Antón; P Zamora Auñón; M Arroyo Yustos; M Á Lara Álvarez; E M Ciruelos Gil; L Manso Sánchez; M J Echarri González; J A Guerra Martínez; C Jara Sánchez; C Bueno Muiño; S García Adrián; J R Carrión Galindo; V Valentín Maganto; M Martín Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-07-12 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Patricia Birch; S Adam; N Bansback; R R Coe; J Hicklin; A Lehman; K C Li; J M Friedman Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 2.537