Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making

Celia Chao, Jamie L. Studts, Troy Abell, Terence Hadley, Lynne Roetzer, Sean Dineen, Doug Lorenz, Ahmed YoussefAgha, Kelly M. McMasters

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

69 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of four methods of communicating survival benefits on chemotherapy decisions. We hypothesized that the four methods of communicating mathematically equivalent risk information would lead to different chemotherapy decisions. Methods: Each participant received two hypothetical scenarios regarding their mother (a postmenopausal woman with an invasive, lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer) and was asked to decide whether they would encourage their mother to take chemotherapy in addition to surgery and tamoxifen. In the part 1, participants received one of four methods of describing the chemotherapy survival benefit: (1) relative risk reduction, (2) absolute risk reduction, (3) absolute survival benefit, or (4) number needed to treat. In part 2, each participant received all four methods. Following each decision, participants were asked to rate their confidence and confusion regarding their decision. Results: Participants included 203 preclinical medical students. In part 1, participants who received relative risk reduction information were significantly more likely to endorse chemotherapy. In part 2, there were no treatment decision differences when participants received all four methods of communicating survival benefits of chemotherapy. However, receiving all four methods led to significantly higher ratings of confusion. In deciding on endorsing chemotherapy, participants understood the information best when presented with data in the absolute survival benefit format. Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that the method used to present information about chemotherapy influences treatment decisions. Absolute survival benefit is the most easily understood method of conveying the information regarding benefit of treatment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4299-4305
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume21
Issue number23
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Adjuvant Chemotherapy
Decision Making
Breast Neoplasms
Recurrence
Drug Therapy
Survival
Numbers Needed To Treat
Risk Reduction Behavior
Mothers
Confusion
Tamoxifen
Medical Students
Therapeutics
Lymph Nodes
Hormones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer : How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. / Chao, Celia; Studts, Jamie L.; Abell, Troy; Hadley, Terence; Roetzer, Lynne; Dineen, Sean; Lorenz, Doug; YoussefAgha, Ahmed; McMasters, Kelly M.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 21, No. 23, 01.12.2003, p. 4299-4305.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chao, C, Studts, JL, Abell, T, Hadley, T, Roetzer, L, Dineen, S, Lorenz, D, YoussefAgha, A & McMasters, KM 2003, 'Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making', Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 21, no. 23, pp. 4299-4305. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.06.025
Chao, Celia ; Studts, Jamie L. ; Abell, Troy ; Hadley, Terence ; Roetzer, Lynne ; Dineen, Sean ; Lorenz, Doug ; YoussefAgha, Ahmed ; McMasters, Kelly M. / Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer : How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2003 ; Vol. 21, No. 23. pp. 4299-4305.
@article{118e894fe885482bbb9fde286bd73a3c,
title = "Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of four methods of communicating survival benefits on chemotherapy decisions. We hypothesized that the four methods of communicating mathematically equivalent risk information would lead to different chemotherapy decisions. Methods: Each participant received two hypothetical scenarios regarding their mother (a postmenopausal woman with an invasive, lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer) and was asked to decide whether they would encourage their mother to take chemotherapy in addition to surgery and tamoxifen. In the part 1, participants received one of four methods of describing the chemotherapy survival benefit: (1) relative risk reduction, (2) absolute risk reduction, (3) absolute survival benefit, or (4) number needed to treat. In part 2, each participant received all four methods. Following each decision, participants were asked to rate their confidence and confusion regarding their decision. Results: Participants included 203 preclinical medical students. In part 1, participants who received relative risk reduction information were significantly more likely to endorse chemotherapy. In part 2, there were no treatment decision differences when participants received all four methods of communicating survival benefits of chemotherapy. However, receiving all four methods led to significantly higher ratings of confusion. In deciding on endorsing chemotherapy, participants understood the information best when presented with data in the absolute survival benefit format. Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that the method used to present information about chemotherapy influences treatment decisions. Absolute survival benefit is the most easily understood method of conveying the information regarding benefit of treatment.",
author = "Celia Chao and Studts, {Jamie L.} and Troy Abell and Terence Hadley and Lynne Roetzer and Sean Dineen and Doug Lorenz and Ahmed YoussefAgha and McMasters, {Kelly M.}",
year = "2003",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2003.06.025",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "21",
pages = "4299--4305",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "23",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer

T2 - How presentation of recurrence risk influences decision-making

AU - Chao, Celia

AU - Studts, Jamie L.

AU - Abell, Troy

AU - Hadley, Terence

AU - Roetzer, Lynne

AU - Dineen, Sean

AU - Lorenz, Doug

AU - YoussefAgha, Ahmed

AU - McMasters, Kelly M.

PY - 2003/12/1

Y1 - 2003/12/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of four methods of communicating survival benefits on chemotherapy decisions. We hypothesized that the four methods of communicating mathematically equivalent risk information would lead to different chemotherapy decisions. Methods: Each participant received two hypothetical scenarios regarding their mother (a postmenopausal woman with an invasive, lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer) and was asked to decide whether they would encourage their mother to take chemotherapy in addition to surgery and tamoxifen. In the part 1, participants received one of four methods of describing the chemotherapy survival benefit: (1) relative risk reduction, (2) absolute risk reduction, (3) absolute survival benefit, or (4) number needed to treat. In part 2, each participant received all four methods. Following each decision, participants were asked to rate their confidence and confusion regarding their decision. Results: Participants included 203 preclinical medical students. In part 1, participants who received relative risk reduction information were significantly more likely to endorse chemotherapy. In part 2, there were no treatment decision differences when participants received all four methods of communicating survival benefits of chemotherapy. However, receiving all four methods led to significantly higher ratings of confusion. In deciding on endorsing chemotherapy, participants understood the information best when presented with data in the absolute survival benefit format. Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that the method used to present information about chemotherapy influences treatment decisions. Absolute survival benefit is the most easily understood method of conveying the information regarding benefit of treatment.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of four methods of communicating survival benefits on chemotherapy decisions. We hypothesized that the four methods of communicating mathematically equivalent risk information would lead to different chemotherapy decisions. Methods: Each participant received two hypothetical scenarios regarding their mother (a postmenopausal woman with an invasive, lymph node-negative, hormone receptor-positive breast cancer) and was asked to decide whether they would encourage their mother to take chemotherapy in addition to surgery and tamoxifen. In the part 1, participants received one of four methods of describing the chemotherapy survival benefit: (1) relative risk reduction, (2) absolute risk reduction, (3) absolute survival benefit, or (4) number needed to treat. In part 2, each participant received all four methods. Following each decision, participants were asked to rate their confidence and confusion regarding their decision. Results: Participants included 203 preclinical medical students. In part 1, participants who received relative risk reduction information were significantly more likely to endorse chemotherapy. In part 2, there were no treatment decision differences when participants received all four methods of communicating survival benefits of chemotherapy. However, receiving all four methods led to significantly higher ratings of confusion. In deciding on endorsing chemotherapy, participants understood the information best when presented with data in the absolute survival benefit format. Conclusion: These results support the hypothesis that the method used to present information about chemotherapy influences treatment decisions. Absolute survival benefit is the most easily understood method of conveying the information regarding benefit of treatment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0642307268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0642307268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2003.06.025

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2003.06.025

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 4299

EP - 4305

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 23

ER -