Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2003.06.025 on October 27 2003

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Chao, C. Articles by McMasters, K. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chao, C. Articles by McMasters, K. M. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

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

From the Division of Surgical Oncology and the Department of Medicine and Behavioral Oncology Program, James Graham Brown Cancer Center; the Departments of Psychological and Brain Sciences and the Biostatistics-Decision Science Program, University of Louisville; and the Division of Medical Oncology, Norton Healthcare, Louisville, KY; Abell Research Consulting, Ouray, CO.

Address reprint requests to Celia Chao, MD, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Blvd, Route 0527, Galveston, TX 77555-0527; e-mail: cechao{at}utmb.edu or Jamie L. Studts, PhD, James Graham Brown Cancer Center, 529 S Jackson St, Louisville, KY 40202; e-mail: jamie.studts{at}louisville.edu.

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.

Supported by the Center for Advanced Surgical Technologies (CAST) of Norton Hospital, Louisville, Kentucky and the Links for Life Foundation, Louisville, Kentucky.

Both C.C. and J.L.S contributed equally to this work.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. E. Stefanek, M. A. Andrykowski, C. Lerman, S. Manne, K. Glanz, and on behalf of the AACR Behavioral Science Task Forc Behavioral Oncology and the War on Cancer: Partnering with Biomedicine Cancer Res., September 15, 2009; 69(18): 7151 - 7156. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. M.W. Pisters, W. K. Evans, C. G. Azzoli, M. G. Kris, C. A. Smith, C. E. Desch, M. R. Somerfield, M. C. Brouwers, G. Darling, P. M. Ellis, et al. Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology Adjuvant Chemotherapy and Adjuvant Radiation Therapy for Stages I-IIIA Resectable Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer Guideline J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2007; 25(34): 5506 - 5518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. C. O'Neill, N. T. Brewer, S. E. Lillie, E. F. Morrill, E. C. Dees, L. A. Carey, and B. K. Rimer Women's Interest in Gene Expression Analysis for Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2007; 25(29): 4628 - 4634. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. M. P. Klein and M. E. Stefanek Cancer Risk Elicitation and Communication: Lessons from the Psychology of Risk Perception CA Cancer J Clin, May 1, 2007; 57(3): 147 - 167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. Lillie, N. T. Brewer, S. C. O'Neill, E. F. Morrill, E. C. Dees, L. A. Carey, and B. K. Rimer Retention and Use of Breast Cancer Recurrence Risk Information from Genomic Tests: The Role of Health Literacy Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., February 1, 2007; 16(2): 249 - 255. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Harter, A. du Bois, C. Schade-Brittinger, A. Burges, K. Wollschlaeger, M. Gropp, B. Schmalfeldt, J. Huober, A. Staehle, J. Pfisterer, et al. Non-enrolment of ovarian cancer patients in clinical trials: reasons and background Ann. Onc., November 1, 2005; 16(11): 1801 - 1805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. J. Whelan and C. Loprinzi Physician/Patient Decision Aids for Adjuvant Therapy J. Clin. Oncol., March 10, 2005; 23(8): 1627 - 1630. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. B. Benson III, D. Schrag, M. R. Somerfield, A. M. Cohen, A. T. Figueredo, P. J. Flynn, M. K. Krzyzanowska, J. Maroun, P. McAllister, E. Van Cutsem, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology Recommendations on Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Stage II Colon Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., August 15, 2004; 22(16): 3408 - 3419. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. M. Epstein, B. S. Alper, and T. E. Quill Communicating Evidence for Participatory Decision Making JAMA, May 19, 2004; 291(19): 2359 - 2366. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. S. Wieand Is Relative Risk Reduction a Useful Measure for Patients or Families Who Must Choose a Method of Treatment? J. Clin. Oncol., December 1, 2003; 21(23): 4263 - 4264. [Full Text] [PDF]