The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Survey of breast cancer patients concerning their knowledge and expectations of adjuvant therapy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A survey of breast cancer survivors in the United States was conducted to define what they had been told about their prognosis and the value of adjuvant therapy, what they estimated their prognosis to be with and without adjuvant therapy, and what level of improvement they would have found minimally worthwhile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey questionnaires were mailed to individual members and member organizations of the National Alliance of Breast Cancer Organizations (NABCO). Questionnaires were returned anonymously in prepaid mailers. Five hundred sixty-two women responded. Of these, the 318 women who received adjuvant chemotherapy were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Only 39% of the women recalled receiving quantitative estimates of their prognosis, and only 31% of women received a quantitative estimate both with and without adjuvant therapy. Sixty-eight percent of the women were able to provide a quantitative estimate for their outcome at 5 years both with and without adjuvant therapy. From these estimates, we calculated that the median estimated proportional risk reduction for recurrence that women thought they had achieved was 79%. Women were asked what degree of absolute benefit they would have found acceptable. The median acceptable extension of life expectancy was 3 to 6 months, and acceptable reduction in recurrence risk was 0.5% to 1.0%. However, there was considerable variation, with 27% of women not accepting less than 1 year and 26% not accepting a less than 5% reduction in recurrence risk. CONCLUSION: In general, American women in the surveyed population (1) do not recall being provided quantitative estimates of outcome during the process of making decisions about adjuvant therapy, (2) overestimate the value of their therapy, and (3) often will accept remarkably low degrees of net benefit. Overall, these observations can be used to support the argument that improvements in doctor/patient communication may be important to truly informed decision-making, and that flexibility for individual patients' preferences should not be superseded by rigid treatment guidelines.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Benson, A. B., Schrag, D., Somerfield, M. R., Cohen, A. M., Figueredo, A. T., Flynn, P. J., Krzyzanowska, M. K., Maroun, J., McAllister, P., Van Cutsem, E., et al. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.05.063 · Cited by 1,430
Gill, S., Loprinzi, C. L., Sargent, D. J., Thomé, S. D., Alberts, S. R., Haller, D. G., Benedetti, J., Francini, G., Shepherd, L. E., Francois Seitz, J., et al. (2004) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2004.09.059 · Cited by 1,021
Recht, A., Edge, S. B., Solin, L. J., Robinson, D. S., Estabrook, A., Fine, R. E., Fleming, G. F., Formenti, S., Hudis, C., Kirshner, J. J., et al. (2001) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2001.19.5.1539 · Cited by 816
Hoffmann, T. C., & Del Mar, C. (2015) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016 · Cited by 707
Goldhirsch, A., Wood, W. C., Gelber, R. D., Coates, A. S., Thürlimann, B., & Senn, H.-J. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2003.04.576 · Cited by 697
Metadata
- Authors
- Ravdin, P. M., Siminoff, I. A., & Harvey, J. A.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1998-02
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 515-521
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2163419419
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Survey of breast cancer patients concerning their knowledge and expectations of adjuvant therapy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1998.16.2.515
- The paper
- Ravdin, P. M., Siminoff, I. A., & Harvey, J. A. (1998). Survey of breast cancer patients concerning their knowledge and expectations of adjuvant therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.2.515
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.