Introduction Informed decision making is recommended in breast cancer screening. Decision aids with balanced information on harms and benefits are recommended to support informed decision making. However, informed screening decision making may be challenged by overly positive attitudes toward cancer screening. We hypothesized that a substantial proportion of Danish women would want to participate in screening regardless of the presented information. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of Danish women wanting to participate in a hypothetical breast cancer screening offering no reduction in breast cancer mortality but potential harms related to unnecessary treatment. Methods In a cross-sectional study, we invited a random sample of 751 women in the nonscreening population aged 44 to 49 y in the Central Denmark Region to an online questionnaire using the official digital mailbox system. The questionnaire included a description of a hypothetical screening and questions about thoughts on breast cancer, health literacy, and questions on the assessment of the hypothetical screening including intended participation, understanding, and belief in information. Data were linked to register data on sociodemographic factors. Results In total, 43.0% (323/751) responded to the questionnaire. Of these, 247 (82.3% [95% confidence interval: 77.5–86.5]) wanted to participate in the hypothetical breast cancer screening (participation group). More than two-thirds in both the participation group and nonparticipation group seemed to understand the presented information. Half of the women who understood the information disbelieved it. Conclusions Exceeding our expectations, a majority of women wanted to participate in a hypothetical screening with potential harms but no reduction in breast cancer mortality. A large proportion understood but disbelieved the screening information. This could indicate that Danish women make their screening decisions based on beliefs rather than presented screening information. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04509063) Highlights The majority of Danish women wanted to participate in a hypothetical breast cancer screening with potential harms related to unnecessary treatment but no reduction in mortality. A large proportion of women understood but disbelieved the hypothetical screening information. Informed decision making may be challenging when women disbelieve the information they receive. Enthusiasm for cancer screening and potential disbelief in information are important factors when developing and improving screening information and invitation.
Background. Gain in mean survival time from new cancer treatments is a core component of cost-effectiveness analyses frequently used by payers for reimbursement decisions. Due to limited follow-up time, clinical trials rarely report this measure, whereas they often report hazard ratios comparing treatment groups. Aim. We aimed to explore the empirical relationship between gain in mean survival time and the hazard ratio for cancer patients. Methods. We included all patients in Norway diagnosed from 1965 through 2004 with late-stage cancer at the point of diagnosis and with one of the following cancers: stomach, colon, rectal, pancreas, lung and trachea, kidney excluding renal pelvis, and metastasized breast and prostate. Patients were followed until emigration, death, or June 30, 2016, whichever came first. Observed mean survival times and hazard ratios were obtained in subcohorts defined by patients’ sex, age, cancer type, and time period of diagnosis, which had nearly complete follow-up. Based on theoretical considerations, we fitted a linear relationship between observed differences in mean survival and logarithmic hazard ratios. For validation, we estimated differences in mean survival from hazard ratios of bootstrap samples with artificially induced censoring and compared with fitting a Weibull distribution. Results. The relationship between differences in mean survival time and corresponding logarithmic hazard ratios was linear for each of the included cancers. The predicted differences in mean survival of the empirical approach generally had smaller bias than the Weibull approach. Conclusion. For cancer diagnoses with poor prognosis, differences in mean survival times could be predicted from corresponding hazard ratios. This hazard ratio–based approach outperforms or is similar to fitting Weibull models to data with incomplete follow-up, while making fewer assumptions.
Background Relative reduction in breast cancer mortality is the preferred outcome measure for evaluation of mammography screening. However, mean survival time has been advocated as a better and more intuitive outcome for risk communication. We have previously introduced a method to predict difference in mean survival time from empirical hazard ratios for all-cause mortality. In this article, we aim to investigate the association between hazard ratios for breast cancer mortality and the difference in mean survival time for women diagnosed with breast cancer. Methods We retrieved data on all women diagnosed with first-time invasive breast cancer in Norway from 1960 through 2004. Women were followed until emigration or end of follow-up on 31 December 2015, whichever came first. Observed differences in mean survival times and hazard ratios for both breast cancer death and death from causes other than breast cancer were obtained for neighbouring time periods defined by women’s age and year of diagnosis. Based on previously developed methods, we fitted a linear relationship between observed differences in mean survival and logarithmic hazard ratios. Results A linear association was found between breast cancer-specific hazard ratios and difference in mean survival time for women diagnosed with breast cancer. This association was also estimated with adjustment for other causes of death than breast cancer. Conclusions The change in mean survival time could be predicted from an estimated reduction in breast cancer mortality. This outcome measure can contribute to better and more understandable risk information about the effect of mammography screening programmes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.