Results Summary and Professional Abstract
Final Research Report
View this project's final research report.
|Article Highlight: Women with nonhereditary breast cancer who opted to have a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) experienced higher levels of precancer surgery worry, compared with women who did not have the prophylactic surgery, according to researchers in this study. In a recent Journal of Clinical Oncology report the researchers noted, however, that postsurgery worry diminished over time and was similar to that of women who did not have a CPM. The researchers suggest that physicians might consider discussing pre- and postsurgery worry with their patients, which can be a key factor in decisions about whether to have a CPM. The study surveyed 288 women, including 50 who had CPM, and 238 who had a unilateral mastectomy or breast conserving surgery.|
Results of This Project
Choosing the Right Breast Cancer Treatment
This narrative highlights the research team's efforts to better understand the effects of choosing double mastectomy on women’s cancer distress and body image.
Peer review of PCORI-funded research helps ensure the report presents complete, balanced, and useful information about the research. It also confirms that the research has followed PCORI’s Methodology Standards. During peer review, experts who were not members of the research team read a draft report of the research. These experts may include a scientist focused on the research topic, a specialist in research methods, a patient or caregiver, and a healthcare professional. Reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the study.
Peer reviewers point out where the draft report may need to be revised. For example, they may suggest ways to improve how the research team analyzed its results or reported its conclusions. Learn more about PCORI’s peer review process here.
In response to peer review, the PI made changes including
- Providing additional information about how the investigators developed the model on which decision analyses were based
- Explaining that the variables in Aim 1 came from previous literature rather than a conceptual or theoretical framework. No such framework drove the research, so the study may be missing important ways that women with breast cancer differ from those without breast cancer
- Updating the limitations section to acknowledge the lack of theoretical framework for the research, as well as the use of health state utility data from literature to adjust the decision analysis instead of obtaining the data from study participants in Aim 2. This choice was made to avoid increased burden on those participants
- Clarifying that Aims 1 and 2 are separate studies by dividing the background, methods, and results sections to keep these studies separate
Conflict of Interest Disclosures
View the COI disclosure form.
Shared Decision Making
Other Health Services Interventions
Training and Education Interventions
*Patricia A. Parker, PhD was the original principal investigator for this project.