提高患者对GEP检查结果的理解(IMPARTER4):一项随机对照试验。

BMJ oncology Pub Date : 2025-03-21 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000689
Lesley Fallowfield, Ivonne Solis-Trapala, Rachel Starkings, Lucy Matthews, Shirley May, Valerie Jenkins
{"title":"提高患者对GEP检查结果的理解(IMPARTER4):一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Lesley Fallowfield, Ivonne Solis-Trapala, Rachel Starkings, Lucy Matthews, Shirley May, Valerie Jenkins","doi":"10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong></p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Explaining gene expression profiling (GEP) test results to patients can be challenging. We examined the utility of two 8 min films about Oncotype DX and Prosigna to aid the knowledge and decision-making of women with early-stage oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>Patients awaiting GEP test results completed an anxiety questionnaire and the intolerance of uncertainty scale (IUS) before randomisation and divided into Group A (standard verbal and/or written hospital information) or Group B (standard information plus GEP film). Prior to results, they were interviewed about their GEP test knowledge and how the recurrence risk helps determine treatment options. After the results consultation, participants answered two further questionnaires. Participating clinicians completed IUS scales and reported their satisfaction with the results discussions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>230/251 patients completed the study (Group A (n=106) and Group B (n=124)). The total knowledge score was higher in Group B (estimated between groups mean difference of 2.5 (95% CI:1.7 to 3.4) p<0.001). Most treatment decisions adhered to recommended risk of recurrence thresholds, although patients with higher trait anxiety were more likely to make less apparently rational decisions OR=0.93 (95%CI 0.88 to 0.97) p=0.002 (163/230; 70.8% received ET alone; 65/230; 28% ET plus chemotherapy, and two sought second opinions). Clinicians reported slightly longer consultations for Group A participants who tended to ask more difficult and unexpected questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients who received standard verbal and written information plus film had increased knowledge about GEP tests compared with standard information alone.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>ISRCTN28497350.</p>","PeriodicalId":72436,"journal":{"name":"BMJ oncology","volume":"4 1","pages":"e000689"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931957/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.\",\"authors\":\"Lesley Fallowfield, Ivonne Solis-Trapala, Rachel Starkings, Lucy Matthews, Shirley May, Valerie Jenkins\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong></p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Explaining gene expression profiling (GEP) test results to patients can be challenging. We examined the utility of two 8 min films about Oncotype DX and Prosigna to aid the knowledge and decision-making of women with early-stage oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>Patients awaiting GEP test results completed an anxiety questionnaire and the intolerance of uncertainty scale (IUS) before randomisation and divided into Group A (standard verbal and/or written hospital information) or Group B (standard information plus GEP film). Prior to results, they were interviewed about their GEP test knowledge and how the recurrence risk helps determine treatment options. After the results consultation, participants answered two further questionnaires. Participating clinicians completed IUS scales and reported their satisfaction with the results discussions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>230/251 patients completed the study (Group A (n=106) and Group B (n=124)). The total knowledge score was higher in Group B (estimated between groups mean difference of 2.5 (95% CI:1.7 to 3.4) p<0.001). Most treatment decisions adhered to recommended risk of recurrence thresholds, although patients with higher trait anxiety were more likely to make less apparently rational decisions OR=0.93 (95%CI 0.88 to 0.97) p=0.002 (163/230; 70.8% received ET alone; 65/230; 28% ET plus chemotherapy, and two sought second opinions). Clinicians reported slightly longer consultations for Group A participants who tended to ask more difficult and unexpected questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients who received standard verbal and written information plus film had increased knowledge about GEP tests compared with standard information alone.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>ISRCTN28497350.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ oncology\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"e000689\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11931957/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000689\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjonc-2024-000689","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:目的:向患者解释基因表达谱(GEP)检测结果可能具有挑战性。我们研究了两部关于 Oncotype DX 和 Prosigna 的 8 分钟短片的效用,以帮助早期雌激素受体阳性(ER+)乳腺癌女性患者了解相关知识并做出决策:等待 GEP 检测结果的患者在随机分组前填写一份焦虑问卷和不确定性不耐受量表 (IUS),并分为 A 组(标准口头和/或书面医院信息)或 B 组(标准信息加 GEP 电影)。在结果出来之前,他们接受了关于 GEP 测试知识以及复发风险如何帮助确定治疗方案的访谈。结果咨询后,参与者还回答了另外两份问卷。结果:230/251 名患者完成了研究(A 组(106 人)和 B 组(124 人))。B 组的知识总分更高(估计组间平均差异为 2.5(95% CI:1.7 至 3.4)):与仅接受标准信息相比,接受标准口头和书面信息以及电影的患者对GEP测试的了解程度有所提高。试验登记号:ISRCTN28497350。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.

Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.

Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.

Improving patient understanding of GEP test results (IMPARTER4): an RCT.

Abstract:

Objective: Explaining gene expression profiling (GEP) test results to patients can be challenging. We examined the utility of two 8 min films about Oncotype DX and Prosigna to aid the knowledge and decision-making of women with early-stage oestrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer.

Methods and analysis: Patients awaiting GEP test results completed an anxiety questionnaire and the intolerance of uncertainty scale (IUS) before randomisation and divided into Group A (standard verbal and/or written hospital information) or Group B (standard information plus GEP film). Prior to results, they were interviewed about their GEP test knowledge and how the recurrence risk helps determine treatment options. After the results consultation, participants answered two further questionnaires. Participating clinicians completed IUS scales and reported their satisfaction with the results discussions.

Results: 230/251 patients completed the study (Group A (n=106) and Group B (n=124)). The total knowledge score was higher in Group B (estimated between groups mean difference of 2.5 (95% CI:1.7 to 3.4) p<0.001). Most treatment decisions adhered to recommended risk of recurrence thresholds, although patients with higher trait anxiety were more likely to make less apparently rational decisions OR=0.93 (95%CI 0.88 to 0.97) p=0.002 (163/230; 70.8% received ET alone; 65/230; 28% ET plus chemotherapy, and two sought second opinions). Clinicians reported slightly longer consultations for Group A participants who tended to ask more difficult and unexpected questions.

Conclusion: Patients who received standard verbal and written information plus film had increased knowledge about GEP tests compared with standard information alone.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN28497350.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信