预后,治疗决策和价值:对乳腺癌预后分析新作用的定性探讨。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-07-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0322509
Gillian Parker, Stuart Hogarth, Jennifer Fishman, Fiona A Miller
{"title":"预后,治疗决策和价值:对乳腺癌预后分析新作用的定性探讨。","authors":"Gillian Parker, Stuart Hogarth, Jennifer Fishman, Fiona A Miller","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0322509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast cancer prognostic assays are emerging as tools used by physicians in the cancer treatment decision-making process. This technology is new, and we must interrogate the integration of these assays into clinical practice and their effect on prognosis and treatment for both providers and patients. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives on the use and integration of breast cancer prognostic assays in clinical care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>15 international researcher-physician/scientist key opinion leaders who had conducted studies on breast cancer prognostic assays were interviewed. Participants had conducted studies using five different assays. The interview guide was developed through a literature review and leveraged extensive data collected on key clinical utility outcomes for the assays. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three novel themes emerged from participant's perspectives on the use and value of these assays. The emerging role of prognostic assays to identify overtreatment and unnecessary care was highlighted by the majority of participants. The primary value of these tools is to identify patients who will not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants reported that current standard practice is to overtreat and portrayed the binary or definitive results of these assays as an important tool to reduce overtreatment. Participants also provided insights into deliberate efforts to integrate the assays into clinical practice and how improved quality of life and reduction in overtreatment was positioned to justify high cost of the assay. Finally, participants reported how the perspectives and uses of these assays vary significantly in different countries and cultures. This jurisdictional variation in cancer prognosis and treatment was observed as producing uneven and sometimes problematic interpretations of value for the assays.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study provide insights into the integration of prognostic assays into healthcare services. The assays are seeking to extend the boundaries of their clinical utility through identifying overtreatment and low value care. Efforts to integrate these assays and justify their high prices are unpacked and reveal complex and contradictory factors. Finally, these results illuminate that the varied approaches to cancer treatment, and varied use of chemotherapy create disparate perceptions of value for the assays.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 7","pages":"e0322509"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274007/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.\",\"authors\":\"Gillian Parker, Stuart Hogarth, Jennifer Fishman, Fiona A Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0322509\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Breast cancer prognostic assays are emerging as tools used by physicians in the cancer treatment decision-making process. This technology is new, and we must interrogate the integration of these assays into clinical practice and their effect on prognosis and treatment for both providers and patients. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives on the use and integration of breast cancer prognostic assays in clinical care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>15 international researcher-physician/scientist key opinion leaders who had conducted studies on breast cancer prognostic assays were interviewed. Participants had conducted studies using five different assays. The interview guide was developed through a literature review and leveraged extensive data collected on key clinical utility outcomes for the assays. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three novel themes emerged from participant's perspectives on the use and value of these assays. The emerging role of prognostic assays to identify overtreatment and unnecessary care was highlighted by the majority of participants. The primary value of these tools is to identify patients who will not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants reported that current standard practice is to overtreat and portrayed the binary or definitive results of these assays as an important tool to reduce overtreatment. Participants also provided insights into deliberate efforts to integrate the assays into clinical practice and how improved quality of life and reduction in overtreatment was positioned to justify high cost of the assay. Finally, participants reported how the perspectives and uses of these assays vary significantly in different countries and cultures. This jurisdictional variation in cancer prognosis and treatment was observed as producing uneven and sometimes problematic interpretations of value for the assays.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study provide insights into the integration of prognostic assays into healthcare services. The assays are seeking to extend the boundaries of their clinical utility through identifying overtreatment and low value care. Efforts to integrate these assays and justify their high prices are unpacked and reveal complex and contradictory factors. Finally, these results illuminate that the varied approaches to cancer treatment, and varied use of chemotherapy create disparate perceptions of value for the assays.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 7\",\"pages\":\"e0322509\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274007/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322509\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322509","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:乳腺癌预后检测正在成为医生在癌症治疗决策过程中使用的工具。这项技术是新的,我们必须将这些检测整合到临床实践中,以及它们对提供者和患者的预后和治疗的影响。本研究的目的是探讨在临床护理中使用和整合乳腺癌预后分析的观点。方法:访谈了15位从事乳腺癌预后分析研究的国际研究医师/科学家关键意见领袖。参与者使用五种不同的分析方法进行研究。访谈指南是通过文献综述制定的,并利用了收集的大量数据,这些数据是关于检测的关键临床效用结果的。所有的采访都是虚拟的,记录的,并逐字记录。采用专题分析对数据进行分析。结果:三个新颖的主题出现从参与者的角度对这些分析的使用和价值。大多数参与者强调了预后分析在识别过度治疗和不必要护理方面的新作用。这些工具的主要价值是识别不能从辅助化疗中获益的患者。参与者报告说,目前的标准做法是过度治疗,并将这些检测的二元或明确结果描述为减少过度治疗的重要工具。参与者还提供了关于将检测整合到临床实践中的刻意努力的见解,以及如何将生活质量的改善和过度治疗的减少定位为证明检测的高成本是合理的。最后,与会者报告了这些分析的观点和使用在不同的国家和文化中有何显著差异。这种癌症预后和治疗的司法管辖区差异被观察到产生不均匀的,有时有问题的分析价值的解释。结论:本研究的结果为将预后分析整合到医疗服务中提供了见解。这些检测正在寻求通过识别过度治疗和低价值护理来扩大其临床效用的界限。整合这些检测并证明其高价格合理性的努力被拆解,并揭示了复杂和矛盾的因素。最后,这些结果阐明了癌症治疗的不同方法,以及化疗的不同使用,对检测的价值产生了不同的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.

Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.

Prognosis, treatment decision-making and value: A qualitative exploration of the emerging role of breast cancer prognostic assays.

Background: Breast cancer prognostic assays are emerging as tools used by physicians in the cancer treatment decision-making process. This technology is new, and we must interrogate the integration of these assays into clinical practice and their effect on prognosis and treatment for both providers and patients. The objective of this study was to explore perspectives on the use and integration of breast cancer prognostic assays in clinical care.

Methods: 15 international researcher-physician/scientist key opinion leaders who had conducted studies on breast cancer prognostic assays were interviewed. Participants had conducted studies using five different assays. The interview guide was developed through a literature review and leveraged extensive data collected on key clinical utility outcomes for the assays. All interviews were conducted virtually, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Three novel themes emerged from participant's perspectives on the use and value of these assays. The emerging role of prognostic assays to identify overtreatment and unnecessary care was highlighted by the majority of participants. The primary value of these tools is to identify patients who will not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Participants reported that current standard practice is to overtreat and portrayed the binary or definitive results of these assays as an important tool to reduce overtreatment. Participants also provided insights into deliberate efforts to integrate the assays into clinical practice and how improved quality of life and reduction in overtreatment was positioned to justify high cost of the assay. Finally, participants reported how the perspectives and uses of these assays vary significantly in different countries and cultures. This jurisdictional variation in cancer prognosis and treatment was observed as producing uneven and sometimes problematic interpretations of value for the assays.

Conclusions: The results of this study provide insights into the integration of prognostic assays into healthcare services. The assays are seeking to extend the boundaries of their clinical utility through identifying overtreatment and low value care. Efforts to integrate these assays and justify their high prices are unpacked and reveal complex and contradictory factors. Finally, these results illuminate that the varied approaches to cancer treatment, and varied use of chemotherapy create disparate perceptions of value for the assays.

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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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