Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
This study aimed to: (1) determine the accuracy of Dutch breast cancer survivors’ estimations of the locoregional recurrence risk (LRR); (2) examine which variables influence (the accuracy of) risk estimations, and risk appraisals; and (3) investigate the influence of the objective LRR risk (estimated using the INFLUENCE-nomogram), risk estimations and risk appraisals on fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Findings of this study will inform clinicians on risk communication and can improve communication about FCR.
Methods
In a cross-sectional survey among 258 breast cancer survivors, women’s recurrence risk estimations (in odds) and risk appraisals (in high/low), FCR, demographics and illness perceptions, about one year after surgery were measured and compared to the objective risk for LRRs estimated using the INFLUENCE-nomogram.
Results
Half of the women (54%) accurately estimated their LRR risk, 34% underestimated and 13% overestimated their risk. Risk estimations and risk appraisals were only moderately positively correlated (r = 0.58). Higher risk appraisals were associated with radiotherapy (r = 0.18) and having weaker cure beliefs (r = − 0.19). Younger age was associated with overestimation of risk (r = − 0.23). Recurrence risk estimations and risk appraisals were associated with more FCR (r = 0.29, r = 0.39). In regression, only risk appraisal contributed significantly to FCR.
Conclusion
Although women were fairly accurate in recurrence risk estimations, it remains difficult to predict over- or underestimation. Recurrence risk estimations and risk appraisal are two different concepts which are both associated with FCR and should therefore be addressed in patient-provider communication.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference24 articles.
1. Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland (IKNL) (n.d.). NKR cijfers [NCR numbers]. Retrieved from. https://iknl.nl/nkr-cijfers?fs%7Cepidemiologie_id=526&fs%7Ctumor_id=292&fs%7Cregio_id=550&fs%7Cperiode_id=564%2C565%2C566%2C567%2C568%2C569%2C570%2C571%2C572%2C573%2C574%2C575%2C576%2C577%2C578%2C579%2C580%2C581%2C582%2C583%2C584%2C585%2C586%2C587%2C588%2C589%2C590%2C591%2C592%2C593%2C563%2C562%2C561&fs%7Cgeslacht_id=644&fs%7Cleeftijdsgroep_id=677&fs%7Cjaren_na_diagnose_id=687&fs%7Ceenheid_id=703&cs%7Ctype=line&cs%7CxAxis=periode_id&cs%7Cseries=epidemiologie_id&ts%7CrowDimensions=periode_id&ts%7CcolumnDimensions=&lang%7Clanguage=nl. Accessed 26 June 2022
2. NABON (2012) Breast cancer—Dutch Guideline, version 2.0. Oncoline. Retrieved from. https://www.oncoline.nl/uploaded/docs/mammacarcinoom/Dutch%20Breast%20Cancer%20Guideline%202012.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2022
3. Witteveen A, Vliegen IM, Sonke GS, Klaase JM, IJzerman MJ, Siesling S (2015) Personalisation of breast cancer follow-up: a time-dependent prognostic nomogram for the estimation of annual risk of locoregional recurrence in early breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 152:627–636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3490-4
4. Völkel V, Hueting TA, Draeger T, van Maaren MC, de Munck L, Strobbe LJA, Sonke GS, Schmidt MK, van Hezewijk M, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Siesling S (2021) Improved risk estimation of locoregional recurrence, secondary contralateral tumors and distant metastases in early breast cancer: the INFLUENCE 2.0 model. Breast Cancer Res Treat 189:817–826. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-021-06335-z
5. Ankersmid JW, Drossaert CHC, van Riet YEA, Strobbe LJA, Siesling S, the Santeon VBHC Breast Cancer Group (2022) Needs and preferences of breast cancer survivors regarding outcome-based shared decision-making about personalised post-treatment surveillance. J Cancer Surviv. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-022-01178-z
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献