Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M N Levine

Publications and source records attributed to M N Levine.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1997

Economic and policy implications of adopting paclitaxel as first-line therapy for advanced ovarian cancer: an Ontario perspective.

PURPOSE: To determine the potential economic and policy implications that result from incorporating paclitaxel into first-line therapy for stage 3 and 4 ovarian cancer patients in the province of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare cisplatin/cyclophosphamide (CC), a standard therapy, with cisplatin/paclitaxel (CT). Based on survival curves from a clinical trial, mean costs and survival were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on altering the duration of paclitaxel infusion, discount rates, and efficacy of paclitaxel. RESULTS: The mean survival duration is prolonged from 2.06 years with the standard therapy to 2.44 years with the paclitaxel combination. The paclitaxel therapy is more expensive, with a mean cost of $17,469 (Canadian) per patient treated with CT compared with $5,228 per patient with CC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $32,213 per year gained. Sensitivity analyses show that the conclusions remain unchanged. The use of CT as first-line treatment for advanced ovarian cancer patients in Ontario requires an additional $9 million per year over and above the present costs to treat this patient population. CONCLUSION: Although paclitaxel-based therapy prolongs survival, it comes at an increased cost. It may not be possible to fund paclitaxel treatment using resources presently allocated to first-line chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer. The policy implications for absorbing the cost of paclitaxel in the context of a publicly funded health care system are discussed.

Antineoplastic Agents, Phytogenic↗
PubMed1997

Randomized trial of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil chemotherapy added to tamoxifen as adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with node-positive estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer: a report of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Breast Cancer Site Group.

PURPOSE AND METHODS: By the mid 1980s, tamoxifen alone was considered standard adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal women with node-positive, estrogen receptor (ER)- or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive breast cancer. From 1984 through 1990, 705 eligible postmenopausal women with node-positive, ER- or PgR-positive breast cancer were randomized to a National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCIC CTG) study that compared tamoxifen 30 mg by mouth daily for 2 years (TAM) versus TAM plus chemotherapy with all-intravenous cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2, methotrexate 40 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 given every 21 days for eight cycles (CMF). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in overall survival, recurrence-free survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, or distant recurrence-free survival between the two treatment arms. However, there was significantly greater severe toxicity, which included leukopenia (P < .0001), nausea and vomiting (P < .0001), and thromboembolic events (P < .0001), as well as significantly more mild or greater toxicity, which included thrombocytopenia (P = .04), anemia (P = .02), infection (P = .0004), mucositis (P = .0001), diarrhea (P = .0001), and neurologic toxicity (P = .006), in women who received TAM plus CMF. CONCLUSION: The addition of CMF to TAM adds no benefit and considerable toxicity in this group of women.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed1997

Prevention of thrombotic disorders in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The etiology of thrombosis in malignancy is multi-factorial, and mechanisms include release of procoagulants by tumor cells, comorbid predisposing factors in anti-cancer drugs. The most reliable information on the incidence of thromboembolism in patients receiving chemotherapy comes from breast cancer. The rate of thrombosis in women with Stage II breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy is approximately 5%. The highest risk is in postmenopausal women and the addition of tamoxifen to chemotherapy increases the thrombotic risk over chemotherapy alone. The rate of thrombosis in metastatic breast cancer is likely to be much higher than that in Stage II breast cancer. Cancer patients with central venous catheters, e.g. Hickman, portacath, should receive 1 mg of warfarin daily. A recent trial has demonstrated that low molecular weight heparin can prevent catheter-related clots. There has been only one trial conducted evaluating prophylaxis in ambulatory cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. In this study, very low dose warfarin (INR 1.3-1.9) substantially reduced the risk of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed1997

Surgical management of early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II). Provincial Breast Disease Site Group.

GUIDELINE QUESTION: What is the optimal surgical management of early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II)? More specifically, what is the relative efficacy (and safety) of breast conservation therapy (lumpectomy with axillary dissection) compared with modified radical mastectomy? OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations about surgical management and techniques in the treatment of early stage invasive breast disease (stage I and II). OUTCOMES: Survival, local recurrence (for lumpectomy patients) and quality of life are the primary outcomes of interest. PERSPECTIVE (VALUES): Evidence was selected and reviewed by 6 members of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative, Disease Site Group for Breast Cancer (Breast DSG). Earlier drafts of this evidence-based recommendation have been reviewed, discussed and approved by the Breast DSG, which comprises surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, epidemiologists, a pathologist and a medical sociologist. There was no consumer participation in the development of this guideline. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: There are 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing breast conservation therapy with mastectomy in women with early stage breast cancer. BENEFITS: In 6 RCTs, no statistically significant differences were detected in survival rate between the mastectomy and conservative therapy (lumpectomy) groups. In 1 RCT, a statistically significant differences was detected in favour of the mastectomy arm; however, this was an early trial with substantial methodologic weaknesses. HARMS: None. PRACTICE GUIDELINE: Women with early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II) who are candidates for breast conservation therapy (see discussion of technical factors) should be offered the choice of either breast conservation therapy (excision of tumour with clear margins and axillary dissection) or modified radical mastectomy. The choice is an individual one for the patient, and thus she should be fully informed of the options, including the risks and benefits of each procedure. She should be informed that breast irradiation is part of the procedure for breast conservation therapy. In addition, she should be aware of the potential need for further surgery if the margins are positive. For further information about the use of radiotherapy in the management of early stage breast cancer, please refer to the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative's practice guideline Breast Irradiation in Women with Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer Following Breast Conserving Surgery.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1997

Breast irradiation in women with early stage invasive breast cancer following breast conservation surgery. Provincial Breast Disease Site Group.

GUIDELINE QUESTIONS: 1) Should breast irradiation be given to women with early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II) following breast conservation surgery (lumpectomy with clear resection margins and axillary dissection)? 2) Is there an optimal schedule for breast irradiation? 3) What is a reasonable interval between definitive surgery and the start of breast irradiation? 4) Are there patients who can be spared breast irradiation after lumpectomy? OBJECTIVE: To make recommendations about the use of breast irradiation in women with early stage invasive breast cancer following breast conservation surgery. OUTCOMES: Local control is the primary endpoint of interest. Survival, quality of life (addressed through the adverse effects of radiotherapy) and cosmesis are also considered. PERSPECTIVE (VALUES): Evidence was selected and reviewed by 6 members of the Breast Disease Site Group (Breast DSG) of the Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative. Earlier drafts of the evidence-based recommendation were reviewed, discussed and approved by the Breast DSG, which comprises medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgeons, epidemiologists, pathologists and a medical sociologist. There was no participation by a community representative in the development of this guideline. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: There are 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 1 meta-analysis comparing breast irradiation with no breast irradiation following breast conservation surgery; 6 randomized trials comparing breast conservation surgery plus breast irradiation with mastectomy are also included, as well as several retrospective studies. BENEFITS: All of the 5 RCTs showed a significant decrease in local recurrence rates among patients receiving radiotherapy. In the 4 trials with a median follow-up of 5 years or longer, the relative risk reduction with breast irradiation ranged from 69% to 88%. The absolute differences ranged from 16% (p < 0.001) to 25% (p < 0.001). Despite the effect on local recurrence, no difference in survival was detected in any of the 5 trials. Most of the patients with local recurrence in these trials underwent mastectomy. HARMS: Major adverse effects of breast irradiation occur very infrequently. PRACTICE GUIDELINE: Women with early stage invasive breast cancer (stage I and II) who have undergone breast conservation surgery should be offered postoperative breast irradiation. The optimal fractionation schedule for breast irradiation has not been established, and the role of boost irradiation is unclear. Outside of a clinical trial, 2 commonly used fractionation schedules are suggested: 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the whole breast, or 40 Gy in 16 fractions to the whole breast with a local boost to the primary site of 12.5 Gy in 5 fractions. Shorter schedules (e.g., 40 or 44 Gy in 16 fractions) have also been used routinely in some centres. The enrollment of patients in ongoing clinical trials is encouraged. Women who have undergone breast conservation surgery should receive local breast irradiation as soon as possible after wound healing. A safe interval between surgery and the start of radiotherapy is unknown, but it is reasonable to start breast irradiation within 12 weeks after definitive surgery. For women who are candidates for chemotherapy, the optimal sequencing of chemotherapy and breast irradiation is unknown. It is reasonable to start radiotherapy after the completion of chemotherapy, or concurrently if anthracycline-containing regimens are not used. For further information, please refer to Ontario Cancer Treatment Practice Guidelines Initiative's practice guideline "Surgical Management of Early Stage Invasive Breast Cancer (stage I and II)."

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1996

Gene therapy: socioeconomic and ethical issues. A roundtable discussion.

Gene therapy research has the potential to revolutionize the way in which many human diseases are treated. Despite its enormous potential, roundtable panelists concluded that the field needs time to mature scientifically without pressure to develop a marketable therapeutic product. In addition, health care decision makers, physicians, and the lay public need to be educated on the future medical, economic, and ethical ramifications of gene therapy.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1996

Ardeparin (low-molecular-weight heparin) vs graduated compression stockings for the prevention of venous thromboembolism. A randomized trial in patients undergoing knee surgery.

BACKGROUND: Deep vein thrombosis is common in patients undergoing major knee surgery. Static graduated compression stockings effectively prevent venous thrombosis in general surgery. Because of the demonstrated prophylactic efficacy of pneumatic compression in knee surgery, the similar efficacy of static graduated compression and pneumatic compression in neurosurgery, and the easier use of static graduated compression in knee surgery, graduated static compression stockings were used as the control arm in our clinical trial. Although low-molecular-weight heparin had been shown to be effective in general surgery and hip replacement, its efficacy was unproved in knee surgery. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized trial compared the combination of low-molecular-weight heparin and graduated compression stockings with graduated compression stockings alone in patients undergoing major knee surgery. Patients received either ardeparin (Normiflo) (low-molecular-weight heparin), 0.005 mL/kg (50 anti-Xa U/Kg), or placebo. Both were administered subcutaneously twice daily commencing 12 to 24 hours after surgery and continued for 14 days or until discharge, if sooner. Both study groups wore graduated compression stockings. Bilateral venography was performed on day 14, or sooner if the patient was ready for discharge. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two patients were allocated to receive ardeparin and 124 received placebo. Ninety-six patients in the ardeparin group and 103 in the placebo group had evaluable venograms. Deep vein thrombosis was detected in 28 patients in the ardeparin group and in 60 in the placebo group. Proximal deep vein thrombosis was detected in two patients who received ardeparin and 16 who received placebo. One patient in each group, both of whom did not have venography, experienced pulmonary embolism. Thus, deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism was detected in 29 (29.9%) of the 97 patients in the ardeparin group and in 61 (58.7%) of the 104 patients in the placebo group, a relative risk reduction of 49% (P < 00.1). The rate of major bleeding in the ardeparin group was 2.5%, compared with 2.4% in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: Ardeparin administered postoperatively twice daily is effective and safe for the prevention of venous thrombosis in patients undergoing major knee surgery. Whereas graduated compression stockings have been shown to be effective prophylactic agents in general surgery and neurosurgery, they have little effect in knee surgery.

Aged↗
PubMed1996

Low-molecular-weight heparinoid orgaran is more effective than aspirin in the prevention of venous thromboembolism after surgery for hip fracture.

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to determine the relative efficacy and safety of a low-molecular-weight heparinoid (Orgaran) compared with aspirin for the prevention of postoperative venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for fractured hips. A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial was used to study 251 consecutive eligible and consenting patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture in seven participating hospitals. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients received either fixed-dose Orgaran by subcutaneous injection every 12 hours in a dose of 750 anti-Factor Xa units or aspirin 100 mg orally twice daily; both regimens were started 12 to 24 hours after surgery and continued for 14 days or until discharge, if sooner. All patients had postoperative 125I-fibrinogen leg scanning and impedance plethysmography. If the results of one or both tests were positive, then venography was performed. Otherwise, venography was done at day 14, or sooner if the patient was ready for discharge. Pulmonary embolism in symptomatic patients was diagnosed on the basis of a high probability perfusion/ventilation lung scan, a positive angiogram, or a clinically significant embolism detected at autopsy. Evaluable venograms were obtained in 90 of the 125 patients randomly assigned to receive Orgaran and in 87 of the 126 patients assigned to receive aspirin. Venous thromboembolism was detected in 25 (27.8%) patients in the Orgaran group and in 39 (44.3%) patients in the aspirin group. Thus, there was a relative risk reduction of 37% with Orgaran (P=.028; 95% confidence interval, 3.7% to 59.7%). Six (6.8%) of 88 patients in the Orgaran group and 12 (14.3%) of 84 patients in the aspirin group developed proximal deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, a relative risk reduction of 52% with Orgaran (P=.137; 95% confidence interval, -30.7% to 84.6%). Hemorrhagic complications occurred in 2 (1.6%) patients given Orgaran and 8 (6.4%) patients given aspirin (P=.10). There was one major bleed in the Orgaran group compared with four in the aspirin group. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that Orgaran is significantly more efficacious than aspirin in preventing postoperative venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing surgery for fractured hips, with no evidence of any increase in hemorrhagic complications.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed1996

Patients' preferences for therapy in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: development, testing, and application of a bedside decision instrument.

The objective of this study was to determine a patient's preference for treatment in the poor prognostic situation of advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. A standardized method of information transfer was developed and pretested for feasibility, acceptability, comprehension, interobserver reliability, and validity. The Decision Board (DB) describes to the patient who has completed surgery for suboptimally debulked ovarian cancer two treatment options, their potential side effects, and possible outcomes. The psychometric properties of the DB were determined in 37 volunteers without cancer and 11 women following first-line chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. The Board was then administered to 12 patients with stage IIIc and IV ovarian cancer at the point of deciding future chemotherapy. The feasibility of presenting poor prognostic information, patient comprehension in an emotionally charged situation, and her treatment choice were determined. Observation of patient-physician interviews revealed that survival information is not usually discussed on the initial consultation. Using the DB, it was feasible to provide survival information to 98% of the healthy women. Comprehension was high, with 96% of the questions being correctly answered. Interobserver reliability was high (kappa = 1.00). The construct that hypothesized that understanding information is a determinant of choice was verified, as 95.2% of women had predictable shifts in expressed preference. The strength of preference in healthy women was statistically significantly higher for Plan B (paclitaxel-cisplatin) than for Plan A (cisplatin-cyclophosphamide) (P < 0.001). The method of presenting survival information (median survival versus percentage survival at 3.5 years) influenced choice (P < 0.04). At the point of decision making, 33% of patients with advanced ovarian cancer chose Plan A and 67% chose Plan B. All volunteers and patients stated that they wanted to be fully informed of the choices of therapy for their disease and to be involved in treatment decisions. The DB is a reliable and valid method for sharing information about advanced ovarian cancer with patients. At the point of deciding first-line chemotherapy in this poor prognostic situation, patients still value survival more highly than the quality of life during chemotherapy.

Adult↗
PubMed1996

A randomised trial of two information packages distributed to new cancer patients before their initial appointment at a regional cancer centre.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the extent to which a new patient information package (NPIP) or a mini version of the same package (mini-NPIP) reduces emotional distress and meets the informational needs of patients arriving at a tertiary cancer centre for the first time. A comprehensive package, NPIP, consisting of procedural information regarding cancer centre location, description of the health care team, treatment services, research, educational activities, accommodation and community services provided at the centre; and a condensed version of the same package, mini-NPIP, were developed. Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed breast, gynaecological, lung and prostate cancer, referred to the centre for the first time were prerandomised to receive NPIP, mini-NPIP or no information package. Patients randomised to NPIP or mini-NPIP were mailed the information package at least one week before their first appointment. On arrival at the centre, patients were administered the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) which measures psychological distress, and interviewed regarding preferences for information and acceptability of the information packages. Of 465 randomised patients, 161 were excluded post-randomisation and 304 completed the entire interview: 100 were randomised to the NPIP, 102 to the mini-NPIP and 102 to the control group. Emotional distress as measured by the BSI was similar for all groups (P = 0.98). Most patients preferred to receive the information (98%), receive it before the first appointment (84%) and by mail (79%). These preferences were more evident for those given the information packages. The majority of patients found the information packages easy to understand (88%) and useful (89%), and no differences were detected between packages. The cost of production and dissemination of NPIP was more than double the cost for mini-NPIP: $ 8.93 vs $ 3.98 (Canadian dollars) per patient. For patients presenting to a cancer centre for the first time, packages of procedural information do not appear to reduce psychological distress, but are preferred by patients. Given the cost of producing NPIP, mini-NPIP is the preferred approach.

Feasibility Studies↗
PubMed1995

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in patients treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin.

BACKGROUND: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, defined by the presence of heparin-dependent IgG antibodies, typically occurs five or more days after the start of heparin therapy and can be complicated by thrombotic events. The frequency of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and of heparin-dependent IgG antibodies, as well as the relative risk of each in patients given low-molecular-weight heparin, is unknown. METHODS: We obtained daily platelet counts in 665 patients in a randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing unfractionated heparin with low-molecular-weight heparin as prophylaxis after hip surgery. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was defined as a decrease in the platelet count below 150,000 per cubic millimeter that began five or more days after the start of heparin therapy, and a positive test for heparin-dependent IgG antibodies. We also tested a representative subgroup of 387 patients for heparin-dependent IgG antibodies regardless of their platelet counts. RESULTS: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia occurred in 9 of 332 patients who received unfractionated heparin and in none of 333 patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin (2.7 percent vs. 0 percent; P = 0.0018). Eight of the 9 patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia also had one or more thrombotic events (venous in 7 and arterial in 1), as compared with 117 of 656 patients without heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (88.9 percent vs. 17.8 percent; odds ratio, 36.9; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.8 to 1638; P < 0.001). In the subgroup of 387 patients, the frequency of heparin-dependent IgG antibodies was higher among patients who received unfractionated heparin (7.8 percent, vs. 2.2 percent among patients who received low-molecular-weight heparin; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, associated thrombotic events, and heparin-dependent IgG antibodies are more common in patients treated with unfractionated heparin than in those treated with low-molecular-weight heparin.

Confidence Intervals↗
PubMed1995

The use of anti-D to improve post-transfusion platelet response: a randomized trial.

Patients undergoing induction chemotherapy for acute leukaemia often become refractory to platelet transfusions. Increased clearance of transfused platelets due to alloimmune destruction has been identified as one of the primary mechanisms contributing to this refractory state. We performed a double-blind randomized trial to determine whether the administration of anti-D to Rh-positive individuals could prevent the refractory state and improve post-transfusion platelet response. Rh-positive patients with acute leukaemia undergoing induction chemotherapy and requiring platelet transfusions were allocated to weekly intravenous anti-D (20 micrograms/kg) or placebo. Platelets and red cell concentrates were administered according to standardized transfusion guidelines. Outcome measures included platelet transfusion utilization, red cell utilization, platelet recovery 18-24 h post-infusion, and the percentage of patients refractory to platelet transfusion. There were 43 patients studied: 21 received anti-D and 22 saline placebo. The mean number of platelet concentrates required per day of observation was 0.59 (SD 0.22) in the anti-D group and 0.61 (SD 0.22) in the placebo group, P = 0.86. No difference was detected between groups in terms of platelet recovery post-infusion, refractoriness to platelet transfusion or frequency of infection (P = 0.97). Red cell concentrate utilization was significantly increased in the anti-D group compared to the placebo group, 0.58 units per day versus 0.37 units per day respectively, P = 0.005. We conclude that the use of anti-D did not improve post-transfusion platelet response in Rh positive patients with acute leukaemia, but did result in an increased need for red cell transfusion.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed1995

The practice guidelines development cycle: a conceptual tool for practice guidelines development and implementation.

PURPOSE: To develop a conceptual tool for the systematic development of cancer treatment practice guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The guidelines development tool, the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, was derived from observing an evidence-based practice guidelines initiative at a comprehensive cancer center in Ontario, Canada, and from a literature review that uncovered barriers to guidelines development and implementation. Based on the literature findings and direct observations of how clinicians struggled with evidence-based guidelines development, we evolved a framework to incorporate clinical and administrative factors (eg, costs) into evidence-based guidelines. Use of the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle is illustrated with a clinical example (the use of adjuvant systemic therapy in good-risk, node-negative premenopausal breast cancer patients). RESULTS: The result is the Practice Guidelines Development Cycle, which consists of eight sequential steps, from topic selection to policy formulation. Independent validation of guidelines is included. The cycle products are the evidence-based recommendation, the practice guideline, and the practice policy. The main features of the cycle are emphasis on scientific evidence, acknowledgment of the roles of clinical experience and nonclinical (administrative) factors through consensus, and explicit separation of clinical and cost considerations in guidelines development. Twenty guidelines are currently in development. CONCLUSION: Attention to the barriers of guidelines development and the sociocultural nature of clinical practice, and respect for clinical experience, can lead to improved strategies for guidelines development.

Cancer Care Facilities↗
PubMed1995

Breast irradiation postlumpectomy: development and evaluation of a decision instrument.

PURPOSE: To develop an instrument to help clinicians inform patients about the benefits and risks of breast irradiation following lumpectomy and to help an informed patient decide whether she prefers this treatment. METHODS: A Decision Board consisting of written material and visual aids was developed. It provides the patient with detailed information about her choices (breast irradiation or not), outcomes (breast recurrence and survival), probability of those outcomes, and quality of life associated with treatment and outcome. We studied the decision-making process in 82 consecutive node-negative lumpectomy patients who were seen in consultation by a radiation oncologist and oncology nurse. The Decision Board was used in the last 30 patients in the cohort. RESULTS: Patient comprehension following the consultation without the Decision Board was greater than 65% for all questions addressed, except for poor understanding of the lack of survival benefit associated with breast irradiation (12% of patients answered correctly) and that it could not be repeated (15% of patients answered correctly). Comprehension following the consultation with the Decision Board was similar, but understanding regarding the repetition of radiation (83%) was improved. Only 70% of patients in the no-Decision Board group felt they were offered a choice. This was increased to 97% in the Decision-Board group. Overall, 95% of patients chose breast irradiation, and this did not differ between groups. Patients reported several reasons for choosing breast irradiation, all of equal importance. CONCLUSION: The Decision Board facilitated shared decision making in node-negative lumpectomy patients who chose breast irradiation, but it did not affect a patient's choice to select breast irradiation.

Analysis of Variance↗