Patient Preferences in Decision-Making for Systemic Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review

<ns3:p> Background Patient preferences are a critical aspect of decision-making processes in early breast cancer care. This study aimed to provide an overview over the existing literature on patient preferences regarding systemic treatment and related decision-making processes in early breast cancer. Methods We conducted a scoping review searching for relevant articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and EconLit up to January 2023. References were screened and assessed for eligibility, and two reviewers extracted data and performed quality assessment using the PREFS, GRADE risk of bias and CASP checklists. The thematic focus of included studies was assessed based on an iterative coding process and summarized descriptively. Results A total of 49 studies were included, with 20 studies using qualitative, 27 quantitative, and 2 mixed designs. Studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of methodology, sample, and thematic focus. 31 (63%) evaluated patient preferences regarding treatment and 26 (53%) evaluated preferences regarding the decision-making process. 14 studies (29%) assessed preference heterogeneity between patients, although explicit statistical modeling of such heterogeneity was rare. Meanwhile, 25 (51%) evaluated age as a determinant of patient preferences, with inconsistent definitions and reporting. Minimal benefits required to accept treatment, biomarker or genomic testing, and fertility concerns were further recurring topics in the literature, while preferences across diverse population groups were explicitly addressed by few studies. Conclusions Our review found substantial literature on patient preferences related to systemic treatment in early breast cancer. However, the designs and specific thematic focus of studies widely varied, and preference heterogeneity and age group differences were common but inconsistently addressed topics, limiting comparability. Future research should further evaluate preference heterogeneity between individuals using appropriate statistical methods and systematically investigate how preferences differ across different age groups and diverse populations. <ns3:bold>Study Registration</ns3:bold> : https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MRYU9 </ns3:p>

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
F1000Research
Published
2026-06-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.181884.1
Primary Topic
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Patient Preferences in Decision-Making for Systemic Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review

Nadia Maggi, Bianca Seiler, Stefan Aebi, Dominik Menges et al.
F1000Research
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
article

Patient Preferences in Decision-Making for Systemic Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review

Nadia Maggi, Bianca Seiler, Stefan Aebi, Dominik Menges, Dafne N. Sanchez, Isabell Witzel, Esther Bastiaannet, Milo A. Puhan, Christina Christen, Beat Thürlimann
article en

Abstract

<ns3:p> Background Patient preferences are a critical aspect of decision-making processes in early breast cancer care. This study aimed to provide an overview over the existing literature on patient preferences regarding systemic treatment and related decision-making processes in early breast cancer. Methods We conducted a scoping review searching for relevant articles in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and EconLit up to January 2023. References were screened and assessed for eligibility, and two reviewers extracted data and performed quality assessment using the PREFS, GRADE risk of bias and CASP checklists. The thematic focus of included studies was assessed based on an iterative coding process and summarized descriptively. Results A total of 49 studies were included, with 20 studies using qualitative, 27 quantitative, and 2 mixed designs. Studies were highly heterogeneous in terms of methodology, sample, and thematic focus. 31 (63%) evaluated patient preferences regarding treatment and 26 (53%) evaluated preferences regarding the decision-making process. 14 studies (29%) assessed preference heterogeneity between patients, although explicit statistical modeling of such heterogeneity was rare. Meanwhile, 25 (51%) evaluated age as a determinant of patient preferences, with inconsistent definitions and reporting. Minimal benefits required to accept treatment, biomarker or genomic testing, and fertility concerns were further recurring topics in the literature, while preferences across diverse population groups were explicitly addressed by few studies. Conclusions Our review found substantial literature on patient preferences related to systemic treatment in early breast cancer. However, the designs and specific thematic focus of studies widely varied, and preference heterogeneity and age group differences were common but inconsistently addressed topics, limiting comparability. Future research should further evaluate preference heterogeneity between individuals using appropriate statistical methods and systematically investigate how preferences differ across different age groups and diverse populations. <ns3:bold>Study Registration</ns3:bold> : https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MRYU9 </ns3:p>

F1000ResearchVol. 15
University of Lucerne (CH), University of Zurich (CH), Prevention Institute (US), Stockholm County Council (SE), University Hospital of Basel (CH), Karolinska Institutet (SE), Hospital Base (CL), Breast Cancer Care (GB), University Hospital of Zurich (CH), Europa Donna (IT)
Universität Zürich, Dr. Arnold U. und Susanne Huggenberger-Bischoff Stiftung zur Krebsforschung, Swiss Cancer Foundation
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.