What Matters to Women When Making Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention?

Can the General Public Be a Proxy for an "At-Risk" Group in a Patient Preference Study? A Disease Prevention Example in Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND

When selecting samples for patient preference studies, it may be difficult or impractical to recruit participants who are eligible for a particular treatment decision. However, a general public sample may not be an appropriate proxy.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments between members of the general public and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of confirmed RA patients to assess whether a sample of the general public can be used as a proxy for FDRs.

METHODS

Participants were asked to imagine they were experiencing arthralgia and had screening tests indicating a 60% chance of developing RA within 2 yrs. Using a discrete choice experiment, participants were offered a series of choices between no treatment and 2 unlabeled hypothetical treatments to reduce the risk of RA. To assess data quality, time to complete survey sections and comprehension questions were assessed. A random parameter logit model was used to obtain attribute-level estimates, which were used to calculate relative importance, maximum acceptable risk (MAR), and market shares of hypothetical preventive treatments.

RESULTS

The FDR sample (n = 298) spent more time completing the survey and performed better on comprehension questions compared with the general public sample (n = 982). The relative importance ranking was similar between the general public and FDR participant samples; however, other relative preference measures involving weights including MARs and market share differed between groups, with FDRs having numerically higher MARs.

CONCLUSION

In the context of RA prevention, the general public (average risk) may be a reasonable proxy for a more at-risk sample (FDRs) for overall relative importance ranking but not weights. The rationale for a proxy sample should be clearly justified.

HIGHLIGHTS

Participants from the general public were compared to first-degree relatives on their preferences for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) preventive treatments using a discrete choice experiment.Preferences were similar between groups in terms of the most important and least important attributes of preventive treatments, with effectiveness being the most important attribute. However, relative weights differed.Attention to the survey and predicted market shares of hypothetical RA preventive treatments differed between the general public and first-degree relatives.The general public may be a reasonable proxy for an at-risk group for patient preferences ranks but not weights in the disease prevention context; however, care should be taken in sample selection for patient preference studies when choosing nonpatients.

Understanding low chemoprevention uptake by women at high risk of breast cancer: findings from a qualitative inductive study of women's risk-reduction experiences

BACKGROUND

Chemoprevention is one of several methods that have been developed to help high-risk women reduce their risk of breast cancer. Reasons for the low uptake of chemoprevention are poorly understood. This paper seeks a deeper understanding of this phenomenon by drawing on women's own narratives about their awareness of chemoprevention and their risk-related experiences.

METHODS

This research is based on a parent project that included fifty in-depth, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of African American and White women at elevated risk of breast cancer. This specific study draws on the forty-seven interviews conducted with women at high or severe risk of breast cancer, all of whom are eligible to use chemoprevention for breast cancer risk-reduction. Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

Forty-five percent of participants, and only 21% of African American participants, were aware of chemoprevention options. Women who had seen specialists were more likely to be aware, particularly if they had ongoing specialist access. Aware and unaware women relied on different types of sources for prevention-related information. Those whose main source of information was a healthcare provider were more likely to know about chemoprevention. Aware women used more nuanced information gathering strategies and worried more about cancer. Women simultaneously considered all risk-reduction options they knew about. Those who knew about chemoprevention but were reluctant to use it felt this way for multiple reasons, having to do with potential side effects, perceived extreme-ness of the intervention, similarity to chemotherapy, unknown information about chemoprevention, and reluctance to take medications in general.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of chemoprevention awareness is a critical gap in women's ability to make health-protective choices. Future research in this field must consider complexities in both women's perspectives on chemoprevention and the reasons they are reluctant to use it.

Medication Use for the Risk Reduction of Primary Breast Cancer in Women: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Medications to reduce risk of breast cancer are effective for women at increased risk but also cause adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2013 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review on medications to reduce risk of primary (first diagnosis) invasive breast cancer in women.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and MEDLINE (January 1, 2013, to February 1, 2019); manual review of reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Discriminatory accuracy studies of breast cancer risk assessment methods; randomized clinical trials of tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors for primary breast cancer prevention; studies of medication adverse effects.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Investigators abstracted data on methods, participant characteristics, eligibility criteria, outcome ascertainment, and follow-up. Results of individual trials were combined by using a profile likelihood random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Probability of breast cancer in individuals (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]); incidence of breast cancer, fractures, thromboembolic events, coronary heart disease events, stroke, endometrial cancer, and cataracts; and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies (82 articles [>5 million participants]) were included. Eighteen risk assessment methods in 25 studies reported low accuracy in predicting the probability of breast cancer in individuals (AUC, 0.55-0.65). In placebo-controlled trials, tamoxifen (risk ratio [RR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]; 4 trials [n = 28 421]), raloxifene (RR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.24-0.80]; 2 trials [n = 17 806]), and the aromatase inhibitors exemestane and anastrozole (RR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.70]; 2 trials [n = 8424]) were associated with a lower incidence of invasive breast cancer. Risk for invasive breast cancer was higher for raloxifene than tamoxifen in 1 trial after long-term follow-up (RR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.47]; n = 19 747). Raloxifene was associated with lower risk for vertebral fractures (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.53-0.73]; 2 trials [n = 16 929]) and tamoxifen was associated with lower risk for nonvertebral fractures (RR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45-0.98]; 1 trial [n = 13 388]) compared with placebo. Tamoxifen and raloxifene were associated with increased thromboembolic events compared with placebo; tamoxifen was associated with more events than raloxifene. Tamoxifen was associated with higher risk of endometrial cancer and cataracts compared with placebo. Symptomatic effects (eg, vasomotor, musculoskeletal) varied by medication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Tamoxifen, raloxifene, and aromatase inhibitors were associated with lower risk of primary invasive breast cancer in women but also were associated with adverse effects that differed between medications. Risk stratification methods to identify patients with increased breast cancer risk demonstrated low accuracy.

Understanding Decision Making about Breast Cancer Prevention in Action: The Intersection of Perceived Risk, Perceived Control, and Social Context: NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1

BACKGROUND

Literature on decision making about breast cancer prevention focuses on individual perceptions and attitudes that predict chemoprevention use, rather than the process by which women decide whether to take risk-reducing medications. This secondary analysis aimed to understand how women's perceptions of breast cancer risk and locus of control influence their decision making.

METHODS

Women were accrued as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1, a study aimed at understanding contributors to chemoprevention uptake. Thirty women participated in qualitative in-depth interviews after being counseled about chemoprevention. Deductive codes grouped women based on dimensions of risk perception and locus of control. We used a constant comparative method to make connections among inductive themes focused on decision making, deductive codes for perceived risk and perceived locus of control, and the influence of explanatory models within and across participants.

RESULTS

Participants were predominantly non-Hispanic white (63%), with an average age of 50.9 years. Decision making varied across groups: the high-perceived risk/high-perceived control group used "social evidence" to model the behaviors of others. High-perceived risk/low-perceived control women made decisions based on beliefs about treatment, rooted in the experiences of social contacts. The low-perceived risk/low-perceived control group interpreted signs of risk as part of the normal continuum of bodily changes in comparison to others. Low-perceived risk/high-perceived control women focused on maintaining a current healthy trajectory.

CONCLUSION

"Social evidence" plays an important role in the decision-making process that is distinct from emotional aspects. Attending to patients' perceptions of risk and control in conjunction with social context is key to caring for patients at high risk in a way that is evidence based and sensitive to patient preferences.

Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting

Background

Breast cancer chemoprevention can reduce breast cancer incidence in high-risk women; however, chemoprevention is underutilized in the primary care setting. We conducted a pilot study of decision support tools among high-risk women and their primary care providers (PCPs).

Methods

The intervention included a decision aid (DA) for high-risk women, RealRisks, and a provider-centered tool, Breast Cancer Risk Navigation (BNAV). Patients completed validated surveys at baseline, after RealRisks and after their PCP clinical encounter or at 6-months. Referral for high-risk consultation and chemoprevention uptake were assessed via the electronic health record. The primary endpoint was accuracy of breast cancer risk perception at 6-months.

Results

Among 40 evaluable high-risk women, median age was 64.5 years and median 5-year breast cancer risk was 2.19%. After exposure to RealRisks, patients demonstrated an improvement in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (p = 0.02), an increase in chemoprevention knowledge (p < 0.01), and 24% expressed interest in taking chemoprevention. Three women had a high-risk referral, and no one initiated chemoprevention. Decisional conflict significantly increased from after exposure to RealRisks to after their clinical encounter or at 6-months (p < 0.01). Accurate breast cancer risk perceptions improved and was sustained at 6-months or after clinical encounters. We discuss the side effect profile of chemoprevention and the care pathway when RealRisks was introduced to understand why patients experienced increased decision conflict.

Conclusion

Future interventions should carefully link the use of a DA more proximally to the clinical encounter, investigate timed measurements of decision conflict and improve risk communication, shared decision making, and chemoprevention education for PCPs. Additional work remains to better understand the impact of decision aids targeting both patients and providers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02954900 November 4, 2016 Retrospectively registered.

Use of raloxifene and tamoxifen by breast cancer risk level in a Medicare-eligible cohort

BACKGROUND

Raloxifene and tamoxifen are Food and Drug Administration-approved for breast cancer risk reduction; in 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended these drugs for breast cancer risk reduction in high-risk women. Information on the use of raloxifene and tamoxifen for breast cancer risk reduction in the general population indicates that the risk is believed to be low; however, there is little literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the use of breast cancer risk reduction medications by breast cancer risk level in an older cohort of women.

STUDY DESIGN

Women who were enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial were assessed for the use of raloxifene, tamoxifen, and other medications. The data sources for use of the drugs were a mailed medication use questionnaire in 2013 and linked Medicare Part D claims files from 2010-2014. Estimated breast cancer risk within 5 years was assessed with the use of the modified Gail model and self-reported breast cancer risk factors; comorbidities were assessed through a questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 22,235 women completed the medication use questionnaire; of these, 13,640 women (61%) had linked Part D data. In 2013, 45% of the women were 65-74 years old, and 55% of the women were 75-84 years old. From the medication use questionnaire, raloxifene use (past month) was 1.8%, 2.5%, and 4.0% for women with breast cancer risk within 5 years of <1.66%, 1.66-3.0%, and ≥3%, respectively (probability value trend, <.0001). From Part D, for any use during the period among women with coverage, raloxifene rates were 3.3%, 4.0%, and 6.6% for the 3 categories for breast cancer risk within 5 years (probability value trend, <.0001); use was 7.4% and 3.3% in women with and without osteoporosis, respectively. Raloxifene use significantly decreased from 2010-2014, and specifically from 2012-2014, both for all women and for women with breast cancer risk within 5 years of ≥3%. Tamoxifen use from Part D was 0.36%, 0.45%, and 0.85% for the 3 categories for breast cancer risk within 5 years (probability value trend, .009).

CONCLUSION

Raloxifene use was low overall but increased modestly with breast cancer risk, and usage decreased from 2010-2014. Tamoxifen use was very low.

Local delivery of hormonal therapy with silastic tubing for prevention and treatment of breast cancer

Broad use of germline testing has identified an increasing number of women at risk for breast cancer with a need for effective chemoprevention. We report a novel method to selectively deliver various anti-estrogens at high drug levels to the breast tissue by implanting a device comprised of silastic tubing. Optimized tubing properties allow elution of otherwise poorly bioavailable anti-estrogens, such as fulvestrant, into mammary tissue in vitro and in vivo with levels sufficient to inhibit estrogen receptor activation and tumor cell proliferation. Implantable silastic tubing delivers fulvestrant selectively to mouse mammary fat tissue for one year with anti-tumor effects similar to those achieved with systemic fulvestrant exposure. Furthermore, local delivery of fulvestrant significantly decreases cell proliferation, as assessed by Ki67 expression, most effectively in tumor sections adjacent to tubing. This approach may thereby introduce a potential paradigm shift and offer a promising alternative to systemic therapy for prevention and early interception of breast cancer.

Family health history reporting is sensitive to small changes in wording

PURPOSE

Family health history is often collected through single-item queries that ask patients whether their family members are affected by certain conditions. The specific wording of these queries may influence what individuals report.

METHODS

Parents of Boston Children's Hospital patients were invited to participate in a Web-based survey about the return of individual genomic research results regarding their children. Participants reported whether 11 types of medical conditions affected them or their family. Randomization determined whether participants were specifically instructed to consider their extended family.

RESULTS

Family health history was reported by 2,901 participants. Those asked to consider their extended family were more likely to report a positive family history for 8 of 11 medical conditions. The largest differences were observed for cancer (65.1 vs. 45.7%; P < 0.001), cardiovascular conditions (72.5 vs. 56.0%; P < 0.001), and endocrine/hormonal conditions (50.9 vs. 36.7%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Small alterations to the way family health history queries are worded can substantially change patient responses. Clinicians and researchers need to be sensitive about patients' tendencies to omit extended family from health history reporting unless specifically asked to consider them.Genet Med 18 12, 1308-1311.

Physician and Patient Barriers to Breast Cancer Preventive Therapy

The uptake of selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) and aromatase inhibitors (AIs) for the primary prevention of breast cancer is low, despite their proven efficacy in several randomized clinical trials. This review summarizes the latest data on physicians' and women's barriers to breast cancer preventive therapy. Physicians' challenges include: identifying suitable candidates for preventive therapy, inadequate training and confidence in risk assessment and counselling, insufficient knowledge of risk-reducing medications, and lack of time. High-risk women fear medication side effects, and they often weigh experiences of others more heavily than statistical probabilities to guide their decision-making. Despite decision aid interventions to help women make an informed decision, acceptance of preventive therapy will remain low until: risk/benefit profiles are more favorable, physicians are better educated and skilled in having these discussions, and suitable biomarkers to monitor drug efficacy and better clinical risk prediction models to assess true individual risk are available.