1
|
Mabey B, Hughes E, Kucera M, Simmons T, Hullinger B, Pederson HJ, Yehia L, Eng C, Garber J, Gary M, Gordon O, Klemp JR, Mukherjee S, Vijai J, Offit K, Olopade OI, Pruthi S, Kurian A, Robson ME, Whitworth PW, Pal T, Ratzel S, Wagner S, Lanchbury JS, Taber KJ, Slavin TP, Gutin A. Validation of a clinical breast cancer risk assessment tool combining a polygenic score for all ancestries with traditional risk factors. Genet Med 2024; 26:101128. [PMID: 38829299 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2024.101128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2023] [Revised: 03/25/2024] [Accepted: 03/26/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE We previously described a combined risk score (CRS) that integrates a multiple-ancestry polygenic risk score (MA-PRS) with the Tyrer-Cuzick (TC) model to assess breast cancer (BC) risk. Here, we present a longitudinal validation of CRS in a real-world cohort. METHODS This study included 130,058 patients referred for hereditary cancer genetic testing and negative for germline pathogenic variants in BC-associated genes. Data were obtained by linking genetic test results to medical claims (median follow-up 12.1 months). CRS calibration was evaluated by the ratio of observed to expected BCs. RESULTS Three hundred forty BCs were observed over 148,349 patient-years. CRS was well-calibrated and demonstrated superior calibration compared with TC in high-risk deciles. MA-PRS alone had greater discriminatory accuracy than TC, and CRS had approximately 2-fold greater discriminatory accuracy than MA-PRS or TC. Among those classified as high risk by TC, 32.6% were low risk by CRS, and of those classified as low risk by TC, 4.3% were high risk by CRS. In cases where CRS and TC classifications disagreed, CRS was more accurate in predicting incident BC. CONCLUSION CRS was well-calibrated and significantly improved BC risk stratification. Short-term follow-up suggests that clinical implementation of CRS should improve outcomes for patients of all ancestries through personalized risk-based screening and prevention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Joseph Vijai
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Kenneth Offit
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | - Mark E Robson
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Tuya Pal
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Walker MJ, Blackmore KM, Chang A, Lambert-Côté L, Turgeon A, Antoniou AC, Bell KA, Broeders MJM, Brooks JD, Carver T, Chiquette J, Després P, Easton DF, Eisen A, Eloy L, Evans DG, Fienberg S, Joly Y, Kim RH, Kim SJ, Knoppers BM, Lofters AK, Nabi H, Paquette JS, Pashayan N, Sheppard AJ, Stockley TL, Dorval M, Simard J, Chiarelli AM. Implementing Multifactorial Risk Assessment with Polygenic Risk Scores for Personalized Breast Cancer Screening in the Population Setting: Challenges and Opportunities. Cancers (Basel) 2024; 16:2116. [PMID: 38893236 PMCID: PMC11171515 DOI: 10.3390/cancers16112116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2024] [Revised: 05/11/2024] [Accepted: 05/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/21/2024] Open
Abstract
Risk-stratified breast screening has been proposed as a strategy to overcome the limitations of age-based screening. A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which will generate the first Canadian evidence on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting to inform the implementation of risk-stratified screening. Recruited females aged 40-69 unaffected by breast cancer, with a previous mammogram, underwent multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment. The adoption of multifactorial risk assessment, the effectiveness of methods for collecting risk factor information and the costs of risk assessment were examined. Associations between participant characteristics and study sites, as well as data collection methods, were assessed using logistic regression; all p-values are two-sided. Of the 4246 participants recruited, 88.4% completed a risk assessment, with 79.8%, 15.7% and 4.4% estimated at average, higher than average and high risk, respectively. The total per-participant cost for risk assessment was CAD 315. Participants who chose to provide risk factor information on paper/telephone (27.2%) vs. online were more likely to be older (p = 0.021), not born in Canada (p = 0.043), visible minorities (p = 0.01) and have a lower attained education (p < 0.0001) and perceived fair/poor health (p < 0.001). The 34.4% of participants requiring risk factor verification for missing/unusual values were more likely to be visible minorities (p = 0.009) and have a lower attained education (p ≤ 0.006). This study demonstrates the feasibility of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level. Implementation should incorporate an equity lens to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Meghan J. Walker
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
| | | | - Amy Chang
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | | | - Annie Turgeon
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Queébec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK
| | - Kathleen A. Bell
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - Mireille J. M. Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525EP Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jennifer D. Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
| | - Tim Carver
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Queébec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada;
| | - Philippe Després
- Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Optics, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK
| | - Andrea Eisen
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
- Sunnybrook Health Science Center, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Québec Cancer Program, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Quebec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution Infection and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | | | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
| | - Raymond H. Kim
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
- Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada
| | - Shana J. Kim
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
| | - Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
| | - Aisha K. Lofters
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
- Women’s College Research Institute, Toronto, ON M5G 1N8, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Queébec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1R 3S3, Canada
| | - Jean-Sébastien Paquette
- Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada;
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Amanda J. Sheppard
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
| | - Tracy L. Stockley
- Division of Clinical Laboratory Genetics, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Queébec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1R 3S3, Canada
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Queébec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
| | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Loft LH, Pedersen LH, Bigaard J, Bojesen SE. Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a population-based survey among 5,001 Danish women. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:347. [PMID: 38504201 PMCID: PMC10949660 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12083-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The individual woman's risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer can now be estimated more precisely, and screening can be stratified accordingly. The risk assessment requires that women are willing to provide a blood test, additional personal information, to know their risk, and alter screening intervals. This study aimed to investigate Danish women's attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening. METHODS An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted among Danish women aged 52-67 years. We used logistic regression analyses to assess how personal characteristics were associated with the women's attitudes. RESULTS 5,001 women completed the survey (response rate 44%) of which 74% approved of risk estimation to potentially alter their screening intervals. However, only 42% would accept an extended screening interval if found to have low breast cancer risk, while 89% would accept a reduced interval if at high risk. The main determinants of these attitudes were age, education, screening participation, history of breast cancer, perceived breast cancer risk and to some extent breast cancer worry. CONCLUSION This study indicates that women are positive towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening. However, reservations and knowledge among subgroups of women must be carefully considered and addressed before wider implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in a national program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Hougaard Loft
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Line Hjøllund Pedersen
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Science to Society Dept, Danish Cancer Institute, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Janne Bigaard
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Stig Egil Bojesen
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
van Strien-Knippenberg IS, Arjangi-Babetti H, Timmermans DRM, Schrauwen L, Fransen MP, Melles M, Damman OC. Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2024; 24:78. [PMID: 38500098 PMCID: PMC10949766 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-024-02483-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women's beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective. METHODS Phase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40-50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women's beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4-6 across sessions, 40-50 years, 2-3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54-62 years, 0-1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40-74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified. RESULTS Women in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density. CONCLUSIONS The information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inge S van Strien-Knippenberg
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Hannah Arjangi-Babetti
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Danielle R M Timmermans
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Laura Schrauwen
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mirjam P Fransen
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marijke Melles
- Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Olga C Damman
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hindmarch S, Howell SJ, Usher-Smith JA, Gorman L, Evans DG, French DP. Feasibility and acceptability of offering breast cancer risk assessment to general population women aged 30-39 years: a mixed-methods study protocol. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e078555. [PMID: 38199637 PMCID: PMC10806663 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078555] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/04/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Breast cancer incidence starts to increase exponentially when women reach 30-39 years, hence before they are eligible for breast cancer screening. The introduction of breast cancer risk assessment for this age group could lead to those at higher risk receiving benefits of earlier screening and preventive strategies. Currently, risk assessment is limited to women with a family history of breast cancer only. The Breast CANcer Risk Assessment in Younger women (BCAN-RAY) study is evaluating a comprehensive breast cancer risk assessment strategy for women aged 30-39 years incorporating a questionnaire of breast cancer risk factors, low-dose mammography to assess breast density and polygenic risk. This study will assess the feasibility and acceptability of the BCAN-RAY risk assessment strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This study involves women undergoing risk assessment as part of the BCAN-RAY case-control study (n=750). They will be aged 30-39 years without a strong family history of breast cancer and invited to participate via general practice. A comparison of uptake rates by socioeconomic status and ethnicity between women who participated in the BCAN-RAY study and women who declined participation will be conducted. All participants will be asked to complete self-report questionnaires to assess key potential harms including increased state anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory), cancer worry (Lerman Cancer Worry Scale) and satisfaction with the decision to participate (Decision Regret Scale), alongside potential benefits such as feeling more informed about breast cancer risk. A subsample of approximately 24 women (12 at average risk and 12 at increased risk) will additionally participate in semistructured interviews to understand the acceptability of the risk assessment strategy and identify any changes needed to it to increase uptake. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval was granted by North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/NW/0268). Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and charitable organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT05305963.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Hindmarch
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Sacha J Howell
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Juliet A Usher-Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Louise Gorman
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Best R, Wilkinson LS, Oliver-Williams C, Tolani F, Yates J. Should we share breast density information during breast cancer screening in the United Kingdom? an integrative review. Br J Radiol 2023; 96:20230122. [PMID: 37751169 PMCID: PMC10646652 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20230122] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2023] [Revised: 07/25/2023] [Accepted: 08/24/2023] [Indexed: 09/27/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Dense breasts are an established risk factor for breast cancer and also reduce the sensitivity of mammograms. There is increasing public concern around breast density in the UK, with calls for this information to be shared at breast cancer screening. METHODS We searched the PubMed database, Cochrane Library and grey literature, using broad search terms in October 2022. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. The results were narratively synthesised by five research questions: desire for information, communication formats, psychological impact, knowledge impact and behaviour change. RESULTS We identified 19 studies: three Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), three cohort studies, nine cross-sectional studies, one qualitative interview study, one mixed methods study and two 2021 systematic reviews. Nine studies were based in the United States of America (USA), five in Australia, two in the UK and one in Croatia. One systematic review included 14 USA studies, and the other 27 USA studies, 1 Australian and 1 Canadian. The overall GRADE evidence quality rating for each research question was very low to low.Generally, participants wanted to receive breast density information. Conversations with healthcare professionals were more valued and effective than letters. Breast density awareness after notification varied greatly between studies.Breast density information either did not impact frequency of mammography screening or increased the intentions of participants to return for routine screening as well as intention to access, and uptake of, supplementary screening. People from ethnic minority groups or of lower socioeconomic status (SES) had greater confusion following notification, and, along with those without healthcare insurance, were less likely to access supplementary screening. CONCLUSION Breast density specific research in the UK, including different communities, is needed before the UK considers sharing breast density information at screening. There are also practical considerations around implementation and recording, which need to be addressed. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE Currently, sharing breast density information at breast cancer screening in the UK may not be beneficial to participants and could widen inequalities. UK specific research is needed, and measurement, communication and future testing implications need to be carefully considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca Best
- NHS England Screening Quality Assurance Service, Health Education England, England, United Kingdom
| | | | - Clare Oliver-Williams
- NHS England Screening Quality Assurance Service, Health Education England, England, United Kingdom
| | - Foyeke Tolani
- Public Health Department, Bedford Borough Council, Bedford, United Kingdom
| | - Jan Yates
- NHS England Screening Quality Assurance Service, Health Education England, England, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Woof VG, McWilliams L, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Br J Health Psychol 2023; 28:1169-1184. [PMID: 37395149 PMCID: PMC10947456 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2023] [Revised: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 06/16/2023] [Indexed: 07/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Offering breast cancer risk prediction for all women of screening age is being considered globally. For women who have received a clinically derived estimate, risk appraisals are often inaccurate. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of women's lived experiences of receiving an increased breast cancer risk. DESIGN One-to-one semi-structured telephone interviews. METHODS Eight women informed that they were at a 10-year above-average (moderate) or high risk in a breast cancer risk study (BC-Predict) were interviewed about their views on breast cancer, personal breast cancer risk and risk prevention. Interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min. Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS Four themes were generated: (i) encounters with breast cancer and perceived personal significance, where the nature of women's lived experiences of others with breast cancer impacted their views on the significance of the disease, (ii) 'It's random really': difficulty in seeking causal attributions, where women encountered contradictions and confusion in attributing causes to breast cancer, (iii) believing versus identifying with a clinically-derived breast cancer risk, where personal risk appraisals and expectations influenced women's ability to internalize their clinically derived risk and pursue preventative action and (iv) perceived utility of breast cancer risk notification, where women reflected on the usefulness of knowing their risk. CONCLUSIONS Providing (numerical) risk estimates appear to have little impact on stable yet internally contradictory beliefs about breast cancer risk. Given this, discussions with healthcare professionals are needed to help women form more accurate appraisals and make informed decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Anthony Howell
- University of ManchesterManchesterUK
- The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe HospitalManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- University of ManchesterManchesterUK
- The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe HospitalManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Jarm K, Zadnik V, Birk M, Vrhovec M, Hertl K, Klanecek Z, Studen A, Sval C, Krajc M. Breast cancer risk assessment and risk distribution in 3,491 Slovenian women invited for screening at the age of 50; a population-based cross-sectional study. Radiol Oncol 2023; 57:337-347. [PMID: 37665745 PMCID: PMC10476908 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2023-0039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/01/2023] [Accepted: 07/06/2023] [Indexed: 09/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The evidence shows that risk-based strategy could be implemented to avoid unnecessary harm in mammography screening for breast cancer (BC) using age-only criterium. Our study aimed at identifying the uptake of Slovenian women to the BC risk assessment invitation and assessing the number of screening mammographies in case of risk-based screening. PATIENTS AND METHODS A cross-sectional population-based study enrolled 11,898 women at the age of 50, invited to BC screening. The data on BC risk factors, including breast density from the first 3,491 study responders was collected and BC risk was assessed using the Tyrer-Cuzick algorithm (version 8) to classify women into risk groups (low, population, moderately increased, and high risk group). The number of screening mammographies according to risk stratification was simulated. RESULTS 57% (6,785) of women returned BC risk questionnaires. When stratifying 3,491 women into risk groups, 34.0% were assessed with low, 62.2% with population, 3.4% with moderately increased, and 0.4% with high 10-year BC risk. In the case of potential personalised screening, the number of screening mammographies would drop by 38.6% compared to the current screening policy. CONCLUSIONS The study uptake showed the feasibility of risk assessment when inviting women to regular BC screening. 3.8% of Slovenian women were recognised with higher than population 10-year BC risk. According to Slovenian BC guidelines they may be screened more often. Overall, personalised screening would decrease the number of screening mammographies in Slovenia. This information is to be considered when planning the pilot and assessing the feasibility of implementing population risk-based screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katja Jarm
- Sector for Cancer Screening and Clinical Genetics, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Izola, Slovenia
| | - Vesna Zadnik
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Izola, Slovenia
- Sector for Oncology Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Mojca Birk
- Sector for Oncology Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Milos Vrhovec
- Sector for Cancer Screening and Clinical Genetics, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Kristijana Hertl
- Sector for Cancer Screening and Clinical Genetics, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Zan Klanecek
- Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Andrej Studen
- Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Cveto Sval
- Sector for Cancer Screening and Clinical Genetics, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Mateja Krajc
- Sector for Cancer Screening and Clinical Genetics, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Izola, Slovenia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
McWilliams L, Ruane H, Ulph F, Woof VG, Harrison F, Evans DG, French DP. What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study. Br J Cancer 2023; 129:356-365. [PMID: 37225893 PMCID: PMC10206350 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02268-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 05/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-stratified screening is being considered for national breast screening programmes. It is unclear how women experience risk-stratified screening and receipt of breast cancer risk information in real time. This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of undergoing risk-stratified screening within England's NHS Breast Screening Programme. METHODS Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 40 women who participated in the BC-Predict study and received a letter indicating their estimated breast cancer risk as one of four risk categories: low (<2% 10-year risk), average (2-4.99%), above average (moderate; 5-7.99%) or high (≥8%). Audio-recorded interview transcriptions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS Two themes were produced: 'From risk expectations to what's my future health story?' highlights that women overall valued the opportunity to receive risk estimates; however, when these were discordant with perceived risk, this causes temporary distress or rejection of the information. 'Being a good (woman) citizen' where women felt positive contributing to society but may feel judged if they then cannot exert agency over the management of their risk or access follow-up support CONCLUSIONS: Risk-stratified breast screening was generally accepted without causing long-lasting distress; however, issues related to risk communication and access to care pathways need to be considered for implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| | - Helen Ruane
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, Manchester, UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | | | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, Manchester, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Gareth Evans D, McWilliams L, Astley S, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Dobrashian R, Duffy SW, Gorman LS, Harkness EF, Harrison F, Harvie M, Jerrison A, Machin M, Maxwell AJ, Howell SJ, Wright SJ, Payne K, Qureshi N, Ruane H, Southworth J, Fox L, Bowers S, Hutchinson G, Thorpe E, Ulph F, Woof V, Howell A, French DP. Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420). Br J Cancer 2023; 128:2063-2071. [PMID: 37005486 PMCID: PMC10066938 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02250-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2022] [Revised: 02/28/2023] [Accepted: 03/20/2023] [Indexed: 04/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS). METHODS Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening. RESULTS Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication. DISCUSSION We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England.
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England.
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, England.
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Susan Astley
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
| | - Adam R Brentnall
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England
| | - Richard Dobrashian
- East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Haslingden Road, Lancashire, BB2 3HH, Manchester, England
| | - Stephen W Duffy
- Centre for Prevention, Detection and Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, England
| | - Louise S Gorman
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Elaine F Harkness
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
| | | | - Michelle Harvie
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| | - Andrew Jerrison
- Research IT, IT Services, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Matthew Machin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
| | - Anthony J Maxwell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| | - Sacha J Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, England
| | - Stuart J Wright
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Katherine Payne
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Nadeem Qureshi
- Primary Care Stratified Medicine research group, Centre for Academic Primary Care, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, England
| | - Helen Ruane
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Jake Southworth
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Lynne Fox
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Sarah Bowers
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Gillian Hutchinson
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Emma Thorpe
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Fiona Ulph
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Victoria Woof
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, England
| | - David P French
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
French DP, McWilliams L, Bowers S, Woof VG, Harrison F, Ruane H, Hendy A, Evans DG. Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420). Br J Cancer 2023; 128:1548-1558. [PMID: 36774447 PMCID: PMC9922101 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02156-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2022] [Revised: 01/08/2023] [Accepted: 01/11/2023] [Indexed: 02/13/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adding risk stratification to standard screening via the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) allows women at higher risk to be offered additional prevention and screening options. It may, however, introduce new harms such as increasing cancer worry. The present study aimed to assess whether there were differences in self-reported harms and benefits between women offered risk stratification (BC-Predict) compared to women offered standard NHSBSP, controlling for baseline values. METHODS As part of the larger PROCAS2 study (NCT04359420), 5901 women were offered standard NHSBSP or BC-Predict at the invitation to NHSBSP. Women who took up BC-Predict received 10-year risk estimates: "high" (≥8%), "above average (moderate)" (5-7.99%), "average" (2-4.99%) or "below average (low)" (<2%) risk. A subset of 662 women completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3 months (n = 511) and 6 months (n = 473). RESULTS State anxiety and cancer worry scores were low with no differences between women offered BC-Predict or NHSBSP. Women offered BC-Predict and informed of being at higher risk reported higher risk perceptions and cancer worry than other women, but without reaching clinical levels. CONCLUSIONS Concerns that risk-stratified screening will produce harm due to increases in general anxiety or cancer worry are unfounded, even for women informed that they are at high risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David P. French
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL England ,grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England ,grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ England
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL England ,grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Sarah Bowers
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT England
| | - Victoria G. Woof
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL England
| | | | - Helen Ruane
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT England
| | - Alice Hendy
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT England
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England ,grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ England ,grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT England ,grid.5379.80000000121662407Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M13 9WL England
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Usher-Smith JA, Hindmarch S, French DP, Tischkowitz M, Moorthie S, Walter FM, Dennison RA, Stutzin Donoso F, Archer S, Taylor L, Emery J, Morris S, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening. Br J Cancer 2023; 128:1636-1646. [PMID: 36737659 PMCID: PMC9897164 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02145-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/06/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sarah Hindmarch
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David P. French
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sowmiya Moorthie
- grid.5335.00000000121885934PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fiona M. Walter
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Francisca Stutzin Donoso
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lily Taylor
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jon Emery
- grid.1008.90000 0001 2179 088XCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia
| | - Stephen Morris
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Roberts E, Howell S, Evans DG. Polygenic risk scores and breast cancer risk prediction. Breast 2023; 67:71-77. [PMID: 36646003 PMCID: PMC9982311 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2023.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 01/09/2023] [Indexed: 01/11/2023] Open
Abstract
Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) are a major component of accurate breast cancer risk prediction and have the potential to improve screening and prevention strategies. PRS combine the risk from Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with breast cancer in Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and explain over 30% of breast cancer heritability. When incorporated into risk models, the more personalised risk assessment derived from PRS, help identify women at higher risk of breast cancer development and enables the implementation of stratified screening and prevention approaches. This review describes the role of PRS in breast cancer risk prediction including the development of PRS and their clinical application. We have also examined the role of PRS within more well-established risk prediction models which incorporate known classic risk factors and discuss the interaction of PRS with these factors and their capacity to predict breast cancer subtypes. Before PRS can be implemented on a population-wide scale, there are several challenges that must be addressed. Perhaps the most pressing of these is the use of PRS in women of non-White European origin, where PRS have been shown to have attenuated risk prediction both in discrimination and calibration. We discuss progress in developing and applying PRS in non-white European populations. PRS represent a significant advance in breast cancer risk prediction and their further development will undoubtedly enhance personalisation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eleanor Roberts
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Sacha Howell
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Nightingale/Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomics, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK; Nightingale/Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, The Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Wright SJ, Eden M, Ruane H, Byers H, Evans DG, Harvie M, Howell SJ, Howell A, French D, Payne K. Estimating the Cost of 3 Risk Prediction Strategies for Potential Use in the United Kingdom National Breast Screening Program. MDM Policy Pract 2023; 8:23814683231171363. [PMID: 37152662 PMCID: PMC10161319 DOI: 10.1177/23814683231171363] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 03/29/2023] [Indexed: 05/09/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be cost-effective but have used assumptions to estimate the cost of risk prediction. The aim of this study was to identify and quantify the resource use and associated costs required to introduce a breast cancer risk-stratification approach into the English national breast screening program. Methods A micro-costing study, conducted alongside a cohort-based prospective trial (BC-PREDICT), identified the resource use and cost per individual (£; 2021 price year) of providing a risk-stratification strategy at a woman's first mammography. Costs were calculated for 3 risk-stratification approaches: Tyrer-Cuzick survey, Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and testing for 142 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Costs were determined for the intervention as implemented in the trial and in the health service. Results The cost of providing the risk-stratification strategy was calculated to be £16.45 for the Tyrer-Cuzick survey approach, £21.82 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement, and £102.22 for the Tyrer-Cuzick with Volpara breast-density measurement and SNP testing. Limitations This study did not use formal expert elicitation methods to synthesize estimates. Conclusion The costs of risk prediction using a survey and breast density measurement were low, but adding SNP testing substantially increases costs. Implementation issues present in the trial may also significantly increase the cost of risk prediction. Implications This is the first study to robustly estimate the cost of risk-stratification for breast cancer screening. The cost of risk prediction using questionnaires and automated breast density measurement was low, but full economic evaluations including accurate costs are required to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Highlights Economic evaluations have suggested that risk-stratified breast cancer screening may be a cost-effective use of resources in the United Kingdom.Current estimates of the cost of risk stratification are based on pragmatic assumptions.This study provides estimates of the cost of risk stratification using 3 strategies and when these strategies are implemented perfectly and imperfectly in the health system.The cost of risk stratification is relatively low unless single nucleotide polymorphisms are included in the strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stuart J. Wright
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Martin Eden
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Helen Ruane
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Helen Byers
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre of Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Centre of Genomic Medicine, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Health Innovation Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS foundation trust
| | - Michelle Harvie
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Health Innovation Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS foundation trust
| | - Sacha J. Howell
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS foundation trust
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS foundation trust
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - David French
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, The University of Manchester and Manchester University NHS foundation trust
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Katherine Payne
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Anandarajah A, Chen Y, Colditz GA, Hardi A, Stoll C, Jiang S. Studies of parenchymal texture added to mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review of the methods used in the literature. Breast Cancer Res 2022; 24:101. [PMID: 36585732 PMCID: PMC9805242 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-022-01600-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2021] [Accepted: 12/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to assess the methods used to classify mammographic breast parenchymal features in relation to the prediction of future breast cancer. The databases including Medline (Ovid) 1946-, Embase.com 1947-, CINAHL Plus 1937-, Scopus 1823-, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched through October 2021 to extract published articles in English describing the relationship of parenchymal texture features with the risk of breast cancer. Twenty-eight articles published since 2016 were included in the final review. The identification of parenchymal texture features varied from using a predefined list to machine-driven identification. A reduction in the number of features chosen for subsequent analysis in relation to cancer incidence then varied across statistical approaches and machine learning methods. The variation in approach and number of features identified for inclusion in analysis precluded generating a quantitative summary or meta-analysis of the value of these features to improve predicting risk of future breast cancers. This updated overview of the state of the art revealed research gaps; based on these, we provide recommendations for future studies using parenchymal features for mammogram images to make use of accumulating image data, and external validation of prediction models that extend to 5 and 10 years to guide clinical risk management. Following these recommendations could enhance the applicability of models, helping improve risk classification and risk prediction for women to tailor screening and prevention strategies to the level of risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Akila Anandarajah
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S Euclid Ave MSC 8100-0094-2200, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA
| | - Yongzhen Chen
- Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - Graham A Colditz
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S Euclid Ave MSC 8100-0094-2200, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA
| | - Angela Hardi
- Bernard Becker Medical Library, Washington University School of Medicine, MSC 8132-12-01, 660 S Euclid Ave, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA
| | - Carolyn Stoll
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S Euclid Ave MSC 8100-0094-2200, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA
| | - Shu Jiang
- Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S Euclid Ave MSC 8100-0094-2200, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Gorman LS, Ruane H, Woof VG, Southworth J, Ulph F, Evans DG, French DP. The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a 'think-aloud' study. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:1264. [PMID: 36471302 PMCID: PMC9721070 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10347-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk stratified breast cancer screening is being considered as a means of improving the balance of benefits and harms of mammography. Stratified screening requires the communication of risk estimates. We aimed to co-develop personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications for women attending routine mammography. METHODS We conducted think-aloud interviews on prototype breast cancer risk letters and accompanying information leaflets with women receiving breast screening through the UK National Breast Screening Programme. Risk information was redesigned following feedback from 55 women in three iterations. A deductive thematic analysis of participants' speech is presented. RESULTS Overall, participants appreciated receiving their breast cancer risk. Their comments focused on positive framing and presentation of the risk estimate, a desire for detail on the contribution of individual risk factors to overall risk and effective risk management strategies, and clearly signposted support pathways. CONCLUSION Provision of breast cancer risk information should strive to be personal, understandable and meaningful. Risk information should be continually refined to reflect developments in risk management. Receipt of risk via letter is welcomed but concerns remain around the acceptability of informing women at higher risk in this way, highlighting a need for co-development of risk dissemination and support pathways.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise S. Gorman
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale Centre and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT UK
| | - Helen Ruane
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale Centre and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT UK
| | - Victoria G. Woof
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
| | - Jake Southworth
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale Centre and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101The Nightingale Centre and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT UK ,grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, M13 9WL, Manchester, UK ,grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England UK
| | - David P. French
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL UK ,grid.498924.a0000 0004 0430 9101NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Taylor G, McWilliams L, Woof VG, Evans DG, French DP. What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis. Health Expect 2022; 25:3287-3296. [PMID: 36305519 PMCID: PMC9700144 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2022] [Revised: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is increasing interest in risk-stratified breast screening, whereby the prevention and early detection offers vary by a woman's estimated risk of breast cancer. To date, more focus has been directed towards high-risk screening pathways rather than considering women at lower risk, who may be eligible for extended screening intervals. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the views of three key stakeholder groups on how extending screening intervals for low-risk women should be implemented and communicated as part of a national breast screening programme. METHODS Secondary data analysis of three qualitative studies exploring the views of distinct stakeholder groups was conducted. Interviews took place with 23 low-risk women (identified from the BC-Predict study) and 17 national screening figures, who were involved in policy-making and implementation. In addition, three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 26 healthcare professionals. A multiperspective thematic analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences between stakeholders. FINDINGS Three themes were produced: Questionable assumptions about negative consequences, highlighting how other stakeholders lack trust in how women are likely to understand extended screening intervals; Preserving the integrity of the programme, centring on decision-making and maintaining a positive reputation of breast screening and Negotiating a communication pathway highlighting communication expectations and public campaign importance. CONCLUSIONS A risk-stratified screening programme should consider how best to engage women assessed as having a low risk of breast cancer to ensure mutual trust, balance the practicality of change whilst ensuring acceptability, and carefully develop multilevel inclusive communication strategies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION The research within this paper involved patient/public contributors throughout including study design and materials input.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grace Taylor
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | - Victoria G. Woof
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer CentreManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - David P. French
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
"It Will Lead You to Make Better Decisions about Your Health"-A Focus Group and Survey Study on Women's Attitudes towards Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening and Personalised Risk Assessments. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:9181-9198. [PMID: 36547133 PMCID: PMC9776908 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29120719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Singapore launched a population-based organised mammography screening (MAM) programme in 2002. However, uptake is low. A better understanding of breast cancer (BC) risk factors has generated interest in shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a risk-based screening approach. However, public acceptability of the change is lacking. Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 54 women (median age 37.5 years) with no BC history. Eight online sessions were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. Additionally, we surveyed 993 participants in a risk-based MAM study on how they felt in anticipation of receiving their risk profiles. Attitudes towards MAM (e.g., fear, low perceived risk) have remained unchanged for ~25 years. However, FGD participants reported that they would be more likely to attend routine mammography after having their BC risks assessed, despite uncertainty and concerns about risk-based screening. This insight was reinforced by the survey participants reporting more positive than negative feelings before receiving their risk reports. There is enthusiasm in knowing personal disease risk but concerns about the level of support for individuals learning they are at higher risk for breast cancer. Our results support the empowering of Singaporean women with personal health information to improve MAM uptake.
Collapse
|
19
|
McWilliams L, Evans DG, Payne K, Harrison F, Howell A, Howell SJ, French DP. Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14194636. [PMID: 36230559 PMCID: PMC9563640 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2022] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Correspondence:
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
| | - Katherine Payne
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | | | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Sacha J. Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - David P. French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Laza-Vásquez C, Martínez-Alonso M, Forné-Izquierdo C, Vilaplana-Mayoral J, Cruz-Esteve I, Sánchez-López I, Reñé-Reñé M, Cazorla-Sánchez C, Hernández-Andreu M, Galindo-Ortego G, Llorens-Gabandé M, Pons-Rodríguez A, Rué M. Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:10426. [PMID: 36012059 PMCID: PMC9407798 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2022] [Revised: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based breast cancer screening and its integration into regular clinical practice. A single-arm proof-of-concept trial was conducted with a sample of 387 women aged 40-50 years residing in the city of Lleida (Spain). The study intervention consisted of breast cancer risk estimation, risk communication and screening recommendations, and a follow-up. A polygenic risk score with 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to update the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. The women expressed a positive attitude towards varying the frequency of breast screening according to individual risk and, especially, more frequently inviting women at higher-than-average risk. A lower intensity screening for women at lower risk was not as welcome, although half of the participants would accept it. Knowledge of the benefits and harms of breast screening was low, especially with regard to false positives and overdiagnosis. The women expressed a high understanding of individual risk and screening recommendations. The participants' intention to participate in risk-based screening and satisfaction at 1-year were very high.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza-Vásquez
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy and Health Care Research Group (GRECS), IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Martínez-Alonso
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Carles Forné-Izquierdo
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
- Heorfy Consulting, 25007 Lleida, Spain
| | - Jordi Vilaplana-Mayoral
- Department of Computing and Industrial Engineering, University of Lleida, 25001 Lleida, Spain
| | - Inés Cruz-Esteve
- Primer de Maig Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25003 Lleida, Spain
| | | | - Mercè Reñé-Reñé
- Department of Radiology, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Anna Pons-Rodríguez
- Example Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25006 Lleida, Spain
- Health PhD Program, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
French DP, McWilliams L, Howell A, Evans DG. Does receiving high or low breast cancer risk estimates produce a reduction in subsequent breast cancer screening attendance? Cohort study. Breast 2022; 64:47-49. [PMID: 35569186 PMCID: PMC9111984 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.05.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/24/2021] [Revised: 04/27/2022] [Accepted: 05/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk-stratified breast cancer screening may improve the balance of screening benefits to harms. We assess a potential new harm: reduced screening attendance in women receiving below average-risk (false reassurance) or higher-risk results (screening avoidance). Following initial screening, 26,668 women in the PROCAS study received breast cancer risk estimates, with attendance recorded for two subsequent screening rounds. First-screen attendance was slightly reduced in below-average (85.6%) but not higher-risk women, compared to other women (86.4%). Second-screen attendance increased for women at higher-risk (89.2%) but not below-average, compared to other women (78.8%). Concerns about this potential harm of risk-stratified screening therefore appear unfounded. A potential harm of risk-stratified screening is a reduction in future attendance. Some evidence of a small reduction in future attendance in below-average women. Large increase in attendance in higher-risk women at future screening rounds.
Collapse
|
22
|
Risk perception and disease knowledge in attendees of a community-based lung cancer screening programme. Lung Cancer 2022; 168:1-9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2021] [Revised: 02/06/2022] [Accepted: 04/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
|
23
|
French DP, Woof VG, Ruane H, Evans DG, Ulph F, Donnelly LS. The feasibility of implementing risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme: a focus group study investigating the perspectives of healthcare personnel responsible for delivery. BMC Womens Health 2022; 22:142. [PMID: 35501791 PMCID: PMC9063090 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01730-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2021] [Accepted: 04/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Providing women with personalized estimates of their risk of developing breast cancer, as part of routine breast cancer screening programmes, allows women at higher risk to be offered more frequent screening or drugs to reduce risk. For this to be feasible, the concept and practicalities have to be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would put it in to practice. The present research investigated the acceptability to healthcare professionals who were responsible for the implementation of this new approach to screening in the ongoing BC-Predict study. METHODS Four focus groups were conducted with 29 healthcare professionals from a variety of professional backgrounds working within three breast screening services in north-west England. An inductive-manifest thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS Overall, healthcare professionals viewed the implementation of personalised breast cancer risk estimation as a positive step, but discussion focused on concerns. Three major themes are presented. (1) Service constraints highlights the limited capacity within current breast services and concerns about the impact of additional workload. (2) Risk communication concerns the optimal way to convey risk to women within resource constraints. (3) Accentuating inequity discusses how risk stratification could decrease screening uptake for underserved groups. CONCLUSIONS Staff who implemented risk stratification considered it a positive addition to routine screening. They considered it essential to consider improving capacity and demands on healthcare professional time. They highlighted the need for skilled communication of risks and new pathways of care to ensure that stratification could be implemented in financially and time constrained settings without impacting negatively on women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David P French
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Helen Ruane
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, Department of Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
ÖZÇELİK H, GÖZÜM S, ŞENOL COŞKUN H. The Effect of Individual Education on the Participation of Relatives of Cancer Patients in General Health and Cancer Screenings: A One Group Pretest-Post Test Study. CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES 2022. [DOI: 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.1026570] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether or not there were changes in the behaviors of relatives of cancer patients such as learning the warning signs of cancer, engaging in cancer prevention strategies, and participating in screenings after education sessions in the clinic. Methods: This one-group pretest-posttest study was conducted with 238 relatives in a medical oncology clinic in Antalya, Turkey. Individual education sessions were conducted as an intervention, banners were hung about cancer, and general health information on checkups in the form of leaflets were distributed to each relative regarding cancer screenings. Reminder messages were sent to individuals to participate in screenings one and two months after the first interview. The posttest data were collected by phone in the third month. Four questionnaires were prepared based on the literature and national cancer screening standards. The face validity of the tools was evaluated by three experts and 15 relatives who not included as participants. Results: The rate of having a mammography increased from 19.8% to 33.9%, rates of having the fecal occult blood test increased from 16.9% to 23.8%, and rates of having the HPV test increased from 43.5% to 49.6%. The rate of having blood pressure checks within the last 12 months increased from 75.8% to 83.1%, rates of blood cholesterol measurement increased from 68.5% to 79%, and rates of blood glucose measurement increased from 70.2% to 79%. Conclusion: Education provided to the relatives increased participation in screenings.
Collapse
|
25
|
Clift AK, Dodwell D, Lord S, Petrou S, Brady SM, Collins GS, Hippisley-Cox J. The current status of risk-stratified breast screening. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:533-550. [PMID: 34703006 PMCID: PMC8854575 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01550-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ash Kieran Clift
- Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - David Dodwell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon Lord
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Laza-Vásquez C, Codern-Bové N, Cardona-Cardona À, Hernández-Leal MJ, Pérez-Lacasta MJ, Carles-Lavila M, Rué M. Views of health professionals on risk-based breast cancer screening and its implementation in the Spanish National Health System: A qualitative discussion group study. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0263788. [PMID: 35120169 PMCID: PMC8815913 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263788] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/03/2021] [Accepted: 01/26/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND With the aim of increasing benefits and decreasing harms, risk-based breast cancer screening has been proposed as an alternative to age-based screening. This study explores barriers and facilitators to implementing a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the perspective of health professionals, in the context of a National Health Service. METHODS Socio-constructivist qualitative research carried out in Catalonia (Spain), in the year 2019. Four discussion groups were conducted, with a total of 29 health professionals from primary care, breast cancer screening programs, hospital breast units, epidemiology units, and clinical specialties. A descriptive-interpretive thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS Identified barriers included resistance to reducing the number of screening exams for low-risk women; resistance to change for health professionals; difficulties in risk communication; lack of conclusive evidence of the benefits of risk-based screening; limited economic resources; and organizational transformation. Facilitators include benefits of risk-based strategies for high and low-risk women; women's active role in their health care; proximity of women and primary care professionals; experience of health professionals in other screening programs; and greater efficiency of a risk-based screening program. Organizational and administrative changes in the health system, commitment by policy makers, training of health professionals, and educational interventions addressed to the general population will be required. CONCLUSIONS Despite the expressed difficulties, participants supported the implementation of risk-based screening. They highlighted its benefits, especially for women at high risk of breast cancer and those under 50 years of age, and assumed a greater efficiency of the risk-based program compared to the aged-based one. Future studies should assess the efficiency and feasibility of risk-based breast cancer screening for its transfer to clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza-Vásquez
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida-IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain
- Health Care Research Group (GRECS), Lleida, Spain
| | - Núria Codern-Bové
- Escola Universitària d’Infermeria i Teràpia Ocupacional de Terrassa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Terrassa, Spain
- Health, Participation, Occupation and Care Research Group (GrEUIT), Terrassa, Spain
- ÀreaQ, Evaluation and Qualitative Research, Barcelona, Spain
| | | | - Maria José Hernández-Leal
- Department of Economics and Research Centre on Economics and Sustainability (ECO-SOS), Rovira i Virgili University (URV), Tarragona, Spain
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), Reus, Spain
| | - Maria José Pérez-Lacasta
- Department of Economics and Research Centre on Economics and Sustainability (ECO-SOS), Rovira i Virgili University (URV), Tarragona, Spain
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), Reus, Spain
| | - Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila
- Department of Economics and Research Centre on Economics and Sustainability (ECO-SOS), Rovira i Virgili University (URV), Tarragona, Spain
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), Reus, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida-IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), Lleida, Spain
| | | |
Collapse
|
27
|
Laza-Vásquez C, Hernández-Leal MJ, Carles-Lavila M, Pérez-Lacasta MJ, Cruz-Esteve I, Rué M. Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph19031406. [PMID: 35162427 PMCID: PMC8835407 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031406] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/20/2021] [Revised: 01/24/2022] [Accepted: 01/25/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
This study explored the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the point of view of Spanish health professionals. A cross-sectional study with 220 Spanish health professionals was designed. Data were collected in 2020 via a web-based survey and included the advantages and disadvantages of risk-based screening and barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the program. Descriptive statistics and Likert scale responses analyzed as category-ordered data were obtained. The risk-based screening was considered important or very important to reduce breast cancer mortality and promote a more proactive role for women in breast cancer prevention, to increase coverage for women under 50 years, to promote a breast cancer prevention strategy for women at high risk, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Switching to a risk-based program from an age-based program was rated as important or very important by 85% of participants. As barriers for implementation, risk communication, the workload of health professionals, and limited human and financial resources were mentioned. Despite the barriers, there is good acceptance, and it seems feasible, from the perspective of health professionals, to implement a risk-based breast cancer screening program in Spain. However, this poses a number of organizational and resource challenges.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza-Vásquez
- Health Care Research Group (GRECS), Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida-IRBLleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain;
| | - María José Hernández-Leal
- Research Centre on Economics and Sustainability (ECO-SOS), Department of Economics, Rovira i Virgili University (URV), 43003 Tarragona, Spain; (M.J.H.-L.); (M.C.-L.); (M.J.P.-L.)
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), 43204 Reus, Spain
| | - Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila
- Research Centre on Economics and Sustainability (ECO-SOS), Department of Economics, Rovira i Virgili University (URV), 43003 Tarragona, Spain; (M.J.H.-L.); (M.C.-L.); (M.J.P.-L.)
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), 43204 Reus, Spain
| | - Maria José Pérez-Lacasta
- Research Centre on Economics and Sustainability (ECO-SOS), Department of Economics, Rovira i Virgili University (URV), 43003 Tarragona, Spain; (M.J.H.-L.); (M.C.-L.); (M.J.P.-L.)
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), 43204 Reus, Spain
| | - Inés Cruz-Esteve
- Primer de Maig Basic Health Area, Catalan Health Institute (ICS), 25003 Lleida, Spain;
| | - Montserrat Rué
- Research Group in Statistical and Economic Analysis in Health (GRAEES), 43204 Reus, Spain
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida-IRBLleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
- Correspondence:
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Rainey L, van der Waal D, Donnelly LS, Southworth J, French DP, Evans DG, Broeders MJM. Women's health behaviour change after receiving breast cancer risk estimates with tailored screening and prevention recommendations. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:69. [PMID: 35033023 PMCID: PMC8761310 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09174-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2021] [Accepted: 01/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study provided women who were eligible for breast cancer screening in Greater Manchester (United Kingdom) with their 10-year risk of breast cancer, i.e., low (≤1.5%), average (1.5–4.99%), moderate (5.-7.99%) or high (≥8%). The aim of this study is to explore which factors were associated with women’s uptake of screening and prevention recommendations. Additionally, we evaluated women’s organisational preferences regarding tailored screening. Methods A total of 325 women with a self-reported low (n = 60), average (n = 125), moderate (n = 80), or high (n = 60) risk completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics. For the second part women were asked about uptake of early detection and preventive behaviours after breast cancer risk communication. Additional questions were posed to explore preferences regarding the organisation of risk-stratified screening and prevention. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which factors were associated with uptake of primary and secondary breast cancer preventive behaviours, stratified by breast cancer risk. Organisational preferences are presented using descriptive statistics. Results Self-reported breast cancer risk predicted uptake of (a) supplemental screening and breast self-examination, (b) risk-reducing medication and (c) preventive lifestyle behaviours. Further predictors were (a) having a first degree relative with breast cancer, (b) higher age, and (c) higher body mass index (BMI). Women’s organisational preferences for tailored screening emphasised a desire for more intensive screening for women at increased risk by further shortening the screening interval and moving the starting age forward. Conclusions Breast cancer risk communication predicts the uptake of key tailored primary and secondary preventive behaviours. Effective communication of breast cancer risk information is essential to optimise the population-wide impact of tailored screening. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09174-3.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda Rainey
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Louise S Donnelly
- Centre for Mental Health and Safety, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Jake Southworth
- Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.,Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Withington, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Harvie M, French DP, Pegington M, Cooper G, Howell A, McDiarmid S, Lombardelli C, Donnelly L, Ruane H, Sellers K, Barrett E, Armitage CJ, Evans DG. Testing a breast cancer prevention and a multiple disease prevention weight loss programme amongst women within the UK NHS breast screening programme-a randomised feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2021; 7:220. [PMID: 34930478 PMCID: PMC8690875 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-021-00947-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2020] [Accepted: 11/04/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Excess weight and unhealthy behaviours (e.g. sedentariness, high alcohol) are common amongst women including those attending breast screening. These factors increase the risk of breast cancer and other diseases. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a weight loss/behaviour change programme framed to reduce breast cancer risk (breast cancer prevention programme, BCPP) compared to one framed to reduce risk of breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes (T2D) (multiple disease prevention programme, MDPP). Methods Women aged 47-73 years with overweight or obesity (n = 1356) in the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) were randomised (1:2) to be invited to join a BCPP or a MDPP. The BCPP included personalised information on breast cancer risk and a web and phone weight loss/behaviour change intervention. The MDPP also included an NHS Health Check (lipids, blood pressure, HbA1c and personalised feedback for risk of CVD [QRISK2] and T2D [QDiabetes and HbA1c]). Primary outcomes were uptake and retention and other feasibility outcomes which include intervention fidelity and prevalence of high CVD and T2D risk. Secondary outcomes included change in weight. Results The BCPP and MDPP had comparable rates of uptake: 45/508 (9%) vs. 81/848 (10%) and 12-month retention; 33/45 (73%) vs. 53/81 (65%). Both programmes had a high fidelity of delivery with receipt of mean (95% CI) 90 (88-98% of scheduled calls, 91 (86-95%) of scheduled e-mails and 89 (76-102) website entries per woman over the 12-month period. The MDPP identified 15% of women with a previously unknown 10-year CVD QRISK2 of ≥ 10% and 56% with 10-year Qdiabetes risk of ≥ 10%. Both groups experienced good comparable weight loss: BCPP 26/45 (58%) and MDPP 46/81 (57%) with greater than 5% weight loss at 12 months using baseline observation carried forward imputation. Conclusions Both programmes appeared feasible. The MDPP identified previously unknown CVD and T2D risk factors but does not appear to increase engagement with behaviour change beyond a standard BCPP amongst women attending breast screening. A future definitive effectiveness trial of BCPP is supported by acceptable uptake and retention, and good weight loss. Trial registration ISRCTN91372184, registered 28 September 2014. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-021-00947-4.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle Harvie
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK. .,Manchester Breast Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Centre, The Christie, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd., Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.
| | - David P French
- Manchester Breast Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Centre, The Christie, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd., Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.,Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Mary Pegington
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.,Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Grace Cooper
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.,Manchester Breast Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Centre, The Christie, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd., Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.,Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK.,Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd., Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Sarah McDiarmid
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - Cheryl Lombardelli
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - Louise Donnelly
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - Helen Ruane
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - Katharine Sellers
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - Emma Barrett
- Department of Medical Statistics, Education and Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, M23 9LT, Manchester, UK
| | - Christopher J Armitage
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.,Manchester Breast Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Centre, The Christie, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd., Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.,Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13225813. [PMID: 34830965 PMCID: PMC8616436 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 11/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Risk-based breast screening will involve tailoring the amount of screening to women’s level of risk. Therefore, women at high-risk may be offered more frequent screening and over a longer period of time than those at low risk for whom less screening may be recommended. As this will involve considerable changes to the NHS Breast Screening Programme, it is important to explore what women in the UK think and feel about this approach. Analysis of in-depth interviews revealed that some women would find both high and low-risk screening options acceptable whereas others were resistant to the prospect of reduced screening if they were assessed as low-risk. We also found that the idea of risk-based screening had little influence on the attitudes of women who were already sceptical about breast screening. These findings highlight the communication challenges that will be faced by those introducing risk-based screening and suggest a need for tailored support and advice. Abstract Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women’s attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: ‘Overall acceptors’ considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought ‘more is better’ only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. ‘Screening sceptics’ found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women’s responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.
Collapse
|
31
|
Heterogeneity in how women value risk-stratified breast screening. Genet Med 2021; 24:146-156. [PMID: 34906505 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2021.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Revised: 07/04/2021] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Risk-stratified screening has potential to improve the cost effectiveness of national breast cancer screening programs. This study aimed to inform a socially acceptable and equitable implementation framework by determining what influences a woman's decision to accept a personalized breast cancer risk assessment and what the relative impact of these key determinants is. METHODS Multicriteria decision analysis was used to elicit the relative weights for 8 criteria that women reported influenced their decision. Preference heterogeneity was explored through cluster analysis. RESULTS The 2 criteria valued most by the 347 participants related to program access, "Mode of invitation" and "Testing process". Both criteria significantly influenced participation (P < .001). A total of 73% preferred communication by letter/online. Almost all women preferred a multidisease risk assessment with potential for a familial high-risk result. Four preference-based subgroups were identified. Membership to the largest subgroup was predicted by lower educational attainment, and women in this subgroup were concerned with program access. Higher relative perceived breast cancer risk predicted membership to the smallest subgroup that was focused on test parameters, namely "Scope of test" and "Test specificity". CONCLUSION Overall, Australian women would accept a personalized multidisease risk assessment, but when aligning with their preferences, it will necessitate a focus on program access and the development of online communication frameworks.
Collapse
|
32
|
Identification of women at risk of hereditary breast-ovarian cancer among participants in a population-based breast cancer screening. Fam Cancer 2021; 21:309-318. [PMID: 34669096 DOI: 10.1007/s10689-021-00281-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2020] [Accepted: 10/13/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Women attending mammography screening may benefit from family history (FH) assessment for the identification of Hereditary Breast Ovarian Cancer (HBOC). Few studies explored the efficacy of tailored educational interventions in driving the attention on FH-associated risk among these women. To compare the efficacy of two educational tools in increasing attention towards FH, 6.802 women with a negative mammography were randomized to receive a note on FH of breast/ovarian cancer (letter A, n = 3.402) or a note with details on possible implication of FH patterns (letter B, n = 3.200). Upon women's request, a brief questionnaire was administered on phone at the Screening Unit (S.U.) to select those eligible for an in-depth FH evaluation at the Genetic Unit (G.U.). Each affected relative was scored 1-3 according to type of cancer, age at diagnosis, gender, position in the family tree. In all, 401 women contacted the S.U.: 244 (6.6%) in group A and 177 (5.2%) in group B (adjOR 1.27; 95%CI 1.03-1.56). FH scored ≥ 3 for 164 women: 177 (47.5%) in group B and 224 (35.7%) in group A, (adjOR 1.59, 95%CI 1.06-2.38). The G.U. traced and interviewed 148 women, 65 (43.9%) were offered an in-person consultation: 38 attended and 30 were eligible for testing. A test was performed for 24 women: no BRCA pathogenic variant was found. Among mammographic screening attendees, educational material with a simple description of FH may improve self-referral of women deserving an in-depth evaluation for HBOC identification. Additional educational efforts are needed to enhance the efficiency of the intervention.
Collapse
|
33
|
Exploring Implementation of Personal Breast Cancer Risk Assessments. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11100992. [PMID: 34683136 PMCID: PMC8541275 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11100992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Revised: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Personal Breast Cancer (BC) Risk Assessments (PBCRA) have potential to stratify women into clinically-actionable BC risk categories. As this could involve population-wide genomic testing, women's attitudes to PBCRA and views on acceptable implementation platforms must be considered to ensure optimal population participation. We explored these issues with 31 women with different BC risk profiles through semi-structured focus group discussions or interviews. Inductive thematic coding of transcripts was performed. Subsequently, women listed factors that would impact on their decision to participate. Participants' attitudes to PBCRA were positive. Identified themes included that PBCRA acceptance hinges on result actionability. Women value the ability to inform decision-making. Participants reported anxiety, stress, and genetic discrimination as potential barriers. The age at which PBCRA was offered, ease of access, and how results are returned held importance. Most women value the opportunity for PBCRA to inform increased surveillance, while highlighting hesitance to accept reduced surveillance as they find reassurance in regular screening. Women with BRCA pathogenic variants value the potential for PBCRA to identify a lower cancer risk and potentially inform delayed prophylactic surgery. This study highlights complexities in adopting advances in BC early detection, especially for current users who value existing processes as a social good.
Collapse
|
34
|
Bellhouse S, Hawkes RE, Howell SJ, Gorman L, French DP. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:4150. [PMID: 34439302 PMCID: PMC8394615 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13164150] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2021] [Revised: 08/16/2021] [Accepted: 08/17/2021] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Implementing risk-stratified breast cancer screening is being considered internationally. It has been suggested that primary care will need to take a role in delivering this service, including risk assessment and provision of primary prevention advice. This systematic review aimed to assess the acceptability of these tasks to primary care providers. Five databases were searched up to July-August 2020, yielding 29 eligible studies, of which 27 were narratively synthesised. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42020197676). Primary care providers report frequently collecting breast cancer family history information, but rarely using quantitative tools integrating additional risk factors. Primary care providers reported high levels of discomfort and low confidence with respect to risk-reducing medications although very few reported doubts about the evidence base underpinning their use. Insufficient education/training and perceived discomfort conducting both tasks were notable barriers. Primary care providers are more likely to accept an increased role in breast cancer risk assessment than advising on risk-reducing medications. To realise the benefits of risk-based screening and prevention at a population level, primary care will need to proactively assess breast cancer risk and advise on risk-reducing medications. To facilitate this, adaptations to infrastructure such as integrated tools are necessary in addition to provision of education.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Bellhouse
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; (R.E.H.); (D.P.F.)
| | - Rhiannon E. Hawkes
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; (R.E.H.); (D.P.F.)
| | - Sacha J. Howell
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
| | - Louise Gorman
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
| | - David P. French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; (R.E.H.); (D.P.F.)
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
McWilliams L, Woof VG, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable? BMC Cancer 2021; 21:637. [PMID: 34051753 PMCID: PMC8164783 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08347-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Trials of risk estimation in breast cancer screening programmes, in order to identify women at higher risk and offer extra screening/preventive measures, are ongoing. It may also be feasible to introduce less frequent screening for women at low-risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to establish views of women at low-risk of breast cancer regarding the acceptability of extending breast screening intervals for low-risk women beyond 3 y. Methods Semi-structured interviews were used to explore views of low-risk women, where “low-risk” was defined as less than 2% estimated 10-year risk of breast cancer aged > 46 years. Low-risk women were identified via the BC-Predict study, where following routine screening, women were given their 10-year risk of breast cancer by letter, along with additional information explaining breast cancer risk factors. To gain diversity of views, purposive sampling by ethnicity and socioeconomic background was used to recruit women. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Twenty-three women participated in individual interviews. Three themes are reported: (1) A good opportunity to receive risk estimation, where women found it worthwhile to receive a low-risk result although some were surprised if expecting a higher risk result; (2) Multi-faceted acceptability of extended screening intervals, with reactions to less frequent screening dependent on whether women were confident in being low-risk status and current safety evidence, (3) Passive approval versus informed choice, highlighting that women found it difficult to consider choosing less frequent screening without professionals’ recommendations, as they generally viewed attending breast screening as positive. Conclusions Risk assessment and receiving a low-risk of breast cancer is acceptable although, further research is required with more diverse samples of women. Any recommendation of less frequent screening in this risk group should be evidence-based in order to be acceptable. Communication needs to be carefully developed, with a focus on ensuring informed choice, prior to trialling any extended screening recommendations in future studies. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08347-w.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.,NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.,Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Khan SA, Hernandez-Villafuerte KV, Muchadeyi MT, Schlander M. Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening: A systematic review. Int J Cancer 2021; 149:790-810. [PMID: 33844853 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.33593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/05/2020] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 03/23/2021] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk-based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk) with no screening and age-based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film-based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk-stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk-stratification (being considered as high-risk). Risk-stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low-risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high-risk women was more cost-effective compared to no screening and age-based screening. High-risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality-adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk-stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk-stratification methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shah Alam Khan
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | | | - Muchandifunga Trust Muchadeyi
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Michael Schlander
- Division of Health Economics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany
- Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Usher‐Smith JA, Harvey‐Kelly LLW, Rossi SH, Harrison H, Griffin SJ, Stewart GD. Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey. Health Expect 2021; 24:341-351. [PMID: 33264472 PMCID: PMC8077132 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2020] [Revised: 10/15/2020] [Accepted: 11/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Using risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility has the potential to improve efficiency of screening. OBJECTIVES To compare the public acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different approaches to determine eligibility for screening. DESIGN An online population-based survey of 668 adults in the UK aged 45-79 including a series of scenarios in the context of a potential kidney cancer screening programme in which eligibility was determined by age, sex, age and sex combined, a simple risk score (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status), a complex risk score additionally incorporating family history and lifestyle, or a genetic risk score. OUTCOME MEASURES We used multi-level ordinal logistic regression to compare acceptability and potential uptake within individuals and multivariable ordinal logistic regression differences between individuals. RESULTS Using sex, age and sex, or the simple risk score were less acceptable than age (P < .0001). All approaches were less acceptable to women than men. Over 70% were comfortable waiting until they were older if the complex risk score or genetics indicated a low risk. If told they were high risk, 85% would be more likely to take up screening. Being told they were low risk had no overall influence on uptake. CONCLUSIONS Varying the starting age of screening based on estimated risk from models incorporating phenotypic or genetic risk factors would be acceptable to most individuals and may increase uptake. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Two members of the public contributed to the development of the survey and have commented on this paper.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliet A. Usher‐Smith
- The Primary Care UnitDepartment of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | | | - Sabrina H. Rossi
- Department of OncologyUniversity of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical CampusCambridgeUK
| | - Hannah Harrison
- The Primary Care UnitDepartment of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Simon J. Griffin
- The Primary Care UnitDepartment of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Grant D. Stewart
- Department of SurgeryUniversity of Cambridge, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge Biomedical CampusCambridgeUK
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Woof VG, McWilliams L, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, Maxwell AJ, French DP. Introducing a low-risk breast screening pathway into the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from healthcare professionals who are delivering risk-stratified screening. WOMEN'S HEALTH (LONDON, ENGLAND) 2021; 17:17455065211009746. [PMID: 33877937 PMCID: PMC8060757 DOI: 10.1177/17455065211009746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2020] [Revised: 03/01/2021] [Accepted: 03/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Proposals to stratify breast screening by breast cancer risk aim to produce a better balance of benefits to harms. Notably, risk estimation calculated from common risk factors and a polygenic risk score would enable high-risk women to benefit from more frequent screening or preventive medication. This service would also identify low-risk women who experience fewer benefits from attending, as lower grade and in situ cancers may be treated unnecessarily. It may therefore be appropriate for low-risk women to attend screening less. This study aimed to elicit views regarding implementing less frequent screening for low-risk women from healthcare professionals who implement risk-stratified screening. METHODS Healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of risk-stratified breast screening were invited to participate in a focus group within the screening setting in which they work or have a telephone interview. Primary care staff were also invited to provide their perspective. Three focus groups and two telephone interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals. To identify patterns across the sample, data were analysed as a single dataset using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS Analysis yielded three themes: Reservations concerning the introduction of less frequent screening, highlighting healthcare professionals' unease and concerns towards implementing less frequent screening; Considerations for the management of public knowledge, providing views on media impact on public opinion and the potential for a low-risk pathway to cause confusion and raise suspicion regarding implementation motives; and Deliberating service implications and reconfiguration management, where the practicalities of implementation are discussed. CONCLUSIONS Healthcare professionals broadly supported less frequent screening but had concerns about implementation. It will be essential to address concerns regarding risk estimate accuracy, healthcare professional confidence, service infrastructure and public communication prior to introducing less frequent screening for low-risk women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health
Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health
Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety
Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health
Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Department of Genomic Medicine,
Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Anthony J Maxwell
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Informatics, Imaging &
Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health,
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health
Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Pons-Rodriguez A, Forné Izquierdo C, Vilaplana-Mayoral J, Cruz-Esteve I, Sánchez-López I, Reñé-Reñé M, Cazorla C, Hernández-Andreu M, Galindo-Ortego G, Llorens Gabandé M, Laza-Vásquez C, Balaguer-Llaquet P, Martínez-Alonso M, Rué M. Feasibility and acceptability of personalised breast cancer screening (DECIDO study): protocol of a single-arm proof-of-concept trial. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e044597. [PMID: 33361170 PMCID: PMC7759966 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044597] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Personalised cancer screening aims to improve benefits, reduce harms and being more cost-effective than age-based screening. The objective of the DECIDO study is to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based personalised breast cancer screening and its integration in regular clinical practice in a National Health System setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The study is designed as a single-arm proof-of-concept trial. The study sample will include 385 women aged 40-50 years resident in a primary care health area in Spain. The study intervention consists of (1) a baseline visit; (2) breast cancer risk estimation; (3) a second visit for risk communication and screening recommendations based on breast cancer risk and (4) a follow-up to obtain the study outcomes.A polygenic risk score (PRS) will be constructed as a composite likelihood ratio of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model, including age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease and breast density will be used to estimate a preliminary 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. A Bayesian approach will be used to update this risk with the PRS value.The primary outcome measures will be attitude towards, intention to participate in and satisfaction with personalised breast cancer screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportions of women who accept to participate and who complete the different phases of the study. The exact binomial and the Student's t-test will be used to obtain 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study protocol was approved by the Drug Research Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova. The trial will be conducted in compliance with this study protocol, the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice.The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated in scientific conferences and media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03791008.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Pons-Rodriguez
- Eixample Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, Lleida, Spain
- Health PhD Program, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
| | - Carles Forné Izquierdo
- Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Research Group on Statistics and Economic Evaluation in Health (GRAEES), University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
| | | | - Inés Cruz-Esteve
- Primer de Maig Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, Lleida, Spain
| | | | - Mercè Reñé-Reñé
- Radiology Department, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, Lleida, Spain
| | - Cristina Cazorla
- Primer de Maig Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, Lleida, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | | | - Montserrat Martínez-Alonso
- Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Research Group on Statistics and Economic Evaluation in Health (GRAEES), University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Research Group on Statistics and Economic Evaluation in Health (GRAEES), University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- IRBLleida, Lleida, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Long-Term Evaluation of Women Referred to a Breast Cancer Family History Clinic (Manchester UK 1987-2020). Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123697. [PMID: 33317064 PMCID: PMC7763143 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123697] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2020] [Revised: 12/02/2020] [Accepted: 12/05/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary This study reports the management of women at high risk for breast cancer over a 33 years period. The aim was to summarize the numbers seen and to report the results of our studies on gene testing, the outcomes of screening and the success of preventive methods including lifestyle change, chemoprevention and risk-reducing mastectomy. We also discuss how the clinical Family History Service may be improved in the future. Abstract Clinics for women concerned about their family history of breast cancer are widely established. A Family History Clinic was set-up in Manchester, UK, in 1987 in a Breast Unit serving a population of 1.8 million. In this review, we report the outcome of risk assessment, screening and prevention strategies in the clinic and propose future approaches. Between 1987–2020, 14,311 women were referred, of whom 6.4% were from known gene families, 38.2% were at high risk (≥30% lifetime risk), 37.7% at moderate risk (17–29%), and 17.7% at an average/population risk who were discharged. A total of 4168 (29.1%) women were eligible for genetic testing and 736 carried pathogenic variants, predominantly in BRCA1 and BRCA2 but also other genes (5.1% of direct referrals). All women at high or moderate risk were offered annual mammographic screening between ages 30 and 40 years old: 646 cancers were detected in women at high and moderate risk (5.5%) with a detection rate of 5 per 1000 screens. Incident breast cancers were largely of good prognosis and resulted in a predicted survival advantage. All high/moderate-risk women were offered lifestyle prevention advice and 14–27% entered various lifestyle studies. From 1992–2003, women were offered entry into IBIS-I (tamoxifen) and IBIS-II (anastrozole) trials (12.5% of invitees joined). The NICE guidelines ratified the use of tamoxifen and raloxifene (2013) and subsequently anastrozole (2017) for prevention; 10.8% women took up the offer of such treatment between 2013–2020. Since 1994, 7164 eligible women at ≥25% lifetime risk of breast cancer were offered a discussion of risk-reducing breast surgery and 451 (6.2%) had surgery. New approaches in all aspects of the service are needed to build on these results.
Collapse
|
41
|
Rosner B, Tamimi RM, Kraft P, Gao C, Mu Y, Scott C, Winham SJ, Vachon CM, Colditz GA. Simplified Breast Risk Tool Integrating Questionnaire Risk Factors, Mammographic Density, and Polygenic Risk Score: Development and Validation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020; 30:600-607. [PMID: 33277321 DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-20-0900] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2020] [Revised: 09/01/2020] [Accepted: 12/01/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical use of breast cancer risk prediction requires simplified models. We evaluate a simplified version of the validated Rosner-Colditz model and add percent mammographic density (MD) and polygenic risk score (PRS), to assess performance from ages 45-74. We validate using the Mayo Mammography Health Study (MMHS). METHODS We derived the model in the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) based on: MD, 77 SNP PRS and a questionnaire score (QS; lifestyle and reproductive factors). A total of 2,799 invasive breast cancer cases were diagnosed from 1990-2000. MD (using Cumulus software) and PRS were assessed in a nested case-control study. We assess model performance using this case-control dataset and evaluate 10-year absolute breast cancer risk. The prospective MMHS validation dataset includes 21.8% of women age <50, and 434 incident cases identified over 10 years of follow-up. RESULTS In the NHS, MD has the highest odds ratio (OR) for 10-year risk prediction: ORper SD = 1.48 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.31-1.68], followed by PRS, ORper SD = 1.37 (95% CI: 1.21-1.55) and QS, ORper SD = 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11-1.41). In MMHS, the AUC adjusted for age + MD + QS 0.650; for age + MD + QS + PRS 0.687, and the NRI was 6% in cases and 16% in controls. CONCLUSION A simplified assessment of QS, MD, and PRS performs consistently to discriminate those at high 10-year breast cancer risk. IMPACT This simplified model provides accurate estimation of 10-year risk of invasive breast cancer that can be used in a clinical setting to identify women who may benefit from chemopreventive intervention.See related commentary by Tehranifar et al., p. 587.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bernard Rosner
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
- Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rulla M Tamimi
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
- Division of Epidemiology, Population Health Sciences Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Peter Kraft
- Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Chi Gao
- Program in Genetic Epidemiology and Statistical Genetics, Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Yi Mu
- Channing Division of Network Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Christopher Scott
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Stacey J Winham
- Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Celine M Vachon
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Graham A Colditz
- Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center and Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
McWilliams L, Woof VG, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:680. [PMID: 32698780 PMCID: PMC7374862 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07158-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is international interest in risk-stratification of breast screening programmes to allow women at higher risk to benefit from more frequent screening and chemoprevention. Risk-stratification also identifies women at low-risk who could be screened less frequently, as the harms of breast screening may outweigh benefits for this group. The present research aimed to elicit the views of national healthcare policy decision-makers regarding implementation of less frequent screening intervals for women at low-risk. METHODS Seventeen professionals were purposively recruited to ensure relevant professional group representation directly or indirectly associated with the UK National Screening Committee and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Three themes are reported: (1) producing the evidence defining low-risk, describing requirements preceding implementation; (2) the impact of risk stratification on women is complicated, focusing on gaining acceptability from women; and (3) practically implementing a low-risk pathway, where feasibility questions are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS Overall, national healthcare policy decision-makers appear to believe that risk-stratified breast screening is acceptable, in principle. It will however be essential to address key obstacles prior to implementation in national programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| |
Collapse
|
43
|
French DP, Astley S, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Dobrashian R, Duffy SW, Gorman LS, Harkness EF, Harrison F, Harvie M, Howell A, Jerrison A, Machin M, Maxwell AJ, McWilliams L, Payne K, Qureshi N, Ruane H, Sampson S, Stavrinos P, Thorpe E, Ulph F, van Staa T, Woof V, Evans DG. What are the benefits and harms of risk stratified screening as part of the NHS breast screening Programme? Study protocol for a multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420). BMC Cancer 2020; 20:570. [PMID: 32552763 PMCID: PMC7302349 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07054-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/01/2020] [Accepted: 06/09/2020] [Indexed: 01/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND In principle, risk-stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) should produce a better balance of benefits and harms. The main benefit is the offer of NICE-approved more frequent screening and/ or chemoprevention for women who are at increased risk, but are unaware of this. We have developed BC-Predict, to be offered to women when invited to NHSBSP which collects information on risk factors (self-reported information on family history and hormone-related factors via questionnaire; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). BC-Predict produces risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5 to < 8% 10-year) to have discussion of prevention and early detection options at Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics. Despite the promise of systems such as BC-Predict, there are still too many uncertainties for a fully-powered definitive trial to be appropriate or ethical. The present research aims to identify these key uncertainties regarding the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP. Key objectives of the present research are to quantify important potential benefits and harms, and identify key drivers of the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. METHODS A non-randomised fully counterbalanced study design will be used, to include approximately equal numbers of women offered NHSBSP (n = 18,700) and BC-Predict (n = 18,700) from selected screening sites (n = 7). In the initial 8-month time period, women eligible for NHSBSP will be offered BC-Predict in four screening sites. Three screening sites will offer women usual NHSBSP. In the following 8-months the study sites offering usual NHSBSP switch to BC-Predict and vice versa. Key potential benefits including uptake of risk consultations, chemoprevention and additional screening will be obtained for both groups. Key potential harms such as increased anxiety will be obtained via self-report questionnaires, with embedded qualitative process analysis. A decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis will identify the key uncertainties underpinning the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. DISCUSSION We will assess the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP, and identify the main uncertainties for a definitive evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BC-Predict. TRIAL REGISTRATION Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David P French
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England.
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| | - Susan Astley
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
| | - Adam R Brentnall
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, England
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, England
| | - Richard Dobrashian
- East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Haslingden Road, Lancashire, BB2 3HH, England
| | - Stephen W Duffy
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, England
| | - Louise S Gorman
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Elaine F Harkness
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | | | - Michelle Harvie
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
- Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, England
| | - Andrew Jerrison
- Research IT, IT Services, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Matthew Machin
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
| | - Anthony J Maxwell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Katherine Payne
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Nadeem Qureshi
- School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, England
| | - Helen Ruane
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Sarah Sampson
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Paula Stavrinos
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Emma Thorpe
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Tjeerd van Staa
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, England
| | - Victoria Woof
- Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, England
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Açucena Vieira Alves S, Weller M. Breast Cancer Risk Perception and Mammography Screening Behavior of Women in Northeast Brazil. WOMEN'S HEALTH REPORTS 2020; 1:150-158. [PMID: 33786479 PMCID: PMC7784808 DOI: 10.1089/whr.2019.0026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Background: Previous studies suggest that education and income affect Brazilian women's breast cancer prevention behavior. The present study focused on the impact of perceived and estimated risk on mammography screening (MS) behavior. Materials and Methods: Information regarding socioeconomic variables and risk perception was obtained from 396 healthy women aged 40-79 years. Perceived comparative risk was measured on a seven-point Likert scale. A Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool of 5-year risk to develop breast cancer was used to determine objective risk. Estimated comparative risk was determined as categories of perceived risk relative to the objective risk. Regression analysis was applied to determine odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (95% CIs) of variables. Results: Asked about the potential of MS to lower risk of death because of breast cancer, 215 (54.29%) responded that it does not lower risk. Women with low perceived comparative risk had a twofold (OR = 0.493; 95% CI: 0.24-1.00) decreased chance to participate in MS annually, compared with women with high-perceived comparative risk (p = 0.020). Women without family history had a 7.6-fold (OR = 0.132; 95% CI: 0.07-0.25) decreased chance of having a high-perceived comparative risk (p = 0.000). If compared with underestimation, the overestimation and accurate estimation of comparative risk tended to be associated with a decreased chance of MS attendance (p = 0.017). Regression modeling indicated that low educational level, no occupation, and no family history decreased the chance of women having MS (p = 0.040; p = 0.010; p = 0.022). Conclusions: Risk perception depended on family history. Present data did not indicate that overestimation, or accurate estimation of comparative risk, increased chance of MS attendance. Educational level, occupation status, and family history, instead, determined MS performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mathias Weller
- Post Graduate Program in Public Health, State University of Paraíba (UEPB), Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Woof VG, Ruane H, French DP, Ulph F, Qureshi N, Khan N, Evans DG, Donnelly LS. The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:452. [PMID: 32434564 PMCID: PMC7240981 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-06959-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2019] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND UK national guidelines suggest women at high-risk of breast cancer should be offered more frequent screening or preventative medications. Currently, only 1 in 6 high-risk women are identified. One route to identify more high-risk women is via multifactorial risk assessment as part of the UK's NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). As lower socioeconomic and minority ethnic populations continue to experience barriers to screening, it is important that any new service does not exacerbate issues further. To inform service development, this study explored views of women from underserved backgrounds regarding the introduction of risk stratification into the NHSBSP. METHODS Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with British-Pakistani women from low socioeconomic backgrounds from East Lancashire, UK. Fourteen interviews were conducted via an interpreter. RESULTS Thematic analysis produced three themes. Attitudes toward risk awareness concerns the positive views women have toward the idea of receiving personalised breast cancer risk information. Anticipated barriers to accessibility emphasises the difficulties associated with women's limited English skills for accessing information, and their I.T proficiency for completing an online risk assessment questionnaire. Acceptability of risk communication strategy highlights the diversity of opinion regarding the suitability of receiving risk results via letter, with the option for support from a healthcare professional deemed essential. CONCLUSIONS The idea of risk stratification was favourable amongst this underserved community. To avoid exacerbating inequities, this new service should provide information in multiple languages and modalities and offer women the opportunity to speak to a healthcare professional about risk. This service should also enable completion of personal risk information via paper questionnaires, as well as online.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria G Woof
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Room 1.13, Coupland 1, Coupland Street, Off Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| | - Helen Ruane
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - David P French
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Room 1.13, Coupland 1, Coupland Street, Off Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Room 1.13, Coupland 1, Coupland Street, Off Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Nadeem Qureshi
- NIHR School of Primary Care, School of Medicine, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Nasaim Khan
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.,Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Renehan AG, Pegington M, Harvie MN, Sperrin M, Astley SM, Brentnall AR, Howell A, Cuzick J, Gareth Evans D. Young adulthood body mass index, adult weight gain and breast cancer risk: the PROCAS Study (United Kingdom). Br J Cancer 2020; 122:1552-1561. [PMID: 32203222 PMCID: PMC7217761 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-020-0807-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2019] [Revised: 01/15/2020] [Accepted: 03/03/2020] [Indexed: 01/16/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND We tested the hypothesis that body mass index (BMI) aged 20 years modifies the association of adult weight gain and breast cancer risk. METHODS We recruited women (aged 47-73 years) into the PROCAS (Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening; Manchester, UK: 2009-2013) Study. In 47,042 women, we determined BMI at baseline and (by recall) at age 20 years, and derived weight changes. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for new breast cancer using Cox models and explored relationships between BMI aged 20 years, subsequent weight changes and breast cancer risk. RESULTS With median follow-up of 5.6 years, 1142 breast cancers (post-menopausal at entry: 829) occurred. Among post-menopausal women at entry, BMI aged 20 years was inversely associated [HR per SD: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95)], while absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD:1.23 (95% CI: 1.14-1.32)]. For post-menopausal women who had a recall BMI aged 20 years <23.4 kg/m2 (75th percentile), absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD: 1.31 (95% CIs: 1.21-1.42)], but there were no associations for women with a recall BMI aged 20 years of >23.4 kg/m2 (Pinteraction values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS Adult weight gain increased post-menopausal breast cancer risk only among women who were <23.4 kg/m2 aged 20 years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew G Renehan
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK.
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - Mary Pegington
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Prevent Breast Cancer, Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Michelle N Harvie
- Prevent Breast Cancer, Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Matthew Sperrin
- MRC Health eResearch Centre (HeRC), Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Susan M Astley
- Centre for Imaging Science, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK
- The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Adam R Brentnall
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Prevent Breast Cancer, Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Manchester Cancer Research Centre and NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Prevent Breast Cancer, Nightingale Breast Screening Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, University of Manchester and Central Manchester Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Harkness EF, Astley SM, Evans D. Risk-based breast cancer screening strategies in women. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2020; 65:3-17. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.11.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/30/2019] [Revised: 10/14/2019] [Accepted: 11/10/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
48
|
Rainey L, van der Waal D, Jervaeus A, Donnelly LS, Evans DG, Hammarström M, Hall P, Wengström Y, Broeders MJM. European women's perceptions of the implementation and organisation of risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention: a qualitative study. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:247. [PMID: 32209062 PMCID: PMC7092605 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-06745-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2020] [Accepted: 03/12/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors has meant that we are currently exploring risk-based screening, i.e. determining screening strategies based on women’s varying levels of risk. This also enables risk management through primary prevention strategies, e.g. a lifestyle programme or risk-reducing medication. However, future implementation of risk-based screening and prevention will warrant significant changes in current practice and policy. The present study explores women’s perceptions of the implementation and organisation of risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention to optimise acceptability and uptake. Methods A total of 143 women eligible for breast cancer screening in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden participated in focus group discussions. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and the qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis. Results Women from all three countries generally agreed on the overall proceedings, e.g. a risk assessment after which the risk estimate is communicated via letter (for below average and average risk) or consultation (for moderate and high risk). However, discrepancies in information needs, preferred risk communication format and risk counselling professional were identified between countries. Additionally, a need to educate healthcare professionals on all aspects of the risk-based screening and prevention programme was established. Conclusion Women’s insights identified the need for country-specific standardised protocols regarding the assessment and communication of risk, and the provision of heterogeneous screening and prevention recommendations, monitoring the principle of solidarity in healthcare policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda Rainey
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Daniëlle van der Waal
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Anna Jervaeus
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred, Nobels allé 23, 23300, 14183, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.,Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.,The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Withington, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK
| | - Mattias Hammarström
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 12A, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Nobels väg 12A, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Sjukhusbacken 10, 118 83, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Yvonne Wengström
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Nursing, Karolinska Institutet, Alfred, Nobels allé 23, 23300, 14183, Huddinge, Sweden.,Theme Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, Alfred Nobels allé 23, 23300, 14183, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Harvie M, Pegington M, French D, Cooper G, McDiarmid S, Howell A, Donnelly L, Ruane H, Sellers K, Foden P, Evans DG. Breast cancer risk status influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight loss programme amongst breast cancer screening attendees: two randomised controlled feasibility trials. BMC Cancer 2019; 19:1089. [PMID: 31795966 PMCID: PMC6892016 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6279-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/13/2018] [Accepted: 10/21/2019] [Indexed: 01/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Excess body weight and sub-optimal lifestyle are modifiable causes of breast cancer and other diseases. There is little evidence that behaviour change is possible within screening programmes and whether this is influenced by prior knowledge of disease risk. We determined whether breast cancer risk influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight control programme in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, and whether additional cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes risk information improves uptake and retention further. Method Overweight/obese women in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme identified at high, moderately increased, average and low-risk of breast cancer were randomised to receive individualised breast cancer risk information (breast cancer prevention programme), or individualised breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (QRISK2) and type 2 diabetes (QDiabetes, HbA1c) information (multiple disease prevention programme). Personalised breast cancer risk feedback was given before randomisation in Study-1, and after randomisation in Study-2. Results Recruitment was 9% (126/1356) in Study-1 and 7% (52/738) in Study-2. With respect to breast cancer risk, odds ratio of uptake for high/moderately increased vs low risk women was 1.99 (95% CI 1.24–3.17, P = 0.004) in Study-1 and 3.58 (95% CI 1.59–8.07, P = 0.002) in Study-2. Odds ratio of retention for high/moderately increased -risk vs. low risk women was 2.98 (95% CI 1.05–8.47, P = 0.041) in Study-1 and 3.88 (95% CI 1.07–14.04, P = 0.039) in Study-2. Weight loss of ≥5% at 12 months was achieved by 63% high/moderate vs. 43% low-risk women in Study-1 (P = 0.083) and 39% vs. 8% in Study-2 (P = 0.008). Uptake, retention and weight loss were equivalent in both the breast cancer prevention programme and the multiple disease prevention programme in both studies. Conclusions Women who are informed that they are at increased breast cancer risk were significantly more likely to join and remain in the programmes and consequently lose more weight across both studies. High risk women are more likely engage in a lifetyle prevention programme and also have the greatest potential benefit fom risk reduction strategies. Trial registration ISRCTN91372184 Registered 28 September 2014.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michelle Harvie
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England. .,Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England. .,NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| | - Mary Pegington
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England.,Division of Cancer Sciences, The University of Manchester, Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4BX, England.,NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - David French
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.,Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Coupland Street, Manchester, M13 9PL, England
| | - Grace Cooper
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Sarah McDiarmid
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Anthony Howell
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England.,Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England.,NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.,Department of Medical Oncology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, England
| | - Louise Donnelly
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Helen Ruane
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Katharine Sellers
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - Philip Foden
- Department of Medical Statistics, Education and Research Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England
| | - D Gareth Evans
- The Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, The Nightingale Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, M23 9LT, England.,Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England.,NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.,Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, England
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Jones LI, Geach R, Harding SA, Foy C, Taylor V, Marshall A, Taylor-Phillips S, Dunn JA. Can mammogram readers swiftly and effectively learn to interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, a type of abbreviated breast MRI?: a single centre data-interpretation study. Br J Radiol 2019; 92:20190663. [PMID: 31559859 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190663] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess whether NHS breast screening programme (NHSBSP) mammogram readers could effectively interpret first post-contrast acquisition subtracted (FAST) MRI, for intended use in screening for breast cancer. METHODS Eight NHSBSP mammogram readers from a single centre (four who also read breast MRI (Group 1) and four who do not (Group 2)) were given structured FAST MRI reader training (median 4 h: 32 min). They then prospectively interpreted 125 FAST MRIs (250 breasts: 194 normal and 56 cancer) comprising a consecutive series of screening MRIs enriched with additional cancer cases from 2015, providing 2000 interpretations. Readers were blinded to other readers' opinions and to clinical information. Categorisation followed the NHSBSP MRI reporting categorisation, with categories 4 and 5 considered indicative of cancer. Diagnostic accuracy (reference standard: histology or 2 years' follow-up) and agreement between readers were determined. RESULTS The accuracy achieved by Group 2 (847/1000 (85%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 82-87%)) was 5% less than that of Group 1 (898/1000 (90%; 95% CI 88-92)). Good inter-reader agreement was seen between both Group 1 readers (κ = 0.66; 95% CI 0.61-0.71) and Group 2 readers (κ = 0.63; 95% CI 0.58-0.68). The median time taken to interpret each FAST MRI was Group 1: 34 s (range 3-351) and Group 2: 77 s (range 11-321). CONCLUSION Brief structured training enabled multiprofessional mammogram readers to achieve similar accuracy at FAST MRI interpretation to consultant radiologists experienced at breast MRI interpretation. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE FAST MRI could be feasible from a training-the-workforce perspective for screening within NHSBSP.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lyn I Jones
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Rebecca Geach
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Sam A Harding
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Christopher Foy
- Research Design Service South West Gloucester Office, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leadon House, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester GL1 3NN, UK
| | - Victoria Taylor
- North Bristol NHS Trust, Southmead Hospital, Southmead Road, Westbury on Trym, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK
| | - Andrea Marshall
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
| | | | - Janet A Dunn
- Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
| |
Collapse
|