Transitioning to routine breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: what can we learn from cardiovascular disease?

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening

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.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Primary Prevention Advice in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Provider Attitudes and Routine Behaviours

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.

Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: Use and Views of Australian Women and Their Clinicians

Guidelines endorse the use of chemoprevention for breast cancer risk reduction. This study examined the barriers and facilitators to chemoprevention use for Australian women at increased risk of breast cancer, and their clinicians. Surveys, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, were mailed to 1,113 women at ≥16% lifetime risk of breast cancer who were enrolled in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer cohort study (kConFab), and their 524 treating clinicians. Seven hundred twenty-five women (65%) and 221 (42%) clinicians responded. Only 10 (1.4%) kConFab women had ever taken chemoprevention. Three hundred seventy-eight (52%) kConFab women, two (3%) breast surgeons, and 51 (35%) family physicians were not aware of chemoprevention. For women, the strongest barriers to chemoprevention were side effects (31%) and inadequate information (23%), which operate in the Theoretical Domains Framework domains of "beliefs about consequences" and "knowledge," respectively. Strongest facilitators related to tamoxifen's long-term efficacy (35%, "knowledge," "beliefs about consequences," and "goals" domains), staying healthy for family (13%, "social role" and "goals" domains), and abnormal breast biopsy (13%, "environmental context" domain). The strongest barrier for family physicians was insufficient knowledge (45%, "knowledge" domain) and for breast surgeons was medication side effects (40%, "beliefs about consequences" domain). The strongest facilitators for both clinician groups related to clear guidelines, strong family history, and better tools to select patients ("environmental context and resources" domain). Clinician knowledge and resources, and beliefs about the side-effect consequences of chemoprevention, are key domains that could be targeted to potentially enhance uptake. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Despite its efficacy in reducing breast cancer incidence, chemoprevention is underutilised. This survey study of Australian women and their clinicians used behavioural change theory to identify modifiable barriers to chemoprevention uptake, and to suggest interventions such as policy change, educational resources and public campaigns, that may increase awareness and use.See related Spotlight by Vogel, p. 1.

Key steps for effective breast cancer prevention

Despite decades of laboratory, epidemiological and clinical research, breast cancer incidence continues to rise. Breast cancer remains the leading cancer-related cause of disease burden for women, affecting one in 20 globally and as many as one in eight in high-income countries. Reducing breast cancer incidence will likely require both a population-based approach of reducing exposure to modifiable risk factors and a precision-prevention approach of identifying women at increased risk and targeting them for specific interventions, such as risk-reducing medication. We already have the capacity to estimate an individual woman's breast cancer risk using validated risk assessment models, and the accuracy of these models is likely to continue to improve over time, particularly with inclusion of newer risk factors, such as polygenic risk and mammographic density. Evidence-based risk-reducing medications are cheap, widely available and recommended by professional health bodies; however, widespread implementation of these has proven challenging. The barriers to uptake of, and adherence to, current medications will need to be considered as we deepen our understanding of breast cancer initiation and begin developing and testing novel preventives.

Accuracy of Risk Estimates from the iPrevent Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Management Tool

BACKGROUND

iPrevent is an online breast cancer (BC) risk management decision support tool. It uses an internal switching algorithm, based on a woman's risk factor data, to estimate her absolute BC risk using either the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS) version 7.02, or Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm version 3 models, and then provides tailored risk management information. This study assessed the accuracy of the 10-year risk estimates using prospective data.

METHODS

iPrevent-assigned 10-year invasive BC risk was calculated for 15 732 women aged 20-70 years and without BC at recruitment to the Prospective Family Study Cohort. Calibration, the ratio of the expected (E) number of BCs to the observed (O) number and discriminatory accuracy were assessed.

RESULTS

During the 10 years of follow-up, 619 women (3.9%) developed BC compared with 702 expected (E/O = 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI] =1.05 to 1.23). For women younger than 50 years, 50 years and older, and BRCA1/2-mutation carriers and noncarriers, E/O was 1.04 (95% CI = 0.93 to 1.16), 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39), 1.13 (95% CI = 0.96 to 1.34), and 1.13 (95% CI = 1.04 to 1.24), respectively. The C-statistic was 0.70 (95% CI = 0.68 to 0.73) overall and 0.74 (95% CI = 0.71 to 0.77), 0.63 (95% CI = 0.59 to 0.66), 0.59 (95% CI = 0.53 to 0.64), and 0.65 (95% CI = 0.63 to 0.68), respectively, for the subgroups above. Applying the newer IBIS version 8.0b in the iPrevent switching algorithm improved calibration overall (E/O = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.98 to 1.15) and in all subgroups, without changing discriminatory accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

For 10-year BC risk, iPrevent had good discriminatory accuracy overall and was well calibrated for women aged younger than 50 years. Calibration may be improved in the future by incorporating IBIS version 8.0b.

Envisioning Implementation of a Personalized Approach in Breast Cancer Screening Programs: Stakeholder Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Advances in genomics and epidemiology can foster the implementation of a risk-based approach to current age-based breast cancer screening programs. This personalized approach would challenge the trajectory for women in the healthcare system by adding both a risk-assessment step (including a genomic test) and screening options.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to explore, from an organizational perspective, the acceptability of different proposals for each step of the trajectory for women in the healthcare system should a personalized approach be implemented in the province of Quebec.

METHODS

We interviewed 20 professional stakeholders who are either involved in the current breast cancer screening program in Quebec or who are likely to play a role in the future implementation of a personalized risk-based approach.

RESULTS|DISCUSSION

Preferences are split between proposals supporting self-management by the women themselves (e.g., solicitation through media campaign, self-collection of information and sample and results provided by letter) and proposals prioritizing more interaction between women and healthcare providers (e.g., solicitation by health professionals, collection of information and samples by a nurse and results provided by health professionals).

The iPrevent Online Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk Management Tool: Usability and Acceptability Testing

BACKGROUND

iPrevent estimates breast cancer (BC) risk and provides tailored risk management information.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the usability and acceptability of the iPrevent prototype.

METHODS

Clinicians were eligible for participation in the study if they worked in primary care, breast surgery, or genetics clinics. Female patients aged 18-70 years with no personal cancer history were eligible. Clinicians were first familiarized with iPrevent using hypothetical paper-based cases and then actor scenarios; subsequently, they used iPrevent with their patients. Clinicians and patients completed the System Usability Scale (SUS) and an Acceptability questionnaire 2 weeks after using iPrevent; patients also completed measures of BC worry, anxiety, risk perception, and knowledge pre- and 2 weeks post-iPrevent. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The SUS and Acceptability questionnaires were completed by 19 of 20 clinicians and 37 of 43 patients. Usability was above average (SUS score >68) for 68% (13/19) clinicians and 76% (28/37) patients. The amount of information provided by iPrevent was reported as "about right" by 89% (17/19) clinicians and 89% (33/37) patients and 95% (18/19) and 97% (36/37), respectively, would recommend iPrevent to others, although 53% (10/19) clinicians and 27% (10/37) patients found it too long. Exploratory analyses suggested that iPrevent could improve risk perception, decrease frequency of BC worry, and enhance BC prevention knowledge without changing state anxiety.

CONCLUSIONS

The iPrevent prototype demonstrated good usability and acceptability. Because concerns about length could be an implementation barrier, data entry has been abbreviated in the publicly available version of iPrevent.

Consumer and clinician perspectives on personalising breast cancer prevention information

BACKGROUND

Personalised prevention of breast cancer has focused on women at very high risk, yet most breast cancers occur in women at average, or moderately increased risk (≤moderate risk).

OBJECTIVES

To determine; 1) interest of women at ≤ moderate risk (consumers) in personalised information about breast cancer risk; 2) familial cancer clinicians' (FCCs) perspective on managing women at ≤ moderate risk, and; 3) both consumers' and FCCs reactions to iPrevent, a personalised breast cancer risk assessment and risk management decision support tool.

METHODS

Seven focus groups on breast cancer risk were conducted with 49 participants; 27 consumers and 22 FCCs. Data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Consumers reported some misconceptions, low trust in primary care practitioners for breast cancer prevention advice and frustration that they often lacked tailored advice about breast cancer risk. They expressed interest in receiving personalised risk information using iPrevent. FCCs reported an inadequate workforce to advise women at ≤ moderate risk and reacted positively to the potential of iPrevent to assist.

CONCLUSIONS

While highlighting a potential role for iPrevent, several outstanding issues remain. For personalised prevention of breast cancer to extend beyond women at high risk, we must harness women's interest in receiving tailored information about breast cancer prevention and identify a workforce willing to advise women.

Women's decision-making regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening and prevention from the perspective of international healthcare professionals

Introduction

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors may enable a paradigm shift from one-size-fits-all breast cancer screening to screening and subsequent prevention guided by a woman’s individual risk of breast cancer. Professionals will play a key role in informing women about this new personalised screening and prevention programme. Therefore, it is essential to explore professionals’ views of the acceptability of this new programme, since this may affect shared decision-making.

Methods

Professionals from three European countries (the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Sweden) participated in digital concept mapping, a systematic mixed methods approach used to explore complex multidimensional constructs.

Results

Across the three countries, professionals prioritised the following five themes which may impact decision-making from the perspective of eligible women: (1) Anxiety/worry; (2) Proactive approach; (3) Reassurance; (4) Lack of knowledge; and (5) Organisation of risk assessment and feedback. Furthermore, Dutch and British professionals expressed concerns regarding the acceptability of a heterogeneous screening policy, suggesting women will question their risk feedback and assigned pathway of care. Swedish professionals emphasised the potential impact of the programme on family relations.

Conclusions

The perspectives of Dutch, British, and Swedish professionals of women’s decision-making regarding personalised breast cancer screening and prevention generally appear in line with women’s own views of acceptability as previously reported. This will facilitate shared decision-making. However, concerns regarding potential consequences of this new programme for screening outcomes and organisation need to be addressed, since this may affect how professionals communicate the programme to eligible women.

Are we ready for the challenge of implementing risk-based breast cancer screening and primary prevention?

BACKGROUND

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors provides opportunities to shift from a one-size-fits-all screening programme to a personalised approach, where screening and prevention is based on a woman's risk of developing breast cancer. However, potential implementation of this new paradigm could present considerable challenges which the present review aims to explore.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases were searched to identify studies evaluating potential implications of the implementation of personalised risk-based screening and primary prevention for breast cancer. Identified themes were evaluated using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 5699 unique publications, of which 59 were selected for inclusion. Significant changes in policy and practice are warranted. The organisation of breast cancer screening spans several healthcare delivery systems and clinical settings. Feasibility of implementation depends on how healthcare is funded and arranged, and potentially varies between countries. Piloting risk assessment and prevention counselling in primary care settings has highlighted implications relating to the need for extensive additional training on risk (communication) and prevention, impact on workflow, and professionals' personal discomfort breaching the topic with women. Additionally, gaps in risk estimation, psychological, ethical and legal consequences will need to be addressed.

CONCLUSION

The present review identified considerable unresolved issues and challenges. Potential implementation will require a more complex framework, in which a country's healthcare regulations, resources, and preferences related to screening and prevention services are taken into account. However, with the insights gained from the present overview, countries expecting to implement risk-based screening and prevention can start to inventory and address the issues that were identified.

To image or not in noncyclic breast pain? A systematic review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Investigation of noncyclic mastalgia in women without signs or risk factors for cancer is controversial. An initial imaging strategy can diagnose breast cancer early, potentially leading to better treatment and survival. However, cancer diagnosis is very uncommon in these cases, and this approach can be harmful, as false positives or suspicion results will lead to unneeded interventions and follow-up. The purpose of this review is to analyse the trade-offs between desirable and undesirable consequences of initial imaging tests against clinical follow-up.

RECENT FINDINGS

We found seven relevant studies, all observational, with some methodological limitations and very low-quality evidence. They showed low breast cancer prevalence (around 1-2%, increasing with age), high sensitivity to rule out disease but moderate specificity to rule it in using mammography and echography, and lacked evidence on follow-up and final outcomes.

SUMMARY

There is a low prevalence of breast cancer in patients with painful breast with negative physical examination, and very little research to inform about the effect of performing or avoiding initial imaging test on outcomes of interest. With such limited evidence, only a weak recommendation to reinforce shared decision making about what should be done in the primary care setting can be made, with the backup of a specialized breast unit.

Risk Factors for Breast Cancer in Gaza Strip, Palestine: a Case-Control Study

Breast cancer (BC) is the main common cause of cancer mortality among women in the world. This study aims at investigating BC epidemiology and identifying the different risk factors associated and the most affecting ones among women in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. This study was a hospital-based case-control (1:2), as the study was carried out over the period of October 2014 to February 2015. A total of 105 BC patients, chosen from Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City and European hospital for the south governorate, were the case and compared to 209 women as a control group who matched the cases in age, residence, and with no history of breast problems. The age of the enrolled cases and controlled ranged between 18 to 60 years. The face-to-face interview was conducted during the patient visit to the oncology department and the control visit in their home. The result illustrated that women who had late pregnancy (> 35 years) (odds ratio [OR], 11.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64-81.35), or high body mass index (BMI; ≥ 30 kg/m²) (OR, 4.70; 95% CI, 1.62-13.69), or first-degree family history of BC (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.04-7.20), or hypertensive patients (OR, 12.13; 95% CI, 1.93-76.10), or diabetic (OR, 6.84; 95% CI, 1.77-26.36) were more likely to have increased BC risk. The findings of the present study suggest that positive family history of BC, high BMI, and some common diseases (hypertension, diabetes mellitus) may be the epigenetic factors promoting the occurrence of BC.

iPrevent®: a tailored, web-based, decision support tool for breast cancer risk assessment and management

We aimed to develop a user-centered, web-based, decision support tool for breast cancer risk assessment and personalized risk management. Using a novel model choice algorithm, iPrevent(®) selects one of two validated breast cancer risk estimation models (IBIS or BOADICEA), based on risk factor data entered by the user. Resulting risk estimates are presented in simple language and graphic formats for easy comprehension. iPrevent(®) then presents risk-adapted, evidence-based, guideline-endorsed management options. Development was an iterative process with regular feedback from multidisciplinary experts and consumers. To verify iPrevent(®), risk factor data for 127 cases derived from the Australian Breast Cancer Family Study were entered into iPrevent(®), IBIS (v7.02), and BOADICEA (v3.0). Consistency of the model chosen by iPrevent(®) (i.e., IBIS or BOADICEA) with the programmed iPrevent(®) model choice algorithm was assessed. Estimated breast cancer risks from iPrevent(®) were compared with those attained directly from the chosen risk assessment model (IBIS or BOADICEA). Risk management interventions displayed by iPrevent(®) were assessed for appropriateness. Risk estimation model choice was 100 % consistent with the programmed iPrevent(®) logic. Discrepant 10-year and residual lifetime risk estimates of >1 % were found for 1 and 4 cases, respectively, none was clinically significant (maximal variation 1.4 %). Risk management interventions suggested by iPrevent(®) were 100 % appropriate. iPrevent(®) successfully integrates the IBIS and BOADICEA risk assessment models into a decision support tool that provides evidence-based, risk-adapted risk management advice. This may help to facilitate precision breast cancer prevention discussions between women and their healthcare providers.