Primary care management of women with breast cancer-related concerns-a dynamic cohort study using a network database

Improving primary care identification of familial breast cancer risk using proactive invitation and decision support

Family history of breast cancer is a key risk factor, accounting for up to 10% of cancers. We evaluated the proactive assessment of familial breast cancer (FBC) risk in primary care. Eligible women (30 to 60 years) were recruited from eight English general practices. Practices were trained on FBC risk assessment. In four randomly-assigned practices, women were invited to complete a validated, postal family history questionnaire, which practice staff inputted into decision support software to determine cancer risk. Those with increased risk were offered specialist referral. Usual care was observed in the other four practices. In intervention practices, 1127/7012 women (16.1%) returned family history questionnaires, comprising 1105 (98%) self-reported white ethnicity and 446 (39.6%) educated to University undergraduate or equivalent qualification, with 119 (10.6%) identified at increased breast cancer risk and offered referral. Sixty-seven (56%) women recommended referral were less than 50 years old. From 66 women attending specialists, 26 (39.4%) were confirmed to have high risk and recommended annual surveillance (40–60 years) and surgical prevention; while 30 (45.5%) were confirmed at moderate risk, with 19 offered annual surveillance (40–50 years). The remaining 10 (15.2%) managed in primary care. None were recommended chemoprevention. In usual care practices, only ten women consulted with concerns about breast cancer family history. This study demonstrated proactive risk assessment in primary care enables accurate identification of women, including many younger women, at increased risk of breast cancer. To improve generalisability across the population, more active methods of engagement need to be explored.

Trial registration: CRUK Clinical Trials Database 11779.

Routine primary care data for scientific research, quality of care programs and educational purposes: the Julius General Practitioners' Network (JGPN)

BACKGROUND

General Practitioners (GPs) in the Netherlands routinely register all patient contacts electronically. These records include longitudinally gathered clinical information of the patient contacts in coded data and free text.

METHODS

Diagnoses are coded according to the International Coding of Primary Care (ICPC). Drug prescriptions are labelled with the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC), and letters of hospital specialists and paramedic health care professionals are linked or directly incorporated in the electronic medical files. A network of a large group of GPs collecting routine care data on an ongoing basis can be used for answering various research questions.

RESULTS

The Julius General Practitioners' Network (JGPN) database consists of routine care data from over ten years of a dynamic cohort of around 370,000 individuals registered with the participating GPs from the city of Utrecht and its vicinity. Health care data are extracted anonymously every quartile of a year and these data are used by researchers.

CONCLUSION

We describe the content and usability of our JGPN database, and how a wide variety of research questions could be answered, as illustrated with examples of published articles.

Referral to cancer genetic counseling: do migrant status and patients' educational background matter?

Participation rates in cancer genetic counseling differ among populations, as patients with a lower educational background and migrant patients seem to have poorer access to it. We conducted a study to determine the present-day educational level and migrant status of counselees referred to cancer genetic counseling. We assessed personal characteristics and demographics of 731 newly referred counselees. Descriptive statistics were used to describe these characteristics. The results show that about 40% of the counselees had a high educational level and 89% were Dutch natives. Compared to the Dutch population, we found a significant difference in educational level (p = < 0.01) and migrant status (p = < 0.001). This suggests disparities in cancer genetic counseling and as a result of that, suboptimal care for vulnerable groups. Limited health literacy is likely to pose a particular challenge to cancer genetic counseling for counselees with a lower education or a migrant background. Our study points to considerable scope for improvement in referring vulnerable groups of patients for cancer genetic counseling.