'A low risk is still a risk': exploring women's attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention

Factors influencing U.S. women's interest and preferences for breast cancer risk communication: a cross-sectional study from a large tertiary care breast imaging center

BACKGROUND

Breast imaging clinics in the United States (U.S.) are increasingly implementing breast cancer risk assessment (BCRA) to align with evolving guideline recommendations but with limited uptake of risk-reduction care. Effectively communicating risk information to women is central to implementation efforts, but remains understudied in the U.S. This study aims to characterize, and identify factors associated with women's interest in and preferences for breast cancer risk communication.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional survey study of U.S. women presenting for a mammogram between January and March of 2021 at a large, tertiary breast imaging clinic. Survey items assessed women's interest in knowing their risk and preferences for risk communication if considered to be at high risk in hypothetical situations. Multivariable logistic regression modeling assessed factors associated with women's interest in knowing their personal risk and preferences for details around exact risk estimates.

RESULTS

Among 1119 women, 72.7% were interested in knowing their breast cancer risk. If at high risk, 77% preferred to receive their exact risk estimate and preferred verbal (52.9% phone/47% in-person) vs. written (26.5% online/19.5% letter) communications. Adjusted regression analyses found that those with a primary family history of breast cancer were significantly more interested in knowing their risk (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0, 2.1, p = 0.04), while those categorized as "more than one race or other" were significantly less interested in knowing their risk (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.9, p = 0.02). Women 60 + years of age were significantly less likely to prefer exact estimates of their risk (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5, 0.98, p < 0.01), while women with greater than a high school education were significantly more likely to prefer exact risk estimates (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5, 4.2, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

U.S. women in this study expressed strong interest in knowing their risk and preferred to receive exact risk estimates verbally if found to be at high risk. Sociodemographic and family history influenced women's interest and preferences for risk communication. Breast imaging centers implementing risk assessment should consider strategies tailored to women's preferences to increase interest in risk estimates and improve risk communication.

The Need to Consider Context: A Systematic Review of Factors Involved in the Consent Process for Genetic Tests from the Perspective of Patients

Background: Informed consent for genetic tests is a well-established practice. It should be based on good quality information and in keeping with the patient's values. Existing informed consent assessment tools assess knowledge and values. Nevertheless, there is no consensus on what specific elements need to be discussed or considered in the consent process for genetic tests.Methods: We performed a systematic review to identify all factors involved in the decision-making and consent process about genetic testing, from the perspective of patients. Through public databases, we identified studies reporting factors that influence the decision to accept or decline genetic testing. Studies were included if they reported the perspective of patients or at-risk individuals. All articles were thematically coded.Results: 1989 articles were reviewed: 70 met inclusion criteria and 12 additional articles were identified through the references of included studies. Coding of the 82 articles led to the identification of 45 factors involved in decision-making and consent, which were initially divided into three domains: in favor of, against or with an undetermined influence on genetic testing. Each factor was also divided into three subdomains relating to the informed choice concept: knowledge, values or other. The factors in the "other" subdomain were all related to the context of testing (e.g. timing, cost, influence of family members, etc), and were present in all three domains.Conclusions: We describe the network of factors contributing to decision-making and consent process and identify the context of genetic testing as a third component to influence this process. Future studies should consider the evaluation of contextual factors as an important and relevant component of the consent and decision-making process about genetic tests. Based on these results, we plan to develop and test a more comprehensive tool to assess informed consent for genetic testing.

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals' views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants' information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs

BACKGROUND

Population-based cancer screening programmes are shifting away from age and/or sex-based screening criteria towards a risk-stratified approach. Any such changes must be acceptable to the public and communicated effectively. We aimed to explore the social and ethical considerations of implementing risk stratification at three different stages of the bowel cancer screening programme and to understand public requirements for communication.

METHODS

We conducted two pairs of community juries, addressing risk stratification for screening eligibility or thresholds for referral to colonoscopy and screening interval. Using screening test results (where applicable), and lifestyle and genetic risk scores were suggested as potential stratification strategies. After being informed about the topic through a series of presentations and discussions including screening principles, ethical considerations and how risk stratification could be incorporated, participants deliberated over the research questions. They then reported their final verdicts on the acceptability of risk-stratified screening and what information should be shared about their preferred screening strategy. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Risk stratification of bowel cancer screening was acceptable to the informed public. Using data within the current system (age, sex and screening results) was considered an obvious next step and collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also preferable to age-based screening. Participants acknowledged benefits to individuals and health services, as well as articulating concerns for people with low cancer risk, potential public misconceptions and additional complexity for the system. The need for clear and effective communication about changes to the screening programme and individual risk feedback was highlighted, including making a distinction between information that should be shared with everyone by default and additional details that are available elsewhere.

CONCLUSIONS

From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration.

Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment

BACKGROUND

Risk stratification has been proposed to improve the efficiency of population-level cancer screening. We aimed to describe and quantify the relative importance of different attributes of potential screening programs among the public, focusing on stratifying eligibility.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which respondents selected between 2 hypothetical screening programs in a series of 9 questions. We presented the risk factors used to determine eligibility (age, sex, or lifestyle or genetic risk scores) and anticipated outcomes based on eligibility criteria with different sensitivity and specificity levels. We performed conditional logit regression models and used the results to estimate preferences for different approaches. We also analyzed free-text comments on respondents' views on the programs.

RESULTS

A total of 1,172 respondents completed the survey. Sensitivity was the most important attribute (7 and 11 times more important than specificity and risk factors, respectively). Eligibility criteria based on age and sex or genetics were preferred over age alone and lifestyle risk scores. Phenotypic and polygenic risk prediction models would be more acceptable than screening everyone aged 55 to 70 y if they had high discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ≥0.75 and 0.80, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

Although our sample was representative with respect to age, sex, and ethnicity, it may not be representative of the UK population regarding other important characteristics. Also, some respondents may have not understood all the information provided to inform decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

The public prioritized lives saved from cancer over reductions in numbers screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up. Incorporating personal-level risk factors into screening eligibility criteria is acceptable to the public if it increases sensitivity; therefore, maximizing sensitivity in model development and communication could increase uptake.

HIGHLIGHTS

The public prioritized lives saved when considering changing from age-based eligibility criteria to risk-stratified cancer screening over reductions in numbers of people being screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up.The risk stratification strategy used to do this was the least important component, although age plus sex or genetics were relatively preferable to using age alone and lifestyle risk scores.Communication strategies that emphasize improvements in the numbers of cancers detected or not missed across the population are more likely to be salient than reductions in unnecessary investigations or follow-up among some groups.Future research should focus on developing implementation strategies that maximize gains in sensitivity within the context of resource constraints and how to present attributes relating to specificity to facilitate understanding and informed decision making.

Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation

BACKGROUND

Introduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667.

RESULTS

A total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.

"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

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.

A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies.

METHODS

We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40-79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, 'Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?' Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high-risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non-modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability.

CONCLUSION

Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co-facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening

Cancer screening programmes have a major role in reducing cancer incidence and mortality. Traditional internationally-adopted protocols have been to invite all 'eligible individuals' for the same test at the same frequency. However, as highlighted in Cancer Research UK's 2020 strategic vision, there are opportunities to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and reduce harms of screening programmes, by making recommendations on the basis of personalised estimates of risk. In some respects, this extends current approaches of providing more intensive levels of care outside screening programmes to individuals at very high risk due to their family history or underlying conditions. However, risk-adapted colorectal cancer screening raises a wide range of questions, not only about how best to change existing programmes but also about the psychological and behavioural effects that these changes might have. Previous studies in other settings provide some important information but remain to be tested and explored further in the context of colorectal screening. Conducting behavioural science research in parallel to clinical research will ensure that risk-adapted screening is understood and accepted by the population that it aims to serve.

Barriers and Facilitators for Population Genetic Screening in Healthy Populations: A Systematic Review

Studies suggest that 1-3% of the general population in the United States unknowingly carry a genetic risk factor for a common hereditary disease. Population genetic screening is the process of offering otherwise healthy patients in the general population testing for genomic variants that predispose them to diseases that are clinically actionable, meaning that they can be prevented or mitigated if they are detected early. Population genetic screening may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from these diseases by informing risk-specific prevention or treatment strategies and facilitating appropriate participation in early detection. To better understand current barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to the implementation of population genetic screening, we conducted a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published from date of database inception to May 2020. We included articles that 1) detailed the perspectives of participants in population genetic screening programs and 2) described the barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to population genetic screening programs among patients, healthcare providers, and the public. We excluded articles that 1) focused on direct-to-consumer or risk-based genetic testing and 2) were published before January 2000. Thirty articles met these criteria. Barriers and facilitators to population genetic screening were organized by the Social Ecological Model and further categorized by themes. We found that research in population genetic screening has focused on stakeholder attitudes with all included studies designed to elucidate individuals' perceptions. Additionally, inadequate knowledge and perceived limited clinical utility presented a barrier for healthcare provider uptake. There were very few studies that conducted long-term follow-up and evaluation of population genetic screening. Our findings suggest that these and other factors, such as prescreen counseling and education, may play a role in the adoption and implementation of population genetic screening. Future studies to investigate macro-level determinants, strategies to increase provider buy-in and knowledge, delivery models for prescreen counseling, and long-term outcomes of population genetic screening are needed for the effective design and implementation of such programs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020198198.

Polygenic risk scores: the future of cancer risk prediction, screening, and precision prevention

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have shown that the genetic architecture of cancers are highly polygenic and enabled researchers to identify genetic risk loci for cancers. The genetic variants associated with a cancer can be combined into a polygenic risk score (PRS), which captures part of an individual's genetic susceptibility to cancer. Recently, PRSs have been widely used in cancer risk prediction and are shown to be capable of identifying groups of individuals who could benefit from the knowledge of their probabilistic susceptibility to cancer, which leads to an increased interest in understanding the potential utility of PRSs that might further refine the assessment and management of cancer risk. In this context, we provide an overview of the major discoveries from cancer GWASs. We then review the methodologies used for PRS construction, and describe steps for the development and evaluation of risk prediction models that include PRS and/or conventional risk factors. Potential utility of PRSs in cancer risk prediction, screening, and precision prevention are illustrated. Challenges and practical considerations relevant to the implementation of PRSs in health care settings are discussed.

UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study

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.

Exploring Implementation of Personal Breast Cancer Risk Assessments

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.

Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public

BACKGROUND

There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk-stratified (risk-tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset.

RESULTS

Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high-risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low-risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently.

CONCLUSIONS

Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk-stratified cancer screening.

Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?

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.

Acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility for screening: A population-based survey

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.

Women's Views on Multifactorial Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Screening: A Population-Based Survey from Four Provinces in Canada

Risk-stratified screening for breast cancer (BC) is increasingly considered as a promising approach. However, its implementation is challenging and needs to be acceptable to women. We examined Canadian women’s attitudes towards, comfort level about, and willingness to take part in BC risk-stratified screening. We conducted an online survey in women aged 30 to 69 years in four Canadian provinces. In total, 4293 women completed the questionnaire (response rate of 63%). The majority of women (63.5% to 72.8%) expressed favorable attitudes towards BC risk-stratified screening. Most women reported that they would be comfortable providing personal and genetic information for BC risk assessment (61.5% to 67.4%) and showed a willingness to have their BC risk assessed if offered (74.8%). Most women (85.9%) would also accept an increase in screening frequency if they were at higher risk, but fewer (49.3%) would accept a reduction in screening frequency if they were at lower risk. There were few differences by province; however, outcomes varied by age, education level, marital status, income, perceived risk, history of BC, prior mammography, and history of genetic test for BC (all p ≤ 0.01). Risk-based BC screening using multifactorial risk assessment appears to be acceptable to most women. This suggests that the implementation of this approach is likely to be well-supported by Canadian women.

Influence of lived experience on risk perception among women who received a breast cancer polygenic risk score: 'Another piece of the pie'

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are personalized assessments of disease risk based on the cumulative effect of common low-risk genetic variants. PRS have been shown to accurately predict women's breast cancer risk and are likely to be incorporated into personalized breast cancer risk management programs. However, there are few studies investigating the individual impact of receiving a breast cancer PRS. Existing studies have not demonstrated significant changes in perceived risk or risk management behaviors after receipt of polygenic risk information. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women with a family history of breast cancer construct breast cancer risk perceptions after receipt of a breast cancer PRS. Unaffected women with a family history of breast cancer who had not previously received genetic counseling regarding their breast cancer risk were invited to participate in this study. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 women who attended a familial cancer clinic in the Australian states of Victoria and Tasmania. Data were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Women's lived experience played a significant role in the construction and maintenance of their breast cancer risk perception. Women's pre-existing risk perceptions were informed by their family history and their knowledge that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease. Knowing that breast cancer is a multifactorial disease enabled most women to integrate genetic information with their pre-existing notions of risk. Women reported that the information they received was consistent with their existing notions of personal risk and screening advice. Therefore, the PRS did not lead to a change in perceived risk or risk management behaviors for most women. The results of this study provide insight into how polygenic risk information is integrated with pre-existing notions of risk, which will inform its implementation into clinical practice.

Introducing a low-risk breast screening pathway into the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from healthcare professionals who are delivering risk-stratified screening

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.

Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway

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.

The emerging field of polygenic risk scores and perspective for use in clinical care

Genetic testing is used widely for diagnostic, carrier and predictive testing in monogenic diseases. Until recently, there were no genetic testing options available for multifactorial complex diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been invaluable in identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with increased or decreased risk for hundreds of complex disorders. For a given disease, SNPs can be combined to generate a cumulative estimation of risk known as a polygenic risk score (PRS). After years of research, PRSs are increasingly used in clinical settings. In this article, we will review the literature on how both genome-wide and restricted PRSs are developed and the relative merit of each. The validation and evaluation of PRSs will also be discussed, including the recognition that PRS validity is intrinsically linked to the methodological and analytical approach of the foundation GWAS together with the ethnic characteristics of that cohort. Specifically, population differences may affect imputation accuracy, risk magnitude and direction. Even as PRSs are being introduced into clinical practice, there is a push to combine them with clinical and demographic risk factors to develop a holistic disease risk. The existing evidence regarding the clinical utility of PRSs is considered across four different domains: informing population screening programs, guiding therapeutic interventions, refining risk for families at high risk, and facilitating diagnosis and predicting prognostic outcomes. The evidence for clinical utility in relation to five well-studied disorders is summarized. The potential ethical, legal and social implications are also highlighted.

Clinical applications of polygenic breast cancer risk: a critical review and perspectives of an emerging field

Polygenic factors are estimated to account for an additional 18% of the familial relative risk of breast cancer, with those at the highest level of polygenic risk distribution having a least a twofold increased risk of the disease. Polygenic testing promises to revolutionize health services by providing personalized risk assessments to women at high-risk of breast cancer and within population breast screening programs. However, implementation of polygenic testing needs to be considered in light of its current limitations, such as limited risk prediction for women of non-European ancestry. This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the evidence for polygenic breast cancer risk, including the discovery of variants associated with breast cancer at the genome-wide level of significance and the use of polygenic risk scores to estimate breast cancer risk. We also review the different applications of this technology including testing of women from high-risk breast cancer families with uninformative genetic testing results, as a moderator of monogenic risk, and for population screening programs. Finally, a potential framework for introducing testing for polygenic risk in familial cancer clinics and the potential challenges with implementing this technology in clinical practice are discussed.

Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening among women in England: A cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVES

Risk stratification may improve the benefit/harm ratio of breast screening. Research on acceptability among potential invitees is necessary to guide implementation. We assessed women's attitudes towards and willingness to undergo risk assessment and stratified screening.

METHODS

Women in England aged 40-70 received summary information about the topic, and completed face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. Questions assessed willingness to undergo multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment, more frequent breast screening (if at very high risk), or less frequent or no screening (if at very low risk), and preferences for delivery of assessment results.

RESULTS

Among 933 women, 85% considered breast cancer risk assessment a good idea, and 74% were willing to have it. Among 125 women unwilling to have risk assessment, reasons commonly related to 'worry' (14%) and 'preferring not to know' (14%). Among those willing to have risk assessment (n = 689), letters/emails were generally preferred (42%) for results about very low-risk status. Face-to-face communication was most commonly preferred for results of very high-risk status (78%). General practitioners were most commonly preferred sources of assessment results (≈40%). Breast cancer specialists were often preferred for results of very high-risk status (38%). Risk-stratified breast screening was considered a good idea by 70% and 89% were willing to have more frequent screening. Fewer would accept less (51%) or no screening (37%) if at very low risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Women were generally in favour of multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening. Some were unwilling to accept less or no screening if at very low risk.

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).

Acceptability of risk-stratified breast screening: Effect of the order of presenting risk and benefit information

Objective

To test whether reduced-frequency risk-stratified breast screening would be perceived more favourably by transposing the order of information on benefits and risks.

Methods

After reading vignettes describing non-stratified three-yearly screening and a risk-stratified alternative with five-yearly invitations for women at low risk, 698 women completed an online survey. Participants were allocated at random to information on screening benefits followed by risks, or vice versa, and asked to state preferences for either screening system. Participants also rated perceived magnitude of screening benefits and risks, and breast cancer susceptibility.

Results

Binomial logistic regression did not find order effects on preferences (p = 0.533) or perceived benefits of screening (p = 0.780). Perceived screening risks were greater when risks were presented first (p < 0.0005). Greater perceived susceptibility was associated with lower proportions preferring risk-stratified screening (15% vs. 39% in highest and lowest groups; p = 0.002), as were greater perceived screening benefits (e.g. 13% vs. 45% in highest and lowest groups; p < 0.0005).

Conclusions

No information order effect on preferences was observed. Information order did affect screening risk perceptions. Efforts to improve perceptions may need to be more intensive than those tested. Women perceiving themselves as high risk or perceiving greater benefits of screening may be particularly averse to less frequent screening.

Evaluating the Integration of Genomics into Cancer Screening Programmes: Challenges and Opportunities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the costs of genomic testing have fallen, and our understanding of genetic susceptibility to cancers has grown, there has been increasing interest in incorporating testing for cancer susceptibility genes, and polygenic risk estimates, into population cancer screening. A growing body of evidence suggests that this would be both clinically and cost-effective. In this article, we aim to explore the frameworks used to evaluate screening programmes, evaluate whether population screening for cancer susceptibility can be assessed using these standards, and consider additional issues and outcomes of importance in this context.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are tensions between traditional approaches of genetic testing (utilising tests with high sensitivity and specificity) and the principles of population screening (in which the screening test typically has low specificity), as well as the frameworks used to evaluate the two. Despite the existence of many screening guidelines, including consensus papers, these often do not align fully with broader considerations of genetic test evaluation. Population screening for genetic risk in cancer shifts the focus from diagnostics to prognostication and has wider implications for personal and familial health than existing screening programmes. In addition, understanding of the prevalence and penetrance of cancer susceptibility genes, required by many screening guidelines, may only be obtainable through population-level testing; prospective multi-disciplinary research alongside implementation will be essential.

SUMMARY

Appropriate evaluation of genetic screening for cancer risk will require modification of existing screening frameworks to incorporate additional complexity of outcomes and population values. As evidence supporting population screening for cancer susceptibility mounts, development of an appropriate evaluative framework, and expansion of public dialogue will be key to informing policy.

"A Natural Progression": Australian Women's Attitudes About an Individualized Breast Screening Model

Individualized screening is our logical next step to improve population breast cancer screening in Australia. To explore breast screening participants' views of the current program in Victoria, Australia, examine their openness to change, and attitudes toward an individualized screening model, this qualitative work was performed from a population-based breast screening cohort. This work was designed to inform the development of a decision aid to facilitate women's decisions about participating in individualized screening, and to elicit Australian consumer perspectives on the international movement toward individualized breast screening. A total of 52 women participated in one of four focus groups, and were experienced with screening with 90% of participants having had more than three mammograms. Focus group discussion was facilitated following three main themes: (i) experience of breast screening; (ii) breast cancer risk perception, and (iii) views on individualized screening. Participants had strong, positive, emotional ties to breast screening in its current structure but were supportive, with some reservations, of the idea of individualized screening. There was good understanding about the factors contributing to personalized risk and a wide range of opinions about the inclusion of genetic testing with genetic testing being considered a foreign and evolving domain. Individualized breast screening that takes account of risk factors such as mammographic density, lifestyle, and genetic factors would be acceptable to a population of women who are invested in the current system. The communication and implementation of a new program would be critical to its acceptance and potential success. Reservations may be had in regards to uptake of genetic testing, motivations behind the change, and management of the women allocated to a lower risk category.

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genomic testing in cancer: a systematic review

Psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of genetic testing in oncology are well known, however, it is unclear how these findings will generalize to more complex genomic testing. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the psychosocial and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing. Studies were selected for inclusion if they were published from January 2003 to January 2017 and addressed psychological and behavioral outcomes of cancer genomic testing in adults. A review of four databases identified 9620 abstracts, with 22 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the included articles, 11 studies reported on outcomes of germline testing, with three articles assessing panel testing and eight SNP testing. No studies assessed the outcomes of WGS or WES. Eleven articles assessed the outcomes of somatic testing, including testing for cancer prognosis and for personalized therapies. Studies were biased toward breast cancer and Caucasian women with high education and socioeconomic status. While studies demonstrated limited adverse psychological outcomes associated with genomic testing, a lack of consistency in psychosocial measures precluded any meta-analysis. Changes in health behavior following positive results were limited, and in some cases risk perception was not altered following genomic testing. There is limited evidence of adverse psychosocial outcomes and changes in health behavior following genomic testing to assess cancer risk. Findings from this review highlight the need for longitudinal research with superior methodological and theoretical design.

Women's perceptions of the adoption of personalised risk-based breast cancer screening and primary prevention: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors may enable a paradigm shift from the current age-based mammographic screening programmes to a personalised risk-based approach. This would warrant a significant change in practice, yet the acceptability from a woman's perspective has never been systematically explored. In this systematic review, we inventoried and appraised studies of women's perceptions of risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention to identify factors associated with adopting this new paradigm.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase and PsycInfo to identify original articles in English containing perceptions of risk-based breast cancer screening and/or primary prevention of women with an average to above average risk of developing breast cancer. Qualitative data were systematically extracted and referenced against four theoretical models of preventative health behaviour adoption.

RESULTS

When considering the adoption of this novel screening and prevention programme, women carefully review their perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. Their decisions are based on a cost-benefit analysis of adopting lifestyle changes, chemoprevention, or prophylactic surgery, taking into account their perceived competence, individual autonomy, relatedness to others, and personal preference. The role of intent is limited when considering behavioural change.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention will require a multifactorial approach. The transition from theory to practice can be supported by developing evidence-based shared decision aids and family-oriented (genetic) counselling programmes.

High-risk women's risk perception after receiving personalized polygenic breast cancer risk information

Evidence is accumulating of the clinical utility of single nucleotide polymorphisms to effectively stratify risk of breast cancer. Yet for this personalized polygenic information to be translated to clinical practice, consideration is needed about how this personalized risk information should be communicated and the impact on risk perception. This study examined the psychosocial implications and the impact on risk perception of communicating personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women. High-risk women with a personal history of breast cancer and an uninformative BRCA1/2 result were genotyped in the Variants in Practice study for 22 breast cancer single nucleotide polymorphisms. Participants in the highest quartile of polygenic breast cancer risk were invited to receive their individual research results. Two personalized visual risk communication tools were used to facilitate communication of the polygenic information. Participants subsequently undertook a semi-structured interview examining their experience of receiving their polygenic breast cancer risk and their breast cancer risk perception. Thirty-nine women opted to receive their results and were interviewed. The women described the risk communication tools as helpful as the tool enabled comparison of their personalized breast cancer risk to the general population. Participants incorporated the polygenic risk information into their breast cancer risk perception, which for some reawakened feelings of being at risk years after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result. However, few reported any detrimental emotional impact. The delivery of personalized polygenic breast cancer risk to high-risk women informed and modified their breast cancer risk perception with little emotional impact.

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.

Anticipated health behaviour changes and perceived control in response to disclosure of genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a quantitative survey study among women in the UK

BACKGROUND

Genetic risk assessment for breast cancer and ovarian cancer (BCOC) is expected to make major inroads into mainstream clinical practice. It is important to evaluate the potential impact on women ahead of its implementation in order to maximise health benefits, as predictive genetic testing without adequate support could lead to adverse psychological and behavioural responses to risk disclosure.

OBJECTIVE

To examine anticipated health behaviour changes and perceived control to disclosure of genetic risk for BCOC and establish demographic and person-specific correlates of adverse anticipated responses in a population-based sample of women.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional quantitative survey study carried out by the UK Office for National Statistics in January and March 2014.

SETTING

Face-to-face computer-assisted interviews conducted by trained researchers in participants' homes.

PARTICIPANTS

837 women randomly chosen from households across the UK identified from the Royal Mail's Postcode Address File.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Anticipated health behaviour change and perceived control to disclosure of BCOC risk.

RESULTS

In response to a genetic test result, most women (72%) indicated 'I would try harder to have a healthy lifestyle', and over half (55%) felt 'it would give me more control over my life'. These associations were independent of demographic factors or perceived risk of BCOC in Bonferroni-corrected multivariate analyses. However, a minority of women (14%) felt 'it isn't worth making lifestyle changes' and that 'I would feel less free to make choices in my life' (16%) in response to BCOC risk disclosure. The former belief was more likely to be held by women who were educated below university degree level (P<0.001) after adjusting for other demographic and person-specific correlates.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that women in the UK largely anticipate that they would engage in positive health behaviour changes in response to BCOC risk disclosure.

Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes

Background

Advances in genetic technologies are expected to make population-wide genetic testing feasible. This could provide a basis for risk stratified cancer screening; but acceptability in the target populations has not been explored.

Methods

We assessed attitudes to risk-stratified ovarian cancer (OC) screening based on prior genetic risk assessment using a survey design. Home-based interviews were carried out by the UK Office of National Statistics in a population-based sample of 1095 women aged 18–74. Demographic and personal correlates of attitudes to risk-stratified OC screening based on prior genetic risk assessment were determined using univariate analyses and adjusted logistic regression models.

Results

Full data on the key analytic questions were available for 829 respondents (mean age 46 years; 27 % ‘university educated’; 93 % ‘White’). Relatively few respondents felt they were at ‘higher’ or ‘much higher’ risk of OC than other women of their age group (7.4 %, n = 61). Most women (85 %) said they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ take up OC genetic testing; which increased to 88 % if the test also informed about breast cancer risk. Almost all women (92 %) thought they would ‘probably’ or ‘definitely’ participate in risk-stratified OC screening. In multivariate logistic regression models, university level education was associated with lower anticipated uptake of genetic testing (p = 0.009), but with more positive attitudes toward risk-stratified screening (p <0.001). Perceived risk was not significantly associated with any of the outcome variables.

Conclusions

These findings give confidence in taking forward research on integration of novel genomic technologies into mainstream healthcare.

The psychological impact of undergoing genetic-risk profiling in men with a family history of prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The ability to identify men at genetically high-risk of prostate cancer (PrCa) would enable screening to be targeted at those most in need. This study explored the psychological impact (in terms of general and PrCa-specific worry and risk perceptions) on men with a family history of PrCa, undergoing prostate screening and genetic-risk profiling, within a research study.

METHODS

A prospective exploratory approach was adopted, incorporating a sequential mixed-method design. Questionnaires were completed at two time points to measure the impact of undergoing screening and genetic-risk profiling. In-depth interviews were completed in a subgroup after all study procedures were completed and analysed using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Ninety-five men completed both questionnaires, and 26 were interviewed. No measurable psychological distress was detectable in the group as a whole. The interview findings fell into two categories: 'feeling at risk' and 'living with risk'. The feeling of being at risk of PrCa is a part of men's lives, shaped by assumptions and information gathered over many years. Men used this information to communicate about PrCa risk to their peers. Men overestimate their risk of PrCa and have an innate assumption that they will develop PrCa. The interviews revealed that men experienced acute anxiety when waiting for screening results.

CONCLUSIONS

Personalised genetic-risk assessments do not prevent men from overestimating their risk of PrCa. Screening anxiety is common, and timeframes for receiving results should be kept to a minimum. Methods of risk communication in men at risk of PrCa should be the subject of future research.

Why Breast Cancer Risk by the Numbers Is Not Enough: Evaluation of a Decision Aid in Multi-Ethnic, Low-Numerate Women

Background

Breast cancer risk assessment including genetic testing can be used to classify people into different risk groups with screening and preventive interventions tailored to the needs of each group, yet the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer prevention in primary care settings is complex.

Objective

To address barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, risk communication, and prevention strategies in primary care settings, we developed a Web-based decision aid, RealRisks, that aims to improve preference-based decision-making for breast cancer prevention, particularly in low-numerate women.

Methods

RealRisks incorporates experience-based dynamic interfaces to communicate risk aimed at reducing inaccurate risk perceptions, with modules on breast cancer risk, genetic testing, and chemoprevention that are tailored. To begin, participants learn about risk by interacting with two games of experience-based risk interfaces, demonstrating average 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk. We conducted four focus groups in English-speaking women (age ≥18 years), a questionnaire completed before and after interacting with the decision aid, and a semistructured group discussion. We employed a mixed-methods approach to assess accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk and acceptability of RealRisks. The qualitative analysis of the semistructured discussions assessed understanding of risk, risk models, and risk appropriate prevention strategies.

Results

Among 34 participants, mean age was 53.4 years, 62% (21/34) were Hispanic, and 41% (14/34) demonstrated low numeracy. According to the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), the mean 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk were 1.11% (SD 0.77) and 7.46% (SD 2.87), respectively. After interacting with RealRisks, the difference in perceived and estimated breast cancer risk according to BCRAT improved for 5-year risk (P=.008). In the qualitative analysis, we identified potential barriers to adopting risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention strategies, including uncertainty about breast cancer risk and risk models, distrust toward the health care system, and perception that risk assessment to pre-screen women for eligibility for genetic testing may be viewed as rationing access to care.

Conclusions

In a multi-ethnic population, we demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk after exposure to RealRisks. However, we identified potential barriers that suggest that accurate risk perceptions will not suffice as the sole basis to support informed decision making and the acceptance of risk-appropriate prevention strategies. Findings will inform the iterative design of the RealRisks decision aid.

Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?

There is growing evidence that inclusion of genetic information about known common susceptibility variants may enable population risk-stratification and personalized prevention for common diseases including cancer. This would require the inclusion of genetic testing as an integral part of individual risk assessment of an asymptomatic individual. Front line health professionals would be expected to interact with and assist asymptomatic individuals through the risk stratification process. In that case, additional knowledge and skills may be needed. Current guidelines and frameworks for genetic competencies of non-specialist health professionals place an emphasis on rare inherited genetic diseases. For common diseases, health professionals do use risk assessment tools but such tools currently do not assess genetic susceptibility of individuals. In this article, we compare the skills and knowledge needed by non-genetic health professionals, if risk-stratified prevention is implemented, with existing competence recommendations from the UK, USA and Europe, in order to assess the gaps in current competences. We found that health professionals would benefit from understanding the contribution of common genetic variations in disease risk, the rationale for a risk-stratified prevention pathway, and the implications of using genomic information in risk-assessment and risk management of asymptomatic individuals for common disease prevention.

Adjusting the frequency of mammography screening on the basis of genetic risk: Attitudes among women in the UK

PURPOSE

To explore public attitudes towards modifying frequency of mammography screening based on genetic risk.

METHODS

Home-based interviews were carried out with a population-based sample of 942 women aged 18-74 years in the UK. Demographic characteristics and perceived breast cancer (BC) risk were examined as predictors of support for risk-stratified BC screening and of the acceptability of raised or lowered screening frequency based on genetic risk, using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Over two-thirds of respondents (65.8%) supported the idea of varying screening frequency on the basis of genetic risk. The majority (85.4%) were willing to have more frequent breast screening if they were found to be at higher risk, but fewer (58.8%) were willing to have less frequent screening if at lower risk (t (956) = 15.6, p < 0.001). Ethnic minority status was associated with less acceptability of more frequent screening (OR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.21-0.74), but there were no other significant demographic correlates. Higher perceived risk of BC was associated with greater acceptability of more frequent screening (OR = 1.71, 95%CI = 1.27-2.30).

CONCLUSION

Women were positive about adjusting the frequency of mammography screening in line with personal genetic risk, but it will be important to develop effective communication materials to minimise resistance to reducing screening frequency for those at lower genetic risk.

"It's all very well reading the letters in the genome, but it's a long way to being able to write": Men's interpretations of undergoing genetic profiling to determine future risk of prostate cancer

A family history of prostate cancer (PC) is one of the main risk factors for the disease. A number of common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that confer small but cumulatively substantial risks of PC have been identified, opening the possibility for the use of SNPs in PC risk stratification for targeted screening and prevention in the future. The objective of this study was to explore the psychosocial impact of receiving information about genetic risk of PC. The participants were men who had a family history of PC and were enrolled in a screening study providing research genetic profiling alongside screening for PC. A combination of questionnaires and in-depth interviews were used. Questionnaires were completed by men at two time points: both before and after joining the study and going through the genetic profiling process. The interviews were completed after all study process were complete and were analysed using a framework analysis. In total 95 men completed both questionnaires and 26 men were interviewed. A number of issues facing men at risk of PC were identified. The results fell into two main categories: personal relevance and societal relevance. The strength of men's innate beliefs about their risk, shaped by genetic and environmental assumptions, outweigh the information provided by genetic testing. Men felt genetic profile results would have future use for accessing prostate screening, being aware of symptoms and in communicating with others. The findings reinforce the importance of providing contextual information alongside genetic profiling test results, and emphasises the importance of the counselling process in providing genetic risk information. This research raises some key issues to facilitate clinical practice and future research related to the use of genetic profiling to determine risk of PC and other diseases.

Population-based genetic risk prediction and stratification for ovarian cancer: views from women at high risk

There is an opportunity to improve outcomes for ovarian cancer (OC) through advances in risk stratification, early detection and diagnosis. A population-based OC genetic risk prediction and stratification program is being developed. A previous focus group study with individuals from the general population showed support for the proposed program. This qualitative interview study explores the attitudes of women at high risk of OC. Eight women participated in one-on-one, in-depth, semi-structured interviews to explore: experiences of learning of OC risk, risk perceptions, OC knowledge and awareness, and opinions on risk stratification approach. There was evidence of strong support for the proposed program. Benefits were seen as providing reassurance to women at low risk, and reducing worry in women at high risk through appropriate clinical management. Stratification into ‘low’ and ‘high’ risk groups was well-received. Participants were more hesitant about stratification to the ‘intermediate’ risk group. The data suggest formats to effectively communicate OC risk estimates will require careful thought. Interactions with GPs were highlighted as a barrier to OC risk assessment and diagnosis. These results are encouraging for the possible introduction and uptake of a risk prediction and stratification program for OC in the general population.

Population-based, risk-stratified genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk: a focus group study

STUDY PURPOSE

A population-based risk stratification programme for ovarian cancer (OC) may improve OC survival by identifying women at increased risk and implementing an appropriate risk management strategy. The present study explored attitudes towards an OC risk stratification programme incorporating predictive genetic testing and risk-stratified screening as part of a larger study investigating OC screening.

METHODS

Focus groups consisting of 56 members of the general public (mean age 45 years; 34% non-white) were conducted using a hypothetical scenario. The group sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis.

RESULTS

There was strong support for the proposed programme. Genetic testing and risk-stratified screening was thought to raise awareness, offer reassurance and offer opportunities for early intervention. Anxiety was only mentioned in relation to receiving a diagnosis of OC and not with screening per se. Perhaps because lay models of cancer already embrace both environmental and genetic factors, a low-risk result was not anticipated to result in a false sense of immunity. Unexpectedly, participants also wanted to receive cancer prevention advice in conjunction with genetic testing; screening alone was not regarded as sufficient.

CONCLUSION

The encouraging results from this small study warrant further large-scale research into risk-stratified OC screening.

Genetic susceptibility testing for beryllium: worker knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes

BACKGROUND

We sought to gain insight into workers' knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes on the subject of testing for genetic susceptibility to beryllium.

METHODS

Five focus groups were held with 30 current and former beryllium workers and nine family members. Audio recordings were transcribed and assessed by hierarchical coding using an inductive approach.

RESULTS

Some workers were unclear about the distinction between genotoxicity and heritability. A key finding is that they perceived the benefits of a positive test result to be related to enhanced autonomous decision-making. The major concern cited by participants was potential abuse of genetic information by employers. Complete financial separation of a prospective testing entity from the employer was seen as crucial.

CONCLUSIONS

A window of opportunity exists to create regional partnerships for translational research on genetic susceptibility testing. Such partnerships would involve labor, management, public health scientists, primary care professionals, and other stakeholders. They would be critical to identifying testing strategies that maximize worker autonomy along with the public health advantages of genetic testing.