1
|
Madeo AC, Kohlmann W, Liao Y, Zhong L, Rothwell E, Kaphingst KA. Women's preferences for genetic screening in routine care: A qualitative study. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2024; 130:108439. [PMID: 39303503 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2024] [Revised: 08/06/2024] [Accepted: 09/11/2024] [Indexed: 09/22/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Examine decision-making regarding when women would prefer to receive reproductive carrier and cancer predisposition screening and from what clinician. METHODS 20 women completed in-depth interviews via Zoom exploring their views on the provision of reproductive carrier and cancer predisposition screening. Our analysis identified themes related to what informs women's preferences for when they would like to receive a genetic screening offer and by which clinician. RESULTS Participants' responses to questions about when they would be interested in receiving genetic screening were best understood through the lens of the Extended Parallel Process Model. Specifically, personal utility of the information, a woman's family health history and cost were key factors in decision-making. Women considered their clinician's knowledge and their trust in and relationship with the clinician when deciding from whom they would prefer to receive an offer of genetic screening. CONCLUSION OB/GYN clinic patients may accept an offer of genetic screening from a knowledgeable and trusted clinician for carrier and cancer predisposition screening preconceptionally or prenatally. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Integrating genetic reproductive and cancer predisposition screening into the care provided to reproductive age OB/GYN patients may be acceptable to this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne C Madeo
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
| | - Wendy Kohlmann
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Yi Liao
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Lingzi Zhong
- Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Erin Rothwell
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Kimberly A Kaphingst
- Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kelley-Jones C, Scott SE, Waller J. Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:1111. [PMID: 39243000 PMCID: PMC11378402 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12847-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2024] [Accepted: 08/23/2024] [Indexed: 09/09/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-stratified approaches to breast screening show promise for increasing benefits and reducing harms. But the successful implementation of such an approach will rely on public acceptability. To date, research suggests that while increased screening for women at high risk will be acceptable, any de-intensification of screening for low-risk groups may be met with less enthusiasm. We report findings from a population-based survey of women in England, approaching the age of eligibility for breast screening, to compare the acceptability of current age-based screening with two hypothetical risk-adapted approaches for women at low risk of breast cancer. METHODS An online survey of 1,579 women aged 40-49 with no personal experience of breast cancer or mammography. Participants were recruited via a market research panel, using target quotas for educational attainment and ethnic group, and were randomised to view information about (1) standard NHS age-based screening; (2) a later screening start age for low-risk women; or (3) a longer screening interval for low-risk women. Primary outcomes were cognitive, emotional, and global acceptability. ANOVAs and multiple regression were used to compare acceptability between groups and explore demographic and psychosocial factors associated with acceptability. RESULTS All three screening approaches were judged to be acceptable on the single-item measure of global acceptability (mean score > 3 on a 5-point scale). Scores for all three measures of acceptability were significantly lower for the risk-adapted scenarios than for age-based screening. There were no differences between the two risk-adapted scenarios. In multivariable analysis, higher breast cancer knowledge was positively associated with cognitive and emotional acceptability of screening approach. Willingness to undergo personal risk assessment was not associated with experimental group. CONCLUSION We found no difference in the acceptability of later start age vs. longer screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer in a large sample of women who were screening naïve. Although acceptability of both risk-adapted scenarios was lower than for standard age-based screening, overall acceptability was reasonable. The positive associations between knowledge and both cognitive and emotional acceptability suggests clear and reassuring communication about the rationale for de-intensified screening may enhance acceptability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charlotte Kelley-Jones
- Cancer Prevention Group, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Campus, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 1UL, UK.
- c/o Professor J. Waller, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
| | - Suzanne E Scott
- Cancer Prevention Group, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Campus, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 1UL, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK
| | - Jo Waller
- Cancer Prevention Group, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, Guy's Campus, Great Maze Pond, London, SE1 1UL, UK
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, Charterhouse Square, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Kelley Jones C, Scott S, Pashayan N, Morris S, Okan Y, Waller J. Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment. Med Decis Making 2024; 44:586-600. [PMID: 38828503 PMCID: PMC11283735 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x241254828] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2023] [Accepted: 04/08/2024] [Indexed: 06/05/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A risk-stratified breast screening program could offer low-risk women less screening than is currently offered by the National Health Service. The acceptability of this approach may be enhanced if it corresponds to UK women's screening preferences and values. OBJECTIVES To elicit and quantify preferences for low-risk screening options. METHODS Women aged 40 to 70 y with no history of breast cancer took part in an online discrete choice experiment. We generated 32 hypothetical low-risk screening programs defined by 5 attributes (start age, end age, screening interval, risk of dying from breast cancer, and risk of overdiagnosis), the levels of which were systematically varied between the programs. Respondents were presented with 8 choice sets and asked to choose between 2 screening alternatives or no screening. Preference data were analyzed using conditional logit regression models. The relative importance of attributes and the mean predicted probability of choosing each program were estimated. RESULTS Participants (N = 502) preferred all screening programs over no screening. An older starting age of screening, younger end age of screening, longer intervals between screening, and increased risk of dying had a negative impact on support for screening programs (P < 0.01). Although the risk of overdiagnosis was of low relative importance, a decreased risk of this harm had a small positive impact on screening choices. The mean predicted probabilities that risk-adapted screening programs would be supported relative to current guidelines were low (range, 0.18 to 0.52). CONCLUSIONS A deintensified screening pathway for women at low risk of breast cancer, especially one that recommends a later screening start age, would run counter to women's breast screening preferences. Further research is needed to enhance the acceptability of offering less screening to those at low risk of breast cancer. HIGHLIGHTS Risk-based breast screening may involve the deintensification of screening for women at low risk of breast cancer.Low-risk screening pathways run counter to women's screening preferences and values.Longer screening intervals may be preferable to a later start age.Work is needed to enhance the acceptability of a low-risk screening pathway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Suzanne Scott
- Professor of Health Psychology, Queen Mary University London, London, UK
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Professor of Applied Cancer Research, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephen Morris
- Rand Professor of Health Services Research, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Yasmina Okan
- Department of Communication, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
- Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, Leeds, UK
| | - Jo Waller
- Professor of Cancer Behavioural Science, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Dunlop KLA, Singh N, Robbins HA, Zahed H, Johansson M, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review. Prev Med 2024; 181:107897. [PMID: 38378124 PMCID: PMC11106520 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2023] [Revised: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate L A Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Nehal Singh
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hilary A Robbins
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Hana Zahed
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Mattias Johansson
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Loft LH, Pedersen LH, Bigaard J, Bojesen SE. Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a population-based survey among 5,001 Danish women. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:347. [PMID: 38504201 PMCID: PMC10949660 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12083-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The individual woman's risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer can now be estimated more precisely, and screening can be stratified accordingly. The risk assessment requires that women are willing to provide a blood test, additional personal information, to know their risk, and alter screening intervals. This study aimed to investigate Danish women's attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening. METHODS An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted among Danish women aged 52-67 years. We used logistic regression analyses to assess how personal characteristics were associated with the women's attitudes. RESULTS 5,001 women completed the survey (response rate 44%) of which 74% approved of risk estimation to potentially alter their screening intervals. However, only 42% would accept an extended screening interval if found to have low breast cancer risk, while 89% would accept a reduced interval if at high risk. The main determinants of these attitudes were age, education, screening participation, history of breast cancer, perceived breast cancer risk and to some extent breast cancer worry. CONCLUSION This study indicates that women are positive towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening. However, reservations and knowledge among subgroups of women must be carefully considered and addressed before wider implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in a national program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Hougaard Loft
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Line Hjøllund Pedersen
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Science to Society Dept, Danish Cancer Institute, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Janne Bigaard
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Stig Egil Bojesen
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
LA Dunlop K, Smit AK, Keogh LA, Newson AJ, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2024; 74:e156-e164. [PMID: 38373853 PMCID: PMC10904141 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2023.0117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. AIM To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. METHOD Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. RESULTS Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. CONCLUSION GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate LA Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Louise A Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Evaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Laza C, Niño de Guzmán E, Gea M, Plazas M, Posso M, Rué M, Castells X, Román M. "For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022. Arch Public Health 2024; 82:23. [PMID: 38389068 PMCID: PMC10882761 DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01248-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals. METHODS Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. RESULTS We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems. CONCLUSION We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Ena Niño de Guzmán
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d' Oncologia, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Gea
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Merideidy Plazas
- Cochrane Associated Center- University Foundation of Health Sciences, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Margarita Posso
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
- Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
| | - Xavier Castells
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marta Román
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Lippey J, Keogh L, Campbell I, Mann GB, Forrest LE. Impact of a risk based breast screening decision aid on understanding, acceptance and decision making. NPJ Breast Cancer 2023; 9:65. [PMID: 37553371 PMCID: PMC10409718 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-023-00569-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Internationally, population breast cancer screening is moving towards a risk-stratified approach and requires engagement and acceptance from current and future screening clients. A decision aid ( www.defineau.org ) was developed based on women's views, values, and knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on women's knowledge, risk perception, acceptance of risk assessment and change of screening frequency, and decision-making. Here we report the results of a pre and post-survey in which women who are clients of BreastScreen Victoria were invited to complete an online questionnaire before and after viewing the decision aid. 3200 potential participants were invited, 242 responded with 127 participants completing both surveys. After reviewing the decision aid there was a significant change in knowledge, acceptance of risk-stratified breast cancer screening and of decreased frequency screening for lower risk. High levels of acceptance of risk stratification, genetic testing and broad support for tailored screening persisted pre and post review. The DEFINE decision aid has a positive impact on acceptance of lower frequency screening, a major barrier to the success of a risk-stratified program and may contribute to facilitating change to the population breast screening program in Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jocelyn Lippey
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Melbourne, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Melbourne, Australia
- St. Vincent's Hospital, Department of Surgery, Fitzroy, Australia
| | - Louise Keogh
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ian Campbell
- Cancer Genetics Laboratory, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Gregory Bruce Mann
- Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Breast Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Laura Elenor Forrest
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
McWilliams L, Ruane H, Ulph F, Woof VG, Harrison F, Evans DG, French DP. What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study. Br J Cancer 2023; 129:356-365. [PMID: 37225893 PMCID: PMC10206350 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02268-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 05/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-stratified screening is being considered for national breast screening programmes. It is unclear how women experience risk-stratified screening and receipt of breast cancer risk information in real time. This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of undergoing risk-stratified screening within England's NHS Breast Screening Programme. METHODS Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 40 women who participated in the BC-Predict study and received a letter indicating their estimated breast cancer risk as one of four risk categories: low (<2% 10-year risk), average (2-4.99%), above average (moderate; 5-7.99%) or high (≥8%). Audio-recorded interview transcriptions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS Two themes were produced: 'From risk expectations to what's my future health story?' highlights that women overall valued the opportunity to receive risk estimates; however, when these were discordant with perceived risk, this causes temporary distress or rejection of the information. 'Being a good (woman) citizen' where women felt positive contributing to society but may feel judged if they then cannot exert agency over the management of their risk or access follow-up support CONCLUSIONS: Risk-stratified breast screening was generally accepted without causing long-lasting distress; however, issues related to risk communication and access to care pathways need to be considered for implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| | - Helen Ruane
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, Manchester, UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | | | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, Manchester, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lapointe J, Côté JM, Mbuya-Bienge C, Dorval M, Pashayan N, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Brooks JD, Walker MJ, Blackmore KM, Joly Y, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Nabi H. Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening. J Pers Med 2023; 13:1027. [PMID: 37511640 PMCID: PMC10381377 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2023] [Revised: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Given the controversy over the effectiveness of age-based breast cancer (BC) screening, offering risk-stratified screening to women may be a way to improve patient outcomes with detection of earlier-stage disease. While this approach seems promising, its integration requires the buy-in of many stakeholders. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed Canadian healthcare professionals about their views and attitudes toward a risk-stratified BC screening approach. An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated through Canadian healthcare professional associations between November 2020 and May 2021. Information collected included attitudes toward BC screening recommendations based on individual risk, comfort and perceived readiness related to the possible implementation of this approach. Close to 90% of the 593 respondents agreed with increased frequency and earlier initiation of BC screening for women at high risk. However, only 9% agreed with the idea of not offering BC screening to women at very low risk. Respondents indicated that primary care physicians and nurse practitioners should play a leading role in the risk-stratified BC screening approach. This survey identifies health services and policy enhancements that would be needed to support future implementation of a risk-stratified BC screening approach in healthcare systems in Canada and other countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Lapointe
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Jean-Martin Côté
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050, Av de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, 1050, Av de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, 143 Rue Wolfe, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Programme Québécois de Cancérologie, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, 1075, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada
| | - Annie Turgeon
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Jennifer D Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155, College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada
| | - Meghan J Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155, College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada
- Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, 525, University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | | | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, 740, Ave Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
- Human Genetics Department and Bioethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3647, Peel Street, Montreal, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Bartha Maria Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, 740, Ave Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
| | - Anna Maria Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155, College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada
- Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, 525, University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050, Avenue de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050, Av de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Spalluto LB, Bonnet K, Sonubi C, Reid SA, Lewis JA, Ernst LL, Davis KM, Wahab R, Agrawal P, D'Agostino C, Gregory K, Berardi E, Hartsfield C, Sanderson M, Selove R, Schlundt D, Audet CM. Black Women's Perspectives on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment. J Am Coll Radiol 2023; 20:314-323. [PMID: 36922105 PMCID: PMC10027374 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.01.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/09/2022] [Revised: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/27/2023] [Indexed: 03/14/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to gather the perspectives of Black women on breast cancer risk assessment through a series of one-on-one interviews. METHODS The authors conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semistructured telephone interviews with Black women in Tennessee between September 2020 and November 2020. Guided by the Health Belief Model, qualitative analysis of interview data was performed in an iterative inductive and deductive approach and resulted in the development of a conceptual framework to depict influences on a woman's decision to engage with breast cancer risk assessment. RESULTS A total of 37 interviews were completed, and a framework of influences on a woman's decision to engage in breast cancer risk assessment was developed. Study participants identified several emerging themes regarding women's perspectives on breast cancer risk assessment and potential influences on women's decisions to engage with risk assessment. Much of women's decision context was based on risk appraisal (perceived severity of cancer and susceptibility of cancer), emotions (fear and trust), and perceived risks and benefits of having risk assessment. The decision was further influenced by modifiers such as communication, the risk assessment protocol, access to health care, knowledge, and health status. Perceived challenges to follow-up if identified as high risk also influenced women's decisions to pursue risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS Black women in this study identified several barriers to engagement with breast cancer risk assessment. Efforts to overcome these barriers and increase the use of breast cancer risk assessment can potentially serve as a catalyst to address existing breast cancer disparities. Continued work is needed to develop patient-centric strategies to overcome identified barriers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucy B Spalluto
- Vice Chair of Health Equity, Associate Director of Diversity and Inclusion, Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee; and Veterans Health Administration-Tennessee Valley Health Care System Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, Tennessee; RSNA Cochair, Health Equity Committee.
| | - Kemberlee Bonnet
- Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Chiamaka Sonubi
- Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Sonya A Reid
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Jennifer A Lewis
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Co-director clinical lung screening program, Veterans Health Administration-Tennessee Valley Health Care System Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, Tennessee; and Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Rescue Lung Rescue Life Society Board Member
| | - Laura L Ernst
- Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Katie M Davis
- Section Chief, Breast Imaging, Department of Radiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Rifat Wahab
- Department of Radiology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio. https://twitter.com/%20RifatWahab
| | - Pooja Agrawal
- University of Texas Medical Branch, John Sealy School of Medicine, Galveston, Texas
| | - Chloe D'Agostino
- Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Kris Gregory
- R. Ken Coit College of Pharmacy, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
| | - Elizabeth Berardi
- Program Director, Tennessee Breast and Cervical Screening Program, Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Crissy Hartsfield
- Clinical Programs Administrator, Division of Family Health and Wellness, Tennessee Department of Health, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Maureen Sanderson
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and Department of Family and Community Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Rebecca Selove
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee, and Director, Center for Prevention Research, Tennessee State University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - David Schlundt
- Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Carolyn M Audet
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee; Associate Director of the Vanderbilt Center for Clinical Quality and Implementation Research and Associate Director of Research in Vanderbilt Institute for Global Health
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Taylor LC, Law K, Hutchinson A, Dennison RA, Usher-Smith JA. 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. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0279201. [PMID: 36827432 PMCID: PMC9956883 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 02/26/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lily C. Taylor
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Katie Law
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Alison Hutchinson
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Usher-Smith JA, Hindmarch S, French DP, Tischkowitz M, Moorthie S, Walter FM, Dennison RA, Stutzin Donoso F, Archer S, Taylor L, Emery J, Morris S, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening. Br J Cancer 2023; 128:1636-1646. [PMID: 36737659 PMCID: PMC9897164 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02145-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/06/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sarah Hindmarch
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David P. French
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sowmiya Moorthie
- grid.5335.00000000121885934PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fiona M. Walter
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Francisca Stutzin Donoso
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lily Taylor
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jon Emery
- grid.1008.90000 0001 2179 088XCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia
| | - Stephen Morris
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Young MA, Yanes T, Cust AE, Dunlop K, Limb S, Newson AJ, Purvis R, Thiyagarajan L, Scott RJ, Verma K, James PA, Steinberg J. Human Genetics Society of Australasia Position Statement: Use of Polygenic Scores in Clinical Practice and Population Health. Twin Res Hum Genet 2023; 26:40-48. [PMID: 36950972 DOI: 10.1017/thg.2023.10] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/24/2023]
Abstract
Considerable progress continues to be made with regards to the value and use of disease associated polygenic scores (PGS). PGS aim to capture a person's genetic liability to a condition, disease, or a trait, combining information across many risk variants and incorporating their effect sizes. They are already available for clinicians and consumers to order in Australasia. However, debate is ongoing over the readiness of this information for integration into clinical practice and population health. This position statement provides the viewpoint of the Human Genetics Society of Australasia (HGSA) regarding the clinical application of disease-associated PGS in both individual patients and population health. The statement details how PGS are calculated, highlights their breadth of possible application, and examines their current challenges and limitations. We consider fundamental lessons from Mendelian genetics and their continuing relevance to PGS, while also acknowledging the distinct elements of PGS. Use of PGS in practice should be evidence based, and the evidence for the associated benefit, while rapidly emerging, remains limited. Given that clinicians and consumers can already order PGS, their current limitations and key issues warrant consideration. PGS can be developed for most complex conditions and traits and can be used across multiple clinical settings and for population health. The HGSA's view is that further evaluation, including regulatory, implementation and health system evaluation are required before PGS can be routinely implemented in the Australasian healthcare system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary-Anne Young
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- St Vincent's Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Tatiane Yanes
- Dermatology Research Centre, Frazer Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kate Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Sharne Limb
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rebecca Purvis
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Lavvina Thiyagarajan
- The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Sydney Children's Hospital Network, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Rodney J Scott
- School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
- Division of Molecular Medicine, NSW Health Pathology North, New Lambton, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Kunal Verma
- Monash Genetics, Monash Health, Melbourn, Victoria, Australia
- Monash Heart, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia
| | - Paul A James
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and Royal Melbourne Hospitals, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Julia Steinberg
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Taylor G, McWilliams L, Woof VG, Evans DG, French DP. What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis. Health Expect 2022; 25:3287-3296. [PMID: 36305519 PMCID: PMC9700144 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2022] [Revised: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is increasing interest in risk-stratified breast screening, whereby the prevention and early detection offers vary by a woman's estimated risk of breast cancer. To date, more focus has been directed towards high-risk screening pathways rather than considering women at lower risk, who may be eligible for extended screening intervals. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the views of three key stakeholder groups on how extending screening intervals for low-risk women should be implemented and communicated as part of a national breast screening programme. METHODS Secondary data analysis of three qualitative studies exploring the views of distinct stakeholder groups was conducted. Interviews took place with 23 low-risk women (identified from the BC-Predict study) and 17 national screening figures, who were involved in policy-making and implementation. In addition, three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 26 healthcare professionals. A multiperspective thematic analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences between stakeholders. FINDINGS Three themes were produced: Questionable assumptions about negative consequences, highlighting how other stakeholders lack trust in how women are likely to understand extended screening intervals; Preserving the integrity of the programme, centring on decision-making and maintaining a positive reputation of breast screening and Negotiating a communication pathway highlighting communication expectations and public campaign importance. CONCLUSIONS A risk-stratified screening programme should consider how best to engage women assessed as having a low risk of breast cancer to ensure mutual trust, balance the practicality of change whilst ensuring acceptability, and carefully develop multilevel inclusive communication strategies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION The research within this paper involved patient/public contributors throughout including study design and materials input.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grace Taylor
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | - Victoria G. Woof
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer CentreManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - David P. French
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
"It Will Lead You to Make Better Decisions about Your Health"-A Focus Group and Survey Study on Women's Attitudes towards Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening and Personalised Risk Assessments. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:9181-9198. [PMID: 36547133 PMCID: PMC9776908 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29120719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Singapore launched a population-based organised mammography screening (MAM) programme in 2002. However, uptake is low. A better understanding of breast cancer (BC) risk factors has generated interest in shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a risk-based screening approach. However, public acceptability of the change is lacking. Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 54 women (median age 37.5 years) with no BC history. Eight online sessions were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. Additionally, we surveyed 993 participants in a risk-based MAM study on how they felt in anticipation of receiving their risk profiles. Attitudes towards MAM (e.g., fear, low perceived risk) have remained unchanged for ~25 years. However, FGD participants reported that they would be more likely to attend routine mammography after having their BC risks assessed, despite uncertainty and concerns about risk-based screening. This insight was reinforced by the survey participants reporting more positive than negative feelings before receiving their risk reports. There is enthusiasm in knowing personal disease risk but concerns about the level of support for individuals learning they are at higher risk for breast cancer. Our results support the empowering of Singaporean women with personal health information to improve MAM uptake.
Collapse
|
17
|
McWilliams L, Evans DG, Payne K, Harrison F, Howell A, Howell SJ, French DP. Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14194636. [PMID: 36230559 PMCID: PMC9563640 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2022] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Correspondence:
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
| | - Katherine Payne
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | | | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Sacha J. Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - David P. French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Laza-Vásquez C, Martínez-Alonso M, Forné-Izquierdo C, Vilaplana-Mayoral J, Cruz-Esteve I, Sánchez-López I, Reñé-Reñé M, Cazorla-Sánchez C, Hernández-Andreu M, Galindo-Ortego G, Llorens-Gabandé M, Pons-Rodríguez A, Rué M. Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:10426. [PMID: 36012059 PMCID: PMC9407798 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2022] [Revised: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based breast cancer screening and its integration into regular clinical practice. A single-arm proof-of-concept trial was conducted with a sample of 387 women aged 40-50 years residing in the city of Lleida (Spain). The study intervention consisted of breast cancer risk estimation, risk communication and screening recommendations, and a follow-up. A polygenic risk score with 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to update the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. The women expressed a positive attitude towards varying the frequency of breast screening according to individual risk and, especially, more frequently inviting women at higher-than-average risk. A lower intensity screening for women at lower risk was not as welcome, although half of the participants would accept it. Knowledge of the benefits and harms of breast screening was low, especially with regard to false positives and overdiagnosis. The women expressed a high understanding of individual risk and screening recommendations. The participants' intention to participate in risk-based screening and satisfaction at 1-year were very high.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza-Vásquez
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy and Health Care Research Group (GRECS), IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Martínez-Alonso
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Carles Forné-Izquierdo
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
- Heorfy Consulting, 25007 Lleida, Spain
| | - Jordi Vilaplana-Mayoral
- Department of Computing and Industrial Engineering, University of Lleida, 25001 Lleida, Spain
| | - Inés Cruz-Esteve
- Primer de Maig Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25003 Lleida, Spain
| | | | - Mercè Reñé-Reñé
- Department of Radiology, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Anna Pons-Rodríguez
- Example Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25006 Lleida, Spain
- Health PhD Program, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Dennison RA, Boscott RA, Thomas R, Griffin SJ, Harrison H, John SD, Moorthie SA, Morris S, Rossi SH, Stewart GD, Thomas CV, Usher‐Smith JA. A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening. Health Expect 2022; 25:1789-1806. [PMID: 35526275 PMCID: PMC9327868 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2021] [Revised: 04/26/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2022] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca A. Dennison
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | | | - Rae Thomas
- Institute for Evidence‐Based HealthcareBond UniversityGold CoastQueenslandAustralia
| | - Simon J. Griffin
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Hannah Harrison
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Stephen D. John
- Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | | | - Stephen Morris
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | | | | | - Chloe V. Thomas
- School of Health and Related ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
| | - Juliet A. Usher‐Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Adeoye J, Chu CS, Choi SW, Thomson P. Oral Cancer Awareness and Individuals' Inclination to Its Screening and Risk Prediction in Hong Kong. JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR CANCER EDUCATION 2022; 37:439-448. [PMID: 32705524 DOI: 10.1007/s13187-020-01834-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Assessing the baseline knowledge status and expectations of the target population of any health promotion and secondary prevention program is essential to the success of such intervention. To obtain this information about the Hong Kong population a priori to implementing these preventive strategies for oral cancer in addition to determining the willingness of potential screening participants to take risk-profiling assessments, a cross-sectional survey was conducted between November 2019 and March 2020. A total of 964 residents between the ages 18 and 86 years were invited to participate in this study across the three geographical areas in Hong Kong. Most participants self-reported being aware of oral cancer (86.3%), although the proportion of those with substantial knowledge on salient risk factors and early identifiable signs were very low (2.9%). Age and level of education were the only demographic characteristics associated with the knowledge status. The proportion of participants willing to attend community screening and partake in risk profiling assessment was high (83.9% and 80.9% respectively). Willingness to attend community screening was directly associated with respondents' self-reported oral cancer awareness status (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.22-2.96). Also, we observed that those participants who were willing to attend screening are more inclined to take risk prediction assessments that those not willing to attend. These findings have showcased the need to intensify health promotion via personal skills development to encourage early disease presentation and will assist in the planning of these programs accordingly in the Hong Kong population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Adeoye
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong SAR, China.
| | - Chui Shan Chu
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Siu-Wai Choi
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong SAR, China
| | - Peter Thomson
- Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong SAR, China
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Fitzgerald RC, Antoniou AC, Fruk L, Rosenfeld N. The future of early cancer detection. Nat Med 2022; 28:666-677. [PMID: 35440720 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-01746-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 109] [Impact Index Per Article: 54.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2021] [Accepted: 02/15/2022] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
A proactive approach to detecting cancer at an early stage can make treatments more effective, with fewer side effects and improved long-term survival. However, as detection methods become increasingly sensitive, it can be difficult to distinguish inconsequential changes from lesions that will lead to life-threatening cancer. Progress relies on a detailed understanding of individualized risk, clear delineation of cancer development stages, a range of testing methods with optimal performance characteristics, and robust evaluation of the implications for individuals and society. In the future, advances in sensors, contrast agents, molecular methods, and artificial intelligence will help detect cancer-specific signals in real time. To reduce the burden of cancer on society, risk-based detection and prevention needs to be cost effective and widely accessible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca C Fitzgerald
- Early Detection Programme, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Ljiljana Fruk
- Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Nitzan Rosenfeld
- Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Li Ka Shing Centre, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Clift AK, Dodwell D, Lord S, Petrou S, Brady SM, Collins GS, Hippisley-Cox J. The current status of risk-stratified breast screening. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:533-550. [PMID: 34703006 PMCID: PMC8854575 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01550-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ash Kieran Clift
- Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - David Dodwell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon Lord
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13225813. [PMID: 34830965 PMCID: PMC8616436 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 11/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Risk-based breast screening will involve tailoring the amount of screening to women’s level of risk. Therefore, women at high-risk may be offered more frequent screening and over a longer period of time than those at low risk for whom less screening may be recommended. As this will involve considerable changes to the NHS Breast Screening Programme, it is important to explore what women in the UK think and feel about this approach. Analysis of in-depth interviews revealed that some women would find both high and low-risk screening options acceptable whereas others were resistant to the prospect of reduced screening if they were assessed as low-risk. We also found that the idea of risk-based screening had little influence on the attitudes of women who were already sceptical about breast screening. These findings highlight the communication challenges that will be faced by those introducing risk-based screening and suggest a need for tailored support and advice. Abstract Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women’s attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: ‘Overall acceptors’ considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought ‘more is better’ only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. ‘Screening sceptics’ found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women’s responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.
Collapse
|
24
|
Heterogeneity in how women value risk-stratified breast screening. Genet Med 2021; 24:146-156. [PMID: 34906505 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2021.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Revised: 07/04/2021] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Risk-stratified screening has potential to improve the cost effectiveness of national breast cancer screening programs. This study aimed to inform a socially acceptable and equitable implementation framework by determining what influences a woman's decision to accept a personalized breast cancer risk assessment and what the relative impact of these key determinants is. METHODS Multicriteria decision analysis was used to elicit the relative weights for 8 criteria that women reported influenced their decision. Preference heterogeneity was explored through cluster analysis. RESULTS The 2 criteria valued most by the 347 participants related to program access, "Mode of invitation" and "Testing process". Both criteria significantly influenced participation (P < .001). A total of 73% preferred communication by letter/online. Almost all women preferred a multidisease risk assessment with potential for a familial high-risk result. Four preference-based subgroups were identified. Membership to the largest subgroup was predicted by lower educational attainment, and women in this subgroup were concerned with program access. Higher relative perceived breast cancer risk predicted membership to the smallest subgroup that was focused on test parameters, namely "Scope of test" and "Test specificity". CONCLUSION Overall, Australian women would accept a personalized multidisease risk assessment, but when aligning with their preferences, it will necessitate a focus on program access and the development of online communication frameworks.
Collapse
|
25
|
Exploring Implementation of Personal Breast Cancer Risk Assessments. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11100992. [PMID: 34683136 PMCID: PMC8541275 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11100992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Revised: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Personal Breast Cancer (BC) Risk Assessments (PBCRA) have potential to stratify women into clinically-actionable BC risk categories. As this could involve population-wide genomic testing, women's attitudes to PBCRA and views on acceptable implementation platforms must be considered to ensure optimal population participation. We explored these issues with 31 women with different BC risk profiles through semi-structured focus group discussions or interviews. Inductive thematic coding of transcripts was performed. Subsequently, women listed factors that would impact on their decision to participate. Participants' attitudes to PBCRA were positive. Identified themes included that PBCRA acceptance hinges on result actionability. Women value the ability to inform decision-making. Participants reported anxiety, stress, and genetic discrimination as potential barriers. The age at which PBCRA was offered, ease of access, and how results are returned held importance. Most women value the opportunity for PBCRA to inform increased surveillance, while highlighting hesitance to accept reduced surveillance as they find reassurance in regular screening. Women with BRCA pathogenic variants value the potential for PBCRA to identify a lower cancer risk and potentially inform delayed prophylactic surgery. This study highlights complexities in adopting advances in BC early detection, especially for current users who value existing processes as a social good.
Collapse
|
26
|
McWilliams L, Woof VG, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable? BMC Cancer 2021; 21:637. [PMID: 34051753 PMCID: PMC8164783 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08347-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Trials of risk estimation in breast cancer screening programmes, in order to identify women at higher risk and offer extra screening/preventive measures, are ongoing. It may also be feasible to introduce less frequent screening for women at low-risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to establish views of women at low-risk of breast cancer regarding the acceptability of extending breast screening intervals for low-risk women beyond 3 y. Methods Semi-structured interviews were used to explore views of low-risk women, where “low-risk” was defined as less than 2% estimated 10-year risk of breast cancer aged > 46 years. Low-risk women were identified via the BC-Predict study, where following routine screening, women were given their 10-year risk of breast cancer by letter, along with additional information explaining breast cancer risk factors. To gain diversity of views, purposive sampling by ethnicity and socioeconomic background was used to recruit women. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Twenty-three women participated in individual interviews. Three themes are reported: (1) A good opportunity to receive risk estimation, where women found it worthwhile to receive a low-risk result although some were surprised if expecting a higher risk result; (2) Multi-faceted acceptability of extended screening intervals, with reactions to less frequent screening dependent on whether women were confident in being low-risk status and current safety evidence, (3) Passive approval versus informed choice, highlighting that women found it difficult to consider choosing less frequent screening without professionals’ recommendations, as they generally viewed attending breast screening as positive. Conclusions Risk assessment and receiving a low-risk of breast cancer is acceptable although, further research is required with more diverse samples of women. Any recommendation of less frequent screening in this risk group should be evidence-based in order to be acceptable. Communication needs to be carefully developed, with a focus on ensuring informed choice, prior to trialling any extended screening recommendations in future studies. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08347-w.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.,NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.,Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Mbuya-Bienge C, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Dorval M, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Paquette JS, Lévesque E, Hagan J, Walker MJ, Lapointe J, Dalpé G, Granados Moreno P, Blackmore K, Wolfson M, Joly Y, Broeders M, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Nabi H. Women's Views on Multifactorial Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Screening: A Population-Based Survey from Four Provinces in Canada. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11020095. [PMID: 33540785 PMCID: PMC7912955 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11020095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Revised: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 01/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Jennifer D. Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
| | - Michel Dorval
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- CHU de Québec—Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d’Urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Québec Cancer Program, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Quebec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada;
| | - Annie Turgeon
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Jean-Sébastien Paquette
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d’Urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Emmanuelle Lévesque
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Julie Hagan
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Meghan J. Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Julie Lapointe
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Gratien Dalpé
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Palmira Granados Moreno
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | | | - Michael Wolfson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1G 5Z3, Canada;
| | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, 6538 SW Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Jacques Simard
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1R 3S3, Canada
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-418-682-7511 (ext. 82800)
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Woof VG, McWilliams L, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, Maxwell AJ, French DP. Introducing a low-risk breast screening pathway into the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from healthcare professionals who are delivering risk-stratified screening. WOMEN'S HEALTH (LONDON, ENGLAND) 2021; 17:17455065211009746. [PMID: 33877937 PMCID: PMC8060757 DOI: 10.1177/17455065211009746] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2020] [Revised: 03/01/2021] [Accepted: 03/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Proposals to stratify breast screening by breast cancer risk aim to produce a better balance of benefits to harms. Notably, risk estimation calculated from common risk factors and a polygenic risk score would enable high-risk women to benefit from more frequent screening or preventive medication. This service would also identify low-risk women who experience fewer benefits from attending, as lower grade and in situ cancers may be treated unnecessarily. It may therefore be appropriate for low-risk women to attend screening less. This study aimed to elicit views regarding implementing less frequent screening for low-risk women from healthcare professionals who implement risk-stratified screening. METHODS Healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of risk-stratified breast screening were invited to participate in a focus group within the screening setting in which they work or have a telephone interview. Primary care staff were also invited to provide their perspective. Three focus groups and two telephone interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals. To identify patterns across the sample, data were analysed as a single dataset using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS Analysis yielded three themes: Reservations concerning the introduction of less frequent screening, highlighting healthcare professionals' unease and concerns towards implementing less frequent screening; Considerations for the management of public knowledge, providing views on media impact on public opinion and the potential for a low-risk pathway to cause confusion and raise suspicion regarding implementation motives; and Deliberating service implications and reconfiguration management, where the practicalities of implementation are discussed. CONCLUSIONS Healthcare professionals broadly supported less frequent screening but had concerns about implementation. It will be essential to address concerns regarding risk estimate accuracy, healthcare professional confidence, service infrastructure and public communication prior to introducing less frequent screening for low-risk women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health
Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health
Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety
Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health
Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Department of Genomic Medicine,
Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - Anthony J Maxwell
- Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer
Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
- Division of Informatics, Imaging &
Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health,
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health
Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences,
Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC,
Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Pashayan N, Antoniou AC, Ivanus U, Esserman LJ, Easton DF, French D, Sroczynski G, Hall P, Cuzick J, Evans DG, Simard J, Garcia-Closas M, Schmutzler R, Wegwarth O, Pharoah P, Moorthie S, De Montgolfier S, Baron C, Herceg Z, Turnbull C, Balleyguier C, Rossi PG, Wesseling J, Ritchie D, Tischkowitz M, Broeders M, Reisel D, Metspalu A, Callender T, de Koning H, Devilee P, Delaloge S, Schmidt MK, Widschwendter M. Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2020; 17:687-705. [PMID: 32555420 PMCID: PMC7567644 DOI: 10.1038/s41571-020-0388-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 167] [Impact Index Per Article: 41.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/06/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness-implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Urska Ivanus
- Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Laura J Esserman
- Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - David French
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Gaby Sroczynski
- Department of Public Health, Health Services Research and Health Technology Assessment, Institute of Public Health, Medical Decision Making and Health Technology Assessment, UMIT-University for Health Sciences, Medical Informatics and Technology, Hall in Tirol, Austria
- Division of Health Technology Assessment, Oncotyrol - Center for Personalized Cancer Medicine, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
- Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Jack Cuzick
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London, Centre for Cancer Prevention, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Jacques Simard
- Genomics Center, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Rita Schmutzler
- Center of Family Breast and Ovarian Cancer, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Odette Wegwarth
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Adaptive Rationality, Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Berlin, Germany
| | - Paul Pharoah
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | | | | | - Zdenko Herceg
- Epigenetic Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), WHO, Lyon, France
| | - Clare Turnbull
- Division of Genetics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | | | - Paolo Giorgi Rossi
- Epidemiology Unit, Azienda USL di Reggio Emilia - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Jelle Wesseling
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - David Ritchie
- Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- Department of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Dan Reisel
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andres Metspalu
- The Estonian Genome Center, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
| | - Thomas Callender
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London, UK
| | - Harry de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Peter Devilee
- Department of Human Genetics, Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Suzette Delaloge
- Breast Cancer Department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Paris, France
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Martin Widschwendter
- Department of Women's Cancer, Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
- Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
- European Translational Oncology Prevention and Screening (EUTOPS) Institute, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
| |
Collapse
|
30
|
Rainey L, van der Waal D, Broeders MJM. Dutch women's intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:965. [PMID: 33023516 PMCID: PMC7539478 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07464-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2020] [Accepted: 09/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-based breast cancer screening may improve the benefit-harm ratio of screening by tailoring policy to a woman's personal breast cancer risk. This study aims to explore Dutch women's preferences regarding the organisation and implementation of a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme, identifying potential barriers and facilitators to uptake. METHODS A total of 5110 participants in the Dutch Personalised RISk-based MAmmography screening (PRISMA) study were invited, of whom 942 completed a two-part web-based survey. The first part contained questions about personal characteristics; for the second part, women were randomly assigned to one of four hypothetical breast cancer risk scenarios (i.e. low, average, moderate, or high) with subsequent tailored screening and prevention advice. Descriptive statistics are used to present women's organisational preferences. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using seven proxy measures for acceptability of risk-based screening (e.g., interest in risk) and risk-based prevention (e.g., willingness to change diet). RESULTS Interest in breast cancer risk was high (80.3%). Higher assigned risk scenario was most consistently associated with acceptance of tailored screening and prevention recommendations. Increased acceptance of lifestyle changes was additionally associated with higher education. Having a first degree family history of breast cancer decreased women's motivation to participate in preventative lifestyle measures. Acceptability of medication was associated with a woman's general beliefs about the (over)use and benefit-harm balance of medication. CONCLUSIONS Dutch women generally appear in favour of receiving their breast cancer risk estimate with subsequent tailored screening and prevention recommendations. However, women's level of acceptance depends on their assigned risk category. Offering tailored screening and prevention recommendations to low-risk women will be most challenging. Educating women on the benefits and harms of all risk-based screening and prevention strategies is key to acceptability and informed decision-making.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda Rainey
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Daniëlle van der Waal
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.,Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, PO Box 6873, 6503 GJ, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
McWilliams L, Woof VG, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:680. [PMID: 32698780 PMCID: PMC7374862 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-07158-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2020] [Accepted: 07/09/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is international interest in risk-stratification of breast screening programmes to allow women at higher risk to benefit from more frequent screening and chemoprevention. Risk-stratification also identifies women at low-risk who could be screened less frequently, as the harms of breast screening may outweigh benefits for this group. The present research aimed to elicit the views of national healthcare policy decision-makers regarding implementation of less frequent screening intervals for women at low-risk. METHODS Seventeen professionals were purposively recruited to ensure relevant professional group representation directly or indirectly associated with the UK National Screening Committee and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Three themes are reported: (1) producing the evidence defining low-risk, describing requirements preceding implementation; (2) the impact of risk stratification on women is complicated, focusing on gaining acceptability from women; and (3) practically implementing a low-risk pathway, where feasibility questions are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS Overall, national healthcare policy decision-makers appear to believe that risk-stratified breast screening is acceptable, in principle. It will however be essential to address key obstacles prior to implementation in national programmes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Smit AK, Reyes-Marcelino G, Keogh L, Dunlop K, Newson AJ, Cust AE. Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2020; 20:1028. [PMID: 32600382 PMCID: PMC7325160 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09143-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2020] [Accepted: 06/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Genomic risk information, based on common genomic susceptibility variants associated with risk of complex diseases such as cancer, may be incorporated into personalised prevention and screening strategies. We aimed to engage with members of the public, who are important stakeholders in this process, to further inform program development and other implementation outcomes such as acceptability and appropriateness. Methods Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants (aged 24–69 years, 50% female) recruited from a pilot trial in which they received personalised genomic risk information for melanoma. We explored participants’ views and attitudes towards offering general personal genomic risk information to the broader population. The data were analysed thematically. Results Two overarching themes relevant to implementation considerations were identified. Firstly, participants’ preferences for accepting an offer of genomic risk information were based on family history, disease incidence and the possibility of prevention. Secondly, participants felt that the processes for offering risk information should be based on individual preferences, triaged according to risk and be supported by a health professional trained in genomics. Conclusions Participants felt that offering personal genomic risk information to the general population to inform prevention and early detection recommendations is acceptable, particularly for common, complex conditions such as cancer. Understanding participants’ preferences for receiving genomic risk information will assist with communication strategies and health workforce planning. We anticipate that these findings will contribute to the development of implementation strategies for incorporating genomic risk information into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amelia K Smit
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. .,Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. .,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Gillian Reyes-Marcelino
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Louise Keogh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Kate Dunlop
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Woof VG, Ruane H, French DP, Ulph F, Qureshi N, Khan N, Evans DG, Donnelly LS. The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:452. [PMID: 32434564 PMCID: PMC7240981 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-020-06959-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2019] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND UK national guidelines suggest women at high-risk of breast cancer should be offered more frequent screening or preventative medications. Currently, only 1 in 6 high-risk women are identified. One route to identify more high-risk women is via multifactorial risk assessment as part of the UK's NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). As lower socioeconomic and minority ethnic populations continue to experience barriers to screening, it is important that any new service does not exacerbate issues further. To inform service development, this study explored views of women from underserved backgrounds regarding the introduction of risk stratification into the NHSBSP. METHODS Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with British-Pakistani women from low socioeconomic backgrounds from East Lancashire, UK. Fourteen interviews were conducted via an interpreter. RESULTS Thematic analysis produced three themes. Attitudes toward risk awareness concerns the positive views women have toward the idea of receiving personalised breast cancer risk information. Anticipated barriers to accessibility emphasises the difficulties associated with women's limited English skills for accessing information, and their I.T proficiency for completing an online risk assessment questionnaire. Acceptability of risk communication strategy highlights the diversity of opinion regarding the suitability of receiving risk results via letter, with the option for support from a healthcare professional deemed essential. CONCLUSIONS The idea of risk stratification was favourable amongst this underserved community. To avoid exacerbating inequities, this new service should provide information in multiple languages and modalities and offer women the opportunity to speak to a healthcare professional about risk. This service should also enable completion of personal risk information via paper questionnaires, as well as online.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria G Woof
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Room 1.13, Coupland 1, Coupland Street, Off Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| | - Helen Ruane
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| | - David P French
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Room 1.13, Coupland 1, Coupland Street, Off Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Room 1.13, Coupland 1, Coupland Street, Off Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Nadeem Qureshi
- NIHR School of Primary Care, School of Medicine, Tower Building, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK
| | - Nasaim Khan
- Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK.,Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, UK
| |
Collapse
|