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

Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Personalised risk-based screening (PRBS) can enhance the efficiency of cancer screening programnes, but little is known about support for its implementation among the general public and health-care professionals. We aimed to summarise the acceptability and perceptions of PRBS for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening among these groups.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of original research studies reporting on breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening; personalised risk assessments to guide PRBS; and the acceptability of and receptibility towards these approaches among the general public, health-care professionals, or both. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus for articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and April 30, 2024. Studies not reporting on the outcomes of interest and with insufficient data for analysis were excluded. Six reviewers independently screened articles, and risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Quantitative data were analysed with use of random-effects meta-analysis for outcomes that had at least two studies. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO, CRD42022354287.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 4491 unique records. After screening, 63 studies were included in our analysis, of which 36 (57%) included the general public, 21 (33%) included health-care professionals, and six (11%) included both. The majority of studies focused on breast cancer screening (43 [68%] studies), and were from North America (28 [44%]) and Europe (28 [44%]). Qualitative findings were analysed thematically, and the extracted quantitative findings were synthesised under the following topics: acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk assessments among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among health-care professionals; and barriers and facilitators to PRBS implementation among health-care professionals. The general public and health-care professionals generally found PRBS acceptable, but they needed more information about how risk was calculated and the accuracy of risk scores. Additionally, both groups were cautious about reducing screening frequencies for individuals at low risk and cited barriers such as the time and resources needed to implement an effective PRBS programme. The pooled estimate for acceptability of PRBS was 78% (95% CI 66-88) among the general public and 86% (64-99) among health-care professionals.

INTERPRETATION

The general public and health-care professionals both viewed personalised risk assessments as providing valuable information and PRBS as a logical next step to increase the quality of patient care and improve cancer mortality. However, implementation barriers at the public, health-care professional, and system level need to be addressed.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

Experiences of Indonesian women with breast cancer underwent treatment decision-making: A qualitative study

Background

Patients with breast cancer face a complex situation upon receiving their diagnosis and considering future treatment options. In Indonesian culture, relatives and others significantly influence decision-making processes. Understanding the perspectives of Indonesian women with breast cancer regarding treatment decision-making can enhance satisfaction with the care provided.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the experiences of Indonesian women with breast cancer regarding treatment decision-making.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive study design was utilized. Purposive sampling was employed to select the study participants. In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 women with breast cancer between March and June 2023. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three main themes were developed: 1) Emotional impact and uncertainty in cancer care, 2) Clear communication and support for patients, and 3) Family-centered decision-making in treatment planning.

Conclusion

This study highlights the perspectives of Indonesian women with breast cancer on treatment decision-making. Nurses play a crucial role in providing clear information to patients and their families during the decision-making process. Understanding the experiences of women with breast cancer can help support and empower patients through effective communication while they undergo treatment.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review

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.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study

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.

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

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

Highlights

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

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants

INTRODUCTION

In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist.

RESULTS

Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging.

CONCLUSION

Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Personalized breast cancer screening with selective addition of digital breast tomosynthesis through artificial intelligence

Purpose

Breast cancer screening is predominantly performed using digital mammography (DM), but digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has higher sensitivity. DBT demands more resources than DM, and it might be more feasible to reserve DBT for women with a clear benefit from the technique. We explore if artificial intelligence (AI) can select women who would benefit from DBT imaging.

Approach

We used data from Malmö Breast Tomosynthesis Screening Trial, where all women prospectively were examined with separately double read DM and DBT. We retrospectively analyzed DM examinations (n = 14768 ) with a breast cancer detection system and used the provided risk score (1 to 10) for risk stratification. We tested how different score thresholds for adding DBT to an initial DM affects the number of detected cancers, additional DBT examinations needed, detection rate, and false positives.

Results

If using a threshold of 9.0, 25 (26%) more cancers would be detected compared to using DM alone. Of the 41 cancers only detected on DBT, 61% would be detected, with only 1797 (12%) of the women examined with both DM and DBT. The detection rate for the added DBT would be 14/1000 women, whereas the false-positive recalls would be increased with 58 (21%).

Conclusion

Using DBT only for selected high gain cases could be an alternative to complete DBT screening. AI can analyze initial DM images to identify high gain cases where DBT can be added during the same visit. There might be logistical challenges, and further studies in a prospective setting are necessary.

Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting

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.

The feasibility of implementing risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme: a focus group study investigating the perspectives of healthcare personnel responsible for delivery

BACKGROUND

Providing women with personalized estimates of their risk of developing breast cancer, as part of routine breast cancer screening programmes, allows women at higher risk to be offered more frequent screening or drugs to reduce risk. For this to be feasible, the concept and practicalities have to be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would put it in to practice. The present research investigated the acceptability to healthcare professionals who were responsible for the implementation of this new approach to screening in the ongoing BC-Predict study.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with 29 healthcare professionals from a variety of professional backgrounds working within three breast screening services in north-west England. An inductive-manifest thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, healthcare professionals viewed the implementation of personalised breast cancer risk estimation as a positive step, but discussion focused on concerns. Three major themes are presented. (1) Service constraints highlights the limited capacity within current breast services and concerns about the impact of additional workload. (2) Risk communication concerns the optimal way to convey risk to women within resource constraints. (3) Accentuating inequity discusses how risk stratification could decrease screening uptake for underserved groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff who implemented risk stratification considered it a positive addition to routine screening. They considered it essential to consider improving capacity and demands on healthcare professional time. They highlighted the need for skilled communication of risks and new pathways of care to ensure that stratification could be implemented in financially and time constrained settings without impacting negatively on women.

Perceptions of Conflicting Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women: a Multimethod Study

BACKGROUND

Conflicting breast cancer screening recommendations have the potential to diminish informed decision making about screening.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the knowledge, attitudes, and intentions related to divergent recommendations for breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse women.

DESIGN

We used a multimethod study design employing focus groups and questionnaires. Focus groups included: (1) two 10-min presentations on the national screening recommendations and the potential benefits and harms of screening and (2) an interactive discussion. Data were collected: 8/3/2017 to 11/19/2019. Analysis occurred from 1/21/2019 to 7/24/2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were (1) women 40-75 years; (2) English or Spanish speaking; (3)self-identified as Latina, Black, or non-Latina White; and (4) no known increased risk for breast cancer.

MAIN MEASURES

Main outcomes were participants' knowledge and perceptions of benefits and harms of screening mammography and their screening intentions. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

KEY RESULTS

One hundred thirty-four women (n=52, 40-49 years; n=82, 50-75 years) participated in 28 focus groups. Participants were Latina (n=44); Black (n=51); and non-Latina White (n=39). Approximately one-quarter (n=32) had limited health literacy and almost one-fifth (n=23) had limited numeracy. In the context of differing national screening recommendations, participants questioned the motives of the recommendation-making agencies, including the role of costs and how costs were considered when making screening recommendations. Participants expressed concern that they were not represented (e.g., race/ethnicity) in the data informing the recommendations. Immediately following the focus groups, most participants expressed intention to screen within the upcoming year (pre n=100 vs. post n=107).

CONCLUSIONS

Divergent breast cancer screening recommendations may lead to mistrust and paradoxically reinforce high overall enthusiasm for screening.

The current status of risk-stratified breast screening

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.

Views of health professionals on risk-based breast cancer screening and its implementation in the Spanish National Health System: A qualitative discussion group study

BACKGROUND

With the aim of increasing benefits and decreasing harms, risk-based breast cancer screening has been proposed as an alternative to age-based screening. This study explores barriers and facilitators to implementing a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the perspective of health professionals, in the context of a National Health Service.

METHODS

Socio-constructivist qualitative research carried out in Catalonia (Spain), in the year 2019. Four discussion groups were conducted, with a total of 29 health professionals from primary care, breast cancer screening programs, hospital breast units, epidemiology units, and clinical specialties. A descriptive-interpretive thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Identified barriers included resistance to reducing the number of screening exams for low-risk women; resistance to change for health professionals; difficulties in risk communication; lack of conclusive evidence of the benefits of risk-based screening; limited economic resources; and organizational transformation. Facilitators include benefits of risk-based strategies for high and low-risk women; women's active role in their health care; proximity of women and primary care professionals; experience of health professionals in other screening programs; and greater efficiency of a risk-based screening program. Organizational and administrative changes in the health system, commitment by policy makers, training of health professionals, and educational interventions addressed to the general population will be required.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the expressed difficulties, participants supported the implementation of risk-based screening. They highlighted its benefits, especially for women at high risk of breast cancer and those under 50 years of age, and assumed a greater efficiency of the risk-based program compared to the aged-based one. Future studies should assess the efficiency and feasibility of risk-based breast cancer screening for its transfer to clinical practice.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of a Personalized Breast Cancer Screening Program: Views of Spanish Health Professionals

This study explored the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a risk-based breast cancer screening program from the point of view of Spanish health professionals. A cross-sectional study with 220 Spanish health professionals was designed. Data were collected in 2020 via a web-based survey and included the advantages and disadvantages of risk-based screening and barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the program. Descriptive statistics and Likert scale responses analyzed as category-ordered data were obtained. The risk-based screening was considered important or very important to reduce breast cancer mortality and promote a more proactive role for women in breast cancer prevention, to increase coverage for women under 50 years, to promote a breast cancer prevention strategy for women at high risk, and to increase efficiency and effectiveness. Switching to a risk-based program from an age-based program was rated as important or very important by 85% of participants. As barriers for implementation, risk communication, the workload of health professionals, and limited human and financial resources were mentioned. Despite the barriers, there is good acceptance, and it seems feasible, from the perspective of health professionals, to implement a risk-based breast cancer screening program in Spain. However, this poses a number of organizational and resource challenges.

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

Simple Summary

Risk-based breast screening will involve tailoring the amount of screening to women’s level of risk. Therefore, women at high-risk may be offered more frequent screening and over a longer period of time than those at low risk for whom less screening may be recommended. As this will involve considerable changes to the NHS Breast Screening Programme, it is important to explore what women in the UK think and feel about this approach. Analysis of in-depth interviews revealed that some women would find both high and low-risk screening options acceptable whereas others were resistant to the prospect of reduced screening if they were assessed as low-risk. We also found that the idea of risk-based screening had little influence on the attitudes of women who were already sceptical about breast screening. These findings highlight the communication challenges that will be faced by those introducing risk-based screening and suggest a need for tailored support and advice.

Abstract

Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women’s attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: ‘Overall acceptors’ considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought ‘more is better’ only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. ‘Screening sceptics’ found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women’s responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

Proposals to stratify breast screening by breast cancer risk aim to produce a better balance of benefits to harms. Notably, risk estimation calculated from common risk factors and a polygenic risk score would enable high-risk women to benefit from more frequent screening or preventive medication. This service would also identify low-risk women who experience fewer benefits from attending, as lower grade and in situ cancers may be treated unnecessarily. It may therefore be appropriate for low-risk women to attend screening less. This study aimed to elicit views regarding implementing less frequent screening for low-risk women from healthcare professionals who implement risk-stratified screening.

METHODS

Healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of risk-stratified breast screening were invited to participate in a focus group within the screening setting in which they work or have a telephone interview. Primary care staff were also invited to provide their perspective. Three focus groups and two telephone interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals. To identify patterns across the sample, data were analysed as a single dataset using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Analysis yielded three themes: Reservations concerning the introduction of less frequent screening, highlighting healthcare professionals' unease and concerns towards implementing less frequent screening; Considerations for the management of public knowledge, providing views on media impact on public opinion and the potential for a low-risk pathway to cause confusion and raise suspicion regarding implementation motives; and Deliberating service implications and reconfiguration management, where the practicalities of implementation are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Healthcare professionals broadly supported less frequent screening but had concerns about implementation. It will be essential to address concerns regarding risk estimate accuracy, healthcare professional confidence, service infrastructure and public communication prior to introducing less frequent screening for low-risk women.

Feasibility and acceptability of personalised breast cancer screening (DECIDO study): protocol of a single-arm proof-of-concept trial

INTRODUCTION

Personalised cancer screening aims to improve benefits, reduce harms and being more cost-effective than age-based screening. The objective of the DECIDO study is to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based personalised breast cancer screening and its integration in regular clinical practice in a National Health System setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study is designed as a single-arm proof-of-concept trial. The study sample will include 385 women aged 40-50 years resident in a primary care health area in Spain. The study intervention consists of (1) a baseline visit; (2) breast cancer risk estimation; (3) a second visit for risk communication and screening recommendations based on breast cancer risk and (4) a follow-up to obtain the study outcomes.A polygenic risk score (PRS) will be constructed as a composite likelihood ratio of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model, including age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease and breast density will be used to estimate a preliminary 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. A Bayesian approach will be used to update this risk with the PRS value.The primary outcome measures will be attitude towards, intention to participate in and satisfaction with personalised breast cancer screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportions of women who accept to participate and who complete the different phases of the study. The exact binomial and the Student's t-test will be used to obtain 95% CIs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the Drug Research Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova. The trial will be conducted in compliance with this study protocol, the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice.The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated in scientific conferences and media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03791008.

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

BACKGROUND

There is international interest in risk-stratification of breast screening programmes to allow women at higher risk to benefit from more frequent screening and chemoprevention. Risk-stratification also identifies women at low-risk who could be screened less frequently, as the harms of breast screening may outweigh benefits for this group. The present research aimed to elicit the views of national healthcare policy decision-makers regarding implementation of less frequent screening intervals for women at low-risk.

METHODS

Seventeen professionals were purposively recruited to ensure relevant professional group representation directly or indirectly associated with the UK National Screening Committee and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three themes are reported: (1) producing the evidence defining low-risk, describing requirements preceding implementation; (2) the impact of risk stratification on women is complicated, focusing on gaining acceptability from women; and (3) practically implementing a low-risk pathway, where feasibility questions are highlighted.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, national healthcare policy decision-makers appear to believe that risk-stratified breast screening is acceptable, in principle. It will however be essential to address key obstacles prior to implementation in national programmes.

European women's perceptions of the implementation and organisation of risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention: a qualitative study

Background

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors has meant that we are currently exploring risk-based screening, i.e. determining screening strategies based on women’s varying levels of risk. This also enables risk management through primary prevention strategies, e.g. a lifestyle programme or risk-reducing medication. However, future implementation of risk-based screening and prevention will warrant significant changes in current practice and policy. The present study explores women’s perceptions of the implementation and organisation of risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention to optimise acceptability and uptake.

Methods

A total of 143 women eligible for breast cancer screening in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Sweden participated in focus group discussions. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and the qualitative data was analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Women from all three countries generally agreed on the overall proceedings, e.g. a risk assessment after which the risk estimate is communicated via letter (for below average and average risk) or consultation (for moderate and high risk). However, discrepancies in information needs, preferred risk communication format and risk counselling professional were identified between countries. Additionally, a need to educate healthcare professionals on all aspects of the risk-based screening and prevention programme was established.

Conclusion

Women’s insights identified the need for country-specific standardised protocols regarding the assessment and communication of risk, and the provision of heterogeneous screening and prevention recommendations, monitoring the principle of solidarity in healthcare policy.

Mothers' views of health problems in the 12 months after childbirth: A concept mapping study

AIMS

To identify the health problems that women feel require help and subsequent help-seeking behaviour during the 12 months period after childbirth.

BACKGROUND

Many women experience physical and mental health problems after childbirth, but there is a gap in understanding how they perceive their health after childbirth. Studies suggested they are inhibited in expressing their needs and so seek informal rather than professional help for their health problems.

DESIGN

A mixed method concept mapping study.

METHOD

Two groups of Australian women were recruited by an online platform and purposive sampling (N = 81) in 2017-2018, based on an established concept mapping methodology. A first group created 83 brainstorm statements about post-childbirth health problems and help-seeking and a second group sorted and rated the statements based on their perception of the prevalence of the issues and the help-seeking advice they would offer to others. Bradshaw`s Taxonomy of Needs was used to theoretically underpins the explanation of the results of women's felt need after childbirth.

RESULTS

Multidimensional scaling resulted in six clusters of issues which were categorized into three domains: 'health issues and care', 'support' and 'fitness'. Despite being directly asked, about two-thirds of the women did not report experiencing any health problems.

CONCLUSION

Our findings showed women had a broader perception of healthcare needs which included support and fitness. There is a potential gap in services for women who do not have good social support.

IMPACT

Family and friends were a key source of help-seeking. Post-childbirth routine care was focused on infant care and limited to the first 6 weeks after childbirth. The content of current post-childbirth care must be reviewed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS|DISCUSSION

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

Screening at stationary versus mobile units in BreastScreen Norway

Objective

To compare breast characteristics, compression parameters, and early performance measures (rates of recall, screen-detected and interval breast cancer, and histopathologic tumour characteristics) for mammographic screening at a stationary versus mobile screening unit.

Methods

Results from 92,408 mammographic screening examinations performed as part of BreastScreen Norway during 2008–2017 at either a stationary (n = 52,620) or mobile (n = 39,788) unit in Hordaland county were compared using descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations. A generalized estimating equation for a binary outcome was used to estimate crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for the outcomes of interest. Adjusted generalized estimating equation models included age, breast volume, and density grade as covariates.

Results

Screening at the stationary unit was performed on smaller breasts with higher mammographic density, using lower compression force but higher pressure than at the mobile unit. Using the stationary screening unit as reference, for women screened at the mobile unit, the adjusted odds ratio was: for recall 0.94 (95% CI: 0.87--1.01), screen-detected breast cancer 0.92 (95% CI: 0.78--1.10), and interval breast cancer 1.17 (95% CI: 0.83–1.64).

Conclusions

The quality of care did not differ for women screened at the stationary versus the mobile unit, but there were differences between the women who attended the two units. Sociodemographic factors should be included in future analyses to fully understand the risk of breast cancer among women residing in urban versus rural areas.

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

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

Health professionals' perspectives on breast cancer risk stratification: understanding evaluation of risk versus screening for disease

BACKGROUND

Younger women at higher-than-population-average risk for breast cancer may benefit from starting screening earlier than presently recommended by the guidelines. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) approach aims to improve the prevention of breast cancer through differential screening recommendations based on a personal risk estimate. In our study, we used deliberative stakeholder consultations to engage health professionals in an in-depth dialog to explore the feasibility of the proposed implementation strategies for this new personalized breast cancer screening approach.

METHODS

Deliberative stakeholder consultation is a qualitative descriptive study design used to engage health professionals in the discussion, while the mediators play a more passive role. A purposeful sample of 11 health professionals (family physicians and genetic counselors) working in Montreal was used. The deliberations were organized in two phases, including small group deliberations according to the deliberants' health profession and a mixed group deliberation combining participants from the small groups. Inductive thematic content analysis was performed on the transcripts by two coders to create the deliberative and analytic outputs. Quality of deliberations was assessed quantitatively using the de Vries method and qualitatively using participant observation.

RESULTS

One of our key findings was that health professionals lacked understanding of the two steps of the screening approach: risk stratification "screening," which is an evaluation for the level of risk and screening for disease. As part of this confusion, the main topic of concern was a justification of program implementation as a population-wide screening, based on their uncertainty that it will be beneficial for women with near-population risks. Despite the noted difficulties concerning implementation, health professionals acknowledged the substantial benefits of the proposed PERSPECTIVE program.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study was the first to evaluate the perspectives of health professionals on the implementation and benefits of a new program for breast cancer risk stratification with the purpose of personalizing screening for disease. This new multi-step approach to screening requires more clarity in communication with health professionals. To implement and maintain effective screening, engagement of family physicians with other health professionals or even development of a centralized public health system may be needed.

Consumer and clinician perspectives on personalising breast cancer prevention information

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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