Public interest in and acceptability of the prospect of risk-stratified screening for breast and prostate cancer

Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

PURPOSE

Genetic and genomic testing can provide valuable information on individuals' risk of chronic diseases, presenting an opportunity for risk-tailored disease screening to improve early detection and health outcomes. The acceptability, uptake and effectiveness of such programmes is dependent on public preferences for the programme features. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of discrete choice experiments assessing preferences for genetic/genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for discrete choice experiment studies assessing preferences for genetic or genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. Eligible studies were double screened, extracted and synthesised through descriptive statistics and content analysis of themes. Bias was assessed using an existing quality checklist.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. Most studies focused on cancer screening (n = 10) and explored preferences for testing of rare, high-risk variants (n = 10), largely within a targeted population (e.g. subgroups with family history of disease). Two studies explored preferences for the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) at a population level. Twenty-six programme attributes were identified, with most significantly impacting preferences. Survival, test accuracy and screening impact were most frequently reported as most important. Depending on the clinical context and programme attributes and levels, estimated uptake of hypothetical programmes varied from no participation to almost full participation (97%).

CONCLUSION

The uptake of potential programmes would strongly depend on specific programme features and the disease context. In particular, careful communication of potential survival benefits and likely genetic/genomic test accuracy might encourage uptake of genetic and genomic risk-tailored disease screening programmes. As the majority of the literature focused on high-risk variants and cancer screening, further research is required to understand preferences specific to PRS testing at a population level and targeted genomic testing for different disease contexts.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment

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.

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.

Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a population-based survey among 5,001 Danish women

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.

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.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score: A Survey of UK General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Attitudes

A polygenic risk score (PRS) quantifies the aggregated effects of common genetic variants in an individual. A ‘personalised breast cancer risk assessment’ combines PRS with other genetic and nongenetic risk factors to offer risk-stratified screening and interventions. Large-scale studies are evaluating the clinical utility and feasibility of implementing risk-stratified screening; however, General Practitioners’ (GPs) views remain largely unknown. This study aimed to explore GPs’: (i) knowledge of risk-stratified screening; (ii) attitudes towards risk-stratified screening; and (iii) preferences for continuing professional development. A cross-sectional online survey of UK GPs was conducted between July–August 2022. The survey was distributed by the Royal College of General Practitioners and via other mailing lists and social media. In total, 109 GPs completed the survey; 49% were not familiar with the concept of PRS. Regarding risk-stratified screening pathways, 75% agreed with earlier and more frequent screening for women at high risk, 43% neither agreed nor disagreed with later and less screening for women at lower-than-average risk, and 55% disagreed with completely removing screening for women at much lower risk. In total, 81% felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening towards patients and 62% felt positive about the potential impact on their practice. GPs selected training of healthcare professionals as the priority for future risk-stratified screening implementation, preferring online formats for learning. The results suggest limited knowledge of PRS and risk-stratified screening amongst GPs. Training—preferably using online learning formats—was identified as the top priority for future implementation. GPs felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening; however, there was hesitance and disagreement towards a low-risk screening pathway.

Black Women's Perspectives on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment

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.

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

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Polygenic risk scores and risk-stratified breast cancer screening: Familiarity and perspectives of health care professionals

PURPOSE

Health care professionals are expected to take on an active role in the implementation of risk-based cancer prevention strategies. This study aimed to explore health care professionals' (1) self-reported familiarity with the concept of polygenic risk score (PRS), (2) perceived level of knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer (BC) screening, and (3) preferences for continuing professional development.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a bilingual-English/French-online questionnaire disseminated by health care professional associations across Canada between November 2020 and May 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 593 professionals completed more than 2 items and 453 responded to all questions. A total of 432 (94%) participants were female, 103 (22%) were physicians, and 323 (70%) were nurses. Participants reported to be unfamiliar with (20%), very unfamiliar (32%) with, or did not know (41%) the concept of PRS. Most participants reported not having enough knowledge about risk-stratified BC screening (61%) and that they would require more training (77%). Online courses and webinar conferences were the preferred continuing professional development modalities.

CONCLUSION

The study indicates that health care professionals are currently not familiar with the concept of PRS or a risk-stratified approach for BC screening. Online information and training seem to be an essential knowledge transfer modality.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

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

Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening

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

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.

Heterogeneity in how women value risk-stratified breast screening

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.

Exploring Implementation of Personal Breast Cancer Risk Assessments

Personal Breast Cancer (BC) Risk Assessments (PBCRA) have potential to stratify women into clinically-actionable BC risk categories. As this could involve population-wide genomic testing, women's attitudes to PBCRA and views on acceptable implementation platforms must be considered to ensure optimal population participation. We explored these issues with 31 women with different BC risk profiles through semi-structured focus group discussions or interviews. Inductive thematic coding of transcripts was performed. Subsequently, women listed factors that would impact on their decision to participate. Participants' attitudes to PBCRA were positive. Identified themes included that PBCRA acceptance hinges on result actionability. Women value the ability to inform decision-making. Participants reported anxiety, stress, and genetic discrimination as potential barriers. The age at which PBCRA was offered, ease of access, and how results are returned held importance. Most women value the opportunity for PBCRA to inform increased surveillance, while highlighting hesitance to accept reduced surveillance as they find reassurance in regular screening. Women with BRCA pathogenic variants value the potential for PBCRA to identify a lower cancer risk and potentially inform delayed prophylactic surgery. This study highlights complexities in adopting advances in BC early detection, especially for current users who value existing processes as a social good.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening: A systematic review

To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk-based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk) with no screening and age-based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film-based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk-stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk-stratification (being considered as high-risk). Risk-stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low-risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high-risk women was more cost-effective compared to no screening and age-based screening. High-risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality-adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk-stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk-stratification methods.

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

BACKGROUND

Using risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility has the potential to improve efficiency of screening.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the public acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different approaches to determine eligibility for screening.

DESIGN

An online population-based survey of 668 adults in the UK aged 45-79 including a series of scenarios in the context of a potential kidney cancer screening programme in which eligibility was determined by age, sex, age and sex combined, a simple risk score (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status), a complex risk score additionally incorporating family history and lifestyle, or a genetic risk score.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We used multi-level ordinal logistic regression to compare acceptability and potential uptake within individuals and multivariable ordinal logistic regression differences between individuals.

RESULTS

Using sex, age and sex, or the simple risk score were less acceptable than age (P < .0001). All approaches were less acceptable to women than men. Over 70% were comfortable waiting until they were older if the complex risk score or genetics indicated a low risk. If told they were high risk, 85% would be more likely to take up screening. Being told they were low risk had no overall influence on uptake.

CONCLUSIONS

Varying the starting age of screening based on estimated risk from models incorporating phenotypic or genetic risk factors would be acceptable to most individuals and may increase uptake.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two members of the public contributed to the development of the survey and have commented on this paper.

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

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

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.

Dutch women's intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers

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.

The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program

BACKGROUND

In many countries, population colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is based on age and family history, though more precise risk prediction could better target screening. We examined the impact of a CRC risk prediction model (incorporating age, sex, lifestyle, genomic, and family history factors) to target screening under several feasible screening scenarios.

METHODS

We estimated the model's predicted CRC risk distribution in the Australian population. Predicted CRC risks were categorized into screening recommendations under 3 proposed scenarios to compare with current recommendations: 1) highly tailored, 2) 3 risk categories, and 3) 4 sex-specific risk categories. Under each scenario, for 35- to 74-year-olds, we calculated the number of CRC screens by immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT) and colonoscopy and the proportion of predicted CRCs over 10 years in each screening group.

RESULTS

Currently, 1.1% of 35- to 74-year-olds are recommended screening colonoscopy and 56.2% iFOBT, and 5.7% and 83.2% of CRCs over 10 years were predicted to occur in these groups, respectively. For the scenarios, 1) colonoscopy was recommended to 8.1% and iFOBT to 37.5%, with 36.1% and 50.1% of CRCs in each group; 2) colonoscopy was recommended to 2.4% and iFOBT to 56.0%, with 13.2% and 76.9% of cancers in each group; and 3) colonoscopy was recommended to 5.0% and iFOBT to 54.2%, with 24.5% and 66.5% of cancers in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

A highly tailored CRC screening scenario results in many fewer screens but more cancers in those unscreened. Category-based scenarios may provide a good balance between number of screens and cancers detected and are simpler to implement.

The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Polygenic risk-stratified screening for cancer: Responsibilization in public health genomics

In this article, we examine professional discourse around the development of polygenic risk-stratified screening (PRSS) for cancer. Analyzing a range of contemporary professional literatures from Europe, North America and Australia, we explore how the drive to screen for molecular markers of cancer risk makes professionals, screening recipients and publics responsible, in different ways, for acquiring, curating and analyzing molecular data. Investigating how these responsibilities are invoked in discussions of new data practices, technologies, organizational arrangements, engagement, education and protocols for participation, we argue that agendas for PRSS for cancer are both expanding and stratifying responsibilities. Data collection is to be achieved by intensified responsibilities for including, reassuring and recruiting populations, as well as by opening and enriching the datasets on which models and preventative screening arrangements are based. Enhanced responsibilities for screening recipients and publics are also invoked, not just in relation to personal health but for population health more generally, via research participation and consenting to data re-use in the public interest. Professionals, screening recipients and publics are also to become responsible for moderating expectations of screening according to genomic designations. Together these discourses go beyond individual risk management to extend and diversify the responsibilities of practitioners, screening recipients and publics as public health genomics develops.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

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.

Cost-effectiveness and Benefit-to-Harm Ratio of Risk-Stratified Screening for Breast Cancer: A Life-Table Model

Importance

The age-based or "one-size-fits-all" breast screening approach does not take into account the individual variation in risk. Mammography screening reduces death from breast cancer at the cost of overdiagnosis. Identifying risk-stratified screening strategies with a more favorable ratio of overdiagnoses to breast cancer deaths prevented would improve the quality of life of women and save resources.

Objective

To assess the benefit-to-harm ratio and the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified breast screening programs compared with a standard age-based screening program and no screening.

Design, Setting, and Population

A life-table model was created of a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women in the United Kingdom, aged 50 years, with follow-up to age 85 years, using (1) findings of the Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening and (2) risk distribution based on polygenic risk profile. The analysis was undertaken from the National Health Service perspective.

Interventions

The modeled interventions were (1) no screening, (2) age-based screening (mammography screening every 3 years from age 50 to 69 years), and (3) risk-stratified screening (a proportion of women aged 50 years with a risk score greater than a threshold risk were offered screening every 3 years until age 69 years) considering each percentile of the risk distribution. All analyses took place between July 2016 and September 2017.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overdiagnoses, breast cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, costs in British pounds, and net monetary benefit (NMB). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess uncertainty around parameter estimates. Future costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per year.

Results

The risk-stratified analysis of this life-table model included a hypothetical cohort of 364 500 women followed up from age 50 to 85 years. As the risk threshold was lowered, the incremental cost of the program increased linearly, compared with no screening, with no additional QALYs gained below 35th percentile risk threshold. Of the 3 screening scenarios, the risk-stratified scenario with risk threshold at the 70th percentile had the highest NMB, at a willingness to pay of £20 000 (US $26 800) per QALY gained, with a 72% probability of being cost-effective. Compared with age-based screening, risk-stratified screening at the 32nd percentile vs 70th percentile risk threshold would cost £20 066 (US $26 888) vs £537 985 (US $720 900) less, would have 26.7% vs 71.4% fewer overdiagnoses, and would avert 2.9% vs 9.6% fewer breast cancer deaths, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance

Not offering breast cancer screening to women at lower risk could improve the cost-effectiveness of the screening program, reduce overdiagnosis, and maintain the benefits of screening.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Predictors of participation in risk-based prostate cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Implementation of risk-based prostate cancer screening has been proposed as a means to reduce the harms of PSA screening. Little is known, however, about the factors influencing men's decision to attend a prostate cancer screening based on a risk assessment.

METHOD

We sent postal invitations with a login to a survey to 10.000 men, three months before invitation to a risk-based prostate cancer screening. Prostate cancer specific worry, prostate cancer-related knowledge, health behaviour, and health related quality of life were used as predictors of subsequent participation. Participation to risk-based prostate cancer screening was defined as providing a blood sample for the STHLM3 trial, a study evaluating a risk-based model that predicts the risk for aggressive prostate cancer.

RESULTS

With a response rate of 20%, 1.347 men (70%) participated in ensuing risk-based prostate cancer screening three months later whereas 568 men (30%) declined participation in the STHLM3-study. These decliners reported less worry and feeling less vulnerable to prostate cancer and responded "Do not know" more often than participants when asked questions about prostate cancer knowledge. Participants reported greater benefits of prostate testing (p = 0.0005), less barriers to prostate testing (p<0.0001), and higher intention to attend prostate cancer testing (p<0.0001) than decliners. Finally, participants reported better overall health than decliners (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Prostate cancer worry, PC knowledge, health behaviour and quality of life were identified as predictors of participation in risk-based prostate cancer screening. Targeting these predictors may improve the participation rates. These results can inform policymaking for future population-based prostate cancer screening programs that should address potential worry in men and lack of knowledge about prostate cancer.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study

Background

Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.

Methods

This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict.

Results

There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment.

Conclusions

No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.

Trial registrations

This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4889-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Recommendations on breast cancer screening and prevention in the context of implementing risk stratification: impending changes to current policies

In recent years, risk stratification has sparked interest as an innovative approach to disease screening and prevention. The approach effectively personalizes individual risk, opening the way to screening and prevention interventions that are adapted to subpopulations. The international perspective project, which is developing risk stratification for breast cancer, aims to support the integration of its screening approach into clinical practice through comprehensive tool-building. Policies and guidelines for risk stratification-unlike those for population screening programs, which are currently well regulated-are still under development. Indeed, the development of guidelines for risk stratification reflects the translational aspects of perspective. Here, we describe the risk stratification process that was devised in the context of perspective, and we then explain the consensus-based method used to develop recommendations for breast cancer screening and prevention in a risk-stratification approach. Lastly, we discuss how the recommendations might affect current screening policies.

What's new in screening in 2015?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of this review was to highlight important articles in the field of prostate cancer screening published during 2015 and early 2016. Four major areas were identified for the purpose: screening strategies, post-United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2011-2012, screening trends/patterns, and shared decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several studies furthered the evidence that screening reduces the risk of metastasis and death from prostate cancer. Multiplex screening strategies are of proven benefit; genetics and MRI need further evaluation. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening rates declined in men above age of 50 years, as did the overall prostate cancer incidence following the USPSTF 2011-2012 recommendation against PSA. The consequences of declining screening rates will become apparent in the next few years. More research is needed to identify the most optimal approach to engage in, and implement, an effective shared decision-making in clinical practice.

SUMMARY

Data emerging in 2015 provided evidence on the question of how best to screen and brought more steps in the right direction of 'next-generation prostate cancer screening'. Screening is an ongoing process in all men regardless of whether or not they might benefit from early detection and treatment. After the USPSTF 2011-2012 recommendation, the rates of PSA testing are declining; however, this decline is observed in all men and not solely in those who will not benefit from the screening. The long-term effect of this recommendation might not be as anticipated. More studies are needed on how to implement the best available evidence on who, and when, to screen in clinical practice.