1
|
Austin JD, James E, Perez RL, Mazza GL, Kling JM, Fraker J, Mina L, Banerjee I, Sharpe R, Patel BK. 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. BMC Womens Health 2024; 24:359. [PMID: 38907193 PMCID: PMC11191185 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03197-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2024] [Accepted: 06/10/2024] [Indexed: 06/23/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica D Austin
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Division of Epidemiology, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA.
| | - Emily James
- Mayo Clinic College of Medicine of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Rachel L Perez
- Mayo Clinic College of Medicine of Medicine and Science, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Gina L Mazza
- Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA
| | - Juliana M Kling
- Women's Health Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA
| | - Jessica Fraker
- Women's Health Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA
| | - Lida Mina
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Imon Banerjee
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Richard Sharpe
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| | - Bhavika K Patel
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mayo Clinic, 5777 E Mayo Blvd, Phoenix, AZ, 85054, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kelley Jones C, Scott S, Pashayan N, Morris S, Okan Y, Waller J. Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment. Med Decis Making 2024:272989X241254828. [PMID: 38828503 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x241254828] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A risk-stratified breast screening program could offer low-risk women less screening than is currently offered by the National Health Service. The acceptability of this approach may be enhanced if it corresponds to UK women's screening preferences and values. OBJECTIVES To elicit and quantify preferences for low-risk screening options. METHODS Women aged 40 to 70 y with no history of breast cancer took part in an online discrete choice experiment. We generated 32 hypothetical low-risk screening programs defined by 5 attributes (start age, end age, screening interval, risk of dying from breast cancer, and risk of overdiagnosis), the levels of which were systematically varied between the programs. Respondents were presented with 8 choice sets and asked to choose between 2 screening alternatives or no screening. Preference data were analyzed using conditional logit regression models. The relative importance of attributes and the mean predicted probability of choosing each program were estimated. RESULTS Participants (N = 502) preferred all screening programs over no screening. An older starting age of screening, younger end age of screening, longer intervals between screening, and increased risk of dying had a negative impact on support for screening programs (P < 0.01). Although the risk of overdiagnosis was of low relative importance, a decreased risk of this harm had a small positive impact on screening choices. The mean predicted probabilities that risk-adapted screening programs would be supported relative to current guidelines were low (range, 0.18 to 0.52). CONCLUSIONS A deintensified screening pathway for women at low risk of breast cancer, especially one that recommends a later screening start age, would run counter to women's breast screening preferences. Further research is needed to enhance the acceptability of offering less screening to those at low risk of breast cancer. HIGHLIGHTS Risk-based breast screening may involve the deintensification of screening for women at low risk of breast cancer.Low-risk screening pathways run counter to women's screening preferences and values.Longer screening intervals may be preferable to a later start age.Work is needed to enhance the acceptability of a low-risk screening pathway.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Suzanne Scott
- Professor of Health Psychology, Queen Mary University London, London, UK
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Professor of Applied Cancer Research, Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephen Morris
- Rand Professor of Health Services Research, Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Yasmina Okan
- Department of Communication, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain
- Centre for Decision Research, Leeds University Business School, Leeds, UK
| | - Jo Waller
- Professor of Cancer Behavioural Science, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dunlop KLA, Singh N, Robbins HA, Zahed H, Johansson M, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review. Prev Med 2024; 181:107897. [PMID: 38378124 PMCID: PMC11106520 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2023] [Revised: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate L A Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Nehal Singh
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hilary A Robbins
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Hana Zahed
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Mattias Johansson
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Segar JAP, Xuan TR, Alahakoon AMGN, AL Ravi H, Moe S, Uthamalingam M, Htay MNN. Women's Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perception on Personalized Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study in Malaysia. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2024; 25:1231-1240. [PMID: 38679982 PMCID: PMC11162733 DOI: 10.31557/apjcp.2024.25.4.1231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2023] [Accepted: 04/07/2024] [Indexed: 05/01/2024] Open
Abstract
AIM Breast cancer is commonest cancer among Malaysian women and screening is essential for the early detection. Therefore our study aimed at measuring the levels of knowledge, attitude and perception towards personalized risk stratified breast cancer screening in Malaysia. METHODS A cross-sectional study was carried out in Malaysia to assess the knowledge, perception and attitudes of the women in Malaysia. The study was conducted using an online questionnaire, and samples were obtained using convenience sampling. The questionnaire was distributed trilingual in English, Bahasa Malaysia and Chinese. The data was collected with content validated questionnaire. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and General Linear Model analysis in SPSS (Version 27). RESULTS A total of 201 respondents' data were analyzed. From our study we were able to summarize that the women in Malaysia have a suboptimal knowledge towards personalized risk-stratified breast cancer screening as only 48.9% aware of the term for personalized risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Meanwhile, the majority of the respondents (96.7%) showed positive attitudes towards the importance of risk assessment and screening. Experience of participating in health education programmes about breast cancer and personalized risk-stratified screening was found to be significantly associated with knowledge, attitude and perception towards personalized risk-stratified breast cancer screening. CONCLUSION General population's awareness of individualized risk-stratified breast cancer screening was insufficient despite their favourable attitude towards the disease. A multimodal strategy may be used to improve women's knowledge, attitude, and perception of individualized risk-stratified breast cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jayshree AP Segar
- Faculty of Medicine, Manipal University College Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia.
| | - Teo Rong Xuan
- Faculty of Medicine, Manipal University College Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia.
| | | | - Harwinthra AL Ravi
- Faculty of Medicine, Manipal University College Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia.
| | - Soe Moe
- Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Manipal University College Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia.
| | - Murali Uthamalingam
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Manipal University College Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia.
| | - Mila Nu Nu Htay
- Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Manipal University College Malaysia, Melaka, Malaysia.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Loft LH, Pedersen LH, Bigaard J, Bojesen SE. Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a population-based survey among 5,001 Danish women. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:347. [PMID: 38504201 PMCID: PMC10949660 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12083-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Accepted: 03/04/2024] [Indexed: 03/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The individual woman's risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer can now be estimated more precisely, and screening can be stratified accordingly. The risk assessment requires that women are willing to provide a blood test, additional personal information, to know their risk, and alter screening intervals. This study aimed to investigate Danish women's attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening. METHODS An online, cross-sectional survey was conducted among Danish women aged 52-67 years. We used logistic regression analyses to assess how personal characteristics were associated with the women's attitudes. RESULTS 5,001 women completed the survey (response rate 44%) of which 74% approved of risk estimation to potentially alter their screening intervals. However, only 42% would accept an extended screening interval if found to have low breast cancer risk, while 89% would accept a reduced interval if at high risk. The main determinants of these attitudes were age, education, screening participation, history of breast cancer, perceived breast cancer risk and to some extent breast cancer worry. CONCLUSION This study indicates that women are positive towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening. However, reservations and knowledge among subgroups of women must be carefully considered and addressed before wider implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in a national program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Hougaard Loft
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Line Hjøllund Pedersen
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Science to Society Dept, Danish Cancer Institute, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Janne Bigaard
- Prevention and Information Dept, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Stig Egil Bojesen
- Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
- Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
van Strien-Knippenberg IS, Arjangi-Babetti H, Timmermans DRM, Schrauwen L, Fransen MP, Melles M, Damman OC. Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2024; 24:78. [PMID: 38500098 PMCID: PMC10949766 DOI: 10.1186/s12911-024-02483-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 03/20/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women's beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective. METHODS Phase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40-50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women's beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4-6 across sessions, 40-50 years, 2-3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54-62 years, 0-1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40-74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified. RESULTS Women in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density. CONCLUSIONS The information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Inge S van Strien-Knippenberg
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
| | - Hannah Arjangi-Babetti
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Danielle R M Timmermans
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Laura Schrauwen
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Mirjam P Fransen
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marijke Melles
- Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Olga C Damman
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Laza C, Niño de Guzmán E, Gea M, Plazas M, Posso M, Rué M, Castells X, Román M. "For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022. Arch Public Health 2024; 82:23. [PMID: 38389068 PMCID: PMC10882761 DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01248-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals. METHODS Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. RESULTS We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems. CONCLUSION We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Ena Niño de Guzmán
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d' Oncologia, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Gea
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Merideidy Plazas
- Cochrane Associated Center- University Foundation of Health Sciences, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Margarita Posso
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
- Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
| | - Xavier Castells
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marta Román
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
LA Dunlop K, Smit AK, Keogh LA, Newson AJ, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2024; 74:BJGP.2023.0117. [PMID: 38373853 PMCID: PMC10904141 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2023.0117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. AIM To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. METHOD Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. RESULTS Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. CONCLUSION GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate LA Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Louise A Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Evaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
van den Puttelaar R, Meester RGS, Peterse EFP, Zauber AG, Zheng J, Hayes RB, Su YR, Lee JK, Thomas M, Sakoda LC, Li Y, Corley DA, Peters U, Hsu L, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I. Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer Using Genetic and Environmental Risk Factors: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Real-World Data. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21:3415-3423.e29. [PMID: 36906080 PMCID: PMC10491743 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/26/2022] [Revised: 02/22/2023] [Accepted: 03/01/2023] [Indexed: 03/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Previous studies on the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening were based on hypothetical performance of CRC risk prediction and did not consider the association with competing causes of death. In this study, we estimated the cost-effectiveness of risk-stratified screening using real-world data for CRC risk and competing causes of death. METHODS Risk predictions for CRC and competing causes of death from a large community-based cohort were used to stratify individuals into risk groups. A microsimulation model was used to optimize colonoscopy screening for each risk group by varying the start age (40-60 years), end age (70-85 years), and screening interval (5-15 years). The outcomes included personalized screening ages and intervals and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform colonoscopy screening (ages 45-75, every 10 years). Key assumptions were varied in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS Risk-stratified screening resulted in substantially different screening recommendations, ranging from a one-time colonoscopy at age 60 for low-risk individuals to a colonoscopy every 5 years from ages 40 to 85 for high-risk individuals. Nevertheless, on a population level, risk-stratified screening would increase net quality-adjusted life years gained (QALYG) by only 0.7% at equal costs to uniform screening or reduce average costs by 1.2% for equal QALYG. The benefit of risk-stratified screening improved when it was assumed to increase participation or costs less per genetic test. CONCLUSIONS Personalized screening for CRC, accounting for competing causes of death risk, could result in highly tailored individual screening programs. However, average improvements across the population in QALYG and cost-effectiveness compared with uniform screening are small.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Reinier G S Meester
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Elisabeth F P Peterse
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Ann G Zauber
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jiayin Zheng
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Richard B Hayes
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Yu-Ru Su
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Biostatistics Unit, Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington
| | - Jeffrey K Lee
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Minta Thomas
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Lori C Sakoda
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington; Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California
| | - Yi Li
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Douglas A Corley
- Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, California; Department of Gastroenterology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco, San Francisco, California
| | - Ulrike Peters
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Li Hsu
- Public Health Sciences Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Woof VG, McWilliams L, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Br J Health Psychol 2023; 28:1169-1184. [PMID: 37395149 PMCID: PMC10947456 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2023] [Revised: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 06/16/2023] [Indexed: 07/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Offering breast cancer risk prediction for all women of screening age is being considered globally. For women who have received a clinically derived estimate, risk appraisals are often inaccurate. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of women's lived experiences of receiving an increased breast cancer risk. DESIGN One-to-one semi-structured telephone interviews. METHODS Eight women informed that they were at a 10-year above-average (moderate) or high risk in a breast cancer risk study (BC-Predict) were interviewed about their views on breast cancer, personal breast cancer risk and risk prevention. Interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min. Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS Four themes were generated: (i) encounters with breast cancer and perceived personal significance, where the nature of women's lived experiences of others with breast cancer impacted their views on the significance of the disease, (ii) 'It's random really': difficulty in seeking causal attributions, where women encountered contradictions and confusion in attributing causes to breast cancer, (iii) believing versus identifying with a clinically-derived breast cancer risk, where personal risk appraisals and expectations influenced women's ability to internalize their clinically derived risk and pursue preventative action and (iv) perceived utility of breast cancer risk notification, where women reflected on the usefulness of knowing their risk. CONCLUSIONS Providing (numerical) risk estimates appear to have little impact on stable yet internally contradictory beliefs about breast cancer risk. Given this, discussions with healthcare professionals are needed to help women form more accurate appraisals and make informed decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Anthony Howell
- University of ManchesterManchesterUK
- The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe HospitalManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- University of ManchesterManchesterUK
- The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe HospitalManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Taylor LC, Dennison RA, Griffin SJ, John SD, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Thomas CV, Thomas R, Usher-Smith JA. Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs. BMC Public Health 2023; 23:1798. [PMID: 37715213 PMCID: PMC10503141 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16704-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lily C Taylor
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - Rebecca A Dennison
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Simon J Griffin
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephen D John
- Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Chloe V Thomas
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Rae Thomas
- Department of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
| | - Juliet A Usher-Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Bas S, Sijben J, Bischoff EWMA, Bekkers RLM, de Kok IMCM, Melchers WJG, Siebers AG, van der Waal D, Broeders MJM. Acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening: A focus group study. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0289647. [PMID: 37585441 PMCID: PMC10431661 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289647] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Compared to the previous cytology-based program, the introduction of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) based screening in 2017 has led to an increased number of referrals. To counter this, triage of hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening can potentially be optimized by taking sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors for cervical abnormalities into account. Therefore, it is essential to gain knowledge of the views of women (30-60 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening. OBJECTIVE The main goal of this qualitative study was to gain insight in the aspects that influence acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening. DESIGN A focus group study in which participants were recruited via four general medical practices, and purposive sampling was used to maximize heterogeneity with regards to age, education level, and cervical cancer screening experiences. APPROACH The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS A total of 28 women (average age: 45.2 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands participated in seven online focus group discussions. Half of the participants was higher educated, and the participants differed in previous cervical cancer screening participation and screening result. KEY RESULTS In total, 5 main themes and 17 subthemes were identified that determine the acceptability of risk-stratified triage. The main themes are: 1) adequacy of the screening program: an evidence-based program that is able to minimize cancer incidence and reduce unnecessary referrals; 2) personal information (e.g., sensitive topics and stigma); 3) emotional impact: fear and reassurance; 4) communication (e.g., transparency); and 5) autonomy (e.g., prevention). CONCLUSION The current study highlights several challenges regarding the development and implementation of risk-based triage that need attention in order to be accepted by the target group. These challenges include dealing with sensitive topics and a transparent communication strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharell Bas
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jasmijn Sijben
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Erik W. M. A. Bischoff
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Ruud L. M. Bekkers
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Inge M. C. M. de Kok
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Willem J. G. Melchers
- Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Albert G. Siebers
- The Nationwide Network and Registry of Histo-and Cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA Foundation), Houten, The Netherlands
| | - Daniëlle van der Waal
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J. M. Broeders
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Lippey J, Keogh L, Campbell I, Mann GB, Forrest LE. Impact of a risk based breast screening decision aid on understanding, acceptance and decision making. NPJ Breast Cancer 2023; 9:65. [PMID: 37553371 PMCID: PMC10409718 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-023-00569-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Internationally, population breast cancer screening is moving towards a risk-stratified approach and requires engagement and acceptance from current and future screening clients. A decision aid ( www.defineau.org ) was developed based on women's views, values, and knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on women's knowledge, risk perception, acceptance of risk assessment and change of screening frequency, and decision-making. Here we report the results of a pre and post-survey in which women who are clients of BreastScreen Victoria were invited to complete an online questionnaire before and after viewing the decision aid. 3200 potential participants were invited, 242 responded with 127 participants completing both surveys. After reviewing the decision aid there was a significant change in knowledge, acceptance of risk-stratified breast cancer screening and of decreased frequency screening for lower risk. High levels of acceptance of risk stratification, genetic testing and broad support for tailored screening persisted pre and post review. The DEFINE decision aid has a positive impact on acceptance of lower frequency screening, a major barrier to the success of a risk-stratified program and may contribute to facilitating change to the population breast screening program in Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jocelyn Lippey
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Melbourne, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Melbourne, Australia
- St. Vincent's Hospital, Department of Surgery, Fitzroy, Australia
| | - Louise Keogh
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ian Campbell
- Cancer Genetics Laboratory, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Gregory Bruce Mann
- Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Breast Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Laura Elenor Forrest
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lapointe J, Côté JM, Mbuya-Bienge C, Dorval M, Pashayan N, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Brooks JD, Walker MJ, Blackmore KM, Joly Y, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Nabi H. Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening. J Pers Med 2023; 13:1027. [PMID: 37511640 PMCID: PMC10381377 DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/14/2023] [Revised: 06/02/2023] [Accepted: 06/19/2023] [Indexed: 07/30/2023] Open
Abstract
Given the controversy over the effectiveness of age-based breast cancer (BC) screening, offering risk-stratified screening to women may be a way to improve patient outcomes with detection of earlier-stage disease. While this approach seems promising, its integration requires the buy-in of many stakeholders. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed Canadian healthcare professionals about their views and attitudes toward a risk-stratified BC screening approach. An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated through Canadian healthcare professional associations between November 2020 and May 2021. Information collected included attitudes toward BC screening recommendations based on individual risk, comfort and perceived readiness related to the possible implementation of this approach. Close to 90% of the 593 respondents agreed with increased frequency and earlier initiation of BC screening for women at high risk. However, only 9% agreed with the idea of not offering BC screening to women at very low risk. Respondents indicated that primary care physicians and nurse practitioners should play a leading role in the risk-stratified BC screening approach. This survey identifies health services and policy enhancements that would be needed to support future implementation of a risk-stratified BC screening approach in healthcare systems in Canada and other countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Lapointe
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Jean-Martin Côté
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050, Av de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, 1050, Av de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, 143 Rue Wolfe, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Programme Québécois de Cancérologie, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, 1075, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada
| | - Annie Turgeon
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| | - Jennifer D Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155, College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada
| | - Meghan J Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155, College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada
- Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, 525, University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | | | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, 740, Ave Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
- Human Genetics Department and Bioethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3647, Peel Street, Montreal, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Bartha Maria Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, 740, Ave Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada
| | - Anna Maria Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155, College Street, Toronto, ON M5T 3M7, Canada
- Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, 525, University Avenue, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050, Avenue de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, 1050, Chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1050, Av de la Médecine, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Taylor LC, Law K, Hutchinson A, Dennison RA, Usher-Smith JA. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0279201. [PMID: 36827432 PMCID: PMC9956883 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 02/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Introduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation. METHODS We searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667. RESULTS A total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement. CONCLUSIONS Risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lily C. Taylor
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Katie Law
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Alison Hutchinson
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Usher-Smith JA, Hindmarch S, French DP, Tischkowitz M, Moorthie S, Walter FM, Dennison RA, Stutzin Donoso F, Archer S, Taylor L, Emery J, Morris S, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening. Br J Cancer 2023; 128:1636-1646. [PMID: 36737659 PMCID: PMC9897164 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02145-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/06/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sarah Hindmarch
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David P. French
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sowmiya Moorthie
- grid.5335.00000000121885934PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fiona M. Walter
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Francisca Stutzin Donoso
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lily Taylor
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jon Emery
- grid.1008.90000 0001 2179 088XCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia
| | - Stephen Morris
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Taylor G, McWilliams L, Woof VG, Evans DG, French DP. What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis. Health Expect 2022; 25:3287-3296. [PMID: 36305519 PMCID: PMC9700144 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2022] [Revised: 10/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION There is increasing interest in risk-stratified breast screening, whereby the prevention and early detection offers vary by a woman's estimated risk of breast cancer. To date, more focus has been directed towards high-risk screening pathways rather than considering women at lower risk, who may be eligible for extended screening intervals. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the views of three key stakeholder groups on how extending screening intervals for low-risk women should be implemented and communicated as part of a national breast screening programme. METHODS Secondary data analysis of three qualitative studies exploring the views of distinct stakeholder groups was conducted. Interviews took place with 23 low-risk women (identified from the BC-Predict study) and 17 national screening figures, who were involved in policy-making and implementation. In addition, three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 26 healthcare professionals. A multiperspective thematic analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences between stakeholders. FINDINGS Three themes were produced: Questionable assumptions about negative consequences, highlighting how other stakeholders lack trust in how women are likely to understand extended screening intervals; Preserving the integrity of the programme, centring on decision-making and maintaining a positive reputation of breast screening and Negotiating a communication pathway highlighting communication expectations and public campaign importance. CONCLUSIONS A risk-stratified screening programme should consider how best to engage women assessed as having a low risk of breast cancer to ensure mutual trust, balance the practicality of change whilst ensuring acceptability, and carefully develop multilevel inclusive communication strategies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION The research within this paper involved patient/public contributors throughout including study design and materials input.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Grace Taylor
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - Lorna McWilliams
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | - Victoria G. Woof
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- The Nightingale and Prevent Breast Cancer CentreManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation TrustThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
| | - David P. French
- School of Health Sciences, Manchester Centre of Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental HealthUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science CentreCentral Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research CentreUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
"It Will Lead You to Make Better Decisions about Your Health"-A Focus Group and Survey Study on Women's Attitudes towards Risk-Based Breast Cancer Screening and Personalised Risk Assessments. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:9181-9198. [PMID: 36547133 PMCID: PMC9776908 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29120719] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Revised: 11/22/2022] [Accepted: 11/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Singapore launched a population-based organised mammography screening (MAM) programme in 2002. However, uptake is low. A better understanding of breast cancer (BC) risk factors has generated interest in shifting from a one-size-fits-all to a risk-based screening approach. However, public acceptability of the change is lacking. Focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 54 women (median age 37.5 years) with no BC history. Eight online sessions were transcribed, coded, and thematically analysed. Additionally, we surveyed 993 participants in a risk-based MAM study on how they felt in anticipation of receiving their risk profiles. Attitudes towards MAM (e.g., fear, low perceived risk) have remained unchanged for ~25 years. However, FGD participants reported that they would be more likely to attend routine mammography after having their BC risks assessed, despite uncertainty and concerns about risk-based screening. This insight was reinforced by the survey participants reporting more positive than negative feelings before receiving their risk reports. There is enthusiasm in knowing personal disease risk but concerns about the level of support for individuals learning they are at higher risk for breast cancer. Our results support the empowering of Singaporean women with personal health information to improve MAM uptake.
Collapse
|
19
|
McWilliams L, Evans DG, Payne K, Harrison F, Howell A, Howell SJ, French DP. Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14:cancers14194636. [PMID: 36230559 PMCID: PMC9563640 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14194636] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2022] [Revised: 09/20/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Correspondence:
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9WL, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
| | - Katherine Payne
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Manchester Centre for Health Economics, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | | | - Anthony Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - Sacha J. Howell
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester M23 9LT, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
- Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine & Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
| | - David P. French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M13 9WU, UK
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 55 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 4GJ, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Dennison RA, Boscott RA, Thomas R, Griffin SJ, Harrison H, John SD, Moorthie SA, Morris S, Rossi SH, Stewart GD, Thomas CV, Usher‐Smith JA. A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening. Health Expect 2022; 25:1789-1806. [PMID: 35526275 PMCID: PMC9327868 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13522] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2021] [Revised: 04/26/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2022] [Indexed: 01/18/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies. METHODS We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40-79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, 'Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?' Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high-risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non-modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability. CONCLUSION Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co-facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rebecca A. Dennison
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | | | - Rae Thomas
- Institute for Evidence‐Based HealthcareBond UniversityGold CoastQueenslandAustralia
| | - Simon J. Griffin
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Hannah Harrison
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Stephen D. John
- Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | | | - Stephen Morris
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | | | | | - Chloe V. Thomas
- School of Health and Related ResearchUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
| | - Juliet A. Usher‐Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Nabi H. Personalized Approaches for the Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer. J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12081201. [PMID: 35893295 PMCID: PMC9331702 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12081201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer (BC) remains a major public health issue worldwide [...]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hermann Nabi
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; ; Tel.: +1-418-682-7511 (ext. 82800)
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center (CRC), Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Gynecologic Cancer Risk and Genetics: Informing an Ideal Model of Gynecologic Cancer Prevention. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:4632-4646. [PMID: 35877228 PMCID: PMC9322111 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29070368] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2022] [Revised: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 06/22/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Individuals with proven hereditary cancer syndrome (HCS) such as BRCA1 and BRCA2 have elevated rates of ovarian, breast, and other cancers. If these high-risk people can be identified before a cancer is diagnosed, risk-reducing interventions are highly effective and can be lifesaving. Despite this evidence, the vast majority of Canadians with HCS are unaware of their risk. In response to this unmet opportunity for prevention, the British Columbia Gynecologic Cancer Initiative convened a research summit “Gynecologic Cancer Prevention: Thinking Big, Thinking Differently” in Vancouver, Canada on 26 November 2021. The aim of the conference was to explore how hereditary cancer prevention via population-based genetic testing could decrease morbidity and mortality from gynecologic cancer. The summit invited local, national, and international experts to (1) discuss how genetic testing could be more broadly implemented in a Canadian system, (2) identify key research priorities in this topic and (3) outline the core essential elements required for such a program to be successful. This report summarizes the findings from this research summit, describes the current state of hereditary genetic programs in Canada, and outlines incremental steps that can be taken to improve prevention for high-risk Canadians now while developing an organized population-based hereditary cancer strategy.
Collapse
|
23
|
Moorthie S, Babb de Villiers C, Burton H, Kroese M, Antoniou AC, Bhattacharjee P, Garcia-Closas M, Hall P, Schmidt MK. Towards implementation of comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction tools in health care for personalised prevention. Prev Med 2022; 159:107075. [PMID: 35526672 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2021] [Revised: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Advances in knowledge about breast cancer risk factors have led to the development of more comprehensive risk models. These integrate information on a variety of risk factors such as lifestyle, genetics, family history, and breast density. These risk models have the potential to deliver more personalised breast cancer prevention. This is through improving accuracy of risk estimates, enabling more effective targeting of preventive options and creating novel prevention pathways through enabling risk estimation in a wider variety of populations than currently possible. The systematic use of risk tools as part of population screening programmes is one such example. A clear understanding of how such tools can contribute to the goal of personalised prevention can aid in understanding and addressing barriers to implementation. In this paper we describe how emerging models, and their associated tools can contribute to the goal of personalised healthcare for breast cancer through health promotion, early disease detection (screening) and improved management of women at higher risk of disease. We outline how addressing specific challenges on the level of communication, evidence, evaluation, regulation, and acceptance, can facilitate implementation and uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sowmiya Moorthie
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Forvie Site, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.
| | | | - Hilary Burton
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mark Kroese
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Proteeti Bhattacharjee
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Montserrat Garcia-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, USA
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13225813. [PMID: 34830965 PMCID: PMC8616436 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 11/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Risk-based breast screening will involve tailoring the amount of screening to women’s level of risk. Therefore, women at high-risk may be offered more frequent screening and over a longer period of time than those at low risk for whom less screening may be recommended. As this will involve considerable changes to the NHS Breast Screening Programme, it is important to explore what women in the UK think and feel about this approach. Analysis of in-depth interviews revealed that some women would find both high and low-risk screening options acceptable whereas others were resistant to the prospect of reduced screening if they were assessed as low-risk. We also found that the idea of risk-based screening had little influence on the attitudes of women who were already sceptical about breast screening. These findings highlight the communication challenges that will be faced by those introducing risk-based screening and suggest a need for tailored support and advice. Abstract Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women’s attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: ‘Overall acceptors’ considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought ‘more is better’ only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. ‘Screening sceptics’ found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women’s responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.
Collapse
|
25
|
Exploring Implementation of Personal Breast Cancer Risk Assessments. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11100992. [PMID: 34683136 PMCID: PMC8541275 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11100992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Revised: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Personal Breast Cancer (BC) Risk Assessments (PBCRA) have potential to stratify women into clinically-actionable BC risk categories. As this could involve population-wide genomic testing, women's attitudes to PBCRA and views on acceptable implementation platforms must be considered to ensure optimal population participation. We explored these issues with 31 women with different BC risk profiles through semi-structured focus group discussions or interviews. Inductive thematic coding of transcripts was performed. Subsequently, women listed factors that would impact on their decision to participate. Participants' attitudes to PBCRA were positive. Identified themes included that PBCRA acceptance hinges on result actionability. Women value the ability to inform decision-making. Participants reported anxiety, stress, and genetic discrimination as potential barriers. The age at which PBCRA was offered, ease of access, and how results are returned held importance. Most women value the opportunity for PBCRA to inform increased surveillance, while highlighting hesitance to accept reduced surveillance as they find reassurance in regular screening. Women with BRCA pathogenic variants value the potential for PBCRA to identify a lower cancer risk and potentially inform delayed prophylactic surgery. This study highlights complexities in adopting advances in BC early detection, especially for current users who value existing processes as a social good.
Collapse
|
26
|
Knoppers BM, Bernier A, Granados Moreno P, Pashayan N. Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores. J Pers Med 2021; 11:736. [PMID: 34442379 PMCID: PMC8398020 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080736] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2021] [Accepted: 07/24/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Technological innovations including risk-stratification algorithms and large databases of longitudinal population health data and genetic data are allowing us to develop a deeper understanding how individual behaviors, characteristics, and genetics are related to health risk. The clinical implementation of risk-stratified screening programmes that utilise risk scores to allocate patients into tiers of health risk is foreseeable in the future. Legal and ethical challenges associated with risk-stratified cancer care must, however, be addressed. Obtaining access to the rich health data that are required to perform risk-stratification, ensuring equitable access to risk-stratified care, ensuring that algorithms that perform risk-scoring are representative of human genetic diversity, and determining the appropriate follow-up to be provided to stratification participants to alert them to changes in their risk score are among the principal ethical and legal challenges. Accounting for the great burden that regulatory requirements could impose on access to risk-scoring technologies is another critical consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Alexander Bernier
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Palmira Granados Moreno
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 740 Avenue Dr. Penfield, Suite 5200, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (A.B.); (P.G.M.)
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK;
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Alarie S, Hagan J, Dalpé G, Faraji S, Mbuya-Bienge C, Nabi H, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Dorval M, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Paquette JS, Walker MJ, Lapointe J, Granados Moreno P, Blackmore K, Wolfson M, Broeders M, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Joly Y. Risk-Stratified Approach to Breast Cancer Screening in Canada: Women's Knowledge of the Legislative Context and Concerns about Discrimination from Genetic and Other Predictive Health Data. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11080726. [PMID: 34442372 PMCID: PMC8398750 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080726] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2021] [Revised: 07/17/2021] [Accepted: 07/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
The success of risk-stratified approaches in improving population-based breast cancer screening programs depends in no small part on women’s buy-in. Fear of genetic discrimination (GD) could be a potential barrier to genetic testing uptake as part of risk assessment. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate Canadian women’s knowledge of the legislative context governing GD. Second, to assess their concerns about the possible use of breast cancer risk levels by insurance companies or employers. We use a cross-sectional survey of 4293 (age: 30–69) women, conducted in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Colombia, Ontario and Québec). Canadian women’s knowledge of the regulatory framework for GD is relatively limited, with some gaps and misconceptions noted. About a third (34.7%) of the participants had a lot of concerns about the use of their health information by employers or insurers; another third had some concerns (31.9%), while 20% had no concerns. There is a need to further educate and inform the Canadian public about GD and the legal protections that exist to prevent it. Enhanced knowledge could facilitate the implementation and uptake of risk prediction informed by genetic factors, such as the risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that includes risk levels.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel Alarie
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (S.A.); (G.D.); (S.F.); (P.G.M.); (B.M.K.); (Y.J.)
| | - Julie Hagan
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (S.A.); (G.D.); (S.F.); (P.G.M.); (B.M.K.); (Y.J.)
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-(514)-398-8155
| | - Gratien Dalpé
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (S.A.); (G.D.); (S.F.); (P.G.M.); (B.M.K.); (Y.J.)
| | - Sina Faraji
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (S.A.); (G.D.); (S.F.); (P.G.M.); (B.M.K.); (Y.J.)
| | - Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1R 3S3, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Jennifer D. Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
| | - Michel Dorval
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine D’urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Québec Cancer Program, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Quebec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada;
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, CISSS de Lanaudière-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Annie Turgeon
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Jean-Sébastien Paquette
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine D’urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Meghan J. Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Julie Lapointe
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Palmira Granados Moreno
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (S.A.); (G.D.); (S.F.); (P.G.M.); (B.M.K.); (Y.J.)
| | | | - Michael Wolfson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1G 5Z3, Canada;
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, 6538 SW Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (S.A.); (G.D.); (S.F.); (P.G.M.); (B.M.K.); (Y.J.)
| | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, CISSS de Lanaudière-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
| | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (S.A.); (G.D.); (S.F.); (P.G.M.); (B.M.K.); (Y.J.)
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I). J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11060511. [PMID: 34199804 PMCID: PMC8226444 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11060511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 52] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2021] [Revised: 05/28/2021] [Accepted: 05/31/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Early detection of breast cancer through screening reduces breast cancer mortality. The benefits of screening must also be considered within the context of potential harms (e.g., false positives, overdiagnosis). Furthermore, while breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population, most screening programs use age to determine eligibility. A risk-based approach is expected to improve the benefit-harm ratio of breast cancer screening programs. The PERSPECTIVE I&I (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation) project seeks to improve personalized risk assessment to allow for a cost-effective, population-based approach to risk-based screening and determine best practices for implementation in Canada. This commentary describes the four inter-related activities that comprise the PERSPECTIVE I&I project. 1: Identification and validation of novel moderate to high-risk susceptibility genes. 2: Improvement, validation, and adaptation of a risk prediction web-tool for the Canadian context. 3: Development and piloting of a socio-ethical framework to support implementation of risk-based breast cancer screening. 4: Economic analysis to optimize the implementation of risk-based screening. Risk-based screening and prevention is expected to benefit all women, empowering them to work with their healthcare provider to make informed decisions about screening and prevention.
Collapse
|