1
|
Zaki-Metias KM, Wang H, Tawil TF, Miles EB, Deptula L, Agrawal P, Davis KM, Spalluto LB, Seely JM, Yong-Hing CJ. Breast Cancer Screening in the Intermediate-Risk Population: Falling Through the Cracks? Can Assoc Radiol J 2024:8465371241234544. [PMID: 38420877 DOI: 10.1177/08465371241234544] [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: 03/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer screening guidelines vary for women at intermediate risk (15%-20% lifetime risk) for developing breast cancer across jurisdictions. Currently available risk assessment models have differing strengths and weaknesses, creating difficulty and ambiguity in selecting the most appropriate model to utilize. Clarifying which model to utilize in individual circumstances may help determine the best screening guidelines to use for each individual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kaitlin M Zaki-Metias
- Department of Radiology, Trinity Health Oakland Hospital/Wayne State University School of Medicine, Pontiac, MI, USA
| | - Huijuan Wang
- Department of Radiology, Trinity Health Oakland Hospital/Wayne State University School of Medicine, Pontiac, MI, USA
| | - Tima F Tawil
- Department of Radiology, Trinity Health Oakland Hospital/Wayne State University School of Medicine, Pontiac, MI, USA
| | - Eda B Miles
- Department of Internal Medicine, Arnot Ogden Medical Center, Elmira, NY, USA
| | - Lisa Deptula
- Ross University School of Medicine, Bridgetown, Barbados
| | - Pooja Agrawal
- Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
- Department of Internal Medicine, HCA Houston Healthcare Kingwood, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Katie M Davis
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Lucy B Spalluto
- Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Vanderbilt Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, TN, USA
- Veterans Health Administration, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Jean M Seely
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
| | - Charlotte J Yong-Hing
- Diagnostic Imaging, BC Cancer Vancouver, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dunlop KLA, Keogh LA, Smith AL, Aranda S, Aitken J, Watts CG, Smit AK, Janda M, Mann GJ, Cust AE, Rankin NM. Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0287591. [PMID: 38091281 PMCID: PMC10718433 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287591] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2022] [Accepted: 06/08/2023] [Indexed: 12/18/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers. METHODS This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. RESULTS Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging. CONCLUSION Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.
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
| | - Louise A. Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrea L. Smith
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sanchia Aranda
- School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Joanne Aitken
- Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Caroline G. Watts
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, A Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Surveillance, Evaluation & Research Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Amelia K. Smit
- 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
| | - Monika Janda
- Centre for Health Services Research, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Graham J. Mann
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University, Acton, Australian Capital Territory, Australia
- Centre for Cancer Research, Westmead Institute for Medical Research, The University of Sydney, Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales, 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
| | - Nicole M. Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
O’Driscoll J, Burke A, Mooney T, Phelan N, Baldelli P, Smith A, Lynch S, Fitzpatrick P, Bennett K, Flanagan F, Mullooly M. A scoping review of programme specific mammographic breast density related guidelines and practices within breast screening programmes. Eur J Radiol Open 2023; 11:100510. [PMID: 37560166 PMCID: PMC10407884 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2023.100510] [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: 02/01/2023] [Revised: 07/06/2023] [Accepted: 07/10/2023] [Indexed: 08/11/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION High mammographic breast density (MBD) is an independent breast cancer risk factor. In organised breast screening settings, discussions are ongoing regarding the optimal clinical role of MBD to help guide screening decisions. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of current practices incorporating MBD within population-based breast screening programmes and from professional organisations internationally. METHODS This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute. The electronic databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Grey literature sources, websites of international breast screening programmes, and relevant government organisations were searched to identify further relevant literature. Data from identified materials were extracted and presented as a narrative summary. RESULTS The search identified 78 relevant documents. Documents were identified for breast screening programmes in 18 countries relating to screening intervals for women with dense breasts, MBD measurement, reporting, notification, and guiding supplemental screening. Documents were identified from 18 international professional organisations with the majority of material relating to supplemental screening guidance for women with dense breasts. Key factors collated during the data extraction process as relevant considerations for MBD practices included the evidence base needed to inform decision-making processes and resources (healthcare system costs, radiology equipment, and workforce planning). CONCLUSIONS This scoping review summarises current practices and guidelines incorporating MBD in international population-based breast screening settings and highlights the absence of consensus between organised breast screening programmes incorporating MBD in current breast screening protocols.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica O’Driscoll
- School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Beaux Lane House, Mercer St. Lower, Dublin 2, Ireland
| | - Aileen Burke
- School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Beaux Lane House, Mercer St. Lower, Dublin 2, Ireland
| | - Therese Mooney
- National Screening Service, Kings Inn House, 200 Parnell Street, Dublin 1, Ireland
| | - Niall Phelan
- BreastCheck, National Screening Service, 36 Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland
| | - Paola Baldelli
- BreastCheck, National Screening Service, 36 Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland
| | - Alan Smith
- National Screening Service, Kings Inn House, 200 Parnell Street, Dublin 1, Ireland
| | - Suzanne Lynch
- BreastCheck, National Screening Service, 36 Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland
| | - Patricia Fitzpatrick
- National Screening Service, Kings Inn House, 200 Parnell Street, Dublin 1, Ireland
- School of Public Health, Physiotherapy and Sports Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
| | - Kathleen Bennett
- School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Beaux Lane House, Mercer St. Lower, Dublin 2, Ireland
| | - Fidelma Flanagan
- BreastCheck, National Screening Service, 36 Eccles Street, Dublin 7, Ireland
| | - Maeve Mullooly
- School of Population Health, RCSI University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Beaux Lane House, Mercer St. Lower, Dublin 2, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
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
|
5
|
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
|
6
|
Lapointe J, Buron AC, Mbuya-Bienge C, Dorval M, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Walker MJ, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Blackmore K, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Leclerc L, Dalpé G, Joly Y, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Nabi H. Polygenic risk scores and risk-stratified breast cancer screening: Familiarity and perspectives of health care professionals. Genet Med 2022; 24:2380-2388. [PMID: 36057905 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2022.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 08/05/2022] [Indexed: 10/14/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Health care professionals are expected to take on an active role in the implementation of risk-based cancer prevention strategies. This study aimed to explore health care professionals' (1) self-reported familiarity with the concept of polygenic risk score (PRS), (2) perceived level of knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer (BC) screening, and (3) preferences for continuing professional development. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was conducted using a bilingual-English/French-online questionnaire disseminated by health care professional associations across Canada between November 2020 and May 2021. RESULTS A total of 593 professionals completed more than 2 items and 453 responded to all questions. A total of 432 (94%) participants were female, 103 (22%) were physicians, and 323 (70%) were nurses. Participants reported to be unfamiliar with (20%), very unfamiliar (32%) with, or did not know (41%) the concept of PRS. Most participants reported not having enough knowledge about risk-stratified BC screening (61%) and that they would require more training (77%). Online courses and webinar conferences were the preferred continuing professional development modalities. CONCLUSION The study indicates that health care professionals are currently not familiar with the concept of PRS or a risk-stratified approach for BC screening. Online information and training seem to be an essential knowledge transfer modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julie Lapointe
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Anne-Catherine Buron
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada; CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, Lévis, Québec, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College London, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer D Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Meghan J Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; CHU de Québec-Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Programme Québécois de Cancérologie, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Annie Turgeon
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Lucas Leclerc
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Gratien Dalpé
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada; Human Genetics Department and Bioethics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Anna Maria Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Québec City, Québec, Canada; Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, Québec, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wang Y, Tsuo K, Kanai M, Neale BM, Martin AR. Challenges and Opportunities for Developing More Generalizable Polygenic Risk Scores. Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci 2022; 5:293-320. [PMID: 35576555 PMCID: PMC9828290 DOI: 10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-111721-074830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2023]
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) estimate an individual's genetic likelihood of complex traits and diseases by aggregating information across multiple genetic variants identified from genome-wide association studies. PRS can predict a broad spectrum of diseases and have therefore been widely used in research settings. Some work has investigated their potential applications as biomarkers in preventative medicine, but significant work is still needed to definitively establish and communicate absolute risk to patients for genetic and modifiable risk factors across demographic groups. However, the biggest limitation of PRS currently is that they show poor generalizability across diverse ancestries and cohorts. Major efforts are underway through methodological development and data generation initiatives to improve their generalizability. This review aims to comprehensively discuss current progress on the development of PRS, the factors that affect their generalizability, and promising areas for improving their accuracy, portability, and implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ying Wang
- Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research and Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Kristin Tsuo
- Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research and Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA,Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Masahiro Kanai
- Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research and Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA,Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,Department of Statistical Genetics, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan
| | - Benjamin M. Neale
- Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research and Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Alicia R. Martin
- Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA,Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research and Program in Medical and Population Genetics, Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
The Impact of Organised Screening Programs on Breast Cancer Stage at Diagnosis for Canadian Women Aged 40-49 and 50-59. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:5627-5643. [PMID: 36005182 PMCID: PMC9406663 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29080444] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2022] [Revised: 07/28/2022] [Accepted: 08/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
The relationship between Canadian mammography screening practices for women 40−49 and breast cancer (BC) stage at diagnosis in women 40−49 and 50−59 years was assessed using data from the Canadian Cancer Registry, provincial/territorial screening practices, and screening information from the Canadian Community Health Survey. For the 2010 to 2017 period, women aged 40−49 were diagnosed with lesser relative proportions of stage I BC (35.7 vs. 45.3%; p < 0.001), but greater proportions of stage II (42.6 vs. 36.7%, p < 0.001) and III (17.3 vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001) compared to women 50−59. Stage IV was lower among women 40−49 than 50−59 (4.4% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.005). Jurisdictions with organised screening programs for women 40−49 with annual recall (screeners) were compared with those without (comparators). Women aged 40−49 in comparator jurisdictions had higher proportions of stages II (43.7% vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001), III (18.3% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001) and IV (4.6% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.001) compared to their peers in screener jurisdictions. Based on screening practices for women aged 40−49, women aged 50−59 had higher proportions of stages II (37.2% vs. 36.0%, p = 0.003) and III (13.6% vs. 12.3%, p < 0.001) in the comparator versus screener groups. The results of this study can be used to reassess the optimum lower age for BC screening in Canada.
Collapse
|
9
|
BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE)-A study protocol on personalised risk-based breast cancer screening programme. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0265965. [PMID: 35358246 PMCID: PMC8970365 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265965] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2021] [Accepted: 02/22/2022] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Routine mammography screening is currently the standard tool for finding cancers at an early stage, when treatment is most successful. Current breast screening programmes are one-size-fits-all which all women above a certain age threshold are encouraged to participate. However, breast cancer risk varies by individual. The BREAst screening Tailored for HEr (BREATHE) study aims to assess acceptability of a comprehensive risk-based personalised breast screening in Singapore. Advancing beyond the current age-based screening paradigm, BREATHE integrates both genetic and non-genetic breast cancer risk prediction tools to personalise screening recommendations. BREATHE is a cohort study targeting to recruit ~3,500 women. The first recruitment visit will include questionnaires and a buccal cheek swab. After receiving a tailored breast cancer risk report, participants will attend an in-person risk review, followed by a final session assessing the acceptability of our risk stratification programme. Risk prediction is based on: a) Gail model (non-genetic), b) mammographic density and recall, c) BOADICEA predictions (breast cancer predisposition genes), and d) breast cancer polygenic risk score. For national implementation of personalised risk-based breast screening, exploration of the acceptability within the target populace is critical, in addition to validated predication tools. To our knowledge, this is the first study to implement a comprehensive risk-based mammography screening programme in Asia. The BREATHE study will provide essential data for policy implementation which will transform the health system to deliver a better health and healthcare outcomes.
Collapse
|
10
|
Ahmed S, Lévesque E, Garland R, Knoppers B, Dorval M, Simard J, Loiselle CG. Women's perceptions of PERSPECTIVE: a breast cancer risk stratification e-platform. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2022; 20:8. [PMID: 35209930 PMCID: PMC8867776 DOI: 10.1186/s13053-022-00214-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/24/2021] [Accepted: 02/03/2022] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Breast cancer risk stratification categorizes a woman’s potential risk of developing the disease as near-population, intermediate, or high. In accordance, screening and follow up for breast cancer can readily be tailored following risk assessment. Recent efforts have focussed on developing more accessible means to convey this information to women. This study sought to document the relevance of an informational e-platform developed for these purposes. Objective To begin to assess a newly developed breast cancer risk stratification and decision support e-platform called PERSPECTIVE (PErsonalised Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early deteCTIon of breast cancer) among women who do not know their personal breast cancer risk (Phase 1). Changes (pre- and post- e-platform exposure) in knowledge of breast cancer risk and interest in undergoing genetic testing were assessed in addition to perceptions of platform usability and acceptability. Methods Using a pre-post design, women (N = 156) of differing literacy and education levels, aged 30 to 60, with no previous breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from the general population and completed self-report e-questionnaires. Results Mean e-platform viewing time was 18.67 min (SD 0.65) with the most frequently visited pages being breast cancer-related risk factors and risk assessment. Post-exposure, participants reported significantly higher breast cancer-related knowledge (p < .001). Increases in knowledge relating to obesity, alcohol, breast density, menstruation, and the risk estimation process remained even when sociodemographic variables age and education were controlled. There were no significant changes in genetic testing interest post-exposure. Mean ratings for e-platform acceptability and usability were high: 26.19 out of 30 (SD 0.157) and 42.85 out of 50 (SD 0.267), respectively. Conclusions An informative breast cancer risk stratification e-platform targeting healthy women in the general population can significantly increase knowledge as well as support decisions around breast cancer risk and assessment. Currently underway, Phase 2, called PERSPECTIVE, is seeking further content integration and broader implementation .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saima Ahmed
- Division of Experimental Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.,CIUSSS Centre-Ouest Montréal, Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | | | - Rosalind Garland
- Medical Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Bartha Knoppers
- McGill University Centre of Genomics and Policy, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada.,CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Québec City, QC, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- Université Laval, Québec City, QC, Canada.,CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Québec City, QC, Canada
| | - Carmen G Loiselle
- CIUSSS Centre-Ouest Montréal, Segal Cancer Centre, Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada. .,Department of Oncology and Ingram School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, 680 Sherbrooke Ouest, Office 1812, Montréal, QC, H3A 2M7, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Heterogeneity in how women value risk-stratified breast screening. Genet Med 2021; 24:146-156. [PMID: 34906505 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2021.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Revised: 07/04/2021] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Risk-stratified screening has potential to improve the cost effectiveness of national breast cancer screening programs. This study aimed to inform a socially acceptable and equitable implementation framework by determining what influences a woman's decision to accept a personalized breast cancer risk assessment and what the relative impact of these key determinants is. METHODS Multicriteria decision analysis was used to elicit the relative weights for 8 criteria that women reported influenced their decision. Preference heterogeneity was explored through cluster analysis. RESULTS The 2 criteria valued most by the 347 participants related to program access, "Mode of invitation" and "Testing process". Both criteria significantly influenced participation (P < .001). A total of 73% preferred communication by letter/online. Almost all women preferred a multidisease risk assessment with potential for a familial high-risk result. Four preference-based subgroups were identified. Membership to the largest subgroup was predicted by lower educational attainment, and women in this subgroup were concerned with program access. Higher relative perceived breast cancer risk predicted membership to the smallest subgroup that was focused on test parameters, namely "Scope of test" and "Test specificity". CONCLUSION Overall, Australian women would accept a personalized multidisease risk assessment, but when aligning with their preferences, it will necessitate a focus on program access and the development of online communication frameworks.
Collapse
|
12
|
Marques CAV, Figueiredo END, Gutiérrez MGRD. Breast cancer screening program for risk groups: facts and perspectives. Rev Bras Enferm 2021; 75:e20210050. [PMID: 34669830 DOI: 10.1590/0034-7167-2021-0050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2021] [Accepted: 06/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES to measure the frequency and compliance of breast cancer screening, according to the risk for this disease. METHODS a cross-sectional study with 950 female users of 38 public Primary Health Care services in São Paulo, between October and December 2013. According to UHS criteria, participants were grouped into high risk and standard risk, and frequency, association (p≤0.05), and screening compliance were measured. RESULTS 6.7% had high risk and 93.3% standard risk, respectively; in these groups, the frequency and compliance of clinical breast examination were 40.3% and 37.1%, and 43.5% and 43.0% (frequency p=0.631, compliance p=0.290). Mammograms were 67.7% and 35.5% for participants at high risk, and 57.4% and 25.4% for those at standard risk (frequency p=0.090, compliance p=0.000). CONCLUSIONS in the groups, attendance and conformity of the clinical breast exam were similar; for mammography, it was higher in those at high risk, with assertiveness lower than the 70% set in UHS.
Collapse
|
13
|
Pashayan N, Antoniou AC, Lee A, Wolfson M, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Eisen A, Stockley TL, Nabi H, Brooks JD, Dorval M, Easton DF, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J. Should Age-Dependent Absolute Risk Thresholds Be Used for Risk Stratification in Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening? J Pers Med 2021; 11:916. [PMID: 34575693 PMCID: PMC8469877 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11090916] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/05/2021] [Revised: 09/03/2021] [Accepted: 09/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
In risk-stratified cancer screening, multiple risk factors are incorporated into the risk assessment. An individual's estimated absolute cancer risk is linked to risk categories with tailored screening recommendations for each risk category. Absolute risk, expressed as either remaining lifetime risk or shorter-term (five- or ten-year) risk, is estimated from the age at assessment. These risk estimates vary by age; however, some clinical guidelines (e.g., enhanced breast cancer surveillance guidelines) and ongoing personalised breast screening trials, stratify women based on absolute risk thresholds that do not vary by age. We examine an alternative approach in which the risk thresholds used for risk stratification vary by age and consider the implications of using age-independent risk thresholds on risk stratification. We demonstrate that using an age-independent remaining lifetime risk threshold approach could identify high-risk younger women but would miss high-risk older women, whereas an age-independent 5-year or 10-year absolute risk threshold could miss high-risk younger women and classify lower-risk older women as high risk. With risk misclassification, women with an equivalent risk level would be offered a different screening plan. To mitigate these problems, age-dependent absolute risk thresholds should be used to inform risk stratification.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London WC1E 7HB, UK
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (A.C.A.); (A.L.); (D.F.E.)
| | - Andrew Lee
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (A.C.A.); (A.L.); (D.F.E.)
| | - Michael Wolfson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1G 5Z3, Canada;
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.S.)
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Quebec Cancer Program, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Quebec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada;
| | - Andrea Eisen
- Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada;
| | - Tracy L. Stockley
- Division Clinical Laboratory Genetics, Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada;
- Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Jennifer D. Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada;
| | - Michel Dorval
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.S.)
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK; (A.C.A.); (A.L.); (D.F.E.)
| | | | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada;
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Jacques Simard
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Centre, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; (H.N.); (M.D.); (J.S.)
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Mbuya-Bienge C, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Dorval M, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Paquette JS, Lévesque E, Hagan J, Walker MJ, Lapointe J, Dalpé G, Granados Moreno P, Blackmore K, Wolfson M, Joly Y, Broeders M, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Nabi H. Women's Views on Multifactorial Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Screening: A Population-Based Survey from Four Provinces in Canada. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11020095. [PMID: 33540785 PMCID: PMC7912955 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11020095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Revised: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 01/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk-stratified screening for breast cancer (BC) is increasingly considered as a promising approach. However, its implementation is challenging and needs to be acceptable to women. We examined Canadian women’s attitudes towards, comfort level about, and willingness to take part in BC risk-stratified screening. We conducted an online survey in women aged 30 to 69 years in four Canadian provinces. In total, 4293 women completed the questionnaire (response rate of 63%). The majority of women (63.5% to 72.8%) expressed favorable attitudes towards BC risk-stratified screening. Most women reported that they would be comfortable providing personal and genetic information for BC risk assessment (61.5% to 67.4%) and showed a willingness to have their BC risk assessed if offered (74.8%). Most women (85.9%) would also accept an increase in screening frequency if they were at higher risk, but fewer (49.3%) would accept a reduction in screening frequency if they were at lower risk. There were few differences by province; however, outcomes varied by age, education level, marital status, income, perceived risk, history of BC, prior mammography, and history of genetic test for BC (all p ≤ 0.01). Risk-based BC screening using multifactorial risk assessment appears to be acceptable to most women. This suggests that the implementation of this approach is likely to be well-supported by Canadian women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Jennifer D. Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
| | - Michel Dorval
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- CHU de Québec—Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d’Urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Québec Cancer Program, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Quebec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada;
| | - Annie Turgeon
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Jean-Sébastien Paquette
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d’Urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Emmanuelle Lévesque
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Julie Hagan
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Meghan J. Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Julie Lapointe
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Gratien Dalpé
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Palmira Granados Moreno
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | | | - Michael Wolfson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1G 5Z3, Canada;
| | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, 6538 SW Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Jacques Simard
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1R 3S3, Canada
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-418-682-7511 (ext. 82800)
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Esquivel-Sada D, Lévesque E, Hagan J, Knoppers BM, Simard J. Envisioning Implementation of a Personalized Approach in Breast Cancer Screening Programs: Stakeholder Perspectives. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2020; 15:39-54. [PMID: 32077844 PMCID: PMC7020798 DOI: 10.12927/hcpol.2019.26072] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Advances in genomics and epidemiology can foster the implementation of a risk-based approach to current age-based breast cancer screening programs. This personalized approach would challenge the trajectory for women in the healthcare system by adding both a risk-assessment step (including a genomic test) and screening options. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to explore, from an organizational perspective, the acceptability of different proposals for each step of the trajectory for women in the healthcare system should a personalized approach be implemented in the province of Quebec. METHODS We interviewed 20 professional stakeholders who are either involved in the current breast cancer screening program in Quebec or who are likely to play a role in the future implementation of a personalized risk-based approach. RESULTS|DISCUSSION Preferences are split between proposals supporting self-management by the women themselves (e.g., solicitation through media campaign, self-collection of information and sample and results provided by letter) and proposals prioritizing more interaction between women and healthcare providers (e.g., solicitation by health professionals, collection of information and samples by a nurse and results provided by health professionals).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daphne Esquivel-Sada
- Sociologist, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC
| | - Emmanuelle Lévesque
- Lawyer and Academic Associate, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC
| | - Julie Hagan
- Academic Associate, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine McGill University, Montreal, QC
| | - Bartha Maria Knoppers
- Professor, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Director, Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC
| | - Jacques Simard
- Professor, Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec City, QC
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Ho WK, Tan MM, Mavaddat N, Tai MC, Mariapun S, Li J, Ho PJ, Dennis J, Tyrer JP, Bolla MK, Michailidou K, Wang Q, Kang D, Choi JY, Jamaris S, Shu XO, Yoon SY, Park SK, Kim SW, Shen CY, Yu JC, Tan EY, Chan PMY, Muir K, Lophatananon A, Wu AH, Stram DO, Matsuo K, Ito H, Chan CW, Ngeow J, Yong WS, Lim SH, Lim GH, Kwong A, Chan TL, Tan SM, Seah J, John EM, Kurian AW, Koh WP, Khor CC, Iwasaki M, Yamaji T, Tan KMV, Tan KTB, Spinelli JJ, Aronson KJ, Hasan SN, Rahmat K, Vijayananthan A, Sim X, Pharoah PDP, Zheng W, Dunning AM, Simard J, van Dam RM, Yip CH, Taib NAM, Hartman M, Easton DF, Teo SH, Antoniou AC. European polygenic risk score for prediction of breast cancer shows similar performance in Asian women. Nat Commun 2020; 11:3833. [PMID: 32737321 PMCID: PMC7395776 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-17680-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2019] [Accepted: 07/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
Polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been shown to predict breast cancer risk in European women, but their utility in Asian women is unclear. Here we evaluate the best performing PRSs for European-ancestry women using data from 17,262 breast cancer cases and 17,695 controls of Asian ancestry from 13 case-control studies, and 10,255 Chinese women from a prospective cohort (413 incident breast cancers). Compared to women in the middle quintile of the risk distribution, women in the highest 1% of PRS distribution have a ~2.7-fold risk and women in the lowest 1% of PRS distribution has ~0.4-fold risk of developing breast cancer. There is no evidence of heterogeneity in PRS performance in Chinese, Malay and Indian women. A PRS developed for European-ancestry women is also predictive of breast cancer risk in Asian women and can help in developing risk-stratified screening programmes in Asia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Weang-Kee Ho
- School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, Semenyih, 43500, Selangor, Malaysia.
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia.
| | - Min-Min Tan
- School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, Semenyih, 43500, Selangor, Malaysia
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Nasim Mavaddat
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mei-Chee Tai
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Shivaani Mariapun
- School of Mathematical Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, Semenyih, 43500, Selangor, Malaysia
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Jingmei Li
- Human Genetics, Genome Institute of Singapore, 60 Biopolis St, 138672, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of Surgery, National University Hospital and NUHS, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Peh-Joo Ho
- Human Genetics, Genome Institute of Singapore, 60 Biopolis St, 138672, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Joe Dennis
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jonathan P Tyrer
- Strangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, Cambridge, UK
| | - Manjeet K Bolla
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| | - Kyriaki Michailidou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
- Biostatistics Unit, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, 6 Iroon Avenue, 2371, Ayios, Dometios, Cyprus
- Cyprus School of Molecular Medicine, The Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics, 6 Iroon Avenue, 2371, Ayios, Dometios, Cyprus
| | - Qin Wang
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| | - Daehee Kang
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea
| | - Ji-Yeob Choi
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea
| | - Suniza Jamaris
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50630, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Xiao-Ou Shu
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S # D3300, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA
| | - Sook-Yee Yoon
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Sue K Park
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Seoul National University Graduate School, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, 03080, Seoul, Korea
- Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, 103 Daehak-Ro, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea
| | - Sung-Won Kim
- Department of Surgery, Daerim Saint Mary's Hospital, 657 Siheung-Daero, Daerim-Dong, Yeongdeungpo-Gu, 07442, Seoul, Korea
| | - Chen-Yang Shen
- Institute of Biomedical Sciences, Academia Sinica, 115128, Section 2, Academia Road, Taipei, Taiwan
- School of Public Health, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
| | - Jyh-Cherng Yu
- Department of Surgery, Tri-Service General Hospital, Taipei, 114, Taiwan
| | - Ern Yu Tan
- Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 308433, Singapore
| | - Patrick Mun Yew Chan
- Department of General Surgery, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, 308433, Singapore
| | - Kenneth Muir
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | - Artitaya Lophatananon
- Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | - Anna H Wu
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1975 Zonal Ave, Los Angeles, 90033, CA, USA
| | - Daniel O Stram
- Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1975 Zonal Ave, Los Angeles, 90033, CA, USA
| | - Keitaro Matsuo
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, 464-8681, Nagoya, Japan
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-Cho, Showa-Ku, 466-8550, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Hidemi Ito
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Aichi Cancer Center Research Institute, 1-1 Kanokoden, Chikusa-Ku, 464-8681, Nagoya, Japan
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, 65 Tsurumai-Cho, Showa-Ku, 466-8550, Nagoya, Japan
| | - Ching Wan Chan
- Department of Surgery, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 117597, Singapore, Singapore
- National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Joanne Ngeow
- Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, 169610, Singapore, Singapore
- Oncology Academic Clinical Program, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 8 College Road, 169857, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Wei Sean Yong
- Division of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Swee Ho Lim
- Breast Department, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, 100 Bukit Timah Road, 229899, Singapore
| | - Geok Hoon Lim
- Breast Department, KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore, 100 Bukit Timah Road, 229899, Singapore
| | - Ava Kwong
- Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry, Cancer Genetics Centre, 18A Kung Ngam Village Road, Happy Valley, Hong Kong
- Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, 102 Pokfulam Road, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong
- Department of Surgery, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, 2 Village Rd, Happy Valley, Hong Kong
| | - Tsun L Chan
- Hong Kong Hereditary Breast Cancer Family Registry, Cancer Genetics Centre, 18A Kung Ngam Village Road, Happy Valley, Hong Kong
- Department of Pathology, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, 2 Village Rd, Happy Valley, Hong Kong
| | - Su Ming Tan
- General Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Jaime Seah
- General Surgery, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Esther M John
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, 780 Welch Road, Suite CJ250C, Stanford, 94304 CA, USA
| | - Allison W Kurian
- Department of Medicine, Division of Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, 780 Welch Road, Suite CJ250C, Stanford, 94304 CA, USA
- Department of Health Research and Policy-Epidemiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 259 Campus Drive, Stanford, 94305, CA, USA
| | - Woon-Puay Koh
- Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Stanford University School of Medicine, 8 College Road, 169857, Singapore, Singapore
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, 117549, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Chiea Chuen Khor
- Human Genetics, Genome Institute of Singapore, 60 Biopolis St, 138672, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Motoki Iwasaki
- Division of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-Ku, 104-0045, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Taiki Yamaji
- Division of Epidemiology, Center for Public Health Sciences, National Cancer Center, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-Ku, 104-0045, Tokyo, Japan
| | - Kiak Mien Veronique Tan
- Division of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Kiat Tee Benita Tan
- Division of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore, Singapore
- Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - John J Spinelli
- Population Oncology, BC Cancer, 675 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, V5Z 1G1 BC, Canada
- School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2329 West Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4 BC, Canada
| | - Kristan J Aronson
- Department of Public Health Sciences, and Cancer Research Institute, Queen's University, 10 Stuart Street, Kingston, K7L 3N6 ON, Canada
| | - Siti Norhidayu Hasan
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Kartini Rahmat
- Biomedical Imaging Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Anushya Vijayananthan
- Biomedical Imaging Department, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Xueling Sim
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, 117549, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Paul D P Pharoah
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| | - Wei Zheng
- Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt Epidemiology Center, Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, 1161 21st Ave S # D3300, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA
| | - Alison M Dunning
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jacques Simard
- Genomics Center, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research 2705 Blvd Laurier Québec (Québec) G1V 4G2, Quebec, Canada
| | - Rob Martinus van Dam
- Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, 117549, Singapore, Singapore
- Departments of Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Cheng-Har Yip
- Sime Darby Medical Centre, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Nur Aishah Mohd Taib
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50630, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | - Mikael Hartman
- Department of Surgery, National University Hospital and NUHS, 1E Kent Ridge Road, 119228, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Douglas F Easton
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, 2 Worts' Causeway, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| | - Soo-Hwang Teo
- Cancer Research Malaysia, 1 Jalan SS12/1A, Subang Jaya, 47500, Selangor, Malaysia.
- Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Jalan Universiti, 50630, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, CB1 8RN, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Behravan H, Hartikainen JM, Tengström M, Kosma VM, Mannermaa A. Predicting breast cancer risk using interacting genetic and demographic factors and machine learning. Sci Rep 2020; 10:11044. [PMID: 32632202 PMCID: PMC7338351 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-66907-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2020] [Accepted: 06/01/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer (BC) is a multifactorial disease and the most common cancer in women worldwide. We describe a machine learning approach to identify a combination of interacting genetic variants (SNPs) and demographic risk factors for BC, especially factors related to both familial history (Group 1) and oestrogen metabolism (Group 2), for predicting BC risk. This approach identifies the best combinations of interacting genetic and demographic risk factors that yield the highest BC risk prediction accuracy. In tests on the Kuopio Breast Cancer Project (KBCP) dataset, our approach achieves a mean average precision (mAP) of 77.78 in predicting BC risk by using interacting genetic and Group 1 features, which is better than the mAPs of 74.19 and 73.65 achieved using only Group 1 features and interacting SNPs, respectively. Similarly, using interacting genetic and Group 2 features yields a mAP of 78.00, which outperforms the system based on only Group 2 features, which has a mAP of 72.57. Furthermore, the gene interaction maps built from genes associated with SNPs that interact with demographic risk factors indicate important BC-related biological entities, such as angiogenesis, apoptosis and oestrogen-related networks. The results also show that demographic risk factors are individually more important than genetic variants in predicting BC risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hamid Behravan
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, and Translational Cancer Research Area, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland.
| | - Jaana M Hartikainen
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, and Translational Cancer Research Area, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Maria Tengström
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Oncology, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland
- Cancer Center, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, P.O. Box 100, FI-70029, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Veli-Matti Kosma
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, and Translational Cancer Research Area, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland
- Biobank of Eastern Finland, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Arto Mannermaa
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, and Translational Cancer Research Area, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, FI-70211, Kuopio, Finland
- Biobank of Eastern Finland, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Pelletier S, Larouche G, Chiquette J, El Haffaf Z, Foulkes WD, Hamet P, Simard J, Dorval M. Survey of primary care physicians' views about breast and ovarian cancer screening for true BRCA1/2 non-carriers. J Community Genet 2019; 11:205-213. [PMID: 31659621 DOI: 10.1007/s12687-019-00438-3] [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: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 10/04/2019] [Indexed: 10/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite some controversy, true BRCA1/2 non-carriers are generally considered to be at an average risk for breast and ovarian cancer. Primary care physicians are then expected to encourage their non-carrier patients to adopt cancer screening practices appropriate to women of the same age in the general population. This study aimed to describe breast and ovarian cancer screening recommendations that primary care physicians would consider advisable for young true BRCA1/2 non-carriers. One hundred thirty-four family physicians and 123 gynecologists (response rate 45%) completed a cross-sectional mailed survey administered in the Province of Quebec, Canada. The survey included questions about basic genetic knowledge and screening recommendations for two fictitious cases (< 40 years), one carrier and one non-carrier, from a BRCA1/2 mutation-positive family. Screening exams considered advisable did not differ significantly between family physicians and gynecologists. More than 75% of physicians considered the cancer risks of true non-carriers to be comparable with that of the general population and 14% to be a little higher. Still, 53% would prescribe a biennial and or even an annual (27%) mammography to a non-carrier woman before the recommended starting age. Physician considerations of non-carriers' expectations or requests for screening were associated with more screening prescriptions. More than half of primary care physicians would recommend more mammography screenings than expected for a young true BRCA1/2 non-carrier. Personalized cancer risk assessment may help primary care physicians tailor screening of women from BRCA1/2 mutation-positive families and allow these women to make more informed choices regarding cancer risk management options.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Pelletier
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, 1050, chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec, QC, G1S 4L8, Canada.,Université Laval Cancer Research Centre, Québec, QC, Canada
| | - G Larouche
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, 1050, chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec, QC, G1S 4L8, Canada.,Université Laval Cancer Research Centre, Québec, QC, Canada
| | - J Chiquette
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, 1050, chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec, QC, G1S 4L8, Canada.,Université Laval Cancer Research Centre, Québec, QC, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
| | - Z El Haffaf
- Genetic Medicine Service, Montreal University Hospital (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - W D Foulkes
- Department of Medical Genetics, Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.,Lady Davis Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, Montréal, QC, Canada.,Departments of Oncology, Human Genetics and Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - P Hamet
- Research Centre, Montreal University Hospital (CHUM), Montréal, QC, Canada
| | - J Simard
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, 1050, chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec, QC, G1S 4L8, Canada.,Université Laval Cancer Research Centre, Québec, QC, Canada.,Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada.,Canada Research Chair in Oncogenetics, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada
| | - M Dorval
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, 1050, chemin Sainte-Foy, Québec, QC, G1S 4L8, Canada. .,Université Laval Cancer Research Centre, Québec, QC, Canada. .,Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada. .,Research Centre of the CISSS Chaudière-Appalaches, Lévis, QC, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Ming C, Viassolo V, Probst-Hensch N, Chappuis PO, Dinov ID, Katapodi MC. Machine learning techniques for personalized breast cancer risk prediction: comparison with the BCRAT and BOADICEA models. Breast Cancer Res 2019; 21:75. [PMID: 31221197 PMCID: PMC6585114 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1158-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2018] [Accepted: 05/28/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction models enable identifying and targeting women at high-risk, while reducing interventions in those at low-risk. Breast cancer risk prediction models used in clinical practice have low discriminatory accuracy (0.53-0.64). Machine learning (ML) offers an alternative approach to standard prediction modeling that may address current limitations and improve accuracy of those tools. The purpose of this study was to compare the discriminatory accuracy of ML-based estimates against a pair of established methods-the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) and Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) models. METHODS We quantified and compared the performance of eight different ML methods to the performance of BCRAT and BOADICEA using eight simulated datasets and two retrospective samples: a random population-based sample of U.S. breast cancer patients and their cancer-free female relatives (N = 1143), and a clinical sample of Swiss breast cancer patients and cancer-free women seeking genetic evaluation and/or testing (N = 2481). RESULTS Predictive accuracy (AU-ROC curve) reached 88.28% using ML-Adaptive Boosting and 88.89% using ML-random forest versus 62.40% with BCRAT for the U.S. population-based sample. Predictive accuracy reached 90.17% using ML-adaptive boosting and 89.32% using ML-Markov chain Monte Carlo generalized linear mixed model versus 59.31% with BOADICEA for the Swiss clinic-based sample. CONCLUSIONS There was a striking improvement in the accuracy of classification of women with and without breast cancer achieved with ML algorithms compared to the state-of-the-art model-based approaches. High-accuracy prediction techniques are important in personalized medicine because they facilitate stratification of prevention strategies and individualized clinical management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chang Ming
- Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, Room 118, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
| | - Valeria Viassolo
- Oncogenetics and Cancer Prevention, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Nicole Probst-Hensch
- Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Pierre O Chappuis
- Oncogenetics and Cancer Prevention, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.,Genetic Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Ivo D Dinov
- Department of Computational Medicine and Bioinformatics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Michigan Institute for Data Science, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,Statistics Online Computational resource, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.,University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| | - Maria C Katapodi
- Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, Room 118, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.,University of Michigan School of Nursing, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Why the Gold Standard Approach by Mammography Demands Extension by Multiomics? Application of Liquid Biopsy miRNA Profiles to Breast Cancer Disease Management. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20:ijms20122878. [PMID: 31200461 PMCID: PMC6627787 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20122878] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2019] [Revised: 06/07/2019] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
In the global context, the epidemic of breast cancer (BC) is evident for the early 21st century. Evidence shows that national mammography screening programs have sufficiently reduced BC related mortality. Therefore, the great utility of the mammography-based screening is not an issue. However, both false positive and false negative BC diagnosis, excessive biopsies, and irradiation linked to mammography application, as well as sub-optimal mammography-based screening, such as in the case of high-dense breast tissue in young females, altogether increase awareness among the experts regarding the limitations of mammography-based screening. Severe concerns regarding the mammography as the “golden standard” approach demanding complementary tools to cover the evident deficits led the authors to present innovative strategies, which would sufficiently improve the quality of the BC management and services to the patient. Contextually, this article provides insights into mammography deficits and current clinical data demonstrating the great potential of non-invasive diagnostic tools utilizing circulating miRNA profiles as an adjunct to conventional mammography for the population screening and personalization of BC management.
Collapse
|
21
|
Puzhko S, Gagnon J, Simard J, Knoppers BM, Siedlikowski S, Bartlett G. Health professionals' perspectives on breast cancer risk stratification: understanding evaluation of risk versus screening for disease. Public Health Rev 2019; 40:2. [PMID: 30858992 PMCID: PMC6394012 DOI: 10.1186/s40985-019-0111-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/10/2018] [Accepted: 02/12/2019] [Indexed: 01/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Younger women at higher-than-population-average risk for breast cancer may benefit from starting screening earlier than presently recommended by the guidelines. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) approach aims to improve the prevention of breast cancer through differential screening recommendations based on a personal risk estimate. In our study, we used deliberative stakeholder consultations to engage health professionals in an in-depth dialog to explore the feasibility of the proposed implementation strategies for this new personalized breast cancer screening approach. METHODS Deliberative stakeholder consultation is a qualitative descriptive study design used to engage health professionals in the discussion, while the mediators play a more passive role. A purposeful sample of 11 health professionals (family physicians and genetic counselors) working in Montreal was used. The deliberations were organized in two phases, including small group deliberations according to the deliberants' health profession and a mixed group deliberation combining participants from the small groups. Inductive thematic content analysis was performed on the transcripts by two coders to create the deliberative and analytic outputs. Quality of deliberations was assessed quantitatively using the de Vries method and qualitatively using participant observation. RESULTS One of our key findings was that health professionals lacked understanding of the two steps of the screening approach: risk stratification "screening," which is an evaluation for the level of risk and screening for disease. As part of this confusion, the main topic of concern was a justification of program implementation as a population-wide screening, based on their uncertainty that it will be beneficial for women with near-population risks. Despite the noted difficulties concerning implementation, health professionals acknowledged the substantial benefits of the proposed PERSPECTIVE program. CONCLUSIONS Our study was the first to evaluate the perspectives of health professionals on the implementation and benefits of a new program for breast cancer risk stratification with the purpose of personalizing screening for disease. This new multi-step approach to screening requires more clarity in communication with health professionals. To implement and maintain effective screening, engagement of family physicians with other health professionals or even development of a centralized public health system may be needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Svetlana Puzhko
- 1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada
| | - Justin Gagnon
- 1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- 2Genomics Center, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Room R4-4787, 2705 Laurier Blvd, Québec, Québec G1V 4G2 Canada
- 4Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Québec, Canada
| | - Bartha Maria Knoppers
- 3Genome Quebec Innovation Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3640 University Street, Room W-315, 740 Dr. Penfield Ave, 5214, Montréal, Québec H3A 0C7OG1 Canada
| | - Sophia Siedlikowski
- 1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada
| | - Gillian Bartlett
- 1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Lévesque E, Kirby E, Bolt I, Knoppers BM, de Beaufort I, Pashayan N, Widschwendter M. Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Issues for the Implementation of Omics-Based Risk Prediction of Women's Cancer: Points to Consider. Public Health Genomics 2018; 21:37-44. [PMID: 30223261 DOI: 10.1159/000492663] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2018] [Accepted: 08/05/2018] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Advances in omics open new opportunities for cancer risk prediction and risk-based screening interventions. However, implementation of risk prediction in clinical practice may impact the ethical, legal, and regulatory aspects of current cancer screening programs. In order to support decision-making, we analyzed the ethical, legal, and regulatory issues and developed a set of Points to Consider to support management of these issues. METHODS We analyzed the legal and policy frameworks applicable to breast and cervical cancer screening programs in 7 European countries. We identified the most relevant issues to be considered, and we developed considerations for their management, based on the literature, the legal and policy frameworks, and our experience with similar issues. RESULTS The considerations focus on five topics: (A) health services planning, (B) information and invitation, (C) consent and data/sample collection, (D) risk calculation and communication of results, and (E) storage of data and residual samples. CONCLUSION Current frameworks might not be adequate to implement a risk prediction approach using omics factors due to the different characteristics of such approaches.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emmanuelle Lévesque
- Center of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec,
| | - Emily Kirby
- Public Population Project in Genomics and Society (P³G), Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Ineke Bolt
- Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bartha Maria Knoppers
- Center of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | | | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Canadas A, Santos M, Nogueira A, Assis J, Gomes M, Lemos C, Medeiros R, Dias-Pereira P. Canine mammary tumor risk is associated with polymorphisms in RAD51 and STK11 genes. J Vet Diagn Invest 2018; 30:733-738. [PMID: 30027822 DOI: 10.1177/1040638718789231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Cancer is a complex disease involving genetic and phenotypic changes. Several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) have been associated with the risk of breast cancer development in women; however, little is known regarding their influence on canine mammary tumor risk. We assessed the influence of SNPs in genes related to human breast cancer susceptibility, with respect to the risk of development of mammary tumors in dogs. Sixty-seven canine SNPs in proto-oncogenes, tumor suppressor genes, genes involved in DNA repair, and in hormonal metabolism were evaluated in 212 bitches with mammary tumors and in 161 bitches free of mammary neoplasia. A significant association with mammary neoplasia risk was identified for 2 SNPs in RAD51 ( rs23623251 and rs23642734) and one SNP in the STK11 gene ( rs22928814). None of the other SNPs were related to the risk of mammary tumor development. The identification of genetic profiles associated with risk of mammary neoplasia is of great importance, supporting the implementation of specific clinical management strategies in high-risk animals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana Canadas
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| | - Marta Santos
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| | - Augusto Nogueira
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| | - Joana Assis
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| | - Mónica Gomes
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| | - Carolina Lemos
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| | - Rui Medeiros
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| | - Patrícia Dias-Pereira
- Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas de Abel Salazar-Universidade do Porto (ICBAS-UP), Porto, Portugal (Canadas, Santos, Lemos, Dias-Pereira).,Molecular Oncology and Viral Pathology Group, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (IPO Porto) Research Center (CI-IPOP), Porto, Portugal (Nogueira, Assis, Gomes, Medeiros).,i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,UnIGENe, Instituto de Biologia Molecular e Celular (IBMC), Porto, Portugal (Lemos).,CEBIMED, Faculty of Health Sciences of Fernando Pessoa University, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,FMUP, Faculty of Medicine of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal (Medeiros).,Research Department, Portuguese League Against Cancer (LPCC-NRNorte), Porto, Portugal (Medeiros)
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
Seely JM, Alhassan T. Screening for breast cancer in 2018-what should we be doing today? ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2018; 25:S115-S124. [PMID: 29910654 DOI: 10.3747/co.25.3770] [Citation(s) in RCA: 112] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Although screening mammography has delivered many benefits since its introduction in Canada in 1988, questions about perceived harms warrant an up-to-date review. To help oncologists and physicians provide optimal patient recommendations, the literature was reviewed to find the latest guidelines for screening mammography, including benefits and perceived harms of overdiagnosis, false positives, false negatives, and technologic advances. For women 40-74 years of age who actually participate in screening every 1-2 years, breast cancer mortality is reduced by 40%. With appropriate corrections, overdiagnosis accounts for 10% or fewer breast cancers. False positives occur in about 10% of screened women, 80% of which are resolved with additional imaging, and 10%, with breast biopsy. An important limitation of screening is the false negatives (15%-20%). The technologic advances of digital breast tomosynthesis, breast ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance imaging counter the false negatives of screening mammography, particularly in women with dense breast tissue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J M Seely
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON
| | - T Alhassan
- Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, ON
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Large-scale DNA organization is a prognostic marker of breast cancer survival. Med Oncol 2017; 35:9. [PMID: 29214466 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-017-1068-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2017] [Accepted: 11/30/2017] [Indexed: 01/22/2023]
Abstract
Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide. We investigated whether changes in large-scale DNA organization (LDO) of tumor epithelial nuclei are an indicator of the aggressiveness of the tumor. We tested our algorithm on a set of 172 duplicates TMA cores samples coming from 95 breast cancer patients. Thirty-five patients died of breast cancer, and 60 were still alive 10 years after surgery. Duplicates cores were used to create training and test set. The TMA slides were stained with Feulgen-thionin and imaged using our in-house high-resolution Imaging system. Automated segmentation of cell nuclei followed by manual selection of intact, in-focus nuclei resulted in an average of 50 cell nuclei per sample available for analysis. Using forward stepwise linear discriminant analysis, a combination of six features that combined linearly gave the best discrimination between the two groups of cells: cells collected from 'deceased' patients TMA specimens and cells collected from "survivors" patients TMA specimens. Five of these features measure the spatial organization of DNA chromatin. The resulting canonical score is named cell LDO score. A patient LDO score, percentage of cell nuclei with a cell LDO score higher than a predefined cutoff value, was processed for the specimens in the test set, and a cutoff value was defined to classify patients with a low or a high LDO score. Using this binary test, 82.1% of patients were correctly classified are "deceased" or "survivors," with a specificity of 79% and a sensitivity of 88%. The relative risk of death of an individual with a high LDO score was nine times higher than for a patient with a low LDO score. When testing the combination of LDO score, node status, histological grade, and tumor grade to predict breast cancer survival, LDO was the most significant predictor. LDO classification was also highly associated with survival for only grade 1 and 2 patients as well as for only grade 3 patients. Our result confirms the potential of LDO to measure phenotypic changes associated with more aggressive disease and could be evaluated to identify patients more likely to benefit from adjuvant therapies.
Collapse
|
26
|
|
27
|
Nematolahi S, Ayatollahi SMT. A comparison of breast cancer survival among young, middle-aged, and elderly patients in southern Iran using Cox and empirical Bayesian additive hazard models. Epidemiol Health 2017; 39:e2017043. [PMID: 29056033 PMCID: PMC5790983 DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2017043] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2017] [Accepted: 10/16/2017] [Indexed: 12/20/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A survival analysis of breast cancer patients in southern Iran according to age has yet to be conducted. This study aimed to quantify the factors contributing to a poor prognosis, using Cox and empirical Bayesian additive hazard (EBAH) models, among young (20-39 years), middle-aged (40-64 years), and elderly (≥ 65 years) women. METHODS Data from 1,574 breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2002 to 2012 in the cancer registry of Fars Province (southern Iran) were stratified into 3 age groups. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the overall survival rates. Cox and EBAH models were applied to each age category, and the Akaike information criterion was used to assess the goodness-of-fit of the 2 hazard models. RESULTS As of December 2012, 212 women (13.5%) in our study population had died, of whom 43 were young (15.3%), 134 middle-aged (11.8%), and 35 elderly (22.3%). The 5-year survival probability by age category was 0.83 (standard error [SE], 0.03), 0.88 (SE, 0.01), and 0.75 (SE, 0.04), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The Nottingham Prognostic Index was the most effective prognostic factor. The model based on Bayesian methodology performed better with various sample sizes than the Cox model, which is the most widely used method of survival analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samane Nematolahi
- Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
| | | |
Collapse
|
28
|
Dalpé G, Ngueng Feze I, Salman S, Joly Y, Hagan J, Lévesque E, Dorval V, Blouin-Bougie J, Amara N, Dorval M, Simard J. Breast Cancer Risk Estimation and Personal Insurance: A Qualitative Study Presenting Perspectives from Canadian Patients and Decision Makers. Front Genet 2017; 8:128. [PMID: 28983318 PMCID: PMC5613157 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2017.00128] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2017] [Accepted: 09/04/2017] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Genetic stratification approaches in personalized medicine may considerably improve our ability to predict breast cancer risk for women at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Notwithstanding these advantages, concerns have been raised about the use of the genetic information derived in these processes, outside of the research and medical health care settings, by third parties such as insurers. Indeed, insurance applicants are asked to consent to insurers accessing their medical information (implicitly including genetic) to verify or determine their insurability level, or eligibility to certain insurance products. This use of genetic information may result in the differential treatment of individuals based on their genetic information, which could lead to higher premium, exclusionary clauses or even the denial of coverage. This phenomenon has been commonly referred to as "Genetic Discrimination" (GD). In the Canadian context, where federal Bill S-201, An Act to prohibit and prevent genetic discrimination, has recently been enacted but may be subject to constitutional challenges, information about potential risks to insurability may raise issues in the clinical context. We conducted a survey with women in Quebec who have never been diagnosed with breast cancer to document their perspectives. We complemented the research with data from 14 semi-structured interviews with decision-makers in Quebec to discuss institutional issues raised by the use of genetic information by insurers. Our results provide findings on five main issues: (1) the reluctance to undergo genetic screening test due to insurability concerns, (2) insurers' interest in genetic information, (3) the duty to disclose genetic information to insurers, (4) the disclosure of potential impacts on insurability before genetic testing, and (5) the status of genetic information compared to other health data. Overall, both groups of participants (the women surveyed and the decision-makers interviewed) acknowledged having concerns about GD and reported a need for better communication tools discussing insurability risk. Our conclusions regarding concerns about GD and the need for better communication tools in the clinical setting may be transferable to the broader Canadian context.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gratien Dalpé
- Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill UniversityMontreal, QC, Canada
| | - Ida Ngueng Feze
- Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill UniversityMontreal, QC, Canada
| | - Shahad Salman
- Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill UniversityMontreal, QC, Canada
| | - Yann Joly
- Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill UniversityMontreal, QC, Canada
| | - Julie Hagan
- Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill UniversityMontreal, QC, Canada
| | - Emmanuelle Lévesque
- Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill UniversityMontreal, QC, Canada
| | - Véronique Dorval
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Quebec, Laval UniversityQuebec, QC, Canada
| | | | - Nabil Amara
- Faculty of Science of Administration, Laval UniversityQuebec, QC, Canada
| | - Michel Dorval
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Quebec, Laval UniversityQuebec, QC, Canada
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Laval UniversityQuebec, QC, Canada
| | - Jacques Simard
- Centre de Recherche du CHU de Quebec, Laval UniversityQuebec, QC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|