Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420)

Illness risk representations underlying women's breast cancer risk appraisals: A theory-informed qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed the utility of Cameron's Illness Risk Representation (IRR) framework in understanding how women interpret their breast cancer risk after receiving a clinically derived estimate.

DESIGN

Secondary qualitative analysis of two studies within the BC-Predict trial, using semi-structured telephone interviews with women aged 47-74 who received breast cancer risk estimates via population screening.

METHODS

Forty-eight women were informed of their 10-year breast cancer risk (low (<1.5% risk), average (1.5-4.99%), above-average (moderate; 5-7.99%) and high (≥8%)). Moderate- and high-risk women were eligible for enhanced preventive management. Women were interviewed about their risk, with data analysed using a thematic framework approach.

RESULTS

Causal representations of breast cancer were often incomplete, with women primarily relying on family history and health-related behaviours to understand their risk. This reliance shaped pre-existing expectations and led to uncertainty about unfamiliar risk factors. As women aged, concerns about breast cancer susceptibility became more prominent. Emotional reactions to risk communication, along with the physical implications of risk management strategies, were also considered. Women were knowledgeable about early detection and prevention strategies, showing agency in reducing risk and preventing aggressive cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

The IRR framework largely explained women's breast cancer risk appraisals but adaptations could enhance its applicability. The identity construct could be redefined and combined with the causal construct. The framework should also consider the extent to which pre-existing appraisals change after receiving a clinical-derived risk estimate. Healthcare professionals should assess women's knowledge before communicating personal risk estimates to reduce doubt and the impact of unfamiliar information.

Women's experiences of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the MyPeBS trial: a qualitative comparative study across two European countries

OBJECTIVE

Risk-stratification should improve the benefits-to-harms ratio for breast screening, whereby higher-risk women receive additional screening and low-risk women are screened less. This study investigated the effects of healthcare context by comparing how women in England and France experienced risk-based breast screening.

METHODS AND MEASURES

Fifty-two women were purposively sampled from participants who underwent risk-based screening in the MyPeBS trial. Women received objectively-derived 5-year breast cancer risk estimates (low = < 1%, average = 1-1.66%, high = ≥ 1.67 to <6%, very-high-risk = ≥ 6%). This determined future trial-related screening schedules and prevention options. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed for thematic framework analysis.

RESULTS

Two overarching themes were produced: the importance of supported risk communication and accessibility of risk management. Overall, risk-based breast screening was viewed positively. However, trial procedures, especially in risk estimate provision, differed across sites. Women at increased risk were more reassured when appointments were with specialist healthcare professionals (HCP). When absent, this resulted in reduced satisfaction with risk communication and greater uncertainty about its personal relevance. Low-risk women's views on extended mammogram schedules seemed linked to how health services are organised differently.

CONCLUSIONS

Context is an important consideration regarding acceptability of healthcare innovations such as risk-stratified screening: it should not be assumed that findings from one country apply universally.

Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review

This scoping review aims to systematically gather evidence from personalized cancer-screening studies across various cancers, summarize key components and outcomes, and provide implications for a future personalized melanoma-screening strategy. Peer-reviewed articles and clinical trial databases were searched for, with restrictions on language and publication date. Sixteen distinct studies were identified and included in this review. The studies' results were synthesized according to key components, including risk assessment, risk thresholds, screening pathways, and primary outcomes of interest. Studies most frequently reported about breast cancers (n = 7), followed by colorectal (n = 5), prostate (n = 2), lung (n = 1), and ovarian cancers (n = 1). The identified screening programs were evaluated predominately in Europe (n = 6) and North America (n = 4). The studies employed multiple different risk assessment tools, screening schedules, and outcome measurements, with few consistent approaches identified across the studies. The benefit-harm assessment of each proposed personalized screening program indicated that the majority were feasible and effective. The establishment of a personalized screening program is complex, but results of the reviewed studies indicate that it is feasible, can improve participation rates, and screening outcomes. While the review primarily examines screening programs for cancers other than melanoma, the insights can be used to inform the development of a personalized melanoma screening strategy.

Feasibility and acceptability of offering breast cancer risk assessment to general population women aged 30-39 years: a mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer incidence starts to increase exponentially when women reach 30-39 years, hence before they are eligible for breast cancer screening. The introduction of breast cancer risk assessment for this age group could lead to those at higher risk receiving benefits of earlier screening and preventive strategies. Currently, risk assessment is limited to women with a family history of breast cancer only. The Breast CANcer Risk Assessment in Younger women (BCAN-RAY) study is evaluating a comprehensive breast cancer risk assessment strategy for women aged 30-39 years incorporating a questionnaire of breast cancer risk factors, low-dose mammography to assess breast density and polygenic risk. This study will assess the feasibility and acceptability of the BCAN-RAY risk assessment strategy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study involves women undergoing risk assessment as part of the BCAN-RAY case-control study (n=750). They will be aged 30-39 years without a strong family history of breast cancer and invited to participate via general practice. A comparison of uptake rates by socioeconomic status and ethnicity between women who participated in the BCAN-RAY study and women who declined participation will be conducted. All participants will be asked to complete self-report questionnaires to assess key potential harms including increased state anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory), cancer worry (Lerman Cancer Worry Scale) and satisfaction with the decision to participate (Decision Regret Scale), alongside potential benefits such as feeling more informed about breast cancer risk. A subsample of approximately 24 women (12 at average risk and 12 at increased risk) will additionally participate in semistructured interviews to understand the acceptability of the risk assessment strategy and identify any changes needed to it to increase uptake.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was granted by North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/NW/0268). Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and charitable organisations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05305963.

Systemic and Local Strategies for Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer

One in eight women will develop breast cancer in the US. For women with moderate (15-20%) to average (12.5%) risk of breast cancer, there are few options available for risk reduction. For high-risk (>20%) women, such as BRCA mutation carriers, primary prevention strategies are limited to evidence-based surgical removal of breasts and/or ovaries and anti-estrogen treatment. Despite their effectiveness in risk reduction, not many high-risk individuals opt for surgical or hormonal interventions due to severe side effects and potentially life-changing outcomes as key deterrents. Thus, better communication about the benefits of existing strategies and the development of new strategies with minimal side effects are needed to offer women adequate risk-reducing interventions. We extensively review and discuss innovative investigational strategies for primary prevention. Most of these investigational strategies are at the pre-clinical stage, but some are already being evaluated in clinical trials and others are expected to lead to first-in-human clinical trials within 5 years. Likely, these strategies would be initially tested in high-risk individuals but may be applicable to lower-risk women, if shown to decrease risk at a similar rate to existing strategies, but with minimal side effects.

What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Risk-stratified screening is being considered for national breast screening programmes. It is unclear how women experience risk-stratified screening and receipt of breast cancer risk information in real time. This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of undergoing risk-stratified screening within England's NHS Breast Screening Programme.

METHODS

Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 40 women who participated in the BC-Predict study and received a letter indicating their estimated breast cancer risk as one of four risk categories: low (<2% 10-year risk), average (2-4.99%), above average (moderate; 5-7.99%) or high (≥8%). Audio-recorded interview transcriptions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two themes were produced: 'From risk expectations to what's my future health story?' highlights that women overall valued the opportunity to receive risk estimates; however, when these were discordant with perceived risk, this causes temporary distress or rejection of the information. 'Being a good (woman) citizen' where women felt positive contributing to society but may feel judged if they then cannot exert agency over the management of their risk or access follow-up support CONCLUSIONS: Risk-stratified breast screening was generally accepted without causing long-lasting distress; however, issues related to risk communication and access to care pathways need to be considered for implementation.