Implementing risk-stratified screening for common cancers: a review of potential ethical, legal and social issues

Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Integrating Monogenic, Polygenic, and Epidemiologic Risk

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer has been associated with monogenic, polygenic, and epidemiologic (clinical, reproductive, and lifestyle) risk factors, but studies evaluating the combined effects of these factors have been limited.

METHODS

We extended previous work in breast cancer risk modeling, incorporating pathogenic variants (PV) in six breast cancer predisposition genes and a 105-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS), to include an epidemiologic risk score (ERS) in a sample of non-Hispanic White women drawn from prospective cohorts and population-based case-control studies, with 23,518 cases and 22,832 controls, from the Cancer Risk Estimates Related to Susceptibility (CARRIERS) Consortium.

RESULTS

The model predicts 4.4-fold higher risk of breast cancer for postmenopausal women with no predisposition PV and median PRS, but with the highest versus lowest ERS. Overall, women with CHEK2 PVs had >20% lifetime risk of breast cancer. However, 15.6% of women with CHEK2 PVs and a family history of breast cancer, and 45.1% of women with CHEK2 PVs but without a family history of breast cancer, had low (<20%) predicted lifetime risk and thus were below the threshold for MRI screening. CHEK2 PV carriers at the 10th percentile of the joint distribution of ERS and PRS, without a family history of breast cancer, had a predicted lifetime risk similar to the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

These results illustrate that an ERS, alone and combined with the PRS, can contribute to clinically relevant risk stratification.

IMPACT

Integrating monogenic, polygenic, and epidemiologic risk factors in breast cancer risk prediction models may inform personalized screening and prevention efforts.

Women's perspectives on the acceptability of risk-based cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

The increased knowledge of cervical cancer (CC) risk factors and suboptimal performance of present screening programs has generated interest in shifting from a universal screening approach to one based on individual risk assessment. To inform the future development of risk-based CC screening programs, it is crucial to gain insight into the factors influencing the acceptability of such approach among screening target group women. The aim of this study was to prospectively investigate the acceptability of risk-based CC screening and to identify potential barriers.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposeful sample including women aged 30-65 years to explore women's perspectives on the acceptability of risk-based CC screening. The study was conducted in Estonia, and interviews were conducted from March to September 2023. Potential participants were approached in person by a member of the study team or by their healthcare providers at primary care or gynaecology clinics. The interview guides were developed based on the concept of acceptability of healthcare interventions.

RESULTS

Twenty participants (mean age 44.5, SD = 8.6) with diverse backgrounds were interviewed. The seven components of acceptability (affective attitude, burden, ethicality, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness, self-efficacy, and intervention coherence) were explored as key themes. Generally, women supported risk-based screening. However, we identified several factors that may compromise the acceptability of risk-based screening. The participants were reluctant to accept less intense screening for low-risk women and anticipated that if risk-based approach was implemented, more frequent testing would remain an option. Providing in-person clinician support was expected, requiring additional healthcare resources. Knowledge gaps in CC prevention highlighted the need for accessible information and education. Most women were unworried about sensitive data inclusion in risk score calculations. However, some participants were concerned about potential confidentiality breaches by healthcare workers.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that risk-based CC screening is acceptable, except for testing low-risk women less frequently. Our findings underscore the necessity for comprehensive understanding of the needs and concerns of the target group women for program development. Healthcare organizations are required to proactively address these needs by implementing comprehensive information dissemination and efficient communication approaches.

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.

Assessing the rates of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and surgical interventions associated with screening tools: a systematic review

Objective

Early detection of ovarian cancer can improve patient outcomes; however, screening tests can yield false-positive results, leading to unnecessary surgical interventions. This systematic review explores the prevalence of false-positive ovarian cancer screenings and subsequent unnecessary surgical interventions.

Methods and analysis

Five databases were searched in March 2023 and again in March 2024, encompassing primary literature published between 2003 and 2024. Data collection focused on studies reporting the number of surgical interventions resulting from a false-positive screening result. Studies were categorized by patient risk (average vs high). Studies lacking screening or surgical intervention data, those in which the screening did not directly influence surgical decisions, or those not in English were excluded.

Results

Of the 12 papers included, the majority were cohort studies (75%) based in the USA (66%). The primary screening methods included Cancer antigen 125 and transvaginal ultrasound scanning. Patients were stratified by risk, with four studies focused on high-risk populations and eight in average-risk populations. The false-positive and surgical screening rates exhibited significant variability, regardless of risk (0.1%-23.3% and 0%-54.9%, respectively). Complications associated with unnecessary surgical interventions, such as perforation, blood loss and bowel injury, were only reported in four studies. No studies examined the effect these interventions had on patients' quality of life or directly reported the associated costs of these interventions.

Conclusion

This review highlights the significant variability in ovarian cancer screening results, which lead to unnecessary and invasive surgical procedures causing complications such as perforation, blood loss and bowel injury.

Prostate cancer screening in African American men: a review of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in African American men, yet prostate cancer screening regimens in this group are poorly guided by existing evidence, given underrepresentation of African American men in prostate cancer screening trials. It is critical to optimize prostate cancer screening and early detection in this high-risk group because underdiagnosis may lead to later-stage cancers at diagnosis and higher mortality while overdiagnosis may lead to unnecessary treatment.

METHODS

We performed a review of the literature related to prostate cancer screening and early detection specific to African American men to summarize the existing evidence available to guide health-care practice.

RESULTS

Limited evidence from observational and modeling studies suggests that African American men should be screened for prostate cancer. Consideration should be given to initiating screening of African American men at younger ages (eg, 45-50 years) and at more frequent intervals relative to other racial groups in the United States. Screening intervals can be optimized by using a baseline prostate-specific antigen measurement in midlife. Finally, no evidence has indicated that African American men would benefit from screening beyond 75 years of age; in fact, this group may experience higher rates of overdiagnosis at older ages.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence base for prostate cancer screening in African American men is limited by the lack of large, randomized studies. Our literature search supported the need for African American men to be screened for prostate cancer, for initiating screening at younger ages (45-50 years), and perhaps screening at more frequent intervals relative to men of other racial groups in the United States.

Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.

Ethical and legal implications of implementing risk algorithms for early detection and screening for oesophageal cancer, now and in the future

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer has significant morbidity and mortality but late diagnosis is common since early signs of disease are frequently misinterpreted. Project DELTA aims to enable earlier detection and treatment through targeted screening using a novel risk prediction algorithm for oesophageal cancer (incorporating risk factors of Barrett's oesophagus including prescriptions for acid-reducing medications (CanPredict)), together with a non-invasive, low-cost sampling device (CytospongeTM). However, there are many barriers to implementation, and this paper identifies key ethical and legal challenges to implementing these personalised prevention strategies for Barrett's oesophagus/oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

To identify ethical and legal issues relevant to the deployment of a risk prediction tool for oesophageal cancer into primary care, we adopted an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating targeted informal literature reviews, interviews with expert collaborators, a multidisciplinary workshop and ethical and legal analysis.

RESULTS

Successful implementation raises many issues including ensuring transparency and effective risk communication; addressing bias and inequity; managing resources appropriately and avoiding exceptionalism. Clinicians will need support and training to use cancer risk prediction algorithms, ensuring that they understand how risk algorithms supplement rather than replace medical decision-making. Workshop participants had concerns about liability for harms arising from risk algorithms, including from potential bias and inequitable implementation. Determining strategies for risk communication enabling transparency but avoiding exceptionalist approaches are a significant challenge. Future challenges include using artificial intelligence to bolster risk assessment, incorporating genomics into risk tools, and deployment by non-health professional users. However, these strategies could improve detection and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel pathways incorporating risk prediction algorithms hold considerable promise, especially when combined with low-cost sampling. However immediate priorities should be to develop risk communication strategies that take account of using validated risk algorithms, and to ensure equitable implementation. Resolving questions about liability for harms arising should be a longer-term objective.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in risk-stratified breast screening, whereby the prevention and early detection offers vary by a woman's estimated risk of breast cancer. To date, more focus has been directed towards high-risk screening pathways rather than considering women at lower risk, who may be eligible for extended screening intervals. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the views of three key stakeholder groups on how extending screening intervals for low-risk women should be implemented and communicated as part of a national breast screening programme.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of three qualitative studies exploring the views of distinct stakeholder groups was conducted. Interviews took place with 23 low-risk women (identified from the BC-Predict study) and 17 national screening figures, who were involved in policy-making and implementation. In addition, three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 26 healthcare professionals. A multiperspective thematic analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences between stakeholders.

FINDINGS

Three themes were produced: Questionable assumptions about negative consequences, highlighting how other stakeholders lack trust in how women are likely to understand extended screening intervals; Preserving the integrity of the programme, centring on decision-making and maintaining a positive reputation of breast screening and Negotiating a communication pathway highlighting communication expectations and public campaign importance.

CONCLUSIONS

A risk-stratified screening programme should consider how best to engage women assessed as having a low risk of breast cancer to ensure mutual trust, balance the practicality of change whilst ensuring acceptability, and carefully develop multilevel inclusive communication strategies.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research within this paper involved patient/public contributors throughout including study design and materials input.

Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalised breast cancer screening to that of standard screening in the "My Personal Breast Screening" (MyPeBS) randomised clinical trial

Background

The MyPeBS study is an ongoing randomised controlled trial testing whether a risk-stratified breast cancer screening strategy is non-inferior, or eventually superior, to standard age-based screening at reducing incidence of stage 2 or more cancers. This large European Commission-funded initiative aims to include 85,000 women aged 40 to 70 years, without prior breast cancer and not previously identified at high risk in six countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Israel, Spain, UK). A specific work package within MyPeBS examines psychological, socio-economic and ethical aspects of this new screening strategy. It compares women’s reported data and outcomes in both trial arms on the following issues: general anxiety, cancer-related worry, understanding of breast cancer screening strategy and information-seeking behaviour, socio-demographic and economic characteristics, quality of life, risk perception, intention to change health-related behaviours, satisfaction with the trial.

Methods

At inclusion, 3-months, 1-year and 4-years, each woman participating in MyPeBS is asked to fill online questionnaires. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, subgroup comparisons and analysis of variations over time will be performed with appropriate tests to assess differences between arms. Multivariate regression models will allow modelling of different patient reported data and outcomes such as comprehension of the information provided, general anxiety or cancer worry, and information seeking behaviour. In addition, a qualitative study (48 semi-structured interviews conducted in France and in the UK with women randomised in the risk-stratified arm), will help further understand participants’ acceptability and comprehension of the trial, and their experience of risk assessment.

Discussion

Beyond the scientific and medical objectives of this clinical study, it is critical to acknowledge the consequences of such a paradigm shift for women. Indeed, introducing a risk-based screening relying on individual biological differences also implies addressing non-biological differences (e.g. social status or health literacy) from an ethical perspective, to ensure equal access to healthcare. The results of the present study will facilitate making recommendations on implementation at the end of the trial to accompany any potential change in screening strategy.

Trial registration

Study sponsor: UNICANCER. My personalised breast screening (MyPeBS). Clinicaltrials.gov (2018) available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03672331

Contact: Cécile VISSAC SABATIER, PhD, + 33 (0)1 73 79 77 58 ext + 330,142,114,293, contact@mypebs.eu.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09484-6.

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions

PURPOSE

In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included.

RESULTS

After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes.

Informed choice and attitudes regarding a genomic test to predict risk of colorectal cancer in general practice

OBJECTIVE

A genomic test to predict personal risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) that targets screening and could be feasibly implemented in primary care. We explored informed decision-making and attitudes towards genomic testing in this setting.

METHODS

A CRC genomic test was offered to 150 general practice patients with brief discussion of its implications. We measured informed choice about the test, consisting knowledge, attitudes and test uptake. Sixteen purposively-sampled participants were interviewed.

RESULTS

Of 150, 142 (95%) completed the informed choice measure and of 27 invited, 16 (59%) completed an interview. 73% made an informed choice about the test. Interviews revealed that participants with inadequate knowledge on the informed choice scale still understood the gist of the test. While positive attitudes were most prevalent, some had concerns, and many were indifferent to the test. Positive attitudes included: that risk information could facilitate risk reduction; negative attitudes included: that risk results could cause worry and be used for insurance discrimination; indifferent attitudes included: that the test seemed benign and it was easy to do.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study adds to the evidence that genomic tests for CRC risk do not pose significant concern to patients in community settings.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

As genomic tests become more prevalent, this study's findings can be used to facilitate informed decision-making and ensure equitable access.

Risk-Adjusted Cancer Screening and Prevention (RiskAP): Complementing Screening for Early Disease Detection by a Learning Screening Based on Risk Factors

BACKGROUND

Risk-adjusted cancer screening and prevention is a promising and continuously emerging option for improving cancer prevention. It is driven by increasing knowledge of risk factors and the ability to determine them for individual risk prediction. However, there is a knowledge gap between evidence of increased risk and evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of clinical preventive interventions based on increased risk. This gap is, in particular, aggravated by the extensive availability of genetic risk factor diagnostics, since the question of appropriate preventive measures immediately arises when an increased risk is identified. However, collecting proof of effective preventive measures, ideally by prospective randomized preventive studies, typically requires very long periods of time, while the knowledge about an increased risk immediately creates a high demand for action.

SUMMARY

Therefore, we propose a risk-adjusted prevention concept that is based on the best current evidence making needed and appropriate preventive measures available, and which is constantly evaluated through outcome evaluation, and continuously improved based on these results. We further discuss the structural and procedural requirements as well as legal and socioeconomical aspects relevant for the implementation of this concept.

A retrospective cohort study on predictors associated with skull base invasion of maxillary ameloblastomas

PURPOSE

To identify factors associated with skull base involvement (SBI) of maxillary ameloblastomas (MA).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was composed of MA patients treated during a 7-year period. Demographic, radiographic, and nine immunohistopathologic predictor variables were included. The outcome variable was presence of SBI (yes/no). Descriptive, bi- and multivariate statistics were computed, and P ≤ .05 in multivariate analyses was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The sample comprised 23 subjects (34.8% females; 21.7% with SBI) with a mean age of 50.3 ± 18.2 years. Candidate predictors of an SBI in MAs were 1) male gender, 2) a low Karnofsky Performance Status score (KPS), 3) multilocular radiolucency, 4) ill-defined margins, 5) cortical perforation, 6) inclusion of an unerupted tooth, 7) moderate to strong reactivity to p53, Ki-67, CD10, astrocyte elevated gene-1 (AEG-1) protein, carbonic anhydrase IX (CA IX), calretinin (calbindin2; CALB2), and BRAF-V600E, and 8) negative to low immunopositivity to α-smooth muscle actin (α-SMA) and syndecan-1 (CD138). However, multivariate analyses confirmed the significant associations of SBI with negative/low syndecan-1 reactivity (P = .003; adjusted odds ratio [OR_adj.], 4.04; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], -.89 to -.48; Pearson's Correlation Coefficient [r] = -.74) and with KPS (P = .003; OR_adj., 4.04; 95% CI, -.78 to -.17; r = -.54) only.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest an aggressive approach to MAs with negative to low syndecan-1 immunopositivity and/or in multi-morbid patients (who may have difficulty in access to health care). Otherwise, health care inequalities due to low KPS scores should be minimized or eliminated.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Risk Stratification in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Screening: Intervention Eligibility, Strategy Choice, and Optimality

Introduction

There is increasing interest in risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Current CEA practice regarding risk stratification is heterogeneous and guidance on the best approach is lacking. This article suggests how stratification in CEA can be improved.

Methods

I use a simple example of a hypothetical screening intervention with 3 potential recipient risk strata. The screening intervention has 6 alternative intensities, each with different costs and effects, all of which vary between strata. I consider a series of alternative stratification approaches, demonstrating the consequences for estimated costs, effects, and the choice of optimal strategy. I supplement this analysis with applied examples from the literature.

Results

Adopting the same screening policy for all strata yields the least efficient strategies, where efficiency is understood as the volume of net health benefit generated across a range of cost-effectiveness threshold values. Basic stratification that withholds screening from lower-risk strata while adopting a common strategy for those screened increases efficiency. Greatest efficiency is achieved when different strata receive separate strategies. While complete optimization can be achieved within a single analysis by considering all possible policy combinations, the resulting number of strategy combinations may be inconveniently large. Optimization with separate strata-specific analyses is simpler and more transparent. Despite this, there can be good reasons to simulate all strata together in a single analysis.

Conclusions

If the benefits of risk stratification are to be fully realized, policy makers need to consider the extent to which stratification is feasible, and modelers need to simulate those choices adequately. It is hoped this analysis will clarify those policy and modeling choices and therefore lead to improved population health outcomes.

Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement

The European Collaborative on Personalized Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer (ENVISION) brings together several international research consortia working on different aspects of the personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer. In a consensus conference held in 2019, the members of this network identified research areas requiring development to enable evidence-based personalized interventions that might improve the benefits and reduce the harms of existing breast cancer screening and prevention programmes. The priority areas identified were: 1) breast cancer subtype-specific risk assessment tools applicable to women of all ancestries; 2) intermediate surrogate markers of response to preventive measures; 3) novel non-surgical preventive measures to reduce the incidence of breast cancer of poor prognosis; and 4) hybrid effectiveness-implementation research combined with modelling studies to evaluate the long-term population outcomes of risk-based early detection strategies. The implementation of such programmes would require health-care systems to be open to learning and adapting, the engagement of a diverse range of stakeholders and tailoring to societal norms and values, while also addressing the ethical and legal issues. In this Consensus Statement, we discuss the current state of breast cancer risk prediction, risk-stratified prevention and early detection strategies, and their implementation. Throughout, we highlight priorities for advancing each of these areas.

Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Screening for Colorectal Cancer Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence for personalizing colorectal cancer screening based on risk factors. We compared the cost-effectiveness of personalized colorectal cancer screening based on polygenic risk and family history to uniform screening.

METHODS

Using the MISCAN-Colon model, we simulated a cohort of 100 million 40-year-olds, offering them uniform or personalized screening. Individuals were categorized based on polygenic risk and family history of colorectal cancer. We varied screening strategies by start age, interval and test and estimated costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY). In our analysis, we (i) assessed the cost-effectiveness of uniform screening; (ii) developed personalized screening scenarios based on optimal screening strategies by risk group; and (iii) compared the cost-effectiveness of both.

RESULTS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY, the optimal uniform screening scenario was annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) from ages 50 to 74 years, whereas for personalized screening the optimal screening scenario consisted of annual and biennial FIT screening except for those at highest risk who were offered 5-yearly colonoscopy from age 50 years. Although these scenarios gained the same number of QALYs (17,887), personalized screening was not cost-effective, costing an additional $428,953 due to costs associated with determining risk (assumed to be $240 per person). Personalized screening was cost-effective when these costs were less than ∼$48.

CONCLUSIONS

Uniform colorectal cancer screening currently appears more cost-effective than personalized screening based on polygenic risk and family history. However, cost-effectiveness is highly dependent on the cost of determining risk.

IMPACT

Personalized screening could become increasingly viable as costs for determining risk decrease.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS|DISCUSSION

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

Towards risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening. Adding risk factors to the fecal immunochemical test: Evidence, evolution and expectations

With increasing incidence and mortality, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a growing health problem worldwide. An effective way to address CRC is by screening for fecal (occult) blood by the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). However, there is room for improvement since precursor lesions and CRC bleed intermittent and can therefore be missed by the FIT (false negatives) or, the detected blood did not result from precursor lesions or CRC (false positives). This review provides the latest evidence on risk prediction models using FIT combined with additional risk factors before colonoscopy, which risk factors to include and if these models will better discriminate between normal findings and CRC compared to the FIT-only. Many prediction models are known for CRC, but compared to the FIT, these are less effective in detecting CRC. The literature search resulted in 645 titles where 11 papers matched the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Comparing the FIT-only with the risk prediction models for detecting CRC resulted in a significantly increased discrimination for the models. In addition, 2 different risk-stratification categories before colonoscopy were distinguished, namely the 1-model approach which combined risk factors with FIT results in a prediction model while the 2 step approach used risk factors apart from the FIT. Finally, combining FIT with CRC risk factors by means of a model before colonoscopy seems effective regarding discriminative power, however, more research is needed for validation combined with transparent and standardized reporting to improve quality assessment, for which suggestions are reported in this study.

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

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

Do cancer risk and benefit-harm ratios influence women's consideration of risk-reducing mastectomy? A scenario-based experiment in five European countries

BACKGROUND

Personal cancer risk assessments enable stratified care, for example, offering preventive surgical measures such as risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) to women at high risk for breast cancer. In scenario-based experiments, we investigated whether different benefit-harm ratios of RRM influence women's consideration of this, whether this consideration is influenced by women's perception of and desire to know their personal cancer risk, or by their intention to take a novel cancer risk-predictive test, and whether consideration varies across different countries.

METHOD

In January 2017, 1,675 women 40 to 75 years of age from five European countries-Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy, and Sweden-took part in an online scenario-based experiment. Six different scenarios of hypothetical benefit-harm ratios of RRM were presented in accessible fact box formats: Baseline risk/risk reduction pairings were 20/16, 20/4, 10/8, 10/2, 5/4, and 5/1 out of 1,000 women dying from breast cancer.

RESULTS

Varying the baseline risk of dying from breast cancer and the extent of risk reduction influenced the decision to consider RRM for 23% of women. Decisions varied by country, risk perception, and the intention to take a cancer risk-predictive test. Women who expressed a stronger intention to take such a test were more likely to consider having RRM. The desire to know one's risk of developing any female cancer in general moderated women's decisions, whereas the specific desire to know the risk of breast cancer did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In this hypothetical scenario-based study, only for a minority of women did the change in benefit-harm ratio inform their consideration of RRM. Because this consideration is influenced by risk perception and the intention to learn one's cancer risks via a cancer risk-predictive test, careful disclosure of different potential preventive measures and their benefit-harm ratios is necessary before testing for individual risk. Furthermore, information on risk testing should acknowledge country-specific sensitivities for benefit-harm ratios.

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

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

S. Dawkins H, Nowak KJ, Weeramanthri TS. Genomic Testing for Human Health and Disease Across the Life Cycle: Applications and Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges

The expanding use of genomic technologies encompasses all phases of life, from the embryo to the elderly, and even the posthumous phase. In this paper, we present the spectrum of genomic healthcare applications, and describe their scope and challenges at different stages of the life cycle. The integration of genomic technology into healthcare presents unique ethical issues that challenge traditional aspects of healthcare delivery. These challenges include the different definitions of utility as applied to genomic information; the particular characteristics of genetic data that influence how it might be protected, used and shared; and the difficulties applying existing models of informed consent, and how new consent models might be needed.

Autonomy Challenges in Epigenetic Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening: How Can Patient Decision Aids Support Informed Consent?

Information of an individual’s epigenome can be useful in cancer screening to enable personalised decision making on participation, treatment options and further screening strategies. However, adding this information might result in complex risk predictions on multiple diseases, unsolicited findings and information on (past) environmental exposure and behaviour. This complicates informed consent procedures and may impede autonomous decision-making. In this article we investigate and identify the specific features of epigenetic risk-stratified cancer screening that challenge the current informed consent doctrine. Subsequently we describe current and new informed consent models and the principle of respect for autonomy and argue for a specific informed consent model for epigenetic risk-stratified screening programmes. Next, we propose a framework that guides the development of Patient Decision Aids (PDAs) to support informed consent and promote autonomous choices in the specific context of epigenetic cancer screening programmes.

Ethical, Legal, and Regulatory Issues for the Implementation of Omics-Based Risk Prediction of Women's Cancer: Points to Consider

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.

Ovarian cancer screening-ultrasound; impact on ovarian cancer mortality

Although ovarian cancer (OC) is the most lethal of all female malignancies, debate still exists concerning the benefits and harms of the screening programs and their impact on long-term survival and mortality from the disease. The most widely tested screening strategies have focused on transvaginal ultrasound (TVU) and on algorithms that measure serum levels or interval changes of cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) either individually or in combination. Transvaginal ultrasound can identify size and morphology changes of the ovary that may signal a developing malignancy; yet, it is still accused of having a low specificity. There is preliminary evidence that screening can improve survival, but the impact of screening on mortality from OC is still unclear and warrants further validation. In spite of having many published prospective studies, up to-date, none have been able to demonstrate conclusively a reduction in mortality from OC both in the screened general or high-risk population. Data from the US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial has not shown survival or mortality benefits in the general population. Most prospective trials have reported a decrease in stage at detection (with the exception of the PLCO trial), thereby allowing treatment to be initiated when the disease is most curable. Research is in progress to develop new diagnostic tests and novel biomarkers, which when used in combination can increase the accuracy and outcomes of screening. In this review article, we will discuss the debate provoked on OC screening programs and the impact of using ultrasound on the reduction of OC-related mortality.

Investigating the Heterogeneity in Women's Preferences for Breast Screening: Does the Communication of Risk Matter?

BACKGROUND

The relative benefits and risks of screening programs for breast cancer have been extensively debated.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify and investigate heterogeneity in women's preferences for the benefits and risks of a national breast screening program (NBSP) and to understand the effect of risk communication format on these preferences.

METHODS

An online discrete choice experiment survey was designed to elicit preferences from female members of the public for an NBSP described by three attributes (probability of detecting a cancer, risk of unnecessary follow-up, and out-of-pocket screening costs). Survey respondents were randomized to one of two surveys, presenting risk either as percentages only or as icon arrays and percentages. Respondents were required to choose between two hypothetical NBSPs or no screening in 11 choice sets generated using a Bayesian D-efficient design. The trade-offs women made were analyzed using heteroskedastic conditional logit and scale-adjusted latent class models.

RESULTS

A total of 1018 women completed the discrete choice experiment (percentages-only version = 507; icon arrays and percentages version = 511). The results of the heteroskedastic conditional logit model suggested that, on average, women were willing-to-accept 1.72 (confidence interval 1.47-1.97) additional unnecessary follow-ups and willing-to-pay £79.17 (confidence interval £66.98-£91.35) for an additional cancer detected per 100 women screened. Latent class analysis indicated substantial heterogeneity in preferences with six latent classes and three scale classes providing the best fit. The risk communication format received was not a predictor of scale class or preference class membership.

CONCLUSIONS

Most women were willing to trade-off the benefits and risks of screening, but decision makers seeking to improve uptake should consider the disparate needs of women when configuring services.

Anticipated health behaviour changes and perceived control in response to disclosure of genetic risk of breast and ovarian cancer: a quantitative survey study among women in the UK

BACKGROUND

Genetic risk assessment for breast cancer and ovarian cancer (BCOC) is expected to make major inroads into mainstream clinical practice. It is important to evaluate the potential impact on women ahead of its implementation in order to maximise health benefits, as predictive genetic testing without adequate support could lead to adverse psychological and behavioural responses to risk disclosure.

OBJECTIVE

To examine anticipated health behaviour changes and perceived control to disclosure of genetic risk for BCOC and establish demographic and person-specific correlates of adverse anticipated responses in a population-based sample of women.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional quantitative survey study carried out by the UK Office for National Statistics in January and March 2014.

SETTING

Face-to-face computer-assisted interviews conducted by trained researchers in participants' homes.

PARTICIPANTS

837 women randomly chosen from households across the UK identified from the Royal Mail's Postcode Address File.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Anticipated health behaviour change and perceived control to disclosure of BCOC risk.

RESULTS

In response to a genetic test result, most women (72%) indicated 'I would try harder to have a healthy lifestyle', and over half (55%) felt 'it would give me more control over my life'. These associations were independent of demographic factors or perceived risk of BCOC in Bonferroni-corrected multivariate analyses. However, a minority of women (14%) felt 'it isn't worth making lifestyle changes' and that 'I would feel less free to make choices in my life' (16%) in response to BCOC risk disclosure. The former belief was more likely to be held by women who were educated below university degree level (P<0.001) after adjusting for other demographic and person-specific correlates.

CONCLUSION

These findings indicate that women in the UK largely anticipate that they would engage in positive health behaviour changes in response to BCOC risk disclosure.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Making Sense of SNPs: Women's Understanding and Experiences of Receiving a Personalized Profile of Their Breast Cancer Risks

Genome wide association studies have identified a number of common genetic variants - single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) - that combine to increase breast cancer risk. SNP profiling may enhance the accuracy of risk assessment and provides a personalized risk estimate. SNP testing for breast cancer risks may supplement other genetic tests in the future, however, before it can be implemented in the clinic we need to know how it will be perceived and received. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 39 women who had previously had a breast cancer diagnosis and undergone BRCA1/2 testing, participated in the Variants in Practice (ViP) study and received personalized risk (SNP) profiles. Interviews explored their understanding and experiences of receiving this SNP information. Women reported feeling positive about receiving their personalized risk profile, because it: provided an explanation for their previous diagnosis of cancer, vindicated previous risk management decisions and clarified their own and other family members' risks. A small group was initially shocked to learn of the increased risk of a second primary breast cancer. This study suggests that the provision of personalized risk information about breast cancer generated by SNP profiling is understood and well received. However, a model of genetic counseling that incorporates monogenic and polygenic genetic information will need to be developed prior to clinical implementation.

Attitudes to incorporating genomic risk assessments into population screening programs: the importance of purpose, context and deliberation

Background

The use of an overall risk assessment based on genomic information is consistent with precision medicine. Despite the enthusiasm, there is a need for public engagement on the appropriate use of such emerging technologies in order to frame meaningful evaluations of utility, including the practical implementation and acceptability issues that might emerge. Doing so requires the involvement of the end users of these services, including patients, and sections of the public who are the target group for population based screening. In the present study we sought to explore public attitudes to the potential integration of personal genomic profiling within existing population screening programs; and to explore the evolution of these attitudes as part of a deliberative process.

Methods

We conducted a mixed methods study presented in the format of a deliberative workshop. Participants were drawn from communities in Ottawa, Ontario (ON) and St John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), Canada. Individuals were approached to take part in a workshop on the incorporation of genomic risk profiling for either colorectal cancer screening (CRC), or newborn screening for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Results

A total of N = 148 (N = 65 ON, N = 83 NL) participants provided data for analysis. Participants in both groups were supportive of public funding for genomic risk profiling, although participants in the T1DM groups expressed more guarded positive attitudes than participants in the CRC groups. These views were stable throughout the workshop (CRC, p = 0.15, T1DM, p =0.39). Participants were less positive about individual testing, with a significant decrease in support over the course of the workshop (CRC p = 0.02, T1DM, p = 0.003). Common concerns related to access to test results by third parties.

Conclusions

The findings of this study suggest that members of the target populations for potential genomic profiling tests (designed for screening or risk prediction purposes) can engage in meaningful deliberation about their general acceptability and personal utility. Evaluations of whether a test would be personally useful may depend on the experience of the participants in personal health decision making, the purpose of the test, and the availability of interventions to reduce disease risk.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12920-016-0186-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implications of polygenic risk for personalised colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

We modelled the utility of applying a personalised screening approach for colorectal cancer (CRC) when compared with standard age-based screening. In this personalised screening approach, eligibility is determined by absolute risk which is calculated from age and polygenic risk score (PRS), where the PRS is relative risk attributable to common genetic variation. In contrast, eligibility in age-based screening is determined only by age.

DESIGN

We calculated absolute risks of CRC from UK population age structure, incidence and mortality rate data, and a PRS distribution which we derived for the 37 known CRC susceptibility variants. We compared the number of CRC cases potentially detectable by personalised and age-based screening. Using Genome-Wide Complex Trait Analysis to calculate the heritability attributable to common variation, we repeated the analysis assuming all common CRC risk variants were known.

RESULTS

Based on the known CRC variants, individuals with a PRS in the top 1% have a 2.9-fold increased CRC risk over the population median. Compared with age-based screening (aged 60: 10-year absolute risk 1.96% in men, 1.19% in women, as per the UK NHS National Bowel Screening Programme), personalised screening of individuals aged 55-69 at the same risk would lead to 16% fewer men and 17% fewer women being eligible for screening with 10% and 8%, respectively, fewer screen-detected cases. If all susceptibility variants were known, individuals with a PRS in the top 1% would have an estimated 7.7-fold increased risk. Personalised screening would then result in 26% fewer men and women being eligible for screening with 7% and 5% fewer screen-detected cases.

CONCLUSION

Personalised screening using PRS has the potential to optimise population screening for CRC and to define those likely to maximally benefit from chemoprevention. There are however significant technical and operational details to be addressed before any such programme is introduced.

Refining Breast Cancer Risk Stratification: Additional Genes, Additional Information

Recent advances in genomic technology have enabled far more rapid, less expensive sequencing of multiple genes than was possible only a few years ago. Advances in bioinformatics also facilitate the interpretation of large amounts of genomic data. New strategies for cancer genetic risk assessment include multiplex sequencing panels of 5 to more than 100 genes (in which rare mutations are often associated with at least two times the average risk of developing breast cancer) and panels of common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), combinations of which are generally associated with more modest cancer risks (more than twofold). Although these new multiple-gene panel tests are used in oncology practice, questions remain about the clinical validity and the clinical utility of their results. To translate this increasingly complex genetic information for clinical use, cancer risk prediction tools are under development that consider the joint effects of all susceptibility genes, together with other established breast cancer risk factors. Risk-adapted screening and prevention protocols are underway, with ongoing refinement as genetic knowledge grows. Priority areas for future research include the clinical validity and clinical utility of emerging genetic tests; the accuracy of developing cancer risk prediction models; and the long-term outcomes of risk-adapted screening and prevention protocols, in terms of patients' experiences and survival.

Why Breast Cancer Risk by the Numbers Is Not Enough: Evaluation of a Decision Aid in Multi-Ethnic, Low-Numerate Women

Background

Breast cancer risk assessment including genetic testing can be used to classify people into different risk groups with screening and preventive interventions tailored to the needs of each group, yet the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer prevention in primary care settings is complex.

Objective

To address barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, risk communication, and prevention strategies in primary care settings, we developed a Web-based decision aid, RealRisks, that aims to improve preference-based decision-making for breast cancer prevention, particularly in low-numerate women.

Methods

RealRisks incorporates experience-based dynamic interfaces to communicate risk aimed at reducing inaccurate risk perceptions, with modules on breast cancer risk, genetic testing, and chemoprevention that are tailored. To begin, participants learn about risk by interacting with two games of experience-based risk interfaces, demonstrating average 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk. We conducted four focus groups in English-speaking women (age ≥18 years), a questionnaire completed before and after interacting with the decision aid, and a semistructured group discussion. We employed a mixed-methods approach to assess accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk and acceptability of RealRisks. The qualitative analysis of the semistructured discussions assessed understanding of risk, risk models, and risk appropriate prevention strategies.

Results

Among 34 participants, mean age was 53.4 years, 62% (21/34) were Hispanic, and 41% (14/34) demonstrated low numeracy. According to the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), the mean 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk were 1.11% (SD 0.77) and 7.46% (SD 2.87), respectively. After interacting with RealRisks, the difference in perceived and estimated breast cancer risk according to BCRAT improved for 5-year risk (P=.008). In the qualitative analysis, we identified potential barriers to adopting risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention strategies, including uncertainty about breast cancer risk and risk models, distrust toward the health care system, and perception that risk assessment to pre-screen women for eligibility for genetic testing may be viewed as rationing access to care.

Conclusions

In a multi-ethnic population, we demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk after exposure to RealRisks. However, we identified potential barriers that suggest that accurate risk perceptions will not suffice as the sole basis to support informed decision making and the acceptance of risk-appropriate prevention strategies. Findings will inform the iterative design of the RealRisks decision aid.

Do Health Professionals Need Additional Competencies for Stratified Cancer Prevention Based on Genetic Risk Profiling?

There is growing evidence that inclusion of genetic information about known common susceptibility variants may enable population risk-stratification and personalized prevention for common diseases including cancer. This would require the inclusion of genetic testing as an integral part of individual risk assessment of an asymptomatic individual. Front line health professionals would be expected to interact with and assist asymptomatic individuals through the risk stratification process. In that case, additional knowledge and skills may be needed. Current guidelines and frameworks for genetic competencies of non-specialist health professionals place an emphasis on rare inherited genetic diseases. For common diseases, health professionals do use risk assessment tools but such tools currently do not assess genetic susceptibility of individuals. In this article, we compare the skills and knowledge needed by non-genetic health professionals, if risk-stratified prevention is implemented, with existing competence recommendations from the UK, USA and Europe, in order to assess the gaps in current competences. We found that health professionals would benefit from understanding the contribution of common genetic variations in disease risk, the rationale for a risk-stratified prevention pathway, and the implications of using genomic information in risk-assessment and risk management of asymptomatic individuals for common disease prevention.

Clinical implications of genomics for cancer risk genetics

The study of human genetics has provided substantial insight into cancer biology. With an increase in sequencing capacity and a reduction in sequencing costs, genomics will probably transform clinical cancer genetics. A heritable basis for many cancers is accepted, but so far less than half the genetic drivers have been identified. Genomics will increasingly be applied to populations irrespective of family history, which will change the framework of phenotype-directed genetic testing. Panel testing and whole genome sequencing will identify novel, polygenic, and de-novo determinants of cancer risk, often with lower penetrance, which will challenge present binary clinical classification systems and management algorithms. In the future, genotype-stratified public screening and prevention programmes could form part of tailored population risk management. The integration of research with clinical practice will result in so-called discovery cohorts that will help identify clinically significant genetic variation.

Two decades after BRCA: setting paradigms in personalized cancer care and prevention

The cloning of the breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 nearly two decades ago helped set in motion an avalanche of research exploring how genomic information can be optimally applied to identify and clinically care for individuals with a high risk of developing cancer. Genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and other breast cancer susceptibility genes has since proved to be a valuable tool for determining eligibility for enhanced screening and prevention strategies, as well as for identifying patients most likely to benefit from a targeted therapy. Here, we discuss the landscape of inherited mutations and sequence variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2, the complexities of determining disease risk when the pathogenicity of sequence variants is uncertain, and current strategies for clinical management of women who carry BRCA1/2 mutations.