1
|
Riess O, Sturm M, Menden B, Liebmann A, Demidov G, Witt D, Casadei N, Admard J, Schütz L, Ossowski S, Taylor S, Schaffer S, Schroeder C, Dufke A, Haack T. Genomes in clinical care. NPJ Genom Med 2024; 9:20. [PMID: 38485733 PMCID: PMC10940576 DOI: 10.1038/s41525-024-00402-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/07/2024] [Indexed: 03/18/2024] Open
Abstract
In the era of precision medicine, genome sequencing (GS) has become more affordable and the importance of genomics and multi-omics in clinical care is increasingly being recognized. However, how to scale and effectively implement GS on an institutional level remains a challenge for many. Here, we present Genome First and Ge-Med, two clinical implementation studies focused on identifying the key pillars and processes that are required to make routine GS and predictive genomics a reality in the clinical setting. We describe our experience and lessons learned for a variety of topics including test logistics, patient care processes, data reporting, and infrastructure. Our model of providing clinical care and comprehensive genomic analysis from a single source may be used by other centers with a similar structure to facilitate the implementation of omics-based personalized health concepts in medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olaf Riess
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
- NGS Competence Center Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
- Center for Rare Diseases Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
| | - Marc Sturm
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Benita Menden
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Alexandra Liebmann
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - German Demidov
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Dennis Witt
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Nicolas Casadei
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- NGS Competence Center Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Jakob Admard
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Leon Schütz
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Stephan Ossowski
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- NGS Competence Center Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Institute for Bioinformatics and Medical Informatics (IBMI), University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | | | | | - Christopher Schroeder
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Center for Rare Diseases Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Andreas Dufke
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Center for Rare Diseases Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Tobias Haack
- Institute of Medical Genetics and Applied Genomics, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
- Center for Rare Diseases Tübingen, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Laza C, Niño de Guzmán E, Gea M, Plazas M, Posso M, Rué M, Castells X, Román M. "For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022. Arch Public Health 2024; 82:23. [PMID: 38389068 PMCID: PMC10882761 DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01248-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals. METHODS Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. RESULTS We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems. CONCLUSION We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Ena Niño de Guzmán
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d' Oncologia, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Gea
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Merideidy Plazas
- Cochrane Associated Center- University Foundation of Health Sciences, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Margarita Posso
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
- Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
| | - Xavier Castells
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marta Román
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
LA Dunlop K, Smit AK, Keogh LA, Newson AJ, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2024; 74:BJGP.2023.0117. [PMID: 38373853 PMCID: PMC10904141 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2023.0117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. AIM To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. METHOD Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. RESULTS Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. CONCLUSION GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate LA Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Louise A Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Evaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
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
|
5
|
Vassy JL, Kerman BJ, Harris EJ, Lemke AA, Clayman ML, Antwi AA, MacIsaac K, Yi T, Brunette CA. Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey. Eur J Hum Genet 2023; 31:1309-1316. [PMID: 36807341 PMCID: PMC10620193 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01318-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2022] [Revised: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/06/2023] [Indexed: 02/22/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason L Vassy
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
- Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
- Precision Population Health, Ariadne Labs, Boston, MA, USA.
| | - Benjamin J Kerman
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Elizabeth J Harris
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Amy A Lemke
- Norton Children's Research Institute, Affiliated with the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA
| | - Marla L Clayman
- UMass Chan Medical School, Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Worcester, MA, USA
- Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans' Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA
| | - Ashley A Antwi
- Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Katharine MacIsaac
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
- Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Thomas Yi
- Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hawkins R, McWilliams L, Ulph F, Evans DG, French DP. Healthcare professionals' views following implementation of risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme. BMC Cancer 2022; 22:1058. [PMID: 36224549 PMCID: PMC9555254 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-10134-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2022] [Revised: 09/14/2022] [Accepted: 09/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background It is crucial to determine feasibility of risk-stratified screening to facilitate successful implementation. We introduced risk-stratification (BC-Predict) into the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) at three screening sites in north-west England from 2019 to 2021. The present study investigated the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on acceptability, barriers, and facilitators of the BC-Predict intervention and on the wider implementation of risk-based screening after BC-Predict was implemented in their screening site. Methods Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs working across the breast screening pathway at three NHSBSP sites that implemented BC-Predict. Thematic analysis interpreted the data. Results Three pre-decided themes were produced. (1) Acceptability of risk-based screening: risk-stratification was perceived as a beneficial step for both services and women. HCPs across the pathway reported low burden of running the BC-Predict trial on routine tasks, but with some residual concerns; (2) Barriers to implementation: comprised capacity constraints of services including the inadequacy of current IT systems to manage women with different risk profiles and, (3) Facilitators to implementation: included the continuation of stakeholder consultation across the pathway to inform implementation and need for dedicated risk screening admin staff, a push for mammography staff recruitment and guidance for screening services. Telephone helplines, integrating primary care, and supporting access for all language needs was emphasised. Conclusion Risk-stratified breast screening was viewed as a progressive step providing it does not worsen inequalities for women. Implementation of risk-stratified breast screening requires staff to be reassured that there will be systems in place to support implementation and that it will not further burden their workload. Next steps require a comprehensive assessment of the resource needed for risk-stratification versus current resource availability, upgrades to screening IT and building screening infrastructure. The role of primary care needs to be determined. Simplification and clarification of risk-based screening pathways is needed to support HCPs agency and facilitate implementation. Forthcoming evidence from ongoing randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer risk-stratification will also determine implementation. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-10134-0.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Hawkins
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK. .,NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| | - 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, Manchester, UK.,NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.,Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Southmoor Road, M23 9LT, Wythenshawe, Manchester, UK.,Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, M13 9WL, Manchester, 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, Manchester, UK.,NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
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
|
8
|
Laza-Vásquez C, Martínez-Alonso M, Forné-Izquierdo C, Vilaplana-Mayoral J, Cruz-Esteve I, Sánchez-López I, Reñé-Reñé M, Cazorla-Sánchez C, Hernández-Andreu M, Galindo-Ortego G, Llorens-Gabandé M, Pons-Rodríguez A, Rué M. Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:10426. [PMID: 36012059 PMCID: PMC9407798 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2022] [Revised: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based breast cancer screening and its integration into regular clinical practice. A single-arm proof-of-concept trial was conducted with a sample of 387 women aged 40-50 years residing in the city of Lleida (Spain). The study intervention consisted of breast cancer risk estimation, risk communication and screening recommendations, and a follow-up. A polygenic risk score with 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to update the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. The women expressed a positive attitude towards varying the frequency of breast screening according to individual risk and, especially, more frequently inviting women at higher-than-average risk. A lower intensity screening for women at lower risk was not as welcome, although half of the participants would accept it. Knowledge of the benefits and harms of breast screening was low, especially with regard to false positives and overdiagnosis. The women expressed a high understanding of individual risk and screening recommendations. The participants' intention to participate in risk-based screening and satisfaction at 1-year were very high.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza-Vásquez
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy and Health Care Research Group (GRECS), IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Martínez-Alonso
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Carles Forné-Izquierdo
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
- Heorfy Consulting, 25007 Lleida, Spain
| | - Jordi Vilaplana-Mayoral
- Department of Computing and Industrial Engineering, University of Lleida, 25001 Lleida, Spain
| | - Inés Cruz-Esteve
- Primer de Maig Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25003 Lleida, Spain
| | | | - Mercè Reñé-Reñé
- Department of Radiology, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Anna Pons-Rodríguez
- Example Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25006 Lleida, Spain
- Health PhD Program, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
French DP, Woof VG, Ruane H, Evans DG, Ulph F, Donnelly LS. The feasibility of implementing risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme: a focus group study investigating the perspectives of healthcare personnel responsible for delivery. BMC Womens Health 2022; 22:142. [PMID: 35501791 PMCID: PMC9063090 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01730-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2021] [Accepted: 04/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Providing women with personalized estimates of their risk of developing breast cancer, as part of routine breast cancer screening programmes, allows women at higher risk to be offered more frequent screening or drugs to reduce risk. For this to be feasible, the concept and practicalities have to be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would put it in to practice. The present research investigated the acceptability to healthcare professionals who were responsible for the implementation of this new approach to screening in the ongoing BC-Predict study. METHODS Four focus groups were conducted with 29 healthcare professionals from a variety of professional backgrounds working within three breast screening services in north-west England. An inductive-manifest thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS Overall, healthcare professionals viewed the implementation of personalised breast cancer risk estimation as a positive step, but discussion focused on concerns. Three major themes are presented. (1) Service constraints highlights the limited capacity within current breast services and concerns about the impact of additional workload. (2) Risk communication concerns the optimal way to convey risk to women within resource constraints. (3) Accentuating inequity discusses how risk stratification could decrease screening uptake for underserved groups. CONCLUSIONS Staff who implemented risk stratification considered it a positive addition to routine screening. They considered it essential to consider improving capacity and demands on healthcare professional time. They highlighted the need for skilled communication of risks and new pathways of care to ensure that stratification could be implemented in financially and time constrained settings without impacting negatively on women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David P French
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Helen Ruane
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, Department of Genomic Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.,Division of Population Health, Health Services Research & Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
McWilliams L, Woof VG, Donnelly LS, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable? BMC Cancer 2021; 21:637. [PMID: 34051753 PMCID: PMC8164783 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08347-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/13/2021] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Trials of risk estimation in breast cancer screening programmes, in order to identify women at higher risk and offer extra screening/preventive measures, are ongoing. It may also be feasible to introduce less frequent screening for women at low-risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to establish views of women at low-risk of breast cancer regarding the acceptability of extending breast screening intervals for low-risk women beyond 3 y. Methods Semi-structured interviews were used to explore views of low-risk women, where “low-risk” was defined as less than 2% estimated 10-year risk of breast cancer aged > 46 years. Low-risk women were identified via the BC-Predict study, where following routine screening, women were given their 10-year risk of breast cancer by letter, along with additional information explaining breast cancer risk factors. To gain diversity of views, purposive sampling by ethnicity and socioeconomic background was used to recruit women. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Twenty-three women participated in individual interviews. Three themes are reported: (1) A good opportunity to receive risk estimation, where women found it worthwhile to receive a low-risk result although some were surprised if expecting a higher risk result; (2) Multi-faceted acceptability of extended screening intervals, with reactions to less frequent screening dependent on whether women were confident in being low-risk status and current safety evidence, (3) Passive approval versus informed choice, highlighting that women found it difficult to consider choosing less frequent screening without professionals’ recommendations, as they generally viewed attending breast screening as positive. Conclusions Risk assessment and receiving a low-risk of breast cancer is acceptable although, further research is required with more diverse samples of women. Any recommendation of less frequent screening in this risk group should be evidence-based in order to be acceptable. Communication needs to be carefully developed, with a focus on ensuring informed choice, prior to trialling any extended screening recommendations in future studies. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-021-08347-w.
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, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Louise S Donnelly
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.,NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| | - Anthony Howell
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Nightingale Breast Screening Centre & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Manchester, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, UK.,Department of Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Science, MAHSC, University of Manchester, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, 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, MAHSC, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
| |
Collapse
|