Are women's breast cancer risk appraisals in line with updated clinical risk estimates communicated? Results from a UK Family History Risk and Prevention Clinic.

IF 3.7 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Victoria G Woof, Anthony Howell, Lynne Fox, Lorna McWilliams, D Gareth R Evans, David P French
{"title":"Are women's breast cancer risk appraisals in line with updated clinical risk estimates communicated? Results from a UK Family History Risk and Prevention Clinic.","authors":"Victoria G Woof, Anthony Howell, Lynne Fox, Lorna McWilliams, D Gareth R Evans, David P French","doi":"10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-0581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The incorporation of breast density and a polygenic risk score (PRS) into breast cancer risk prediction models can alter previously communicated risk estimates. Previous research finds that risk communication does not usually change personal risk appraisals. This study aimed to examine how women from the Family History Risk (FH-Risk) study appraise their breast cancer risk following communication of an updated risk estimate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the FH-Risk study 323 women attended a consultation to receive an updated breast cancer risk estimate. A subset (n=190) completed a questionnaire, assessing their subjective breast cancer risk appraisals, satisfaction with the information provided and cancer related worry. One hundred and three were notified of a decrease risk, 34 an increase and 53 an unchanged risk.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Women's subjective risk appraisals were in line with the updated risk estimates provided, with age, a PRS and breast density explaining most of the variance in these appraisals. Those notified of an increased risk demonstrated higher subjective risk perceptions compared to those whose risk remained unchanged or decreased.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Women's subjective breast cancer risk appraisals are amenable to change following updated risk feedback, with new information breast density and a PRS accepted and integrated into existing risk appraisals. Trust in the service, the analogies and visual communication strategies used may have positively influenced the integration of this new information.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>Further research is warranted to assess whether similar patterns emerge for other illnesses and in different clinical contexts to determine the best strategies for communicating updated risk estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":9458,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7616752/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-24-0581","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The incorporation of breast density and a polygenic risk score (PRS) into breast cancer risk prediction models can alter previously communicated risk estimates. Previous research finds that risk communication does not usually change personal risk appraisals. This study aimed to examine how women from the Family History Risk (FH-Risk) study appraise their breast cancer risk following communication of an updated risk estimate.

Methods: In the FH-Risk study 323 women attended a consultation to receive an updated breast cancer risk estimate. A subset (n=190) completed a questionnaire, assessing their subjective breast cancer risk appraisals, satisfaction with the information provided and cancer related worry. One hundred and three were notified of a decrease risk, 34 an increase and 53 an unchanged risk.

Results: Women's subjective risk appraisals were in line with the updated risk estimates provided, with age, a PRS and breast density explaining most of the variance in these appraisals. Those notified of an increased risk demonstrated higher subjective risk perceptions compared to those whose risk remained unchanged or decreased.

Conclusions: Women's subjective breast cancer risk appraisals are amenable to change following updated risk feedback, with new information breast density and a PRS accepted and integrated into existing risk appraisals. Trust in the service, the analogies and visual communication strategies used may have positively influenced the integration of this new information.

Impact: Further research is warranted to assess whether similar patterns emerge for other illnesses and in different clinical contexts to determine the best strategies for communicating updated risk estimates.

妇女的乳腺癌风险评估是否与最新的临床风险评估一致?英国家族史风险与预防诊所的研究结果。
背景:将乳房密度和多基因风险评分(PRS)纳入乳腺癌风险预测模型可能会改变之前通报的风险估计值。以往的研究发现,风险交流通常不会改变个人的风险评估。本研究旨在探讨家族史风险(FH-Risk)研究中的女性在获悉最新风险评估后如何评估其乳腺癌风险:在 "家族史风险 "研究中,有 323 名妇女参加了咨询会,接受了最新的乳腺癌风险评估。其中一部分人(190 人)填写了一份问卷,评估她们对乳腺癌风险的主观评价、对所提供信息的满意度以及与癌症有关的担忧。有 103 名妇女被告知风险降低,34 名妇女被告知风险升高,53 名妇女被告知风险不变:结果:妇女的主观风险评估与提供的最新风险估计值一致,年龄、PRS 和乳房密度解释了这些评估中的大部分差异。与风险保持不变或降低的妇女相比,那些被告知风险增加的妇女表现出更高的主观风险感知:结论:妇女对乳腺癌风险的主观评估可根据最新的风险反馈进行改变,新信息乳腺密度和 PRS 可被接受并纳入现有的风险评估中。对服务的信任、所使用的类比和视觉交流策略可能会对这些新信息的整合产生积极影响:影响:有必要开展进一步研究,以评估其他疾病和不同临床情况下是否会出现类似的模式,从而确定传达最新风险评估的最佳策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.60%
发文量
538
审稿时长
1.6 months
期刊介绍: Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention publishes original peer-reviewed, population-based research on cancer etiology, prevention, surveillance, and survivorship. The following topics are of special interest: descriptive, analytical, and molecular epidemiology; biomarkers including assay development, validation, and application; chemoprevention and other types of prevention research in the context of descriptive and observational studies; the role of behavioral factors in cancer etiology and prevention; survivorship studies; risk factors; implementation science and cancer care delivery; and the science of cancer health disparities. Besides welcoming manuscripts that address individual subjects in any of the relevant disciplines, CEBP editors encourage the submission of manuscripts with a transdisciplinary approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信