Priorities for breast cancer risk assessment in UK women under age 50: a survey and discrete choice experiment

IF 7.8 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Rebecca A. Dennison, Maria Valasaki, Stuart Wright, Reuben Frost, Sacha J. Howell, Antonis C. Antoniou, Douglas F. Easton, Stephen Morris, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Victoria G. Woof, David P. French, Juliet A. Usher-Smith
{"title":"Priorities for breast cancer risk assessment in UK women under age 50: a survey and discrete choice experiment","authors":"Rebecca A. Dennison, Maria Valasaki, Stuart Wright, Reuben Frost, Sacha J. Howell, Antonis C. Antoniou, Douglas F. Easton, Stephen Morris, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Victoria G. Woof, David P. French, Juliet A. Usher-Smith","doi":"10.1038/s41416-026-03546-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"National guidelines recommend English women between 30 and 49 years with moderate/high risk of breast cancer (BC) be offered screening and prevention interventions. Identification  largely relies on family history-based criteria amongst women self-presenting in primary care. We aimed to understand the preference for different potential risk assessment strategies in this population. A cross-sectional survey including a discrete choice experiment. Risk assessments were defined using six attributes, including initiation strategy, eligibility for a full/detailed risk assessment, components of the risk assessment, including multifactorial risk assessment based on the BOADICEA/CanRisk model, and sensitivity. Coefficients from conditional logistic regression were used to estimate preference for different risk assessment approaches compared to current care. Participants (n = 893) preferred alternative approaches for risk assessments over current care, particularly where all eligible women were proactively invited and more above-average risk women were correctly identified. All but one of 21 risk assessment approaches was preferred, with the most favoured approaches having a probability of being preferred over current care >92%. Education level and ethnicity potentially impacted the strength of participant priorities. Offering multifactorial BC risk assessments to younger women in primary care, especially the most proactive and broad approaches, would be acceptable and preferred over current practice.","PeriodicalId":9243,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Cancer","volume":"135 9","pages":"1430-1438"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.comhttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-026-03546-3.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41416-026-03546-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

National guidelines recommend English women between 30 and 49 years with moderate/high risk of breast cancer (BC) be offered screening and prevention interventions. Identification  largely relies on family history-based criteria amongst women self-presenting in primary care. We aimed to understand the preference for different potential risk assessment strategies in this population. A cross-sectional survey including a discrete choice experiment. Risk assessments were defined using six attributes, including initiation strategy, eligibility for a full/detailed risk assessment, components of the risk assessment, including multifactorial risk assessment based on the BOADICEA/CanRisk model, and sensitivity. Coefficients from conditional logistic regression were used to estimate preference for different risk assessment approaches compared to current care. Participants (n = 893) preferred alternative approaches for risk assessments over current care, particularly where all eligible women were proactively invited and more above-average risk women were correctly identified. All but one of 21 risk assessment approaches was preferred, with the most favoured approaches having a probability of being preferred over current care >92%. Education level and ethnicity potentially impacted the strength of participant priorities. Offering multifactorial BC risk assessments to younger women in primary care, especially the most proactive and broad approaches, would be acceptable and preferred over current practice.
英国50岁以下女性乳腺癌风险评估的优先级:一项调查和离散选择实验。
背景:国家指南推荐英国30 - 49岁的中/高风险乳腺癌(BC)女性接受筛查和预防干预。在初级保健中自我诊断的妇女主要依赖基于家族史的标准。我们的目的是了解这一人群对不同潜在风险评估策略的偏好。方法:采用横断面调查法,包括离散选择实验。风险评估使用6个属性进行定义,包括启动策略、全面/详细风险评估的资格、风险评估的组成部分(包括基于BOADICEA/CanRisk模型的多因素风险评估)和敏感性。使用条件逻辑回归的系数来估计与当前护理相比对不同风险评估方法的偏好。结果:参与者(n = 893)更喜欢替代方法进行风险评估,而不是当前的护理,特别是在所有符合条件的妇女被主动邀请和更多高于平均风险的妇女被正确识别的情况下。21种风险评估方法中,除一种外,其余均为首选方法,其中最受青睐的方法优于当前护理的概率为92%。教育水平和种族可能会影响参与者优先事项的强度。结论:在初级保健中为年轻妇女提供多因素BC风险评估,特别是最积极和广泛的方法,将是可接受的,比目前的做法更好。
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
British Journal of Cancer
British Journal of Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
15.10
自引率
1.10%
发文量
383
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Cancer is one of the most-cited general cancer journals, publishing significant advances in translational and clinical cancer research.It also publishes high-quality reviews and thought-provoking comment on all aspects of cancer prevention,diagnosis and treatment.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书