Dataset Information

Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?

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.

SUBMITTER: McWilliams L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8164783 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Biennial screening is generally recommended for average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, but tailored screening may provide greater benefits. Objective:To estimate outcomes for various screening intervals after age 50 years based on breast density and risk for breast cancer. Design:Collaborative simulation modeling using national incidence, breast density, and screening performance data. Setting:United States. Patients:Women aged 50 years or older with various combinations of breast density and relative risk (RR) of 1.0, 1.3, 2.0, or 4.0. Intervention:Annual, biennial, or triennial digital mammography screening from ages 50 to 74 years (vs. no screening) and ages 65 to 74 years (vs. biennial digital mammography from ages 50 to 64 years). Measurements:Lifetime breast cancer deaths, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), false-positive mammograms, benign biopsy results, overdiagnosis, cost-effectiveness, and ratio of false-positive results to breast cancer deaths averted. Results:Screening benefits and overdiagnosis increase with breast density and RR. False-positive mammograms and benign results on biopsy decrease with increasing risk. Among women with fatty breasts or scattered fibroglandular density and an RR of 1.0 or 1.3, breast cancer deaths averted were similar for triennial versus biennial screening for both age groups (50 to 74 years, median of 3.4 to 5.1 vs. 4.1 to 6.5 deaths averted; 65 to 74 years, median of 1.5 to 2.1 vs. 1.8 to 2.6 deaths averted). Breast cancer deaths averted increased with annual versus biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years at all levels of breast density and an RR of 4.0, and those aged 65 to 74 years with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and an RR of 4.0. However, harms were almost 2-fold higher. Triennial screening for the average-risk subgroup and annual screening for the highest-risk subgroup cost less than $100 000 per QALY gained. Limitation:Models did not consider women younger than 50 years, those with an RR less than 1, or other imaging methods. Conclusion:Average-risk women with low breast density undergoing triennial screening and higher-risk women with high breast density receiving annual screening will maintain a similar or better balance of benefits and harms than average-risk women receiving biennial screening. Primary Funding Source:National Cancer Institute.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:We suggested cervical cancer screening strategies for women living with HIV (WLHIV) by comparing their precancer risks to general population women, and then compared our suggestions with current Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines. DESIGN:We compared risks of biopsy-confirmed cervical high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia or worse (bHSIL+), calculated among WLHIV in the Women's Interagency HIV Study, to 'risk benchmarks' for specific management strategies in the general population. METHODS:We applied parametric survival models among 2423 WLHIV with negative or atypical squamous cell of undetermined significance (ASC-US) cytology during 2000-2015. Separately, we synthesized published general population bHSIL+ risks to generate 3-year risk benchmarks for a 3-year return (after negative cytology, i.e. 'rescreening threshold'), a 6-12-month return (after ASC-US), and immediate colposcopy [after low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL)]. RESULTS:Average 3-year bHSIL+ risks among general population women ('risk benchmarks') were 0.69% for a 3-year return (after negative cytology), 8.8% for a 6-12-month return (after ASC-US), and 14.4% for colposcopy (after LSIL). Most CDC guidelines for WLHIV were supported by comparing risks in WLHIV to these benchmarks, including a 3-year return with CD4 greater than 500 cells/?l and after either three negative cytology tests or a negative cytology/oncogenic human papillomavirus cotest (all 3-year risks?1.3%); a 1-year return after negative cytology with either positive oncogenic human papillomavirus cotest (1-year risk?=?1.0%) or CD4 cell count less than 500 cells/?l (1-year risk?=?1.1%); and a 6-12-month return after ASC-US (3-year risk?=?8.2% if CD4 cell count at least 500 cells/?l; 10.4% if CD4 cell count?=?350-499 cells/?l). Other suggestions differed modestly from current guidelines, including colposcopy (vs. 6-12 month return) for WLHIV with ASC-US and CD4 cell count less than 350 cells/?l (3-year risk?=?16.4%) and a lengthened 2-year (vs. 1-year) interval after negative cytology with CD4 cell count at least 500 cells/?l (2-year risk?=?0.98%). CONCLUSIONS:Current cervical cancer screening guidelines for WLHIV are largely appropriate. CD4 cell count may inform risk-tailored strategies.

Project description:To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US).Women(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants.Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons.Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.