Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).
Journal
British journal of cancer
ISSN: 1532-1827
Titre abrégé: Br J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0370635
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2023
04 2023
Historique:
received:
25
06
2022
accepted:
11
01
2023
revised:
08
01
2023
medline:
5
4
2023
pubmed:
12
2
2023
entrez:
11
2
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Adding risk stratification to standard screening via the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) allows women at higher risk to be offered additional prevention and screening options. It may, however, introduce new harms such as increasing cancer worry. The present study aimed to assess whether there were differences in self-reported harms and benefits between women offered risk stratification (BC-Predict) compared to women offered standard NHSBSP, controlling for baseline values. As part of the larger PROCAS2 study (NCT04359420), 5901 women were offered standard NHSBSP or BC-Predict at the invitation to NHSBSP. Women who took up BC-Predict received 10-year risk estimates: "high" (≥8%), "above average (moderate)" (5-7.99%), "average" (2-4.99%) or "below average (low)" (<2%) risk. A subset of 662 women completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3 months (n = 511) and 6 months (n = 473). State anxiety and cancer worry scores were low with no differences between women offered BC-Predict or NHSBSP. Women offered BC-Predict and informed of being at higher risk reported higher risk perceptions and cancer worry than other women, but without reaching clinical levels. Concerns that risk-stratified screening will produce harm due to increases in general anxiety or cancer worry are unfounded, even for women informed that they are at high risk.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Adding risk stratification to standard screening via the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) allows women at higher risk to be offered additional prevention and screening options. It may, however, introduce new harms such as increasing cancer worry. The present study aimed to assess whether there were differences in self-reported harms and benefits between women offered risk stratification (BC-Predict) compared to women offered standard NHSBSP, controlling for baseline values.
METHODS
As part of the larger PROCAS2 study (NCT04359420), 5901 women were offered standard NHSBSP or BC-Predict at the invitation to NHSBSP. Women who took up BC-Predict received 10-year risk estimates: "high" (≥8%), "above average (moderate)" (5-7.99%), "average" (2-4.99%) or "below average (low)" (<2%) risk. A subset of 662 women completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3 months (n = 511) and 6 months (n = 473).
RESULTS
State anxiety and cancer worry scores were low with no differences between women offered BC-Predict or NHSBSP. Women offered BC-Predict and informed of being at higher risk reported higher risk perceptions and cancer worry than other women, but without reaching clinical levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Concerns that risk-stratified screening will produce harm due to increases in general anxiety or cancer worry are unfounded, even for women informed that they are at high risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36774447
doi: 10.1038/s41416-023-02156-7
pii: 10.1038/s41416-023-02156-7
pmc: PMC9922101
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1548-1558Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Cancer Research UK. Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment statistics. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer#heading-Zero (Retrieved 25 May 2022).
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–86.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61611-0
Evans DG, Warwick J, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Sahin S, Ingham S, et al. Assessing individual breast cancer risk within the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme: a new paradigm for cancer prevention. Cancer Prev Res. 2012;5:943–951.
doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0458
National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Familial breast cancer: classification and care of people at risk of familial breast cancer and management of breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer. NICE Clinical Guideline 164, 2013.
Evans DG, Brentnall AR, Harvie M, Dawe S, Sargeant JC, Stavrinos P, et al. Breast cancer risk in young women in the National Breast Screening Programme: implications for applying NICE guidelines for additional screening and chemoprevention. Cancer Prev Res. 2014;7:993–1001.
doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0037
Evans DGR, van Veen EM, Harkness EF, Brentnall AR, Astley SM, Byers H, et al. Breast cancer risk stratification in women of screening age: incremental effects of adding mammographic density, polygenic risk, and a gene panel. Genet Med. 2022;S1098-3600:00699–2.
Esserman L, Eklund M, van’t Veer L, Shieh Y, Tice J, Ziv E, et al. The WISDOM study: a new approach to screening can and should be tested. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;189:593–598.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06346-w
pubmed: 34529196
UNICANCER. My personalised breast screening (MyPeBS). Clinicaltrials.gov (2018). Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03672331 (retrieved 25 May 2022).
Pashayan N, Antoniou A, Ivanus U, Esserman L, Easton D, French DP, et al. Personalised early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION Network Consensus Statement. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17:687–705.
doi: 10.1038/s41571-020-0388-9
pubmed: 32555420
pmcid: 7567644
French DP, Howell A, Evans DG. Psychosocial issues of a population approach to high genetic risk identification: behavioural, emotional and informed choice issues. Breast. 2018;37:148–153.
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2017.11.008
pubmed: 29161653
Evans DG, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Harkness EF, Donnelly LS, Dawe S, et al. Improvement in risk prediction, early detection and prevention of breast cancer in the NHS Breast Screening Programme and family history clinics: a dual cohort study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; Aug (Programme Grants for Applied Research. 2016;4:11.
Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23:1111–30.
doi: 10.1002/sim.1668
pubmed: 15057881
French DP, Southworth J, Howell A, Harvie M, Stavrinos P, Watterson D, et al. Psychological impact of providing women with personalized ten-year breast cancer risk estimates. Br J Cancer. 2018;118:1648–1657.
doi: 10.1038/s41416-018-0069-y
pubmed: 29736008
pmcid: 6008295
Bond M, Pavey T, Welch K, Cooper C, Garside R, Dean S. Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false positive screening mammograms. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1–170.
doi: 10.3310/hta17130
pubmed: 23540978
pmcid: 4781086
Evans DG, Donnelly LS, Harkness EF, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Dawe S, et al. Breast cancer risk feedback to women in the UK NHS breast screening population. Br J Cancer. 2016;114:1045–52.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2016.56
pubmed: 27022688
pmcid: 4984905
Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;4:99–108.
doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x
pubmed: 11359540
pmcid: 5060053
French DP, Astley S, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Dobrashian R, Duffy SW, et al. What are the benefits and harms of risk stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme? Study protocol for a multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420). BMC Cancer. 2020;20:570.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-07054-2
pubmed: 32552763
pmcid: 7302349
Gorman LS, Ruane H, Woof VG, Southworth J, Ulph F, Evans DG, et al. The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a ‘think-aloud’ study. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:1264.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10347-3
pubmed: 36471302
pmcid: 9721070
Weinstein ND. What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk comprehension. J Natl Cancer I Monogr. 1999;25:15–20.
doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a024192
Marteau TM, Becker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31:301–306.
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x
pubmed: 1393159
Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Luschen RE. State trait anxiety inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970.
Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol. 1991;10:259–267.
doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.10.4.259
pubmed: 1915212
Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, Irwig L, McGeechan K, Jacklyn G, et al. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385:1642–1652.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60123-4
pubmed: 25701273
Hersch J, Barratt A, McGeechan K, Jansen J, Houssami N, Dhillon H, et al. Informing women about overdetection in breast cancer screening: two-year outcomes from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:1523–1530.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djab083
pubmed: 33871631
pmcid: 8562961
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.
French DP, Maissi E, Marteau TM. The psychological costs of inadequate cervical smear test results. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1887–1892.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602224
pubmed: 15534608
pmcid: 2409776
Department for Communities and Local Government. The English indices of deprivation (2019). Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835115/IoD2019_Statistical_Release.pdf . Accessed 11 March 2022.
Rainey L, van der Waal D, Donnelly LS, Southworth J, French DP, Evans DG, et al. Women’s health behaviour change after receiving breast cancer risk estimates with tailored screening and prevention recommendations. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:69.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09174-3
pubmed: 35033023
pmcid: 8761310
Sutton S, Saidi G, Bickler G, Hunter J. Does routine screening for breast cancer raise anxiety? Results from a three wave prospective study in England. J Epidemiol Comm Health. 1995;49:413–8.
doi: 10.1136/jech.49.4.413
Evans DG, McWilliams L, Astley S, Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, et al. Quantifying the effects of risk stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420). British Journal of Cancer (in press).
French DP, McWilliams L, Howell A, Evans DG. Does receiving high or low breast cancer risk estimates produce a reduction in subsequent breast cancer screening attendance? Cohort study. Breast. 2022;64:47–49.
doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.05.001
pubmed: 35569186
pmcid: 9111984
French DP, Cameron E, Benton JS, Deaton C, Harvie M. Can communicating personalised disease risk promote healthy behaviour change? A systematic review of systematic reviews. Ann Behav Med. 2017;51:718–729.
doi: 10.1007/s12160-017-9895-z
pubmed: 28290066
Hollands GJ, French DP, Griffin SJ, Prevost AT, Sutton S, King S, et al. The effects of communicating genetic risk on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016;352:i1102.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1102
pubmed: 26979548
pmcid: 4793156
Cooper GC, Harvie MN, French DP. Do negative screening test results cause false reassurance? A systematic review. Br J Health Psychol. 2017;22:958–977.
doi: 10.1111/bjhp.12265
pubmed: 28895257
Roux A, Cholerton R, Sicsic J, Moumjid N, French DP, Rossi PG, et al. Study protocol comparing the ethical, psychological and socio-economic impact of personalized breast cancer screening with standard screening in the “My Personal Breast Screening” (MyPeBS) randomised clinical trial. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:507.
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-09484-6
pubmed: 35524202
pmcid: 9073478