[Moving toward personalized breast cancer screening: The role of Primary Care]. / Avances hacia el cribado personalizado del cáncer de mama: el papel de la Atención Primaria.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in the world among women. The Spanish National Health System (SNHS) introduced population-based breast cancer screening in 1990. As in most European programs, risk is identified on the basis of age and a mammogram is offered every two years to women aged 50-69 years. Scientific evidence is moving toward personalized screening, based on individual risk. This article presents the clinical trials that will evaluate the efficacy of personalized screening and some studies carried out in our environment on the effect of informing women of the benefits and adverse effects of screening or the acceptability and feasibility of offering personalized screening, in the Shared Decision Making context. The Preventive Activities and Health Promotion Program can help transform screening in our SNHS.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial.

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.

[Informed choice in breast cancer screening: the role of education]. / Elección informada en el cribado del cáncer de mama: el papel del nivel educativo.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of receiving information about the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in informed choice, according to educational level. METHOD: Secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled study, in four screening programs, in Catalonia and the Canary Islands (Spain). We analyzed 400 women who were going to be invited to participate for the first time. The intervention group received a decision aid that showed the benefits and harms of screening. The control group received a standard brochure that recommended participating in the screening program. Educational level was grouped into two categories, low and high. The primary outcome was informed choice defined as adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and intentions. RESULTS: The intervention produced a greater increase in knowledge in women with a high educational level compared to those with a lower educational level. Among women who received the intervention, informed choice was almost three times higher in those with a high educational level (27% versus 11%). No differences were observed between educational levels in decisional conflict, confidence in the decision, anxiety and worry about breast cancer, in the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid for breast cancer screening had much more impact on informed choice among women with a high educational level. In women with low educational level, the attitude towards screening improved and there was an increase in the intention to be screened.

Feasibility and acceptability of personalised breast cancer screening (DECIDO study): protocol of a single-arm proof-of-concept trial.

INTRODUCTION: Personalised cancer screening aims to improve benefits, reduce harms and being more cost-effective than age-based screening. The objective of the DECIDO study is to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based personalised breast cancer screening and its integration in regular clinical practice in a National Health System setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is designed as a single-arm proof-of-concept trial. The study sample will include 385 women aged 40-50 years resident in a primary care health area in Spain. The study intervention consists of (1) a baseline visit; (2) breast cancer risk estimation; (3) a second visit for risk communication and screening recommendations based on breast cancer risk and (4) a follow-up to obtain the study outcomes.A polygenic risk score (PRS) will be constructed as a composite likelihood ratio of 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model, including age, race/ethnicity, family history of breast cancer, benign breast disease and breast density will be used to estimate a preliminary 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. A Bayesian approach will be used to update this risk with the PRS value.The primary outcome measures will be attitude towards, intention to participate in and satisfaction with personalised breast cancer screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportions of women who accept to participate and who complete the different phases of the study. The exact binomial and the Student's t-test will be used to obtain 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Drug Research Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova. The trial will be conducted in compliance with this study protocol, the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice.The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and disseminated in scientific conferences and media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03791008.

Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is to assess the effect of decision aids (DAs) in women aged 50 and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer. SETTING: Screening for breast cancer. INTERVENTION: DAs aimed to help women make a deliberative choice regarding participation in mammography screening by providing information on the options and outcomes. ELIGIBLE STUDIES: We included published original, non-pilot, studies that assess the effect of DAs for breast cancer screening. We excluded the studies that evaluated only participation intention or actual uptake. The studies' risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCTs and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for non-RCTs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The main outcome measures were informed choice, decisional conflict and/or confidence, and knowledge. Secondary outcomes were values, attitudes, uncertainty and intention to be screened. RESULTS: A total of 607 studies were identified, but only 3 RCTs and 1 before-after study were selected. The use of DAs increased the proportion of women making an informed decision by 14%, 95% CI (2% to 27%) and the proportion of women with adequate knowledge by 12%, 95% CI (7% to 16%). We observed heterogeneity among the studies in confidence in the decision. The meta-analysis of the RCTs showed a significant decrease in confidence in the decision and in intention to be screened. CONCLUSIONS: Tools to aid decision making in screening for breast cancer improve knowledge and promote informed decision; however, we found divergent results on decisional conflict and confidence in the decision. Under the current paradigm change, which favours informed choice rather than maximising uptake, more research is necessary for the improvement of DAs.