Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study.

OBJECTIVES: Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards. DESIGN: Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1). SETTING: Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included. METHODS: Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories. RESULTS: Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider's information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the necessity that patients' experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients' information engagement into types. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01399359.

Deciding on breast cancer risk reduction: The role of counseling in individual decision-making - A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The presentation of risks and benefits in clinical practice is common particularly in situations in which treatment recommendations involve trade-offs. The treatment of breast cancer risk with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) is such a decision. We investigated the influence of health care provider (HCP) counseling on women's decision-making. METHODS: Thirty breast cancer risk counseling sessions were recorded from April 2012-August 2013 at a comprehensive cancer center and at a safety-net, community hospital in the US. Participating women and HCPs were interviewed. A cross-case synthesis was used for analysis. RESULTS: Of 30 participants 21 received a SERM-recommendation, 11 decided to take SERMs. Counseling impacted decision-making, but did not determine it. Three categories emerged: 1.) ability to change the decision anytime, 2.) perceptions on medications, and 3.) proximity of cancer. CONCLUSION: Decision-making under conditions of a risk diagnosis such as increased breast cancer risk is a continuous process in which risk information is transformed into practical and experiential considerations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Individuals' health care decision-making is only marginally dependent on the interactions in the clinic. Accepting patients' experiences and beliefs in their own right and letting them guide the discussion may be important for a satisfying decision-making process.

Phase II clinical trial of N-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)retinamide and tamoxifen administration before definitive surgery for breast neoplasia.

PURPOSE: Surrogate end point biomarkers (SEBs) that can be measured in ductal carcinoma in situ or early-stage invasive cancer are needed to improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of chemoprevention trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a prospective study to develop SEBs for tamoxifen and N-[4-hydroxyphenyl]retinamide by administering either a placebo or both drugs for 2-4 weeks to women with ductal carcinoma in situ or early invasive cancers in the interval between the initial diagnostic core biopsy and definitive surgery. The major statistical end point of the study was pre- versus posttreatment change in cell proliferation, as measured by changes in Ki67 labeling indices. In addition, estrogen receptor (ER), HER2/neu, p53, retinoid receptors, and DNA index were measured. RESULTS: Between February 1997 and April 200, 52 patients were registered on the study, and 36 (20 in the placebo arm and 16 in the treatment arm) were available for analysis. No statistically significant pre- versus posttreatment differences in Ki67 labeling index or in the other markers were observed in the treatment arm compared with the placebo arm. There was a trend toward increased treatment response in ER-positive versus ER-negative patients, but this could not be rigorously analyzed because of the low sample size and the unequal distribution of ER-positive patients in the two study arms. CONCLUSION: Future SEB trials for breast carcinoma must (a) incorporate information about patient hormonal status into the study design and (b) resolve problems in patient accrual.