BE-WEL trial (breast: evaluation of weight and exercise for lymphoedema) testing weight control and exercise programmes for women with breast cancer related lymphoedema: a feasibility trial.

PURPOSE: A combined body weight loss and upper body/arm exercise programme is a potential strategy for managing Breast cancer related lymphoedema (BCRL), but there is limited data on the best method for delivery or its potential efficacy. METHODS: Fifty-seven women with overweight/obesity and BCRL were randomised to a 12 week supervised (n = 12) or home-based combined weight loss and upper body/arm exercise programme (n = 16), a home-based upper-body arm exercise only programme (n = 17) or standard care (n = 12). Primary outcomes were uptake, retention and changes in weight and change in Relative Arm Volume Increase (RAVI) using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). RESULTS: Sixteen percent of women invited joined the study and 49 completed the trial (85% retention). Reductions in weight occurred in the supervised and home-based weight control and exercise programmes; Mean (95% CI) change compared to standard care - 1.68 (- 4.36 to - 1.00), - 2.47(- 4.99 to - 0.04) Kg. Reductions in perometer assessed RAVI were seen in the supervised and home-based combined weight control and arm exercise groups and the weight stable home-based arm exercise only group: mean (95% CI) change compared to standard care - 2.4 (- 5.0 to + 0.4),- 1.8 (- 4.3 to + 0.7), - 2.5(- 4.9 to - 0.05)%. CONCLUSION: Women with BCRL and overweight and obesity engaged in diet and exercise weight loss programmes. Both weight loss/arm exercise programmes led to modest changes in weight and BCRL. Comparable reductions in BCRL were reported in the weight stable group undertaking arm exercise only. The independent and combined effects of weight loss and exercise on BCRL need further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86789850 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN86789850 , registered 2011.

Emotion constructs and outcome measures following false positive breast screening test results: A systematic review of reporting clarity and selection rationale.

OBJECTIVE: (i) To systematically identify constructs and outcome measures used to assess the emotional and mood impact of false positive breast screening test results; (ii) to appraise the reporting clarity and rationale for selecting constructs and outcome measures. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were systematically searched from 1970. Studies using standardised and non-standardised outcome measures to evaluate the emotion or mood impact of false positive breast screening test results were eligible. A 15-item coding scheme was devised to appraise articles on clarity and rationale for selected constructs and measures. RESULTS: Forty-seven articles were identified. The most investigated constructs were general anxiety and depression and disease-specific anxiety and worry. Twenty-two standardised general outcome questionnaire measures and three standardised disease-specific outcome questionnaire measures were identified. Twenty articles used non-standardised scales/items. Reporting of constructs and outcome measures was generally clear, but rationales for their selection were lacking. Anxiety was typically justified, but justification for depression was almost always absent. Practical and psychometric justification for selecting outcome measures was lacking, and theoretical rationale was absent. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in constructs and measures, coupled with unclear rationale for these, impedes a thorough understanding of why there are emotional effects of false positive screening test results. This may explain the repeated practice of investigating less relevant outcomes such as depression. There is need to develop a consensual conceptual model of and standardised approach to measuring emotional impact from cancer screening test results, to address heterogeneity and other known issues of interpreting an inconsistent evidence base.

Healthcare professionals' experiences of caring for women with false-positive screening test results in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Understanding healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of caring for women with false-positive screening test results in the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) is important for reducing the impact of such results. METHODS: Interviews were undertaken with 12 HCPs from a single NHSBSP unit, including advanced radiographer practitioners, breast radiographers, breast radiologists, clinical nurse specialists (CNSs), and a radiology healthcare assistant. Data were analysed thematically using Template Analysis. RESULTS: Two themes were produced: (1) Gauging and navigating women's anxiety during screening assessment was an inevitable and necessary task for all participants. CNSs were perceived as particularly adept at this, while breast radiographers reported a lack of adequate formal training. (2) Controlling the delivery of information to women (including amount, type and timing of information). HCPs reported various communication strategies to facilitate women's information processing and retention during a distressing time. CONCLUSIONS: Women's anxiety could be reduced through dedicated CNS support, but this should not replace support from other HCPs. Breast radiographers may benefit from more training to emotionally support recalled women. While HCPs emphasised taking a patient-centred communication approach, the use of other strategies (e.g., standardised scripts) and the constraints of the 'one-stop shop' model pose challenges to such an approach. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: During the study design, two Patient and Public Involvement members (women with false-positive-breast screening test results) were consulted to gain an understanding of patient perspectives and experiences of being recalled specifically in the NHSBSP. Their feedback informed the formulations of the research aim, objectives and the direction of the interview guide.

Effectiveness of lifestyle interventions/culturally bespoke programmes in South Asian ethnic groups targeting weight loss for prevention and/or remission of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials.

BACKGROUND: People from South Asian heritage are at high risk of type 2 diabetes, but there are limited specific strategies to prevent and manage this condition. The aim was to assess the effectiveness of culturally bespoke lifestyle programmes in South Asians that target weight loss for the prevention or remission of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention trials. PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), CINAHL, PsycINFO and CENTRAL were searched. Human intervention trials (randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental) investigating the effect of lifestyle interventions on the prevention and remission of T2DM in South Asians were included. Studies including participants at risk of T2DM (prevention trials) and having the disease (remission trials) with duration ≥12 weeks were eligible. For prevention trials, the primary outcome was change in weight (kg) from baseline; for remission trials, it was decrease in HbA1c to non-diabetic levels (HbA1c ≤ 6.5%) without diabetes medications. Prevention trials were separated into (i) lifestyle modification advice and (ii) lifestyle modification advice including a supervised physical activity programme. RESULTS: Twenty-four trials were eligible (21 prevention trials and 3 remission trials). In T2DM prevention trials involving only lifestyle modification advice, the mean postintervention difference in weight between intervention and control groups was -0.65 kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.04, -0.26; p = 0.01). Lifestyle modification advice including a physical activity programme was associated with greater decreases in weight: -1.13 kg (95% CI: -2.04, -0.21; p = 0.02). Fasting blood glucose levels were slightly lower in intervention groups for both intervention subtypes, although there was no significant change in HbA1c levels or 2-h plasma glucose levels. Diabetes remission trials showed potential acceptability but were limited in number and involved a small sample size, and some did not include a control group. CONCLUSIONS: In South Asians, lifestyle interventions for prevention of T2DM offer only modest impacts on weight and glucose control and will unlikely reduce diabetes incidence. Alternative lifestyle interventions co-designed with members of the communities and aimed at both prevention and remission of T2DM must be urgently considered. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022385174 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=385174.

Do people with type 2 diabetes find continuous and intermittent low-energy diets for weight loss and diabetes remission acceptable?

BACKGROUND: The Manchester Intermittent versus Daily Diet App Study (MIDDAS) tested the feasibility and potential efficacy of two remotely delivered low-energy diet (LED) programmes (800 kcal/day) to support weight loss and remission of type 2 diabetes: continuous [CLED] (8 weeks of daily LED) and intermittent [ILED] (2 days of LED/week for 28 weeks). Understanding participant experiences can help us to understand the acceptability of LED programmes to people with type 2 diabetes, informing future programme development and implementation. METHODS: Twenty participants (10 CLED; 10 ILED) took part in interviews conducted at the end of the active weight loss phase (CLED week 12, ILED week 28). Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using the template analysis approach, with an a priori focus on acceptability. Four themes are presented: prospective acceptability, intervention coherence and perceived effectiveness, opportunity costs and self-efficacy. RESULTS: Both remotely supported CLED and ILED interventions appeared acceptable to participants. CLED participants found the rapid initial weight loss phase comparatively easy and highly motivating but expressed more concerns around weight maintenance. ILED participants found the more gradual weight loss initially frustrating but expressed greater confidence in their longer-term adherence. The importance of continued individualised support from healthcare professionals was emphasised, and evidence of weight loss and improvement in other medical markers through monitoring via the mobile phone app was useful. CONCLUSION: Different approaches to remotely delivered LEDs appear acceptable; therefore asking patients which approach may be more acceptable to them may be a useful way to offer individualised and tailored support.

An app promoting weight gain prevention via healthy behaviours amongst young women with a family history of breast cancer: Acceptability and usability assessment.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most frequent female malignancy in the UK. Around 20% of cases are linked to weight gain, excess weight and health behaviours. We designed a weight gain prevention, health behaviour intervention for young women at increased risk. METHODS: The study comprised a single arm observational study over 2 months testing acceptability and usability of the intervention: online group welcome event, app and private Facebook group. Females aged 18-35 years at moderate or high risk of breast cancer (>17% lifetime risk) were recruited via invite letters and social media posts. The app included behaviour change techniques and education content. Online questionnaires were completed at baseline, as well as at 1 and 2 months. We also assessed feasibility of study procedures. RESULTS: Both recruitment methods were successful. Thirty-five women were recruited, 26% via social media posts. Median age was 33 (interquartile range = 28.2-34.5) years, the majority (94.1%) were of White ethnicity. Thirty-four participants were included in the analyses, of which 94% downloaded the app. Median self-monitoring logs per participant during the study period was 10.0 (interquartile range = 4.8-28.8). App quality mean (SD) score was 3.7 (0.6) at 1 and 2 months (scale: 1-5). Eighty-nine per cent rated the app at average or above at 1 month and 75.0% at 2 months. Nineteen women (55.9%) joined the Facebook group and there were 61 comments and 83 reactions and votes from participants during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This first iteration of the app and intervention was well received and is suitable to progress to the next stage of refining and further testing.

Randomised controlled trial of breast cancer and multiple disease prevention weight loss programmes vs written advice amongst women attending a breast cancer family history clinic.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are common amongst women attending breast cancer Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics (FHRPCs). Overweight increases risk of breast cancer (BC) and conditions including1 cardiovascular disease (CVD) and type-2 diabetes (T2D). Clinics provide written health behaviour advice with is likely to have minimal effects. We assessed efficacy of two remotely delivered weight loss programmes vs. written advice. METHOD: 210 women with overweight or obesity attending three UK FHRPCs were randomised to either a BC prevention programme (BCPP) framed to reduce risk of BC (n = 86), a multiple disease prevention programme (MDPP) framed to reduce risk of BC, CVD and T2D (n = 87), or written advice (n = 37). Change in weight and health behaviours were assessed at 12-months. RESULTS: Weight loss at 12 months was -6.3% (-8.2, -4.5) in BCPP, -6.0% (-7.9, -4.2) in MDPP and -3.3% (-6.2, -0.5) in the written group (p = 0.451 across groups). The percentage losing ≥10% weight in these groups were respectively 34%, 23% and 14% (p = 0.038 across groups). DISCUSSION: BCPP and MDPP programmes resulted in more women achieving ≥10% weight loss, but no evidence of additional benefits of MDPP. A multicentre RCT to test the BCPP across UK FHRPCs is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN16431108.

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).

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS). METHODS: Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening. RESULTS: Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication. DISCUSSION: We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

Obesity at age 20 and weight gain during adulthood increase risk of total and premature all-cause mortality: findings from women attending breast screening in Manchester.

BACKGROUND: Obesity in early adulthood is associated with lower breast cancer rates in later life. This could be interpreted as a positive reinforcement of excess weight amongst younger women however, the wider implications of higher weights are less well known. This study examined the association between both obesity in early adulthood and body mass index (BMI) change through adulthood, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: The Predicting Risk of Cancer At Screening (PROCAS) study recruited 57,902 women aged 46-73 years (median age 57.2, IQR 51.8-63.7 years) from the Greater Manchester National Health Service breast screening programme in North West England between 2009 and 2015. It was used to assess associations between BMI at 20 years and cohort entry with all-cause mortality ascertained via deaths recorded on the National Breast Screening System to June 2020. Hazard ratios were estimated using proportional hazards (Cox) regression adjusted for factors at entry to the cohort: age, deprivation, bilateral oophorectomy, hormone-replacement therapy, menopausal status, ethnicity, alcohol intake, physical activity, and BMI. RESULTS: The prevalence of overweight (25-30 kg/m2) and obesity (> 30 kg/m2) were 10.4% and 2.5% respectively at 20 years, increasing to 35.2% and 25.9% respectively at cohort entry. After a mean 8.7 years follow-up we observed that overweight (HR = 1.27, 95%CI = 1.10-1.47) and obesity (HR = 2.11, 95%CI = 1.67-2.66) at 20 years had a higher mortality rate compared with healthy weight. Women who were underweight/healthy weight at 20 years and gained weight to obesity at entry had a slightly increased mortality rate compared with women who were underweight/healthy weight at both time points (HR 1.16, 95%CI = 1.02-1.32). Women with overweight (HR = 1.36, 95%CI = 1.06-1.75) or obesity (HR = 1.90, 95%CI = 1.45-2.48) at both 20 years and entry had a higher mortality rate than women who were underweight/healthy weight at both points. CONCLUSIONS: Women who self-reported overweight and obesity at 20 years had a shorter life expectancy in this cohort of women attending breast cancer screening. Weight gain from 20 years was common in this group. Girls and women should be supported to maintain a healthy weight throughout the lifespan to help increase life expectancy. Trial registration number NCT04359420, retrospectively registered 24/04/2020.

Randomised controlled trial of intermittent vs continuous energy restriction during chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess adiposity at diagnosis and weight gain during chemotherapy is associated with tumour recurrence and chemotherapy toxicity. We assessed the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) vs continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight control and toxicity reduction during chemotherapy. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-two women were randomised to follow IER or CER throughout adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Primary endpoints were weight and body fat change. Secondary endpoints included chemotherapy toxicity, cardiovascular risk markers, and correlative markers of metabolism, inflammation and oxidative stress. RESULTS: Primary analyses showed non-significant reductions in weight (-1.1 (-2.4 to +0.2) kg, p = 0.11) and body fat (-1.0 (-2.1 to +0.1) kg, p = 0.086) in IER compared with CER. Predefined secondary analyses adjusted for body water showed significantly greater reductions in weight (-1.4 (-2.5 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.024) and body fat (-1.1 (-2.1 to -0.2) kg, p = 0.046) in IER compared with CER. Incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities were comparable overall (IER 31.0 vs CER 36.5%, p = 0.45) with a trend to fewer grade 3/4 toxicities with IER (18%) vs CER (31%) during cycles 4-6 of primarily taxane therapy (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: IER is feasible during chemotherapy. The potential efficacy for weight control and reducing toxicity needs to be tested in future larger trials. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN04156504.

Manchester Intermittent versus Daily Diet App Study (MIDDAS): A pilot randomized controlled trial in patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To test the feasibility and potential efficacy of remotely supported intermittent low-energy diets (ILEDs) and continuous low-energy diets (CLEDs) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing the two approaches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-nine adults with overweight/obesity and T2D (≤8 years duration) were randomized 1:1 to CLED (8 weeks/56 days of daily Optifast 820 kcal (3430 kJ) diet) or isoenergetic ILED (2 days of Optifast and 5 days of a Mediterranean diet/week for 28 weeks). Weight maintenance/continued weight loss was undertaken for the remainder of the 52 weeks. Both groups received frequent telephone or the Oviva app support. Feasibility outcomes included study uptake, retention, app usage, dietary adherence, weight loss and change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) at 52 weeks. RESULTS: We enrolled 39 ILED and 40 CLED participants and 27 (69%) ILED and 30 CLED (75%) attended the 52-week follow-up. Eighty-nine per cent (70 of 79) started using the app and 86% (44 of 51) still used the app at 52 weeks. Intention-to-treat analysis at 52 weeks showed percentage weight loss was mean (95% confidence interval) -5.4% (-7.6, -3.1%) for ILED and -6.0% (-7.9, -4.0%) for CLED. HbA1c <48 mmol/mol was achieved in 42% of both groups. Mean (95% confidence interval) changes in the T2D medication effect score were 0.0008 (-0.3, 0.3) for ILED and -0.5 (-0.8, -0.3) for CLED. CONCLUSION: The study shows the feasibility and potential efficacy of remotely delivered ILED and CLED programmes for weight loss and HbA1c reduction, and the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial comparing the two approaches.

Magnitude and attributed reasons for adult weight gain amongst women at increased risk of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Excess weight (BMI ≥25.0 kg/m2) and weight gain during adult life increase the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer in women who are already at increased risk of the disease. Reasons for weight gain in this population can inform strategies for weight gain prevention. METHODS: Baseline data from six weight loss studies for women at increased risk of breast cancer (age 31-74 years) were collated. Self-reported patterns of adult weight gain and attributed reasons for weight gain before joining the weight loss study were reported for the whole population and secondary analyses reported the different reasons given by women with/without children, pre-/peri- or postmenopausal, and moderate/high risk of breast cancer. RESULTS: Five hundred and one women with a mean age of 47.6 (SD 8.4) years and median BMI of 29.9 (IQR 27.0-34.7) kg/m2 were included in the analyses. The median weight gain since young adulthood (18-20 years) was 20.5 (IQR 14.0-29.7) kg or 33.7 (23.4-50.2) % and median annual weight gain was 0.73 (IQR 0.51-1.08) kg. Four hundred and one women were included in analysis of weight gain reasons. The main five self-reported reasons for weight gain were children / childcare / pregnancy (stated by 55.9% of participants), followed by inactivity (41.9%), comfort or boredom eating (38.2%), portion size (32.4%), and stress (27.4%). Reasons appeared broadly similar between the different groups in the secondary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We have highlighted common reasons for weight gain in women at increased risk of breast cancer. This will inform future interventions to support women to avoid weight gain in adulthood which would reduce the burden of breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIHR NRR N0226132725, ISRCTN52913838, ISRCTN77916487, ISRCTN91372184, ISRCTN10803394 and ISRCTN16431108.

The impact of body mass index on breast cancer incidence among women at increased risk: an observational study from the International Breast Intervention Studies.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between body mass index (BMI) and breast cancer risk in women at increased risk of breast cancer receiving tamoxifen or anastrozole compared with placebo using data from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Studies [IBIS-I (tamoxifen) and IBIS-II (anastrozole)]. METHODS: Baseline BMI was calculated from nurse assessed height and weight measurements for premenopausal (n = 3138) and postmenopausal (n = 3731) women in IBIS-I and postmenopausal women in IBIS-II (n = 3787). The primary endpoint was any breast cancer event (invasive and ductal carcinoma in situ). We used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for risk after adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: There were 582 (IBIS-I) and 248 (IBIS-II) breast cancer events [median follow-up = 16.2 years (IQR 14.4-17.7) and 10.9 years (IQR 8.8-13.0), respectively]. In adjusted analysis, women with a higher BMI had an increased breast cancer risk in both IBIS-I [HR = 1.06 per 5 kg/m2 (0.99-1.15), p = 0.114] and in IBIS-II [HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.21 (1.09-1.35), p < 0.001]. In IBIS-I, the association between BMI and breast cancer risk was positive in postmenopausal women [adjusted HR per 5 kg/m2 = 1.14 (1.03-1.26), p = 0.01] but not premenopausal women [adjusted HR per 5 kg/m2 = 0.97 (0.86-1.09), p = 0.628]. There was no interaction between BMI and treatment group for breast cancer risk in either IBIS-I (p = 0.62) or IBIS-II (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Higher BMI is associated with greater breast cancer risk in postmenopausal women at increased risk of the disease, but no effect was observed in premenopausal women. The lack of interaction between BMI and treatment group on breast cancer risk suggests women are likely to experience benefit from preventive therapy regardless of their BMI. Trial registration Both trials were registered [IBIS-I: ISRCTN91879928 on 24/02/2006, retrospectively registered ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN91879928 ); IBIS-II: ISRCTN31488319 on 07/01/2005, retrospectively registered ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN31488319 )].

Young adulthood body mass index, adult weight gain and breast cancer risk: the PROCAS Study (United Kingdom).

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that body mass index (BMI) aged 20 years modifies the association of adult weight gain and breast cancer risk. METHODS: We recruited women (aged 47-73 years) into the PROCAS (Predicting Risk Of Cancer At Screening; Manchester, UK: 2009-2013) Study. In 47,042 women, we determined BMI at baseline and (by recall) at age 20 years, and derived weight changes. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for new breast cancer using Cox models and explored relationships between BMI aged 20 years, subsequent weight changes and breast cancer risk. RESULTS: With median follow-up of 5.6 years, 1142 breast cancers (post-menopausal at entry: 829) occurred. Among post-menopausal women at entry, BMI aged 20 years was inversely associated [HR per SD: 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95)], while absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD:1.23 (95% CI: 1.14-1.32)]. For post-menopausal women who had a recall BMI aged 20 years <23.4 kg/m2 (75th percentile), absolute weight gain was associated with breast cancer [HR per SD: 1.31 (95% CIs: 1.21-1.42)], but there were no associations for women with a recall BMI aged 20 years of >23.4 kg/m2 (Pinteraction values <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adult weight gain increased post-menopausal breast cancer risk only among women who were <23.4 kg/m2 aged 20 years.

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).

BACKGROUND: In principle, risk-stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) should produce a better balance of benefits and harms. The main benefit is the offer of NICE-approved more frequent screening and/ or chemoprevention for women who are at increased risk, but are unaware of this. We have developed BC-Predict, to be offered to women when invited to NHSBSP which collects information on risk factors (self-reported information on family history and hormone-related factors via questionnaire; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). BC-Predict produces risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5 to < 8% 10-year) to have discussion of prevention and early detection options at Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics. Despite the promise of systems such as BC-Predict, there are still too many uncertainties for a fully-powered definitive trial to be appropriate or ethical. The present research aims to identify these key uncertainties regarding the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP. Key objectives of the present research are to quantify important potential benefits and harms, and identify key drivers of the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. METHODS: A non-randomised fully counterbalanced study design will be used, to include approximately equal numbers of women offered NHSBSP (n = 18,700) and BC-Predict (n = 18,700) from selected screening sites (n = 7). In the initial 8-month time period, women eligible for NHSBSP will be offered BC-Predict in four screening sites. Three screening sites will offer women usual NHSBSP. In the following 8-months the study sites offering usual NHSBSP switch to BC-Predict and vice versa. Key potential benefits including uptake of risk consultations, chemoprevention and additional screening will be obtained for both groups. Key potential harms such as increased anxiety will be obtained via self-report questionnaires, with embedded qualitative process analysis. A decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis will identify the key uncertainties underpinning the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. DISCUSSION: We will assess the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP, and identify the main uncertainties for a definitive evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BC-Predict. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

How do women experience a false-positive test result from breast screening? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: This is the first review to identify, appraise and synthesise women's experiences of having a false-positive breast screening test result. METHODS: We systematically searched eight databases for qualitative research reporting women's experiences of receiving a false-positive screening test result. Two reviewers independently screened articles. Eight papers reporting seven studies were included. Study quality was appraised. Data were thematically synthesised. RESULTS: Women passively attended screening in order to prove their perceived good health. Consequently, being recalled was unexpected, shocking and disempowering: women felt without options. They endured great uncertainty and stress and sought clarity about their health (e.g. by scrutinising the wording of recall letters and conversations with healthcare professionals). Their result was accompanied by relief and welcome feelings of certainty about their health, but some received unclear explanations of their result, contributing to lasting breast cancer-related worry and an ongoing need for further reassurance. CONCLUSION: The organisation of breast screening programmes may constrain choice for women: they became passive recipients. The way healthcare professionals verbally communicate results to women may contribute to lasting breast cancer-related worry. Women need more reassurance, emotional support and answers to their questions before and during screening assessment, and after receiving their result.

The effectiveness of home versus community-based weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer diagnosis may be a teachable moment for lifestyle behaviour change and to prevent adjuvant therapy associated weight gain. We assessed the acceptability and effectiveness of two weight control programmes initiated soon after breast cancer diagnosis to reduce weight amongst overweight or obese women and prevent gains in normal-weight women. METHODS: Overweight or obese (n = 243) and normal weight (n = 166) women were randomised to a three-month unsupervised home (home), a supervised community weight control programme (community) or to standard written advice (control). Primary end points were change in weight and body fat at 12 months. Secondary end points included change in insulin, cardiovascular risk markers, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the programmes. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of eligible women were recruited. Both programmes reduced weight and body fat: home vs. control mean (95% CI); weight -2.3 (-3.5, -1.0) kg, body fat -1.6 (-2.6, -0.7) kg, community vs. control; weight -2.4 (-3.6, -1.1) kg, body fat -1.4 (-2.4, -0.5) kg (all p < 0.001). The community group increased physical activity, reduced insulin, cardiovascular disease risk markers, increased QOL and was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The programmes were equally effective for weight control, but the community programme had additional benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN68576140.

Breast cancer risk status influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight loss programme amongst breast cancer screening attendees: two randomised controlled feasibility trials.

BACKGROUND: Excess body weight and sub-optimal lifestyle are modifiable causes of breast cancer and other diseases. There is little evidence that behaviour change is possible within screening programmes and whether this is influenced by prior knowledge of disease risk. We determined whether breast cancer risk influences uptake, retention and efficacy of a weight control programme in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme, and whether additional cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes risk information improves uptake and retention further. METHOD: Overweight/obese women in the UK National Health Service Breast Screening Programme identified at high, moderately increased, average and low-risk of breast cancer were randomised to receive individualised breast cancer risk information (breast cancer prevention programme), or individualised breast cancer, cardiovascular disease (QRISK2) and type 2 diabetes (QDiabetes, HbA1c) information (multiple disease prevention programme). Personalised breast cancer risk feedback was given before randomisation in Study-1, and after randomisation in Study-2. RESULTS: Recruitment was 9% (126/1356) in Study-1 and 7% (52/738) in Study-2. With respect to breast cancer risk, odds ratio of uptake for high/moderately increased vs low risk women was 1.99 (95% CI 1.24-3.17, P = 0.004) in Study-1 and 3.58 (95% CI 1.59-8.07, P = 0.002) in Study-2. Odds ratio of retention for high/moderately increased -risk vs. low risk women was 2.98 (95% CI 1.05-8.47, P = 0.041) in Study-1 and 3.88 (95% CI 1.07-14.04, P = 0.039) in Study-2. Weight loss of ≥5% at 12 months was achieved by 63% high/moderate vs. 43% low-risk women in Study-1 (P = 0.083) and 39% vs. 8% in Study-2 (P = 0.008). Uptake, retention and weight loss were equivalent in both the breast cancer prevention programme and the multiple disease prevention programme in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: Women who are informed that they are at increased breast cancer risk were significantly more likely to join and remain in the programmes and consequently lose more weight across both studies. High risk women are more likely engage in a lifetyle prevention programme and also have the greatest potential benefit fom risk reduction strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN91372184 Registered 28 September 2014.

Psychological impact of providing women with personalised 10-year breast cancer risk estimates.

BACKGROUND: The Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study estimated 10-year breast cancer risk for 53,596 women attending NHS Breast Screening Programme. The present study, nested within the PROCAS study, aimed to assess the psychological impact of receiving breast cancer risk estimates, based on: (a) the Tyrer-Cuzick (T-C) algorithm including breast density or (b) T-C including breast density plus single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), versus (c) comparison women awaiting results. METHODS: A sample of 2138 women from the PROCAS study was stratified by testing groups: T-C only, T-C(+SNPs) and comparison women; and by 10-year risk estimates received: 'moderate' (5-7.99%), 'average' (2-4.99%) or 'below average' (<1.99%) risk. Postal questionnaires were returned by 765 (36%) women. RESULTS: Overall state anxiety and cancer worry were low, and similar for women in T-C only and T-C(+SNPs) groups. Women in both T-C only and T-C(+SNPs) groups showed lower-state anxiety but slightly higher cancer worry than comparison women awaiting results. Risk information had no consistent effects on intentions to change behaviour. Most women were satisfied with information provided. There was considerable variation in understanding. CONCLUSIONS: No major harms of providing women with 10-year breast cancer risk estimates were detected. Research to establish the feasibility of risk-stratified breast screening is warranted.