Comparing Breast Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease Risk and Use of Chemoprevention and Statins among Women with High-risk Breast Lesions.

Breast cancer chemoprevention with selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM) or aromatase inhibitors (AI) remains underutilized among high-risk women. A potential barrier to chemoprevention is competing comorbidities such as atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), due to concern for additional medication side effects. We conducted a retrospective cohort study among women with atypical hyperplasia (AH) or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), an important target population for chemoprevention. We compared risks for breast cancer and ASCVD, as well as use of SERMs/AIs versus statins among high-risk women (defined as a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk ≥1.67% and 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%, respectively). We used clinical data extracted from the electronic health record to calculate breast cancer risk according to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium model and ASCVD risk according to the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association risk calculator. Among 298 evaluable women, mean age was 58.2 years (SD, 8.34), with 33% non-Hispanic White, 41% Hispanic, 9% non-Hispanic Black, 6% Asian, and 11% other/unknown race/ethnicity. About 98% of women met high-risk criteria for breast cancer, whereas 30% were high-risk for ASCVD. Mean 10-year risk of breast cancer was higher than mean 10-year risk of ASCVD (9.14% vs. 6.69%; P < 0.001). Among women who met high-risk criteria for both diseases, use of statins was higher compared with SERMs/AIs (58% vs. 21%; P < 0.001). Among women with AH or LCIS, statin use was higher compared with breast cancer chemoprevention among eligible women, despite having a higher mean risk of breast cancer than ASCVD. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Among women with high-risk breast lesions, mean absolute risk of breast cancer was higher compared with cardiovascular disease; however, statin use was significantly higher than chemoprevention. To address underutilization of breast cancer chemoprevention, these drugs should be placed in the context of medications used to prevent other chronic diseases.

Patient, primary care provider, and stakeholder perspectives on mammography screening frequency: lessons learned from a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: U.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). PARTICIPANTS: Patients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates). MAIN MEASURES: Qualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs. KEY RESULTS: We interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

Patient and Provider Web-Based Decision Support for Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Significant underutilization of breast cancer chemoprevention remains, despite guidelines stating that physicians should recommend chemoprevention with antiestrogen therapy to high-risk women. We randomized women, ages 35 to 75 years, who met high-risk criteria for breast cancer, without a personal history of breast cancer or prior chemoprevention use, to standard educational materials alone or combined with a web-based decision aid. All healthcare providers, including primary care providers and breast specialists, were given access to a web-based decision support tool. The primary endpoint was chemoprevention uptake at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included decision antecedents (perceived breast cancer risk/worry, chemoprevention knowledge, self-efficacy) and decision quality (decision conflict, chemoprevention informed choice) based upon patient surveys administered at baseline, 1 and 6 months after randomization. Among 282 evaluable high-risk women enrolled from November 2016 to March 2020, mean age was 57 years (SD, 9.9) and mean 5-year invasive breast cancer risk was 2.98% (SD, 1.42). There was no significant difference in chemoprevention uptake at 6 months between the intervention and control groups (2.1% vs. 3.5%). Comparing the intervention and control arms at 1 month, there were significant differences among high-risk women in accurate breast cancer risk perceptions (56% vs. 39%, P = 0.017), adequate chemoprevention knowledge (49% vs. 27%, P < 0.001), mean decision conflict (34.0 vs. 47.0, P < 0.001), and informed choice (41% vs. 23%, P = 0.003). These differences were no longer significant at 6 months. Although our decision support tools did not result in a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, we did observe improvements in decision antecedents and decision quality measures. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: In this randomized controlled trial of decision support for 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers, we did not observe a significant increase in chemoprevention uptake, which remained low at under 5%. However, these decision support tools may increase knowledge and informed choice about breast cancer chemoprevention.

Strategies to Identify and Recruit Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer to a Randomized Controlled Trial of Web-based Decision Support Tools.

We evaluated strategies to identify and recruit a racially/ethnically diverse cohort of women at high-risk for breast cancer to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). We enrolled 300 high-risk women and 50 healthcare providers to a RCT of standard educational materials alone or in combination with web-based decision support tools. We implemented five strategies to identify high-risk women: (i) recruitment among patients previously enrolled in a study evaluating breast cancer risk; (ii) automated breast cancer risk calculation using information extracted from the electronic health record (EHR); (iii) identification of women with atypical hyperplasia or lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 diagnostic codes; (iv) clinical encounters with enrolled healthcare providers; (v) recruitment flyers/online resources. Breast cancer risk was calculated using either the Gail or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) models. We identified 6,229 high-risk women and contacted 3,459 (56%), of whom 17.2% were identified from prior study cohort, 37.5% through EHR risk information, 14.8% with atypical hyperplasia/LCIS, 29.0% by clinical encounters, and 1.5% through recruitment flyers. Women from the different recruitment sources varied by age and 5-year invasive breast cancer risk. Of 300 enrolled high-risk women, 44.7% came from clinical encounters and 27.3% from prior study cohort. Comparing enrolled with not-enrolled participants, there were significant differences in mean age (57.2 vs. 59.1 years), proportion of non-Whites (41.5% vs. 54.8%), and mean 5-year breast cancer risk (3.0% vs. 2.3%). We identified and successfully recruited diverse high-risk women from multiple sources. These strategies may be implemented in future breast cancer chemoprevention trials. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: We describe five strategies to identify and successfully recruit a large cohort of racially/ethnically diverse high-risk women from multiple sources to a randomized controlled trial evaluating interventions to increase chemoprevention uptake. Findings could inform recruitment efforts for future breast cancer prevention trials to increase recruitment yield of high-risk women.