Nationwide registry-based trial of risk-stratified cervical screening.

In well-screened populations, most cervical cancers arise from small groups of women with inadequate screening. The present study aims to assess whether registry-based cancer risk assessment could be used to increase screening intensity among high-risk women. The National Cervical Screening Registry identified the 28,689 women residents in Sweden who had either no previous cervical screening or a screening history indicating high risk. We invited these women by SMS and/or physical letter to order a free human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling kit. The Swedish national HPV reference laboratory performed extended HPV genotyping and referred high-risk HPV-positive women to their regional gynecologist. A total of 3691/28,689 (12.9%) women ordered a self-sampling kit and 10.0% (2853/28,689) returned a sample for testing. Participation among women who had never attended screening was low, albeit improved. Up to 22.5% of women in other high-risk groups attended. High-risk HPV types were detected in 8.3% of samples. High-risk HPV-positive women (238/2853) were referred without further triaging and severe cervical precancer or cancer (HSIL+) in histopathology were detected in 36/158 (23%) of biopsied women. Repeat invitations gave modest additional participation. Nationwide contacting of women with high risk for cervical cancer with personal invitations to order HPV self-sampling kits resulted in high yield of detected CIN2+. Further efforts to improve risk-stratified screening strategies should be directed to improving (i) the precision of the risk-stratification algorithm, (ii) the convenience for the women to participate and, (iii) ensuring that screen-positive women are followed-up.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS: Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Cost-effectiveness of risk-tailored screening strategy for colorectal cancer: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Though one-size-fits-all age-based screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing the incidence and mortality, the evidence regarding on personized screening based on individual risk factors has been growing. The study aimed to perform a systematic review to synthesize economic evidence of risk-tailored CRC screening strategies. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Econlit, and National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database from inception to June 30, 2021. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per life year or quality-adjusted life year gained for the risk-tailored screening compared with no screening or uniform screening. A strategy was cost-effective with less cost and equal or more effectiveness than the comparator along with lower ICER than the willingness-to-pay threshold. RESULTS: Our review finally comprised seven studies. Five studies reported the results of comparisons of risk-tailored CRC screening with no screening, and supported that risk-tailored screening was cost-effective. All of seven studies reported the ICERs of risk-tailored screening and age-based screening. Disparities in the discrimination of risk-prediction tool, accuracy of adopted techniques, uptake rate of screening and cost estimation impacted the cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Studies on the economic evaluation of risk-tailored CRC screening are limited, and current evidence is not sufficient to support the replacement of risk-tailored screening for traditional age-based screening.

Cost-effectiveness of risk-based breast cancer screening: A systematic review.

To analyse published evidence on the economic evaluation of risk-based screening (RBS), a full systematic literature review was conducted. After a quality appraisal, we compared the cost-effectiveness of risk-based strategies (low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk) with no screening and age-based screening. Studies were also analysed for modelling, risk stratification methods, input parameters, data sources and harms and benefits. The 10 modelling papers analysed were based on screening performance of film-based mammography (FBM) (three); digital mammography (DM) and FBM (two); DM alone (three); DM, ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (one) and DM and US (one). Seven studies did not include the cost of risk-stratification, and one did not consider the cost of diagnosis. Disutility was incorporated in only six studies (one for screening and five for diagnosis). None of the studies reported disutility of risk-stratification (being considered as high-risk). Risk-stratification methods varied from only breast density (BD) to the combination of familial risk, genetic susceptibility, lifestyle, previous biopsies, Jewish ancestry and reproductive history. Less or no screening in low-risk women and more frequent mammography screening in high-risk women was more cost-effective compared to no screening and age-based screening. High-risk women screened annually yielded a higher mortality rate reduction and more quality-adjusted life years at the expense of higher cost and false positives. RBS can be cost effective compared to the alternatives. However, heterogeneity among risk-stratification methods, input parameters, and weaknesses in the methodologies hinder the derivation of robust conclusions. Therefore, further studies are warranted to assess newer technologies and innovative risk-stratification methods.

The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women.

BACKGROUND: UK national guidelines suggest women at high-risk of breast cancer should be offered more frequent screening or preventative medications. Currently, only 1 in 6 high-risk women are identified. One route to identify more high-risk women is via multifactorial risk assessment as part of the UK's NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). As lower socioeconomic and minority ethnic populations continue to experience barriers to screening, it is important that any new service does not exacerbate issues further. To inform service development, this study explored views of women from underserved backgrounds regarding the introduction of risk stratification into the NHSBSP. METHODS: Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with British-Pakistani women from low socioeconomic backgrounds from East Lancashire, UK. Fourteen interviews were conducted via an interpreter. RESULTS: Thematic analysis produced three themes. Attitudes toward risk awareness concerns the positive views women have toward the idea of receiving personalised breast cancer risk information. Anticipated barriers to accessibility emphasises the difficulties associated with women's limited English skills for accessing information, and their I.T proficiency for completing an online risk assessment questionnaire. Acceptability of risk communication strategy highlights the diversity of opinion regarding the suitability of receiving risk results via letter, with the option for support from a healthcare professional deemed essential. CONCLUSIONS: The idea of risk stratification was favourable amongst this underserved community. To avoid exacerbating inequities, this new service should provide information in multiple languages and modalities and offer women the opportunity to speak to a healthcare professional about risk. This service should also enable completion of personal risk information via paper questionnaires, as well as online.

Investigating the feasibility of stratified breast cancer screening using a masking risk predictor.

BACKGROUND: Women with dense breasts face a double risk for breast cancer; they are at a higher risk for development of breast cancer than those with less dense breasts, and there is a greater chance that mammography will miss detection of a cancer in dense breasts due to the masking effect of surrounding fibroglandular tissue. These women may be candidates for supplemental screening. In this study, a masking risk model that was previously developed is tested on a cohort of cancer-free women to assess potential efficiency of stratification. METHODS: Three masking risk models based on (1) BI-RADS density, (2) volumetric breast density (VBD), and (3) a combination of VBD and detectability were applied to stratify the mammograms of 1897 cancer-free women. The fraction of cancer-free women whose mammograms were deemed by the algorithm to be masked and who would be considered for supplemental imaging was computed as was the corresponding fraction in a screened population of interval (masked) cancers that would be potentially detected by supplemental imaging. RESULTS: Of the models tested, the combined VBD/detectability model offered the highest efficiency for stratification to supplemental imaging. It predicted that 725 supplemental screens would be performed per interval cancer potentially detected, at an operating point that allowed detection of 64% of the interval cancers. In comparison, stratification based on the upper two BI-RADS density categories required 1117 supplemental screenings per interval cancer detected to capture 64% of interval cancers. CONCLUSION: The combined VBD/detectability models perform better than BI-RADS and offer a continuum of operating points, suggesting that this model may be effective in guiding a stratified screening environment.

Transient elastography for screening of liver fibrosis: Cost-effectiveness analysis from six prospective cohorts in Europe and Asia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and alcohol-related liver disease pose an important challenge to current clinical healthcare pathways because of the large number of at-risk patients. Therefore, we aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of transient elastography (TE) as a screening method to detect liver fibrosis in a primary care pathway. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using real-life individual patient data from 6 independent prospective cohorts (5 from Europe and 1 from Asia). A diagnostic algorithm with conditional inference trees was developed to explore the relationships between liver stiffness, socio-demographics, comorbidities, and hepatic fibrosis, the latter assessed by fibrosis scores (FIB-4, NFS) and liver biopsies in a subset of 352 patients. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy against standard of care alongside the numbers needed to screen to diagnose a patient with fibrosis stage ≥F2. RESULTS: The data set encompassed 6,295 participants (mean age 55 ±â€¯12 years, BMI 27 ±â€¯5 kg/m2, liver stiffness 5.6 ±â€¯5.0 kPa). A 9.1 kPa TE cut-off provided the best accuracy for the diagnosis of significant fibrosis (≥F2) in general population settings, whereas a threshold of 9.5 kPa was optimal for populations at-risk of alcohol-related liver disease. TE with the proposed cut-offs outperformed fibrosis scores in terms of accuracy. Screening with TE was cost-effective with mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from 2,570 €/QALY (95% CI 2,456-2,683) for a population at-risk of alcohol-related liver disease (age ≥45 years) to 6,217 €/QALY (95% CI 5,832-6,601) in the general population. Overall, there was a 12% chance of TE screening being cost saving across countries and populations. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for liver fibrosis with TE in primary care is a cost-effective intervention for European and Asian populations and may even be cost saving. LAY SUMMARY: The lack of optimized public health screening strategies for the detection of liver fibrosis in adults without known liver disease presents a major healthcare challenge. Analyses from 6 independent international cohorts, with transient elastography measurements, show that a community-based risk-stratification strategy for alcohol-related and non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases is cost-effective and potentially cost saving for our healthcare systems, as it leads to earlier identification of patients.

Improving the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy by identifying the optimal risk cutoff.

BACKGROUND: The American Cancer Society (ACS) suggests using a stratified strategy for breast cancer screening. The strategy includes assessing risk of breast cancer, screening women at high risk with both MRI and mammography, and screening women at low risk with mammography alone. The ACS chose their cutoff for high risk using expert consensus. METHODS: We propose instead an analytic approach that maximizes the diagnostic accuracy (AUC/ROC) of a risk-based stratified screening strategy in a population. The inputs are the joint distribution of screening test scores, and the odds of disease, for the given risk score. Using the approach for breast cancer screening, we estimated the optimal risk cutoff for two different risk models: the Breast Cancer Screening Consortium (BCSC) model and a hypothetical model with much better discriminatory accuracy. Data on mammography and MRI test score distributions were drawn from the Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. RESULTS: A risk model with an excellent discriminatory accuracy (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) yielded a reasonable cutoff where only about 20% of women had dual screening. However, the BCSC risk model (c-statistic [Formula: see text]) lacked the discriminatory accuracy to differentiate between women who needed dual screening, and women who needed only mammography. CONCLUSION: Our research provides a general approach to optimize the diagnostic accuracy of a stratified screening strategy in a population, and to assess whether risk models are sufficiently accurate to guide stratified screening. For breast cancer, most risk models lack enough discriminatory accuracy to make stratified screening a reasonable recommendation.

Optimizing performance of BreastScreen Norway using value of information in graphical models.

This study proposes a method to optimize the performance of BreastScreen Norway through a stratified recommendation of tests including independent double or single reading of the screening mammograms and additional imaging with or without core needle biopsy. This is carefully evaluated by a value of information analysis. An estimated graphical probabilistic model describing the relationship between a set of risk factors and the corresponding risk of breast cancer is used for this analysis, together with a Bayesian network modeling screening test results conditional on the true (but unknown) breast cancer status of a woman. This study contributes towards evaluating a possibility of improving the efficiency of the screening program, where all women aged 50 to 69 are invited every second year, regardless of individual risk factors. Our stratified recommendation of tests is dependent on the probability that an asymptomatic woman has developed breast cancer at the time she is invited to a screening.

[Breast cancer screening : present situation and prospects]. / Dépistage du cancer du sein : actualité et perspectives.

Breast cancer screening is a public health challenge. Belgium has the worldwide highest age-standardized breast cancer incidence. It ranks third in terms of specific mortality. The causes are unclear and presumably multifactorial. Like most European countries, Belgium has set up a screening program since 2001. Despite coverage rates varying from one Region to another, the annual 2 % specific mortality decline (observed in the vast majority of European countries) is the same. The age-based screening programs recommended by the European Union are often debated for their questionable impact on mortality and on incidence of advanced tumors (stages II and beyond), and for the harms they may generates (over-diagnosis, false positives). A risk-stratified screening strategy considering other well-documented risk factors (family history, breast density, and genetic variants) could lead to better results while reducing the disadvantages. This hypothesis will be tested through the European My Personal Breast Screening (My PeBS) study, a multicenter randomized clinical trial involving 85,000 volunteers.

Le dépistage du cancer du sein est un enjeu de santé publique. La Belgique possède le record mondial d'incidence du cancer du sein standardisée pour l'âge. Elle se classe en troisième position pour la mortalité spécifique. Les causes ne sont pas claires et vraisemblable- ment multifactorielles. Comme la plupart des pays européens, la Belgique a mis en place un programme de dépistage dès 2001. Malgré des taux de couvertures très différents selon les régions du pays, la baisse de mortalité spécifique de 2 % par an (observée dans la grande majorité des pays européens), est la même. La stratégie de dépistage basée sur l'âge comme seul facteur de risque est recommandée par l'Union européenne. Elle est souvent débattue pour son impact relatif sur la mortalité et quasi nul sur l'incidence des tumeurs avancées (stades II et au-delà) et pour les inconvénients qu'elle génère (surdiagnostics, faux positifs). Une stratégie de dépistage prenant en compte d'autres facteurs de risque aujourd'hui bien documentés (antécédents familiaux, densité mammaire, variants génétiques) pourrait conduire à de meilleurs résultats tout en diminuant les inconvénients. C'est ce que l'étude européenne My Personal Breast Screening (My PeBS) se propose de tester dans le cadre d'un essai clinique multicentrique randomisé portant sur 85.000 femmes volontaires.

Why Breast Cancer Risk by the Numbers Is Not Enough: Evaluation of a Decision Aid in Multi-Ethnic, Low-Numerate Women.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer risk assessment including genetic testing can be used to classify people into different risk groups with screening and preventive interventions tailored to the needs of each group, yet the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer prevention in primary care settings is complex. OBJECTIVE: To address barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, risk communication, and prevention strategies in primary care settings, we developed a Web-based decision aid, RealRisks, that aims to improve preference-based decision-making for breast cancer prevention, particularly in low-numerate women. METHODS: RealRisks incorporates experience-based dynamic interfaces to communicate risk aimed at reducing inaccurate risk perceptions, with modules on breast cancer risk, genetic testing, and chemoprevention that are tailored. To begin, participants learn about risk by interacting with two games of experience-based risk interfaces, demonstrating average 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk. We conducted four focus groups in English-speaking women (age ≥18 years), a questionnaire completed before and after interacting with the decision aid, and a semistructured group discussion. We employed a mixed-methods approach to assess accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk and acceptability of RealRisks. The qualitative analysis of the semistructured discussions assessed understanding of risk, risk models, and risk appropriate prevention strategies. RESULTS: Among 34 participants, mean age was 53.4 years, 62% (21/34) were Hispanic, and 41% (14/34) demonstrated low numeracy. According to the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), the mean 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk were 1.11% (SD 0.77) and 7.46% (SD 2.87), respectively. After interacting with RealRisks, the difference in perceived and estimated breast cancer risk according to BCRAT improved for 5-year risk (P=.008). In the qualitative analysis, we identified potential barriers to adopting risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention strategies, including uncertainty about breast cancer risk and risk models, distrust toward the health care system, and perception that risk assessment to pre-screen women for eligibility for genetic testing may be viewed as rationing access to care. CONCLUSIONS: In a multi-ethnic population, we demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk after exposure to RealRisks. However, we identified potential barriers that suggest that accurate risk perceptions will not suffice as the sole basis to support informed decision making and the acceptance of risk-appropriate prevention strategies. Findings will inform the iterative design of the RealRisks decision aid.

Implementing risk-stratified screening for common cancers: a review of potential ethical, legal and social issues.

BACKGROUND: The identification of common genetic variants associated with common cancers including breast, prostate and ovarian cancers would allow population stratification by genotype to effectively target screening and treatment. As scientific, clinical and economic evidence mounts there will be increasing pressure for risk-stratified screening programmes to be implemented. METHODS: This paper reviews some of the main ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) raised by the introduction of genotyping into risk-stratified screening programmes, in terms of Beauchamp and Childress's four principles of biomedical ethics--respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence and justice. Two alternative approaches to data collection, storage, communication and consent are used to exemplify the ELSI issues that are likely to be raised. RESULTS: Ultimately, the provision of risk-stratified screening using genotyping raises fundamental questions about respective roles of individuals, healthcare providers and the state in organizing or mandating such programmes, and the principles, which underpin their provision, particularly the requirement for distributive justice. CONCLUSIONS: The scope and breadth of these issues suggest that ELSI relating to risk-stratified screening will become increasingly important for policy-makers, healthcare professionals and a wide diversity of stakeholders.

Women's Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perception on Personalized Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening: A Cross-Sectional Study in Malaysia.

AIM: Breast cancer is commonest cancer among Malaysian women and screening is essential for the early detection. Therefore our study aimed at measuring the levels of knowledge, attitude and perception towards personalized risk stratified breast cancer screening in Malaysia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in Malaysia to assess the knowledge, perception and attitudes of the women in Malaysia. The study was conducted using an online questionnaire, and samples were obtained using convenience sampling. The questionnaire was distributed trilingual in English, Bahasa Malaysia and Chinese. The data was collected with content validated questionnaire. Data was analyzed with descriptive statistics and General Linear Model analysis in SPSS (Version 27). RESULTS: A total of 201 respondents' data were analyzed. From our study we were able to summarize that the women in Malaysia have a suboptimal knowledge towards personalized risk-stratified breast cancer screening as only 48.9% aware of the term for personalized risk-stratified breast cancer screening. Meanwhile, the majority of the respondents (96.7%) showed positive attitudes towards the importance of risk assessment and screening. Experience of participating in health education programmes about breast cancer and personalized risk-stratified screening was found to be significantly associated with knowledge, attitude and perception towards personalized risk-stratified breast cancer screening. CONCLUSION: General population's awareness of individualized risk-stratified breast cancer screening was insufficient despite their favourable attitude towards the disease. A multimodal strategy may be used to improve women's knowledge, attitude, and perception of individualized risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score: A Survey of UK General Practitioners' Knowledge and Attitudes.

A polygenic risk score (PRS) quantifies the aggregated effects of common genetic variants in an individual. A 'personalised breast cancer risk assessment' combines PRS with other genetic and nongenetic risk factors to offer risk-stratified screening and interventions. Large-scale studies are evaluating the clinical utility and feasibility of implementing risk-stratified screening; however, General Practitioners' (GPs) views remain largely unknown. This study aimed to explore GPs': (i) knowledge of risk-stratified screening; (ii) attitudes towards risk-stratified screening; and (iii) preferences for continuing professional development. A cross-sectional online survey of UK GPs was conducted between July-August 2022. The survey was distributed by the Royal College of General Practitioners and via other mailing lists and social media. In total, 109 GPs completed the survey; 49% were not familiar with the concept of PRS. Regarding risk-stratified screening pathways, 75% agreed with earlier and more frequent screening for women at high risk, 43% neither agreed nor disagreed with later and less screening for women at lower-than-average risk, and 55% disagreed with completely removing screening for women at much lower risk. In total, 81% felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening towards patients and 62% felt positive about the potential impact on their practice. GPs selected training of healthcare professionals as the priority for future risk-stratified screening implementation, preferring online formats for learning. The results suggest limited knowledge of PRS and risk-stratified screening amongst GPs. Training-preferably using online learning formats-was identified as the top priority for future implementation. GPs felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening; however, there was hesitance and disagreement towards a low-risk screening pathway.

Evidence from a BreastScreen cohort does not support a longer inter-screen interval in women who have no conventional risk factors for breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To determine screening outcomes in women who have no recorded risk factors for breast cancer. METHODS: A retrospective population-based cohort study included all 1,026,137 mammography screening episodes in 323,082 women attending the BreastScreen Western Australia (part of national biennial screening) program between July 2007 and June 2017. Cancer detection rates (CDR) and interval cancer rates (ICR) were calculated in screening episodes with no recorded risk factors for breast cancer versus at least one risk factor stratified by age. CDR was further stratified by timeliness of screening (<27 versus ≥27 months); ICR was stratified by breast density. RESULTS: Amongst 566,948 screens (55.3%) that had no recorded risk factors, 2347 (40.9%) screen-detected cancers were observed. In screens with no risk factors, CDR was 50 (95%CI 48-52) per 10,000 screens and ICR was 7.9 (95%CI 7.4-8.4) per 10,000 women-years, estimates that were lower than screens with at least one risk factor (CDR 83 (95%CI 80-86) per 10,000 screens, ICR 12.2 (95%CI 11.5-13.0) per 10,000 women-years). Compared to timely screens with risk factors, delayed screens with no risk factors had similar CDR across all age groups and a higher proportion of node positive cancers (26.1% vs 20.7%). ICR was lowest in screens that had no risk factors nor dense breasts in all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Majority of screens had no recorded breast cancer risk factors, hence a substantial proportion of screen-detected cancers occur in these screening episodes. Our findings may not justify less frequent screening in women with no risk factors.

The SCRIPT trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a polygenic risk score to tailor colorectal cancer screening in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and target screening more precisely than current guidelines using age and family history alone. Primary care, as a far-reaching point of healthcare and routine provider of cancer screening and risk information, may be an ideal location for their widespread implementation. METHODS: This trial aims to determine whether the SCRIPT intervention results in more risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months in individuals attending general practice, compared with standard cancer risk reduction information. The SCRIPT intervention consists of a CRC PRS, tailored risk-specific screening recommendations and a risk report for participants and their GP, delivered in general practice. Patients aged between 45 and 70 inclusive, attending their GP, will be approached for participation. For those over 50, only those overdue for CRC screening will be eligible to participate. Two hundred and seventy-four participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arms, stratified by general practice, using a computer-generated allocation sequence. The primary outcome is risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months. For those in the intervention arm, risk-appropriate screening is defined using PRS-derived risk; for those in the control arm, it is defined using family history and national screening guidelines. Timing, type and results of the previous screening are considered in both arms. Objective health service data will capture screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cancer-specific worry, risk perception, predictors of CRC screening behaviour, screening intentions and health service use at 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine whether a PRS-derived personalised CRC risk estimate delivered in primary care increases risk-appropriate CRC screening. A future population risk-stratified CRC screening programme could incorporate risk assessment within primary care while encouraging adherence to targeted screening recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000092897p. Registered on 1 February 2021.

Should Age-Dependent Absolute Risk Thresholds Be Used for Risk Stratification in Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening?

In risk-stratified cancer screening, multiple risk factors are incorporated into the risk assessment. An individual's estimated absolute cancer risk is linked to risk categories with tailored screening recommendations for each risk category. Absolute risk, expressed as either remaining lifetime risk or shorter-term (five- or ten-year) risk, is estimated from the age at assessment. These risk estimates vary by age; however, some clinical guidelines (e.g., enhanced breast cancer surveillance guidelines) and ongoing personalised breast screening trials, stratify women based on absolute risk thresholds that do not vary by age. We examine an alternative approach in which the risk thresholds used for risk stratification vary by age and consider the implications of using age-independent risk thresholds on risk stratification. We demonstrate that using an age-independent remaining lifetime risk threshold approach could identify high-risk younger women but would miss high-risk older women, whereas an age-independent 5-year or 10-year absolute risk threshold could miss high-risk younger women and classify lower-risk older women as high risk. With risk misclassification, women with an equivalent risk level would be offered a different screening plan. To mitigate these problems, age-dependent absolute risk thresholds should be used to inform risk stratification.

Risk-Stratified Approach to Breast Cancer Screening in Canada: Women's Knowledge of the Legislative Context and Concerns about Discrimination from Genetic and Other Predictive Health Data.

The success of risk-stratified approaches in improving population-based breast cancer screening programs depends in no small part on women's buy-in. Fear of genetic discrimination (GD) could be a potential barrier to genetic testing uptake as part of risk assessment. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate Canadian women's knowledge of the legislative context governing GD. Second, to assess their concerns about the possible use of breast cancer risk levels by insurance companies or employers. We use a cross-sectional survey of 4293 (age: 30-69) women, conducted in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Colombia, Ontario and Québec). Canadian women's knowledge of the regulatory framework for GD is relatively limited, with some gaps and misconceptions noted. About a third (34.7%) of the participants had a lot of concerns about the use of their health information by employers or insurers; another third had some concerns (31.9%), while 20% had no concerns. There is a need to further educate and inform the Canadian public about GD and the legal protections that exist to prevent it. Enhanced knowledge could facilitate the implementation and uptake of risk prediction informed by genetic factors, such as the risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that includes risk levels.

Breast cancer screening for women at high risk: review of current guidelines from leading specialty societies.

The purpose of this article is to overview the existing breast cancer screening guidelines for women at high risk from world-leading specialty societies. Accumulation of evidence and development of accessible genetic testing strategies have changed the idea of breast cancer screening for high-risk women. Personalized tailor-made screening adjusted for risk factors has been conducted in accordance with guidelines. The use of imaging modalities other than mammography including contrast-enhanced MRI and other various strategies for improving screening are discussed. The present review also mentions the existing challenges in high-risk screening and the latest information based on two large-scale studies.

Women's Views on Multifactorial Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Screening: A Population-Based Survey from Four Provinces in Canada.

Risk-stratified screening for breast cancer (BC) is increasingly considered as a promising approach. However, its implementation is challenging and needs to be acceptable to women. We examined Canadian women's attitudes towards, comfort level about, and willingness to take part in BC risk-stratified screening. We conducted an online survey in women aged 30 to 69 years in four Canadian provinces. In total, 4293 women completed the questionnaire (response rate of 63%). The majority of women (63.5% to 72.8%) expressed favorable attitudes towards BC risk-stratified screening. Most women reported that they would be comfortable providing personal and genetic information for BC risk assessment (61.5% to 67.4%) and showed a willingness to have their BC risk assessed if offered (74.8%). Most women (85.9%) would also accept an increase in screening frequency if they were at higher risk, but fewer (49.3%) would accept a reduction in screening frequency if they were at lower risk. There were few differences by province; however, outcomes varied by age, education level, marital status, income, perceived risk, history of BC, prior mammography, and history of genetic test for BC (all p ≤ 0.01). Risk-based BC screening using multifactorial risk assessment appears to be acceptable to most women. This suggests that the implementation of this approach is likely to be well-supported by Canadian women.