Factors Associated with False Positive Results on Screening Mammography in a Population of Predominantly Hispanic Women.

Background: Potential harms of screening mammography include false positive results, such as recall breast imaging or biopsies.Methods: We recruited women undergoing screening mammography at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, New York. They completed a questionnaire on breast cancer risk factors and permitted access to their medical records. Breast cancer risk status was determined using the Gail model and a family history screener. High risk was defined as a 5-year invasive breast cancer risk of ≥1.67% or eligible for BRCA genetic testing. False positive results were defined as recall breast imaging (BIRADS score of 0, 3, 4, or 5) and/or biopsies that did not yield breast cancer.Results: From November 2014 to October 2015, 2,361 women were enrolled and 2,019 were evaluable, of whom 76% were Hispanic and 10% non-Hispanic white. Fewer Hispanic women met high-risk criteria for breast cancer than non-Hispanic whites (18.0% vs. 68.1%), but Hispanics more frequently engaged in annual screening (71.9% vs. 60.8%). Higher breast density (heterogeneously/extremely dense vs. mostly fat/scattered fibroglandular densities) and more frequent screening (annual vs. biennial) were significantly associated with false positive results [odds ratio (OR), 1.64; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.32-2.04 and OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.70-2.80, respectively].Conclusions: We observed that women who screened more frequently or had higher breast density were at greater risk for false positive results. In addition, Hispanic women were screening more frequently despite having a lower risk of breast cancer compared with whites.Impact: Our results highlight the need for risk-stratified screening to potentially minimize the harms of screening mammography. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 27(4); 446-53. ©2018 AACR.

Population-Based Study of Attitudes toward BRCA Genetic Testing among Orthodox Jewish Women.

Given the high prevalence (1 in 40) of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations among Ashkenazi Jews, population-based BRCA genetic testing in this ethnic subgroup may detect more mutation carriers. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among Orthodox Jewish women in New York City to assess breast cancer risk, genetic testing knowledge, self-efficacy, perceived breast cancer risk and worry, religious and cultural factors affecting medical decision-making. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models to identify predictors of genetic testing intention/uptake. Among evaluable respondents (n = 243, 53% response rate), median age was 25 and nearly half (43%) had a family history of breast cancer. Only 49% of the women had adequate genetic testing knowledge and 46% had accurate breast cancer risk perceptions. Five percent had already undergone BRCA genetic testing, 20% stated that they probably/definitely will get tested, 28% stated that they probably/definitely will not get tested, and 46% had not thought about it. High decision self-efficacy, adequate genetic testing knowledge, higher breast cancer risk, and overestimation of risk were associated with genetic testing intention/uptake. Decision support tools that improve knowledge and self-efficacy about genetic testing may facilitate population-based BRCA testing among Orthodox Jews.

Usability Testing of a Web-Based Decision Aid for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among Multi-Ethnic Women.

Chemoprevention with antiestrogens could decrease the incidence of invasive breast cancer but uptake has been low among high-risk women in the United States. We have designed a web-based patient-facing decision aid, called RealRisks, to inform high-risk women about the risks and benefits of chemoprevention and facilitate shared decision-making with their primary care provider. We conducted two rounds of usability testing to determine how subjects engaged with and understood the information in RealRisks. A total of 7 English-speaking and 4 Spanish-speaking subjects completed testing. Using surveys, think-aloud protocols, and subject recordings, we identified several themes relating to the usability of RealRisks, specifically in the content, ease of use, and navigability of the application. By conducting studies in two languages with a diverse multi-ethnic population, we were able to implement interface changes to make RealRisks accessible to users with varying health literacy and acculturation.

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.

Barriers and Facilitators to Patient-Provider Communication When Discussing Breast Cancer Risk to Aid in the Development of Decision Support Tools.

The purpose of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to patient-provider communication when discussing breast cancer risk to aid in the development of decision support tools. Four patient focus groups (N=34) and eight provider focus groups (N=10) took place in Northern Manhattan. A qualitative analysis was conducted using Atlas.ti software. The coding yielded 62.3%-94.5% agreement. The results showed that 1) barriers are time constraints, lack of knowledge, low health literacy, and language barriers, and 2) facilitators are information needs, desire for personalization, and autonomy when communicating risk in patient-provider encounters. These results will inform the development of a patient-centered decision aid (RealRisks) and a provider-facing breast cancer risk navigation (BNAV) tool, which are designed to facilitate patient-provider risk communication and shared decision-making about breast cancer prevention strategies, such as chemoprevention.