Diffusion of breast cancer risk assessment in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Physicians who provide primary care to women have the opportunity to identify patients at high risk for breast cancer who are candidates for risk reduction strategies. Our objective was to determine the prevalence and determinants of the adoption of breast cancer risk assessment by primary care physicians. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative random sample of 351 internists, family practitioners, and obstetricians-gynecologists. We used a questionnaire that assessed knowledge, attitudes, discussion of breast cancer risk, use of software to calculate breast cancer risk, and ordering of BRCA1/2 testing. RESULTS: Eighty-eight percent of physicians reported discussing breast cancer risk at least once during the previous 12 months; 48% had ordered or referred a patient for BRCA1/2 testing; and 18% had used a software program to calculate breast cancer risk. Physicians who had used BRCA1/2 testing or discussed breast cancer risk factors were more likely to be obstetrician-gynecologists and not in a solo practice; the use of risk software was also more common among obstetrician-gynecologists but was also associated with having a family member with breast cancer and a greater knowledge about breast cancer risk. Having patients ask for risk information was associated with the discussion of risk factors but not with the other risk assessment strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Diffusion of breast cancer risk assessment is occurring in primary care practices, with a greater adoption of BRCA1/2 testing than of the use of risk assessment software. Adoption of these strategies seems to be related to the salience of breast cancer personally (for the physician) and within the practice, as well as the size of the practice, rather than attitudes about the risk assessment methods.

Making sense of cancer risk calculators on the web.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer risk calculators on the internet have the potential to provide users with valuable information about their individual cancer risk. However, the lack of oversight of these sites raises concerns about low quality and inconsistent information. These concerns led us to evaluate internet cancer risk calculators. DESIGN: After a systematic search to find all cancer risk calculators on the internet, we reviewed the content of each site for information that users should seek to evaluate the quality of a website. We then examined the consistency of the breast cancer risk calculators by having 27 women complete 10 of the breast cancer risk calculators for themselves. We also completed the breast cancer risk calculators for a hypothetical high- and low-risk woman, and compared the output to Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results estimates for the average same-age and same-race woman. RESULTS: Nineteen sites were found, 13 of which calculate breast cancer risk. Most sites do not provide the information users need to evaluate the legitimacy of a website. The breast cancer calculator sites vary in the risk factors they assess to calculate breast cancer risk, how they operationalize each risk factor and in the risk estimate they provide for the same individual. CONCLUSIONS: Internet cancer risk calculators have the potential to provide a public health benefit by educating individuals about their risks and potentially encouraging preventive health behaviors. However, our evaluation of internet calculators revealed several problems that call into question the accuracy of the information that they provide. This may lead the users of these sites to make inappropriate medical decisions on the basis of misinformation.