Breast cancer risk reduction options: awareness, discussion, and use among women from four ethnic groups.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA 94143-0856, USA.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (Impact Factor: 4.32). 02/2006; 15(1):162-6. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0758
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT With recent advances in breast cancer risk reduction practices, it is increasingly important to assess both the breadth of and disparities in use across different racial/ethnic groups.
We conducted telephone interviews with 1,700 women ages 40 to 74, from four racial/ethnic groups, without prior history of breast cancer, who received mammograms at one of five mammography facilities in San Francisco. Main outcomes measured included recognition of tamoxifen, raloxifene, genetic testing, and prophylactic surgery. Global indicators (recognition of any therapy, discussion of breast cancer risk) were developed from original outcome measures and analyzed using logistic regression.
Multivariate analyses indicate that race/ethnicity and interview language affected recognition of therapies and discussion of risk. White women were more likely than all other women to recognize any therapy and more likely than Asian-Americans to discuss risk. Women at high risk, who had a prior abnormal mammogram, who perceived themselves to be at high risk, or who were exposed to breast health information were more likely to discuss risk.
Women are aware of preventive therapies, although discussion and use is limited. Interventions to increase use of therapies should focus on those at high risk.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Randomised trials of tamoxifen versus placebo indicate that tamoxifen reduces breast cancer risk by approximately 33%, yet uptake is low. Approximately 10% of women in our clinic entered the IBIS-I prevention trial. We assess the uptake of tamoxifen in a consecutive series of premenopausal women not in a trial and explore the reasons for uptake through interviews.Methods:All eligible women between 33 and 46 years at 17% lifetime risk of breast cancer and undergoing annual mammography in our service were invited to take a 5-year course of tamoxifen. Reasons for accepting (n=15) or declining (n=15) were explored using semi-structured interviews.Results:Of 1279 eligible women, 136 (10.6%) decided to take tamoxifen. Women >40 years (74 out of 553 (13.4%)) and those at higher non-BRCA-associated risk were more likely to accept tamoxifen (129 out of 1109 (11.6%)). Interviews highlighted four themes surrounding decision making: perceived impact of side effects, the impact of others' experience on beliefs about tamoxifen, tamoxifen as a 'cancer drug', and daily reminder of cancer risk.Conclusions:Tamoxifen uptake was similar to previously ascertained uptake in a randomised controlled trial (IBIS-I). Concerns were similar in women who did or did not accept tamoxifen. Decision making appeared to be embedded in the experience of significant others.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 4 March 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.109
    British Journal of Cancer 03/2014; · 5.08 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Breast cancer is the commonest cancer in women worldwide. Although programmes promoting breast cancer awareness are being carried out throughout Sri Lanka, few have targeted school students. We conducted this study to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding breast cancer with reference to screening, services available, breast self-examination, and sources of information, among adolescent schoolgirls in the Colombo District of Sri Lanka. The knowledge, attitudes and practices related to breast cancer were assessed among 859 adolescent girls in schools within the Colombo District, using a self-administered questionnaire. Classes and students were selected using multi-stage stratified cluster sampling. Of the total sample, approximately 60% of respondents identified 'history of breast lump', 'family history of breast cancer' & 'exposure to irradiation' as risk factors for breast cancer. Although most were aware that the presence of a breast lump was an important warning sign, awareness of other warning signs was poor. Only 35.6% identified mammogram as an effective screening method. One third of the sample maintained that they are unaware of symptoms, diagnostics and treatment of breast cancer. Of those who were aware, 90.6% named surgery as a treatment option for breast cancer, 79.4% were unaware that chemotherapy is used. Of the total sample, 17.1% knew how to perform breast self-examination, and only 9.4% were aware of currently available breast cancer screening services. Knowledge was significantly better among students who had a relative with breast cancer. There were significant deficiencies in knowledge, attitudes and practices on breast cancer in the study population. In particular, knowledge on breast self examination was poor. There is a need for awareness programs aimed specifically at this important target group.
    BMC Public Health 12/2013; 13(1):1209. · 2.32 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Assessment and discussion of individual risk for breast cancer within the primary care setting are crucial to discussion of risk reduction and timely referral. Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a multiethnic, multilingual sample of women aged 40-74 years from two primary care practices (one academic, one safety-net) to test a breast cancer risk assessment and education intervention. Patients were randomly assigned to control or intervention group. All patients completed a baseline telephone survey and risk assessment (via telephone for controls, via tablet computer in clinic waiting room prior to visit for intervention). Intervention (BreastCARE) patients and their physicians received an individualized risk report to discuss during the visit. One-week follow-up telephone surveys with all patients assessed patient-physician discussion of: family cancer history, personal breast cancer risk, high-risk clinics, and genetic counseling/testing. Results: 655 control and 580 intervention women completed the risk assessment and follow-up interview; 25% were high-risk by family history, Gail, or Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk models. BreastCARE increased discussions of family cancer history (OR=1.54, 95% CI=1.25-1.91), personal breast cancer risk (OR=4.15, 3.02-5.70), high-risk clinics (OR=3.84, 2.13-6.95), and genetic counseling/testing (OR=2.22, 1.34-3.68). Among high-risk women, all intervention effects were stronger. Conclusions: An intervention combining an easy-to-use, quick risk assessment tool with patient-centered risk reports at the point of care can successfully promote discussion of breast cancer risk reduction between patients and primary care physicians, particularly for high-risk women. Impact: Next steps include scaling and dissemination of BreastCARE with integration into electronic medical record systems.
    Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 04/2014; · 4.56 Impact Factor