ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2024
Are Women's Breast Cancer Risk Appraisals in Line with Updated Clinical Risk Estimates Communicated? Results from a UK Family History Risk and Prevention Clinic.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considering Clinical Implementation of Polygenic Scores in Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment: Recipients' Perspectives on Influencing Factors and Strategies.The patient · 2025Article
- Illness risk representations underlying women's breast cancer risk appraisals: A theory-informed qualitative analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe incorporation of breast density and a polygenic risk score (PRS) into breast cancer risk prediction models can alter previously communicated risk estimates. Previous research finds that risk communication does not usually change personal risk appraisals. This study aimed to examine how women from the family history risk study appraise their breast cancer risk following communication of an updated risk estimate.
methodsIn the family history risk study, 323 women attended a consultation to receive an updated breast cancer risk estimate. A subset (n = 190) completed a questionnaire, assessing their subjective breast cancer risk appraisals, satisfaction with the information provided, and cancer-related worry. One hundred and three were notified of a decreased risk, 34 an increased risk, and 53 an unchanged risk.
resultsWomen's subjective risk appraisals were in line with the updated risk estimates provided, with age, a PRS, and breast density explaining most of the variance in these appraisals. Those notified of an increased risk demonstrated higher subjective risk perceptions compared with those whose risk remained unchanged or decreased.
conclusionsWomen's subjective breast cancer risk appraisals are amenable to change following updated risk feedback, with new information breast density and a PRS accepted and integrated into existing risk appraisals. Trust in the service, the analogies, and visual communication strategies used may have positively influenced the integration of this new information. IMPACT: Further research is warranted to assess whether similar patterns emerge for other illnesses and in different clinical contexts to determine the best strategies for communicating updated risk estimates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.