Kaplan Celia P, Livaudais-Toman Jennifer, Tice Jeffrey A, Kerlikowske Karla, Gregorich Steven E, Pérez-Stable Eliseo J, Pasick Rena J, Chen Alice, Quinn Jessica, Karliner Leah S
Authors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California
Authors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine;
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Jul;23(7):1245-53. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1380. Epub 2014 Apr 24.
Assessment and discussion of individual risk for breast cancer within the primary care setting are crucial to discussion of risk reduction and timely referral.
We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a multiethnic, multilingual sample of women ages 40 to 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 before 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.
A total of 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% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-1.91], personal breast cancer risk (OR, 4.15; 95% CI, 3.02-5.70), high-risk clinics (OR, 3.84; 95% CI, 2.13-6.95), and genetic counseling/testing (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.34-3.68). Among high-risk women, all intervention effects were stronger.
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.
Next steps include scaling and dissemination of BreastCARE with integration into electronic medical record systems.
在初级保健机构中对个体乳腺癌风险进行评估和讨论对于降低风险的讨论以及及时转诊至关重要。
我们对来自两个初级保健机构(一个学术机构,一个安全网机构)的40至74岁的多民族、多语言女性样本进行了一项随机对照试验,以测试乳腺癌风险评估和教育干预措施。患者被随机分配到对照组或干预组。所有患者均完成了基线电话调查和风险评估(对照组通过电话进行,干预组在就诊前于诊所候诊室通过平板电脑进行)。干预组(BreastCARE)患者及其医生收到一份个性化风险报告,以便在就诊时进行讨论。对所有患者进行的为期一周的随访电话调查评估了医患之间关于家族癌症病史、个人乳腺癌风险、高风险诊所和遗传咨询/检测的讨论情况。
共有655名对照女性和580名干预组女性完成了风险评估和随访访谈;根据家族病史、盖尔模型或乳腺癌监测联盟风险模型,25%的女性属于高风险人群。BreastCARE增加了关于家族癌症病史的讨论[比值比(OR),1.54;95%置信区间(CI),1.25 - 1.91]、个人乳腺癌风险(OR,4.15;95% CI,3.02 - 5.70)、高风险诊所(OR,3.84;95% CI,2.13 - 6.95)以及遗传咨询/检测(OR,2.22;95% CI,1.34 - 3.68)。在高风险女性中,所有干预效果都更强。
一种将易于使用的快速风险评估工具与以患者为中心的即时护理风险报告相结合的干预措施能够成功促进患者与初级保健医生之间关于降低乳腺癌风险的讨论,特别是对于高风险女性。
下一步包括扩大BreastCARE的规模并进行推广,将其整合到电子病历系统中。