Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Jul;23(7):1245-53. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1380. Epub 2014 Apr 24.

A randomized, controlled trial to increase discussion of breast cancer in primary care.

Author information

1
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 celia.kaplan@ucsf.edu.
2
Authors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine;
3
Authors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; and.
4
Authors' Affiliations: Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine; Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
5
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.

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 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.

RESULTS:

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.

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.

PMID:
24762560
PMCID:
PMC4167008
DOI:
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-1380
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center