Implementing Multifactorial Risk Assessment with Polygenic Risk Scores for Personalized Breast Cancer Screening in the Population Setting: Challenges and Opportunities
Meghan J. Walker,Kristina M. Blackmore,Amy Chang,Laurence Lambert-Côté,Annie Turgeon,Antonis C. Antoniou,Kathleen A. Bell,Mireille J. M. Broeders,Jennifer D. Brooks,Tim Carver,Jocelyne Chiquette,Philippe Després,Douglas F. Easton,Andrea Eisen,Laurence Eloy,D. Gareth Evans,Samantha Fienberg,Yann Joly,Raymond H. Kim,Shana J. Kim,Bartha M. Knoppers,Aisha K. Lofters,Hermann Nabi,Jean-Sébastien Paquette,Nora Pashayan,Amanda J. Sheppard,Tracy L. Stockley,Michel Dorval,Jacques Simard,Anna M. Chiarelli
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16112116
2024-06-01
Cancers
Abstract:Risk-stratified breast screening has been proposed as a strategy to overcome the limitations of age-based screening. A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which will generate the first Canadian evidence on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting to inform the implementation of risk-stratified screening. Recruited females aged 40–69 unaffected by breast cancer, with a previous mammogram, underwent multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment. The adoption of multifactorial risk assessment, the effectiveness of methods for collecting risk factor information and the costs of risk assessment were examined. Associations between participant characteristics and study sites, as well as data collection methods, were assessed using logistic regression; all p-values are two-sided. Of the 4246 participants recruited, 88.4% completed a risk assessment, with 79.8%, 15.7% and 4.4% estimated at average, higher than average and high risk, respectively. The total per-participant cost for risk assessment was CAD 315. Participants who chose to provide risk factor information on paper/telephone (27.2%) vs. online were more likely to be older (p = 0.021), not born in Canada (p = 0.043), visible minorities (p = 0.01) and have a lower attained education (p < 0.0001) and perceived fair/poor health (p < 0.001). The 34.4% of participants requiring risk factor verification for missing/unusual values were more likely to be visible minorities (p = 0.009) and have a lower attained education (p ≤ 0.006). This study demonstrates the feasibility of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level. Implementation should incorporate an equity lens to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened.
oncology