Abstract P5-13-03: Breast cancer risk assessment for underserved minority women in primary care: patient and provider perspectives
Authors: Hoskins KF , Anderson EE , Tejedo S , Stolley M , Van de Wydeven K , Korah V , Moreno L , Rojas M , Carillo A , Caseras M , Awolala Y , Calhoun E , Campbell R , Warnecke R 
Published: August 2014

Background: Individualized breast cancer risk assessment can identify women at increased risk who are candidates for interventions with proven benefit, including chemoprevention, enhanced surveillance, genetic testing and risk-reducing surgery. Systematic risk assessment and prescription of individualized, risk-adapted cancer control recommendations provides a novel method for addressing cancer disparities in underserved minority women. Widespread dissemination of these approaches requires implementation in the primary care setting.

Purpose: to determine potential benefits and harms of a policy for routinely providing personalized breast cancer risk assessment for underserved minority women from the perspectives of patients and primary care providers (PCPs), and to explore ethical implications of breast cancer risk communication in this patient population.

Methods: African American and Hispanic women age 25–69 years without a history of breast cancer, presenting for a routine scheduled appointment with their primary provider at a Federally Qualified Health Center were invited to participate in a study on women's views about breast cancer risk. Breast cancer risk factor data was collected from all participants and individualized risk assessments were performed using three models (NCI BCRAT, Claus model and a pedigree assessment tool). PCPs discussed the results of the assessment with their patients and provided computer-generated, risk-adapted recommendations for screening and prevention that are based on national guidelines. Using a mixed methods approach, we collected quantitative survey data from participants at baseline (prior to receipt of risk information), immediately following the encounter with their PCP and two weeks later. We also used qualitative approaches in a subgroup of participants from each of three risk strata (general population risk, moderately-increased and high risk) including audio-recorded observational data from physician-patient interactions and in-depth interviews with patients and physicians in order to evaluate how women process risk information and make decisions regarding how to act on that information. Data collected broadly focused on the following topics: Interpretation and initial reaction to the personalized risk information provided by the PCPWhat it means to be “at (baseline, moderate, high) risk”Views on value of/potential benefits and harms of personalized risk informationLevel of trust in the informationPreferences regarding recommended surveillance strategies and risk reduction strategies (for moderate and high risk groups)Preferences regarding shared decision makingFuture plans/action steps based on personalized risk informationPerceptions of the manner that personalized risk information was presented to them by their PCP

Results: We are planning to enroll 480 participants for the quantitative survey portion and 48 participants for in-depth qualitative data collection, including audio-recorded patient-physician interactions and in-depth patient interviews, along with 8 in-depth provider interviews. Data collection is ongoing and results will be presented.

Acknowledgement: This research was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (2P50CA106743)

Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-13-03.