» Articles » PMID: 19209174

Measuring, and Identifying Predictors of Women's Perceptions of Three Types of Breast Cancer Risk: Population Risk, Absolute Risk and Comparative Risk

Overview
Journal Br J Cancer
Specialty Oncology
Date 2009 Feb 12
PMID 19209174
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although a key function of cancer genetics services is to provide risk information, to date there has been little consistency in the way in which breast cancer risk perception has been measured. The aims of the study were to measure estimates of (i) population risk, (ii) absolute risk and (iii) comparative risk of developing breast cancer for Ashkenazi Jewish women, and to determine predictors of breast cancer risk perception. Of 152 women, 107 (70%) completed all questions. The mean (s.d.) estimates for population risk, absolute risk and comparative risk were 22.7% (15.9), 31.8% (20.6) and 1.9-fold (1.9), respectively. Most women overestimated population risk. Women at population risk generally overestimated the population risk and their own absolute risk, yet understood they are at the same risk as the population. Those with a family history understood that they are at increased risk, but underestimated the extent to which their familial risk is increased. Anxiety, high estimation of population risk and lesser family history predicted overestimation of absolute risk, whereas high estimation of population risk and a strong family history predicted underestimation of comparative risk.

Citing Articles

Patient opinions on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A patient-driven discussion in need of tuning?.

Brown Z, Schellenberg A, Cordeiro E, Holloway C, Scheer A, Eisen A Can J Surg. 2022; 65(2):E250-E256.

PMID: 35365498 PMC: 8979655. DOI: 10.1503/cjs.003420.


"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.

Rosenberg S, Gierisch J, Revette A, Lowenstein C, Frank E, Collyar D Cancer. 2022; 128(8):1676-1683.

PMID: 35191017 PMC: 9274613. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34126.


Breast Cancer Risk Perceptions among Relatives of Women with Uninformative Negative BRCA1/2 Test Results: The Moderating Effect of the Amount of Shared Information.

Himes D, Clayton M, Donaldson G, Ellington L, Buys S, Kinney A J Genet Couns. 2015; 25(2):258-69.

PMID: 26245632 PMC: 4799250. DOI: 10.1007/s10897-015-9866-0.


Local Therapy Decision-Making and Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Young Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

Rosenberg S, Sepucha K, Ruddy K, Tamimi R, Gelber S, Meyer M Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22(12):3809-15.

PMID: 25930247 PMC: 4598267. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-015-4572-6.


Perceptions, knowledge, and satisfaction with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among young women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional survey.

Rosenberg S, Tracy M, Meyer M, Sepucha K, Gelber S, Hirshfield-Bartek J Ann Intern Med. 2013; 159(6):373-81.

PMID: 24042365 PMC: 3968260. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-159-6-201309170-00003.

References
1.
Hopwood P, Howell A, Lalloo F, Evans G . Do women understand the odds? Risk perceptions and recall of risk information in women with a family history of breast cancer. Community Genet. 2004; 6(4):214-23. DOI: 10.1159/000079383. View

2.
Gurmankin Levy A, Shea J, Williams S, Quistberg A, Armstrong K . Measuring perceptions of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006; 15(10):1893-8. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0482. View

3.
Edwards A, Evans R, Dundon J, Haigh S, Hood K, Elwyn G . Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; (4):CD001865. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001865.pub2. View

4.
Hakes J, Viscusi W . Dead reckoning: demographic determinants of the accuracy of mortality risk perceptions. Risk Anal. 2004; 24(3):651-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00465.x. View

5.
Dillard A, McCaul K, Kelso P, Klein W . Resisting good news: reactions to breast cancer risk communication. Health Commun. 2006; 19(2):115-23. DOI: 10.1207/s15327027hc1902_3. View