» Articles » PMID: 23169493

A Focus Group Study on Breast Cancer Risk Presentation: One Format Does Not Fit All

Overview
Journal Eur J Hum Genet
Specialty Genetics
Date 2012 Nov 22
PMID 23169493
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Identifying a strategy that would optimize both the communication and understanding of the individual breast cancer risk remains a considerable challenge. This study explored the preferences of women with a family history of breast cancer about six presentation formats of individual breast cancer risk, as calculated from a risk prediction model. Thirty-four unaffected women attending genetic counseling because of a family history of breast cancer participated in six focus groups conducted in Québec City (2), Montréal (2) and Toronto (2), Canada. Six risk formats were presented for a fictitious case involving a 35-year-old woman (1-numerical: cumulative risk probabilities by age until 80 years; 2-risk curves: probabilities expressed in a risk curve that also provided a risk curve for a woman with no family history in first-degree relatives; 3-relative risk of breast cancer by age 80 years; 4 and 5-absolute risk of breast cancer and absolute chance of not developing breast cancer in the next 20 years; 6-qualitative: color-coded figure). Participants were asked to indicate their appreciation of each format. A group discussion followed during which participants commented on each format. The most and least appreciated formats were risk curves and relative risk, respectively. Overall, participants advocated the use of formats that combine quantitative, qualitative and visual features. Using a combination of approaches to communicate individual breast cancer risks could be associated with higher satisfaction of counselees. Given the increasing use of risk prediction models, it may be relevant to consider the preferences of both the counselee and the professional.

Citing Articles

Scope, Methods, and Overview Findings for the Making Numbers Meaningful Evidence Review of Communicating Probabilities in Health: A Systematic Review.

Ancker J, Benda N, Sharma M, Johnson S, Demetres M, Delgado D MDM Policy Pract. 2025; 10(1):23814683241255334.

PMID: 39995784 PMC: 11848889. DOI: 10.1177/23814683241255334.


How Point (Single-Probability) Tasks Are Affected by Probability Format, Part 2: A Making Numbers Meaningful Systematic Review.

Ancker J, Benda N, Sharma M, Johnson S, Demetres M, Delgado D MDM Policy Pract. 2025; 10(1):23814683241255337.

PMID: 39995775 PMC: 11848894. DOI: 10.1177/23814683241255337.


Development and evaluation of patient-centred polygenic risk score reports for glaucoma screening.

Hollitt G, Hassall M, Siggs O, Craig J, Souzeau E BMC Med Genomics. 2025; 18(1):21.

PMID: 39885483 PMC: 11783763. DOI: 10.1186/s12920-024-02079-z.


Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population.

Toes-Zoutendijk E, de Jonge L, Breekveldt E, Korfage I, Usher-Smith J, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I Prev Med Rep. 2023; 35:102325.

PMID: 37601828 PMC: 10433032. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102325.


Whether, when, how, and how much? General public's and cancer patients' views about the disclosure of genomic secondary findings.

Cleophat J, Dorval M, Haffaf Z, Chiquette J, Collins S, Malo B BMC Med Genomics. 2021; 14(1):167.

PMID: 34174888 PMC: 8236159. DOI: 10.1186/s12920-021-01016-8.


References
1.
Weitzel J, Blazer K, MacDonald D, Culver J, Offit K . Genetics, genomics, and cancer risk assessment: State of the Art and Future Directions in the Era of Personalized Medicine. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(5):327-59. PMC: 3346864. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20128. View

2.
Hutson S . Attitudes and psychological impact of genetic testing, genetic counseling, and breast cancer risk assessment among women at increased risk. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2003; 30(2):241-6. DOI: 10.1188/03.ONF.241-246. View

3.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R . Presenting risk information--a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001; 6(1):61-82. DOI: 10.1080/10810730150501413. View

4.
Gail M, Brinton L, Byar D, Corle D, Green S, Schairer C . Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989; 81(24):1879-86. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879. View

5.
Julian-Reynier C, Welkenhuysen M, Hagoel L, Decruyenaere M, Hopwood P . Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003; 11(10):725-36. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201037. View