Mammography Screening 2.0 – How Can Risk-Adapted Screening be Implemented in Clinical Practice?

Abstract

Introduction The mammography screening programme has been the subject of criticism for some time. Invitation to take part is currently based only on the risk factors of age and female sex, whereby women with an above-average risk are screened too seldom and women with a low risk are possibly screened too often. In future, an individualised risk assessment could make a risk-adapted procedure possible in breast cancer screening. In the RISIKOLOTSE.DE project, schemes are devised to calculate the individual breast cancer risk and evaluate the results. The aim is to assist doctors and screening participants in participatory decision-making. To gauge the baseline situation in the target groups, qualitative and quantitative surveys were conducted.

Method At the start of the project, a guideline-based focus group discussion was held with 15 doctors and representatives of the public health service. The transcript of this discussion was evaluated by means of a qualitative content analysis.

Results The participants assessed the concept of risk-adapted screening positively overall. At the same time, the majority of them were of the opinion that the results of individualised risk calculation can be understood and evaluated adequately only by doctors. The great communication requirement and lack of remuneration were given as practical obstacles to implementation.

Discussion The suggestions and new ideas from the focus group ranged from administrative and regulatory changes to new forms of counselling and adaptable practice aids. An important indicator for the RISIKOLOTSE.DE conception and for planning future surveys was that risk calculation for mammography screening 2.0 was regarded as a purely medical function and that the concept of participatory decision-making played hardly any part in the discussion.

Key words

focus group - mammography screening - breast cancer risk - risk-adapted screening - participatory decision-making

^* These authors contributed equally to the study.

• References/Literatur

• 1 Quante AS, Ming C, Rottmann M. et al. Projections of cancer incidence and cancer-related deaths in Germany by 2020 and 2030. Cancer Med 2016; 5: 2649-2656
• 2 Albert U, Altland H, Duda V. et al. Kurzfassung der aktualisierten Stufe-3-Leitlinie Brustkrebs-Früherkennung in Deutschland 2008. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2008; 68: 251-261
• 3 Gøtzsche P, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (06) CD001877
• 4 Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet 2012; 380: 1778-1786
• 5 International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. Online: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_cancer.aspx last access: 10.01.2016
• 6 Quante AS, Whittemore AS, Shriver T. et al. Breast cancer risk assessment across the risk continuum: genetic and nongenetic risk factors contributing to differential model performance. Breast Cancer Res 2012; 14: R144
• 7 Hellquist BN, Duffy SW, Abdsaleh S. et al. Effectiveness of population-based service screening with mammography for women ages 40 to 49 years. Cancer 2011; 117: 714-722
• 8 van Schoor G, Moss SM, Otten JD. et al. Effective biennial mammographic screening in women aged 40-49. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 3137-3140
• 9 Venturini E, Losio C, Panizza P. et al. Tailored breast cancer screening program with microdose mammography, US, and MR Imaging: short-term results of a pilot study in 40-49-year-old women. Radiology 2013; 268: 347-355
• 10 Evans DG, Warwick J, Astley SM. et al. Assessing individual breast cancer risk within the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Program: a new paradigm for cancer prevention. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2012; 5: 943-951
• 11 Schmutzler R. Konsensusempfehlung des Deutschen Konsortiums Familiärer Brust- und Eierstockkrebs zum Umgang mit Ergebnissen der Multigenanalyse. Geburtsh Frauenheilk 2017; 77: 733-739
• 12 Kiechle M. Brustkrebsfrüherkennung – Zielgruppen, Methoden, Nutzen und Nebenwirkungen. Onkologe 2016; 22: 550-557
• 13 Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer 1994; 73: 643-651
• 14 Albert U, Kalder M, Schulte H. et al. Das populationsbezogene Mammografie-Screening-Programm in Deutschland: Inanspruchnahme und erste Erfahrungen von Frauen in 10 Bundesländern. Gesundheitswesen 2012; 74: 61-70
• 15 Dierks M-L, Schmacke N. Mammografie-Screening und informierte Entscheidung – mehr Fragen als Antworten. Gesundheitsmonitor Newsletter 2014; 1: 1-15
• 16 Wegwarth O, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. et al. Do physicians understand cancer screening statistics? A national survey of primary care physicians in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 340-349
• 17 Morgan DL. Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociol 1996; 22: 129-152
• 18 Przyborski A, Riegler J. Gruppendiskussion und Fokusgruppe. In: Mey G, Mruck K. Hrsg. Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag; 2010: 436-448
• 19 Dresing T, Pehl T. Praxisbuch Transkription. Regelsysteme, Software und praktische Anleitungen für qualitative ForscherInnen. Marburg: Eigenverlag; 2011
• 20 Dresing T, Pehl T. Transkription. In: Mey G, Mruck K. Hrsg. Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag; 2010: 436-448
• 21 Mayring P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey G, Mruck K. Hrsg. Handbuch qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer Verlag; 2010: 601-613
• 22 Mayring P, Fenzl T. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Baur N, Blasius J. Hrsg. Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag; 2014: 543-556
• 23 Gläser-Zikuda M. Qualitative Auswertungsverfahren. In: Reinders H. Hrsg. Empirische Bildungsforschung. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | Springer Fachmedien; 2011: 109-119
• 24 Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 2004; 23: 1111-1130
• 25 Krebsinformationsdienst, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum. Risikofaktoren für Brustkrebs. Heidelberg: Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum [updated 2014 Aug 14; cited 2016 Jan 10]. Online: https://www.krebsinformationsdienst.de/tumorarten/brustkrebs/brustkrebsrisiken-uebersicht.php%23inhalt3 last access: 07.05.2018
• 26 (G-BA) Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Früherkennung von Krebserkrankungen (Krebsfrüherkennungs-Richtlinie/KFE-RL). In der Fassung vom 18 Jun 2009, veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger 2009, Nr. 148a, zuletzt geändert am 24 Jul 2014, veröffentlicht im Bundesanzeiger AT 31.12.2014 B4, in Kraft getreten am 01 Jan 2015.
• 27 Stefanek ME. Uninformed compliance or informed choice? A needed shift in our approach to cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1821-1826
• 28 Wegwarth O, Gigerenzer G. The barrier to informed choice in cancer screening: statistical illiteracy in physicians and patients. Recent Results Cancer Res 2018; 210: 207-221
• 29 Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patientsʼ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med 2015; 175: 274-286
• 30 Stiggelbout AM, Van der Weijden T, De Wit MP. et al. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ 2012; 344: e256
• 31 Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP. et al. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81: 1879-1886
• 32 Baur N, Blasius J. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. In: Baur N, Blasius J. Hrsg. Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag; 2014: 543-556
• 33 Vogel S. Gruppendiskussion. In: Baur N, Blasius J. Hrsg. Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer Verlag; 2014: 581-586