ArticleBritish journal of cancer2018
Psychological impact of providing women with personalised 10-year breast cancer risk estimates.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2025Pooled it
- "For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2024Pooled it
- A randomized study of 2 risk assessment models for individualized breast cancer risk estimation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Trial
- Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey.BMC cancer · 2024Trial
- Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).British journal of cancer · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Underserved Latinas' Perceptions and Implications Around Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- The breast cancer risk assessment pathway in England: a systems analysis of current challenges and ways to improve.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Acceptability of breast cancer risk assessment for women aged 30-49: Views of women from six under-served groups.PloS one · 2026Article
- Stratified/risk-based screening for colorectal cancer in the UK: an overview.Colorectal cancer · 2025Review
- Article
- An optimization framework to guide the choice of thresholds for risk-based cancer screening.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2023Article
- What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study.British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).British journal of cancer · 2023Article
- Validation Study on Risk-Reduction Activities after Exposure to a Personalized Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Education Tool in High-Risk Women in the WISDOM Study.Research square · 2023Article
- Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Personalized breast cancer screening with selective addition of digital breast tomosynthesis through artificial intelligence.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2023Article
- The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a 'think-aloud' study.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Healthcare professionals' views following implementation of risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme.BMC cancer · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Predicting Risk of Cancer at Screening (PROCAS) study estimated 10-year breast cancer risk for 53,596 women attending NHS Breast Screening Programme. The present study, nested within the PROCAS study, aimed to assess the psychological impact of receiving breast cancer risk estimates, based on: (a) the Tyrer-Cuzick (T-C) algorithm including breast density or (b) T-C including breast density plus single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), versus (c) comparison women awaiting results.
methodsA sample of 2138 women from the PROCAS study was stratified by testing groups: T-C only, T-C(+SNPs) and comparison women; and by 10-year risk estimates received: 'moderate' (5-7.99%), 'average' (2-4.99%) or 'below average' (<1.99%) risk. Postal questionnaires were returned by 765 (36%) women.
resultsOverall state anxiety and cancer worry were low, and similar for women in T-C only and T-C(+SNPs) groups. Women in both T-C only and T-C(+SNPs) groups showed lower-state anxiety but slightly higher cancer worry than comparison women awaiting results. Risk information had no consistent effects on intentions to change behaviour. Most women were satisfied with information provided. There was considerable variation in understanding.
conclusionsNo major harms of providing women with 10-year breast cancer risk estimates were detected. Research to establish the feasibility of risk-stratified breast screening is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.