Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42547566›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2026

Priorities for breast cancer risk assessment in UK women under age 50: a survey and discrete choice experiment.

Rebecca A Dennison, Maria Valasaki, Stuart Wright, Reuben Frost, Sacha J Howell, Antonis C Antoniou, Douglas F Easton, Stephen Morris, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Victoria G Woof and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Rebecca A DennisonPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0847-0723
Maria ValasakiPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8786-9731
Stuart WrightManchester Centre for Health Economics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-7998
Reuben FrostDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Sacha J HowellDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8141-6515
Antonis C AntoniouCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Douglas F EastonCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2444-3247
Stephen MorrisPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5828-3563
Montserrat Garcia-ClosasDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Victoria G WoofDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
David P FrenchDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7663-7804
Juliet A Usher-SmithPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. jau20@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8501-2531

Funding

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) EDDAMC-2023/100004Cancer Research UK (CRUK) PPRPGM-Nov20\100002Cancer Research UK (CRUK) SEBCD3-2024/100001DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) NIHR203308DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) NIHR305827
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNational guidelines recommend English women between 30 and 49 years with moderate/high risk of breast cancer (BC) be offered screening and prevention interventions. Identification  largely relies on family history-based criteria amongst women self-presenting in primary care. We aimed to understand the preference for different potential risk assessment strategies in this population.

methodsA cross-sectional survey including a discrete choice experiment. Risk assessments were defined using six attributes, including initiation strategy, eligibility for a full/detailed risk assessment, components of the risk assessment, including multifactorial risk assessment based on the BOADICEA/CanRisk model, and sensitivity. Coefficients from conditional logistic regression were used to estimate preference for different risk assessment approaches compared to current care.

resultsParticipants (n = 893) preferred alternative approaches for risk assessments over current care, particularly where all eligible women were proactively invited and more above-average risk women were correctly identified. All but one of 21 risk assessment approaches was preferred, with the most favoured approaches having a probability of being preferred over current care >92%. Education level and ethnicity potentially impacted the strength of participant priorities.

conclusionsOffering multifactorial BC risk assessments to younger women in primary care, especially the most proactive and broad approaches, would be acceptable and preferred over current practice.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.