在初级保健中实施乳腺癌风险评估程序。

Sarah Tucker Marrison, Caitlin G Allen, Kevin Hughes, Holly Raines, Mattie Banks, Travita Lee, Kiersten Meeder, Vanessa Diaz
{"title":"在初级保健中实施乳腺癌风险评估程序。","authors":"Sarah Tucker Marrison, Caitlin G Allen, Kevin Hughes, Holly Raines, Mattie Banks, Travita Lee, Kiersten Meeder, Vanessa Diaz","doi":"10.15406/jcpcr.2024.15.00552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend assessing breast cancer risk using validated risk calculators such as Tyrer-Cuzick and assessing genetic testing eligibility with NCCN. Women at high-risk of breast cancer may be recommended to undergo additional or earlier screening. Risk assessment is not consistently implemented in the primary care setting resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in unidentified high-risk individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-arm interventional study was conducted in an academic primary care clinic for women 25-50 years old presenting for primary care appointments. Pre-visit workflows evaluated breast cancer risk using the Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA) Tool and information was provided to the clinician with guideline-based recommendations. Post-visit questionnaires and chart review were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey response rate was 24.5% (144/587) with 80.3% of responses completed online (94/117). The average age of respondents was 35.8 years with 50.4% White and 35.9% Black. There were no differences in response rate based on race. Risk discussion was documented in the medical record in 15.4% of cases with a higher rate of documentation in high-risk patient based on risk assessment as compared with average risk respondents (34.6% vs. 9.7%, p<0.01). In the high-risk women identified 11.4% (4/35) were seen by the high-risk breast clinic, and 5.7% (2/35) were referred for genetic evaluation. None had previously obtained MRI screening or genetic testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is limited identification and evaluation of women at high risk for breast cancer. Pre-visit surveys can be used as a tool to assess breast cancer risk in the primary care setting; however additional strategies are needed to implement systematic risk assessment and facilitate appropriate treatment based on risk level.</p>","PeriodicalId":520235,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cancer prevention & current research","volume":"15 3","pages":"65-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11434167/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Tucker Marrison, Caitlin G Allen, Kevin Hughes, Holly Raines, Mattie Banks, Travita Lee, Kiersten Meeder, Vanessa Diaz\",\"doi\":\"10.15406/jcpcr.2024.15.00552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend assessing breast cancer risk using validated risk calculators such as Tyrer-Cuzick and assessing genetic testing eligibility with NCCN. Women at high-risk of breast cancer may be recommended to undergo additional or earlier screening. Risk assessment is not consistently implemented in the primary care setting resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in unidentified high-risk individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-arm interventional study was conducted in an academic primary care clinic for women 25-50 years old presenting for primary care appointments. Pre-visit workflows evaluated breast cancer risk using the Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA) Tool and information was provided to the clinician with guideline-based recommendations. Post-visit questionnaires and chart review were conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survey response rate was 24.5% (144/587) with 80.3% of responses completed online (94/117). The average age of respondents was 35.8 years with 50.4% White and 35.9% Black. There were no differences in response rate based on race. Risk discussion was documented in the medical record in 15.4% of cases with a higher rate of documentation in high-risk patient based on risk assessment as compared with average risk respondents (34.6% vs. 9.7%, p<0.01). In the high-risk women identified 11.4% (4/35) were seen by the high-risk breast clinic, and 5.7% (2/35) were referred for genetic evaluation. None had previously obtained MRI screening or genetic testing.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is limited identification and evaluation of women at high risk for breast cancer. Pre-visit surveys can be used as a tool to assess breast cancer risk in the primary care setting; however additional strategies are needed to implement systematic risk assessment and facilitate appropriate treatment based on risk level.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520235,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cancer prevention & current research\",\"volume\":\"15 3\",\"pages\":\"65-69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11434167/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cancer prevention & current research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15406/jcpcr.2024.15.00552\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cancer prevention & current research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15406/jcpcr.2024.15.00552","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:目前的癌症预防指南建议使用有效的风险计算器(如 Tyrer-Cuzick)评估乳腺癌风险,并根据 NCCN 评估基因检测资格。可能会建议乳腺癌高风险妇女接受额外或更早的筛查。在初级医疗机构中,风险评估的实施并不一致,导致未识别的高危人群的发病率和死亡率增加:方法:在一家学术性初级保健诊所开展了一项单臂干预研究,对象是前来进行初级保健预约的 25-50 岁女性。就诊前工作流程使用癌症风险评估(CRA)工具评估乳腺癌风险,并向临床医生提供基于指南的建议信息。就诊后进行了问卷调查和病历审查:调查回复率为 24.5%(144/587),其中 80.3% 的回复是在线完成的(94/117)。受访者的平均年龄为 35.8 岁,其中白人占 50.4%,黑人占 35.9%。不同种族的回复率没有差异。有 15.4% 的病例在病历中记录了风险讨论,根据风险评估记录的高风险患者的比例高于普通风险受访者(34.6% 对 9.7%,P 结论:对乳腺癌高危妇女的识别和评估有限。就诊前调查可作为在初级保健环境中评估乳腺癌风险的一种工具;然而,还需要更多的策略来实施系统的风险评估,并根据风险水平促进适当的治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care.

Background: Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend assessing breast cancer risk using validated risk calculators such as Tyrer-Cuzick and assessing genetic testing eligibility with NCCN. Women at high-risk of breast cancer may be recommended to undergo additional or earlier screening. Risk assessment is not consistently implemented in the primary care setting resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in unidentified high-risk individuals.

Methods: A single-arm interventional study was conducted in an academic primary care clinic for women 25-50 years old presenting for primary care appointments. Pre-visit workflows evaluated breast cancer risk using the Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA) Tool and information was provided to the clinician with guideline-based recommendations. Post-visit questionnaires and chart review were conducted.

Results: The survey response rate was 24.5% (144/587) with 80.3% of responses completed online (94/117). The average age of respondents was 35.8 years with 50.4% White and 35.9% Black. There were no differences in response rate based on race. Risk discussion was documented in the medical record in 15.4% of cases with a higher rate of documentation in high-risk patient based on risk assessment as compared with average risk respondents (34.6% vs. 9.7%, p<0.01). In the high-risk women identified 11.4% (4/35) were seen by the high-risk breast clinic, and 5.7% (2/35) were referred for genetic evaluation. None had previously obtained MRI screening or genetic testing.

Conclusions: There is limited identification and evaluation of women at high risk for breast cancer. Pre-visit surveys can be used as a tool to assess breast cancer risk in the primary care setting; however additional strategies are needed to implement systematic risk assessment and facilitate appropriate treatment based on risk level.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1