Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 101, Issue 1, pp 95–104 | Cite as

The impact of breast cancer awareness and socioeconomic status on willingness to receive breast cancer prevention drugs

  • Peter A. FaschingEmail author
  • Gunter von Minckwitz
  • Thorsten Fischer
  • Manfred Kaufmann
  • Beate Schultz-Zehden
  • Heike Beck
  • Michael P. Lux
  • Volker Jacobs
  • Harald Meden
  • Marion Kiechle
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
  • Stefan Paepke
Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose

To find associations between knowledge about risk factors for breast cancer and the socioeconomic status of healthy women, as well as their attitude toward taking chemopreventive drugs.

Patients and methods

Between April and September 1999, 7135 healthy women completed questionnaires providing information about their willingness to take chemopreventive drugs. Items in the questionnaire included the sources of the information they had, their estimates of the population and personal lifetime risk, and risk factors for breast cancer.

Results

A total of 6597 questionnaires were evaluable. The responders’ median age was 44. Fifty-five percent of the women were willing to consider receiving chemopreventive drugs to lower their risk for breast cancer. Participants who estimated the population risk as being very high were more disposed to receive chemoprevention (65.3%), as were women who estimated their own breast cancer risk as being high (74.1%). A family history of breast cancer only had a low impact on willingness to receive chemoprevention. Women with a family history of breast cancer were willing to take chemopreventive agents in 57.2% of cases. The multivariate analysis showed that knowing about risk factors and having a lower educational level were factors positively correlated with willingness to consider chemoprevention.

Conclusion

These findings emphasize the role of estimations of the risk of breast cancer for patients considering whether to accept chemoprevention treatment. To date, only a few modern models of risk estimation have been evaluated in relation to chemoprevention. There is a need for better integration of professional risk estimations into clinical practice.

Keywords

Breast cancer prevention Clinical trials Chemoprevention Survey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cuzick J, Forbes J, Edwards R et al (2002) First results from the International Breast Cancer Intervention Study (IBIS-I): a randomised prevention trial. Lancet 360:817–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL et al (1998) Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1371–1388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Powles T, Eeles R, Ashley S et al (1998) Interim analysis of the incidence of breast cancer in the Royal Marsden Hospital tamoxifen randomised chemoprevention trial. Lancet 352:98–101PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Veronesi U, Maisonneuve P, Sacchini V et al (2002) Tamoxifen for breast cancer among hysterectomised women. Lancet 359:1122–1124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cauley JA, Norton L, Lippman ME et al (2001) Continued breast cancer risk reduction in postmenopausal women treated with raloxifene: 4-year results from the MORE trial. Multiple outcomes of raloxifene evaluation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 65:125–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cuzick J, Powles T, Veronesi U et al (2003) Overview of the main outcomes in breast-cancer prevention trials. Lancet 361:296–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S et al (2003) A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 349:1793–1802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ATAC Trialists (2002) Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early breast cancer: first results of the ATAC randomised trial. Lancet 359:2131–2139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thurlimann B, for the BIG 1-98 Collaborative Group X: BIG 1-98 (2005) A prospective randomized double-blind double-dummy phase III study to evaluate letrozole as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast 14(Suppl 1):S3Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ et al (2004) A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 350:1081–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jakesz R, Kaufmann M, Gnant M et al (2004) Benefits of switching postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer to anastrozole after 2 years adjuvant tamoxifen: combined results from 3,123 women enrolled in the ABCSG Trial 8 and the ARNO 95 Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 88(Suppl 1):S7Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cuzick J (2005) Aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol 23:1636–1643PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siminoff LA, Zhang A, Colabianchi N et al (2000) Factors that predict the referral of breast cancer patients onto clinical trials by their surgeons and medical oncologists. J Clin Oncol 18:1203–1211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lara PN Jr, Higdon R, Lim N et al (2001) Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrollment. J Clin Oncol 19:1728–1733PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paskett ED, Cooper MR, Stark N et al (2002) Clinical trial enrollment of rural patients with cancer. Cancer Pract 10:28–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Murthy VH, Krumholz HM, Gross CP (2004) Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 291:2720–2726PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gross CP, Murthy V, Li Y et al (2004) Cancer trial enrollment after state-mandated reimbursement. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1063–1069PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gross CP, Krumholz HM (2005) Impact of managed care on cancer trial enrollment. J Clin Oncol 23:3811–3818PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ellis PM, Butow PN, Simes RJ et al (1999) Barriers to participation in randomized clinical trials for early breast cancer among Australian cancer specialists. Aust NZ J Surg 69:486–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ellis PM, Butow PN, Tattersall MH et al (2001) Randomized clinical trials in oncology: understanding and attitudes predict willingness to participate. J Clin Oncol 19:3554–3561PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Simon MS, Du W, Flaherty L et al (2004) Factors associated with breast cancer clinical trials participation and enrollment at a large academic medical center. J Clin Oncol 22:2046–2052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gross CP, Filardo G, Mayne ST et al (2005) The impact of socioeconomic status and race on trial participation for older women with breast cancer. Cancer 103:483–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Powles TJ (2002) Breast cancer prevention. Oncologist 7:60–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    von Minckwitz G, Prieshof B, Hofmann K et al (2002) Prevention with goserelin and ibandronate in premenopausal women with familial breast cancer risk: first experiences of the GISS study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 267(Suppl 1):S52Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vernon SW, Yeomans AC, Frankowski R et al (1995) Behavioral and social factors that predict participation in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. Ann NY Acad Sci 768:300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeomans-Kinney A, Vernon SW, Frankowski RF et al (1995) Factors related to enrollment in the breast cancer prevention trial at a comprehensive cancer center during the first year of recruitment. Cancer 76:46–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yeomans Kinney AY, Richards C, Vernon SW et al (1998) The effect of physician recommendation on enrollment in the Breast Cancer Chemoprevention Trial. Prev Med 27:713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yeomans Kinney A, Vernon SW, Shui W et al (1998) Validation of a model predicting enrollment status in a chemoprevention trial for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 7:591–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wacholder S (2004) Bias in intervention studies that enroll patients from high-risk clinics. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1204–1207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Paepke S, Schubert R, Huttner C et al (2000) Breast cancer awareness and screening behavior: a cross-sectional analysis of 2110 women. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 60:620–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP et al (1989) Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1879–1886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD (1994) Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer: implications for risk prediction. Cancer 73:643–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O (1998) Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 62:145–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Antoniou AC, Pharoah PP, Smith P et al (2004) The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer. Br J Cancer 91:1580–1590PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J (2004) A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med 23:1111–1130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Amir E, Evans DG, Shenton A et al (2003) Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment packages in the family history evaluation and screening programme. J Med Genet 40:807–814PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fasching PA, Nestle-Kraemling C, Bani M et al (2004) Breast cancer risk assessment in clinical use: prediction of BRCA mutation and estimation of lifetime risk by BRCAPRO, MENDEL and the Tyrer–Cuzick model. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 130(Suppl):S57Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Fasching
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gunter von Minckwitz
    • 2
  • Thorsten Fischer
    • 3
  • Manfred Kaufmann
    • 4
  • Beate Schultz-Zehden
    • 5
  • Heike Beck
    • 6
  • Michael P. Lux
    • 1
  • Volker Jacobs
    • 3
  • Harald Meden
    • 7
  • Marion Kiechle
    • 3
  • Matthias W. Beckmann
    • 1
  • Stefan Paepke
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsErlangen University HospitalErlangenGermany
  2. 2.German Breast GroupNeu IsenburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsTechnical University MunichMunichGermany
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity Hospital of FrankfurtFrankfurtGermany
  5. 5.Department of Medical PsychologyCharite University HospitalBerlinGermany
  6. 6.OffenburgGermany
  7. 7.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyDiakoniekrankenhausRotenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations