PURPOSE: We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics associated with participation in a clinical trial testing the efficacy of an online tool to support breast cancer risk communication and decision support for risk mitigation to determine the generalizability of trial results. METHODS: Eligible women were members of Kaiser Permanente Washington aged 40-69 years with a recent normal screening mammogram, heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and a calculated risk of > 1.67% based on the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year breast cancer risk model. Trial outcomes were chemoprevention and breast magnetic resonance imaging by 12-months post-baseline. Women were recruited via mail with phone follow-up using plain language materials notifying them of their density status and higher than average breast cancer risk. Multivariable logistic regression calculated independent odds ratios (ORs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics with trial participation. RESULTS: Of 2,569 eligible women contacted, 995 (38.7%) participated. Women with some college (OR = 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.96) or college degree (OR = 3.35, 95% CI 2.29-4.90) were more likely to participate than high school-educated women. Race/ethnicity also was associated with participation (African-American OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87; Asian OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41). Multivariate adjusted ORs for family history of breast/ovarian cancer were not associated with trial participation. DISCUSSION: Use of plain language and potential access to a website providing personal breast cancer risk information and education were insufficient in achieving representative participation in a breast cancer prevention trial. Additional methods of targeting and tailoring, potentially facilitated by clinical and community outreach, are needed to facilitate equitable engagement for all women.
PURPOSE: We evaluated demographic and clinical characteristics associated with participation in a clinical trial testing the efficacy of an online tool to support breast cancer risk communication and decision support for risk mitigation to determine the generalizability of trial results. METHODS: Eligible women were members of Kaiser Permanente Washington aged 40-69 years with a recent normal screening mammogram, heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts and a calculated risk of > 1.67% based on the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium 5-year breast cancer risk model. Trial outcomes were chemoprevention and breast magnetic resonance imaging by 12-months post-baseline. Women were recruited via mail with phone follow-up using plain language materials notifying them of their density status and higher than average breast cancer risk. Multivariable logistic regression calculated independent odds ratios (ORs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics with trial participation. RESULTS: Of 2,569 eligible women contacted, 995 (38.7%) participated. Women with some college (OR = 1.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.96) or college degree (OR = 3.35, 95% CI 2.29-4.90) were more likely to participate than high school-educated women. Race/ethnicity also was associated with participation (African-American OR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.87; Asian OR = 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41). Multivariate adjusted ORs for family history of breast/ovarian cancer were not associated with trial participation. DISCUSSION: Use of plain language and potential access to a website providing personal breast cancer risk information and education were insufficient in achieving representative participation in a breast cancer prevention trial. Additional methods of targeting and tailoring, potentially facilitated by clinical and community outreach, are needed to facilitate equitable engagement for all women.
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Anne Marie McCarthy; Brad M Keller; Lauren M Pantalone; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Marie Synnestvedt; Emily F Conant; Katrina Armstrong; Despina Kontos Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2016-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Lina Nayak; Kanae K Miyake; Jessica W T Leung; Elissa R Price; Yueyi I Liu; Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles; William R Thomas; Jafi A Lipson; Bruce L Daniel; Jonathan Hargreaves; R James Brenner; Lawrence W Bassett; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Karen K Lindfors; Stephen A Feig; Debra M Ikeda Journal: Breast J Date: 2016-06-14 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Stephanie Lynn Chau; Amy Alabaster; Karin Luikart; Leslie Manace Brenman; Laurel A Habel Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2016-10-31
Authors: Celine M Vachon; Carla H van Gils; Thomas A Sellers; Karthik Ghosh; Sandhya Pruthi; Kathleen R Brandt; V Shane Pankratz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2007 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Suzanne C O'Neill; Tengfei Li; Sarah Knerr; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz; Jinani Jayasekera; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; David Farrell; Hongyuan Gao; Amanda L Graham; George Luta; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Sarah Knerr; Tengfei Li; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; David Farrell; Hongyuan Gao; Erin J A Bowles; Amanda L Graham; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2021-01-14