Use of the BOADICEA Web Application in clinical practice: appraisals by clinicians from various countries

被引：9

作者：

Bredart, Anne ^{[1
,2
]}

Kop, Jean-Luc ^{[3
]}

Antoniou, Antonis C. ^{[4
]}

Cunningham, Alex P. ^{[4
]}

De Pauw, Antoine ^{[5
]}

Tischkowitz, Marc ^{[6
]}

Ehrencrona, Hans ^{[7
,8
]}

Dolbeault, Sylvie ^{[1
,12
]}

Robieux, Leonore ^{[2
]}

Rhiem, Kerstin ^{[9
,10
]}

Easton, Douglas F. ^{[4
]}

Devilee, Peter ^{[11
]}

Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique ^{[5
]}

Schmutlzer, Rita ^{[10
]}

机构：

[1] Inst Curie, Support Care Dept, Psychooncol Unit, 26 Rue Ulm, F-75005 Paris 5, France

[2] Univ Paris 05, 71 Ave Edouard Vaillant, F-92774 Boulogne, France

[3] Univ Lorraine, Inter Psy, 3 Pl Godefroy Bouillon, F-54015 Nancy, France

[4] Univ Cambridge, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Ctr Canc Genet Epidemiol, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, England

[5] Inst Curie, Canc Genet Clin, 26 Rue Ulm, F-75005 Paris 05, France

[6] Univ Cambridge, Dept Med Genet, Addenbrookes Treatment Ctr, Level 6,Cambridge Biomed Campus,Box 238, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, England

[7] Lund Univ, Dept Clin Genet, Lab Med, Off Med Serv,Univ Sjukhuset, S-22185 Lund, Sweden

[8] Lund Univ, Dept Clin Genet, Univ Sjukhuset, S-22185 Lund, Sweden

[9] Cologne Univ Hosp, Familial Breast & Ovarian Canc Ctr, Kerpener Str 34 1, D-50931 Cologne, Germany

[10] Fac Med, Kerpener Str 34 1, D-50931 Cologne, Germany

[11] Leiden Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Pathol, Dept Human Genet, S4-P,POB 9600, NL-2300 RC Leiden, Netherlands

[12] Univ Paris Saclay, INSERM, UVSQ, Univ Paris Sud,CESP, 16 Ave Paul Vaillant Couturier, F-94807 Villejuif, France

来源：

FAMILIAL CANCER | 2018年 / 17卷 / 01期

基金：

欧盟地平线“2020”;

关键词：

Breast cancer; Risk prediction model; Tool; Appraisal; Clinical practice; Survey; CANCER-RISK-ASSESSMENT; BREAST-CANCER; GUIDE DECISIONS; ONLINE TOOL; PREDICTION; MUTATION; VALIDATION; BRCA1; PANEL; CARE;

D O I：

10.1007/s10689-017-0014-x

中图分类号：

R73 [肿瘤学];

学科分类号：

100214 ;

摘要：

The 'BOADICEA' Web Application (BWA) used to assess breast cancer risk, is currently being further developed, to integrate additional genetic and non-genetic factors. We surveyed clinicians' perceived acceptability of the existing BWA v3. An online survey was conducted through the BOADICEA website, and the British, Dutch, French and Swedish genetics societies. Cross-sectional data from 443 participants who provided at least 50% responses were analysed. Respondents varied in age and, clinical seniority, but mainly comprised women (77%) and genetics professionals (82%). Some expressed negative opinions about the scientific validity of BOADICEA (9%) and BWA v3 risk presentations (7-9%). Data entry time (62%), clinical utility (22%) and ease of communicating BWA v3 risks (13-17%) received additional negative appraisals. In multivariate analyses, controlling for gender and country, data entry time was perceived as longer by genetic counsellors than clinical geneticists (p < 0.05). Respondents who (1) considered hormonal BC risk factors as more important (p < 0.01), and (2) communicated numerical risk estimates more frequently (p < 0.001), judged BWA v3 of lower clinical utility. Respondents who carried out less frequent clinical activity (p < 0.01) and respondents with '11 to 15 years' seniority (p < 0.01) had less favourable opinions of BWA v3 risk presentations. Seniority of '6 to 10 years' (p < 0.05) and more frequent numerical risk communication (p < 0.05) were associated with higher fear of communicating the BWA v3 risks to patients. The level of genetics training did not affect opinions. Further development of BWA should consider technological, genetics service delivery and training initiatives.

引用

页码：31 / 41

页数：11

共 37 条

[1] Assessing Women at High Risk of Breast Cancer: A Review of Risk Assessment Models [J].