BACKGROUND: Personal cancer risk assessments enable stratified care, for example, offering preventive surgical measures such as risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) to women at high risk for breast cancer. In scenario-based experiments, we investigated whether different benefit-harm ratios of RRM influence women's consideration of this, whether this consideration is influenced by women's perception of and desire to know their personal cancer risk, or by their intention to take a novel cancer risk-predictive test, and whether consideration varies across different countries. METHOD: In January 2017, 1,675 women 40 to 75 years of age from five European countries-Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy, and Sweden-took part in an online scenario-based experiment. Six different scenarios of hypothetical benefit-harm ratios of RRM were presented in accessible fact box formats: Baseline risk/risk reduction pairings were 20/16, 20/4, 10/8, 10/2, 5/4, and 5/1 out of 1,000 women dying from breast cancer. RESULTS: Varying the baseline risk of dying from breast cancer and the extent of risk reduction influenced the decision to consider RRM for 23% of women. Decisions varied by country, risk perception, and the intention to take a cancer risk-predictive test. Women who expressed a stronger intention to take such a test were more likely to consider having RRM. The desire to know one's risk of developing any female cancer in general moderated women's decisions, whereas the specific desire to know the risk of breast cancer did not. CONCLUSIONS: In this hypothetical scenario-based study, only for a minority of women did the change in benefit-harm ratio inform their consideration of RRM. Because this consideration is influenced by risk perception and the intention to learn one's cancer risks via a cancer risk-predictive test, careful disclosure of different potential preventive measures and their benefit-harm ratios is necessary before testing for individual risk. Furthermore, information on risk testing should acknowledge country-specific sensitivities for benefit-harm ratios.

Center for Adaptive Rationality Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin Germany

Department of Applied Health Research University College London London United Kingdom

Department of Women's Cancer University College London London United Kingdom

Harding Center for Risk Literacy Max Planck Institute for Human Development Berlin Germany

See more in PubMed

Antoniou A, Cunningham A, Peto J, Evans D, Lalloo F, Narod S, et al. The BOADICEA model of genetic susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancers: updates and extensions. British Journal of Cancer. 2008;98(8):1457 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604305 PubMed DOI PMC

Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Statistics in Medicine. 2004;23(7):1111–30. 10.1002/sim.1668 PubMed DOI

Gail MH, Costantino JP, Pee D, Bondy M, Newman L, Selvan M, et al. Projecting individualized absolute invasive breast cancer risk in African American women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2007;99(23):1782–92. 10.1093/jnci/djm223 PubMed DOI

Pashayan N, Morris S, Gilbert FJ, Pharoah PD. Cost-effectiveness and benefit-to-harm ratio of risk-stratified screening for breast cancer: a life-table model. JAMA Oncology. 2018;4(11):1504–10. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.1901 PubMed DOI PMC

Khoury MJ, Galea S. Will Precision Medicine Improve Population Health? Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016;316(13):1357–8. 10.1001/jama.2016.12260 WOS:000384591300012. PubMed DOI PMC

Dent T, Jbilou J, Rafi I, Segnan N, Tornberg S, Chowdhury S, et al. Stratified Cancer Screening: The Practicalities of Implementation. Public Health Genomics. 2013;16(3):94–9. 10.1159/000345941 WOS:000319508300003. PubMed DOI

Hall AE, Chowdhury S, Hallowell N, Pashayan N, Dent T, Pharoah P, et al. Implementing risk-stratified screening for common cancers: a review of potential ethical, legal and social issues. Journal of Public Health. 2014;36(2):285–91. 10.1093/pubmed/fdt078 WOS:000337077300015. PubMed DOI PMC

Pashayan N, Reisel D, Widschwendter M. Integration of genetic and epigenetic markers for risk stratification: opportunities and challenges. Personalized Medicine. 2016;13(2):93–5. 10.2217/pme.15.53 WOS:000372886800001. PubMed DOI PMC

Cancer NCCf. Familial breast cancer: Classification, care and managing breast cancer and related risks in people with a family history of breast cancer (CG164). National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2013. PubMed

Carbine NE, Lostumbo L, Wallace J, Ko H. Risk-reducing mastectomy for the prevention of primary breast cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;(4). 10.1002/14651858.CD002748pub4. CD002748. PubMed DOI PMC

van Driel CM, Eltahir Y, de Vries J, Jaspers JP, Oosterwijk JC, Mourits MJ, et al. Risk-reducing mastectomy in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: Factors influencing uptake and timing. Maturitas. 2014;77(2):180–4. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2013.10.017 PubMed DOI

Long J, Evans TG, Bailey D, Lewis MH, Gower‐Thomas K, Murray A. Uptake of risk‐reducing surgery in BRCA gene carriers in Wales, UK. The Breast Journal. 2018;24(4):580–5. 10.1111/tbj.12978 PubMed DOI

Howard AF, Balneaves LG, Bottorff JL. Women’s decision making about risk-reducing strategies in the context of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer: a systematic review. J Genet Couns. 2009;18(6):578–97. 10.1007/s10897-009-9245-9 PubMed DOI

Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009;101(17):1216–20. 10.1093/jnci/djp237 PubMed DOI PMC

Hamilton JG, Genoff MC, Salerno M, Amoroso K, Boyar SR, Sheehan M, et al. Psychosocial factors associated with the uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among BRCA1/2 mutation noncarriers with newly diagnosed breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2017;162(2):297–306. 10.1007/s10549-017-4123-x PubMed DOI PMC

King L, O'Neill SC, Spellman E, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir H, Willey S, et al. Intentions for bilateral mastectomy among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2013;107(7):772–6. 10.1002/jso.23307 PubMed DOI PMC

Tong A, Kelly S, Nusbaum R, Graves K, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir HB, et al. Intentions for risk‐reducing surgery among high‐risk women referred for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling. Psycho‐Oncology. 2015;24(1):33–9. 10.1002/pon.3560 PubMed DOI PMC

Lerman C, Seay J, Balshem A, Audrain J. Interest in genetic testing among first‐degree relatives of breast cancer patients. American Journal of Medical Genetics. 1995;57(3):385–92. 10.1002/ajmg.1320570304 PubMed DOI

van Driel C, Oosterwijk J, Meijers-Heijboer E, van Asperen C, van Emmichoven IZ, de Vries J, et al. Psychological factors associated with the intention to choose for risk-reducing mastectomy in family cancer clinic attendees. The Breast. 2016;30:66–72. 10.1016/j.breast.2016.08.016 PubMed DOI

Wegwarth O, Widschwendter M, Cibula D, Sundström K, Portuesi R, Lein I, et al. What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in 5 European countries. BMJ Open 2018;8 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023789 PubMed DOI PMC

McDowell M, Rebitschek FG, Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O. A Simple Tool for Communicating the Benefits and Harms of Health Interventions. MDM Policy & Practice. 2016;1(1):2381468316665365. 10.1177/2381468316665365 PubMed DOI PMC

Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2009;150(8):516–27. PubMed

McDowell M, Gigerenzer G, Wegwarth O, Rebitschek FG. Effect of Tabular and Icon Fact Box Formats on Comprehension of Benefits and Harms of Prostate Cancer Screening: A Randomized Trial. Medical Decision Making. 2019;39(1):41–56. 10.1177/0272989X18818166 PubMed DOI

Gigerenzer G. The psychology of good judgment: frequency formats and simple algorithms. Medical Decision Making. 1996;16(3):273–80. 10.1177/0272989X9601600312 PubMed DOI

Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Helping patients decide: ten steps to better risk communication. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2011;103(19):1436–43. 10.1093/jnci/djr318 PubMed DOI PMC

Ludwig KK, Neuner J, Butler A, Geurts JL, Kong AL. Risk reduction and survival benefit of prophylactic surgery in BRCA mutation carriers, a systematic review. The American Journal of Surgery. 2016;212(4):660–9. 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.06.010 PubMed DOI

Padamsee TJ, Wills CE, Yee LD, Paskett ED. Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk. Breast Cancer Research. 2017;19(1):34 10.1186/s13058-017-0826-5 PubMed DOI PMC

Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum‐Carmeli D, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Lynch H, Moller P, et al. International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. International Journal of Cancer. 2008;122(9):2017–22. 10.1002/ijc.23340 PubMed DOI PMC

Evans DGR, Lalloo F, Ashcroft L, Shenton A, Clancy T, Baildam AD, et al. Uptake of risk-reducing surgery in unaffected women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer is risk, age, and time dependent. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. 2009;18(8):2318–24. PubMed

Liede A, Cai M, Crouter TF, Niepel D, Callaghan F, Evans DG. Risk-reducing mastectomy rates in the US: a closer examination of the Angelina Jolie effect. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2018;171(2):435–42. 10.1007/s10549-018-4824-9 PubMed DOI PMC

Biesheuvel C, Weige S, Heindel W. Mammography screening: evidence, history and current practice in Germany and other European countries. Breast Care. 2011;6(2):104–9. 10.1159/000327493 PubMed DOI PMC

Almeyda T, Andersson L, Eppinger E. Nutzen und Risiken der Personalisierten Medizin–Analyse der Berichterstattung in den deutschen, britischen und US-amerikanischen Medien Dienstleistungspotenziale und Geschäftsmodelle in der Personalisierten Medizin: Springer; 2015. p. 197–240.

Botkin JR, Smith KR, Croyle RT, Baty BJ, Wylie JE, Dutson D, et al. Genetic testing for a BRCA1 mutation: prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A. 2003;118(3):201–9. PubMed

Galesic M, Garcia-Retamero R, Gigerenzer G. Using icon arrays to communicate medical risks: overcoming low numeracy. Health Psychology. 2009;28(2):210–6. 10.1037/a0014474 PubMed DOI

Kürzl R. Evidenzbasierte Missverstandnisse beim Mammakarzinom Erkrankungsrisiko und Mortalitatsreduktion. Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2004;101(36):2387–91.