British journal of cancer
August 4, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Priorities for breast cancer risk assessment in UK women under age 50: a survey and discrete choice experiment.
Dennison RA, Valasaki M, Wright S, +8 more, Usher-Smith JA.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
Women under 50 in the UK preferred more proactive and broader multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment over the current family-history-based approach.
What was studied
Cross-sectional survey with a discrete choice experiment in 893 women, comparing 21 hypothetical risk assessment strategies with current care.
Key findings
- Participants preferred nearly all alternatives (20 of 21) to current care.
- Inviting all eligible women proactively and identifying more above-average risk women were the strongest drivers of preference.
- The most favored approaches had over 92% probability of being preferred to current care.
- Education level and ethnicity may have influenced preferences.
Clinical relevance
It supports the acceptability of offering multifactorial risk assessment such as BOADICEA/CanRisk in primary care.
Who should care
Limitations
Stated preferences from a survey may not reflect real-world uptake, and the abstract does not describe how representative the sample was.
Consider that patients are likely to welcome proactive multifactorial risk assessment when services are designed.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
National guidelines recommend English women between 30 and 49 years with moderate/high risk of breast cancer (BC) be offered screening and prevention interventions. Identification largely relies on family history-based criteria amongst women self-presenting in primary care. We aimed to understand the preference for different potential risk assessment strategies in this population.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey including a discrete choice experiment. Risk assessments were defined using six attributes, including initiation strategy, eligibility for a full/detailed risk assessment, components of the risk assessment, including multifactorial risk assessment based on the BOADICEA/CanRisk model, and sensitivity. Coefficients from conditional logistic regression were used to estimate preference for different risk assessment approaches compared to current care.
Results
Participants (n = 893) preferred alternative approaches for risk assessments over current care, particularly where all eligible women were proactively invited and more above-average risk women were correctly identified. All but one of 21 risk assessment approaches was preferred, with the most favoured approaches having a probability of being preferred over current care >92%. Education level and ethnicity potentially impacted the strength of participant priorities.
Conclusions
Offering multifactorial BC risk assessments to younger women in primary care, especially the most proactive and broad approaches, would be acceptable and preferred over current practice.
DOI
10.1038/s41416-026-03546-3
PMID
42547566
PMCID
PMC13675216
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed