Early detection of breast cancer through screening reduces breast cancer mortality. The benefits of screening must also be considered within the context of potential harms (e.g., false positives, overdiagnosis). Furthermore, while breast cancer risk is highly variable within the population, most screening programs use age to determine eligibility. A risk-based approach is expected to improve the benefit-harm ratio of breast cancer screening programs. The PERSPECTIVE I&I (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation) project seeks to improve personalized risk assessment to allow for a cost-effective, population-based approach to risk-based screening and determine best practices for implementation in Canada. This commentary describes the four inter-related activities that comprise the PERSPECTIVE I&I project. 1: Identification and validation of novel moderate to high-risk susceptibility genes. 2: Improvement, validation, and adaptation of a risk prediction web-tool for the Canadian context. 3: Development and piloting of a socio-ethical framework to support implementation of risk-based breast cancer screening. 4: Economic analysis to optimize the implementation of risk-based screening. Risk-based screening and prevention is expected to benefit all women, empowering them to work with their healthcare provider to make informed decisions about screening and prevention.

Risk-stratified screening for breast cancer (BC) is increasingly considered as a promising approach. However, its implementation is challenging and needs to be acceptable to women. We examined Canadian women’s attitudes towards, comfort level about, and willingness to take part in BC risk-stratified screening. We conducted an online survey in women aged 30 to 69 years in four Canadian provinces. In total, 4293 women completed the questionnaire (response rate of 63%). The majority of women (63.5% to 72.8%) expressed favorable attitudes towards BC risk-stratified screening. Most women reported that they would be comfortable providing personal and genetic information for BC risk assessment (61.5% to 67.4%) and showed a willingness to have their BC risk assessed if offered (74.8%). Most women (85.9%) would also accept an increase in screening frequency if they were at higher risk, but fewer (49.3%) would accept a reduction in screening frequency if they were at lower risk. There were few differences by province; however, outcomes varied by age, education level, marital status, income, perceived risk, history of BC, prior mammography, and history of genetic test for BC (all p ≤ 0.01). Risk-based BC screening using multifactorial risk assessment appears to be acceptable to most women. This suggests that the implementation of this approach is likely to be well-supported by Canadian women.

Risk-stratified breast screening has been proposed as a strategy to overcome the limitations of age-based screening. A prospective cohort study was undertaken within the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, which will generate the first Canadian evidence on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment in the population setting to inform the implementation of risk-stratified screening. Recruited females aged 40–69 unaffected by breast cancer, with a previous mammogram, underwent multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment. The adoption of multifactorial risk assessment, the effectiveness of methods for collecting risk factor information and the costs of risk assessment were examined. Associations between participant characteristics and study sites, as well as data collection methods, were assessed using logistic regression; all p-values are two-sided. Of the 4246 participants recruited, 88.4% completed a risk assessment, with 79.8%, 15.7% and 4.4% estimated at average, higher than average and high risk, respectively. The total per-participant cost for risk assessment was CAD 315. Participants who chose to provide risk factor information on paper/telephone (27.2%) vs. online were more likely to be older (p = 0.021), not born in Canada (p = 0.043), visible minorities (p = 0.01) and have a lower attained education (p < 0.0001) and perceived fair/poor health (p < 0.001). The 34.4% of participants requiring risk factor verification for missing/unusual values were more likely to be visible minorities (p = 0.009) and have a lower attained education (p ≤ 0.006). This study demonstrates the feasibility of risk assessment for risk-stratified screening at the population level. Implementation should incorporate an equity lens to ensure cancer-screening disparities are not widened.

While the relationship between perceived risk and breast cancer screening use has been studied extensively, most studies are cross-sectional. We prospectively examined this relationship among 913 women, aged 25-72 with varying levels of familial breast cancer risk from the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. Associations between perceived lifetime breast cancer risk and subsequent use of mammography, clinical breast examination (CBE) and genetic testing were assessed using logistic regression. Overall, perceived risk did not predict subsequent use of mammography, CBE or genetic testing. Among women at moderate/high familial risk, those reporting a perceived risk greater than 50% were significantly less likely to have a CBE (odds ratio (OR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.30-0.91, p = 0.04), and non-significantly less likely to have a mammogram (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.40-1.20, p = 0.70) or genetic test (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.34-1.10, p = 0.09) compared to women reporting a perceived risk of 50%. In contrast, among women at low familial risk, those reporting a perceived risk greater than 50% were non-significantly more likely to have a mammogram (OR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.59-2.16, p = 0.78), CBE (OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.63-1.95, p = 0.74) or genetic test (OR = 1.29, 95% CI: 0.50-3.33, p = 0.35) compared to women reporting a perceived risk of 50%. Perceived risk did not significantly predict screening use overall, however this relationship may be moderated by level of familial risk. Results may inform risk education and management strategies for women with varying levels of familial breast cancer risk.