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.

Given the controversy over the effectiveness of age-based breast cancer (BC) screening, offering risk-stratified screening to women may be a way to improve patient outcomes with detection of earlier-stage disease. While this approach seems promising, its integration requires the buy-in of many stakeholders. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed Canadian healthcare professionals about their views and attitudes toward a risk-stratified BC screening approach. An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated through Canadian healthcare professional associations between November 2020 and May 2021. Information collected included attitudes toward BC screening recommendations based on individual risk, comfort and perceived readiness related to the possible implementation of this approach. Close to 90% of the 593 respondents agreed with increased frequency and earlier initiation of BC screening for women at high risk. However, only 9% agreed with the idea of not offering BC screening to women at very low risk. Respondents indicated that primary care physicians and nurse practitioners should play a leading role in the risk-stratified BC screening approach. This survey identifies health services and policy enhancements that would be needed to support future implementation of a risk-stratified BC screening approach in healthcare systems in Canada and other countries.

To examine the psychological and emotional outcomes of personalized breast cancer risk communication up to 1 year after disclosure in a risk-stratified breast screening preimplementation study (Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation). Among 3753 females aged 40 to 69, unaffected by breast cancer, with a prior mammogram, and who underwent multifactorial risk assessment to estimate their 10-year breast cancer risk, 2734 completed follow-up questionnaires up to 1 year after risk communication: 78.5% were at average risk, 16.5% at higher than average risk, and 5.0% at high risk. The impact of risk communication on breast cancer worry and psychological distress and factors associated with decisional regret were examined. Breast cancer worry and psychological distress scores remained low after risk communication and at 1 year follow-up. Up to 1 year after disclosure, small significant differences in breast cancer worry were observed between risk levels. Decisional regret was very low 1 year after risk communication. Lower levels of decisional regret were significantly associated with some factors, including higher satisfaction with the information received. This study suggests that personalized breast cancer risk communication has low negative psychological and emotional effects and highlights the importance of the information received for implementing this approach at population level.

The success of risk-stratified approaches in improving population-based breast cancer screening programs depends in no small part on women’s buy-in. Fear of genetic discrimination (GD) could be a potential barrier to genetic testing uptake as part of risk assessment. Thus, the objective of this study was twofold. First, to evaluate Canadian women’s knowledge of the legislative context governing GD. Second, to assess their concerns about the possible use of breast cancer risk levels by insurance companies or employers. We use a cross-sectional survey of 4293 (age: 30–69) women, conducted in four Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Colombia, Ontario and Québec). Canadian women’s knowledge of the regulatory framework for GD is relatively limited, with some gaps and misconceptions noted. About a third (34.7%) of the participants had a lot of concerns about the use of their health information by employers or insurers; another third had some concerns (31.9%), while 20% had no concerns. There is a need to further educate and inform the Canadian public about GD and the legal protections that exist to prevent it. Enhanced knowledge could facilitate the implementation and uptake of risk prediction informed by genetic factors, such as the risk-stratified approach to breast cancer screening that includes risk levels.

Background/Objectives: Risk-based breast cancer (BC) screening can provide tailored recommendations based on individual risk. We aimed to identify key predictors for BC risk stratification to inform implementation in screening programs. Methods: We estimated 10-year BC risks using BOADICEA v.6 (CanRisk) in 3753 women aged 40–70 with no cancer history from the PERSPECTIVE I&I cohort. The primary endpoint was risk reclassification, assessed as the proportion of women whose assigned 10-year risk category changed when using different risk factor combinations against a full multifactorial model including questionnaire-based risk factors (QRFs), polygenic score (PGS), mammographic density (MD), and pedigree-structured first- and second-degree family history (FH) of breast, ovarian, pancreatic and prostate cancer, including both affected and unaffected relatives. Relative risk thresholds were set as <1.5 (average), 1.5–2.7 (higher-than-average), and ≥2.7 (high), equivalent to the remaining lifetime risk categories of <15%, 15–25% and ≥25% for women aged 30 (the anchor) to age 80. We quantified individual-level reclassification flows by direction and magnitude. Results: Excluding PGS from risk calculations led to the highest overall reclassification. Using only the BC status in first- and second-degree relatives produced comparable risk classification to that of the full FH data that included breast, ovarian, prostate and pancreatic cancer (reclassification = 0.5%). However, collecting only affected relatives led to overestimation of risk. Excluding either PGS, MD or FH resulted in a greater proportion of reclassification among younger women. Adding the PGS to risk factors already collected in provincial screening programs reduced reclassification from 23% to ~13%. Conclusions: PGS, MD, QRFs and FH of BC in affected and unaffected first- and second-degree relatives are key for refining risk stratification. These findings provide real-world evidence on how incorporating different sets of risk factors, both those routinely collected in screening programs and those requiring additional data collection, affect individual-level risk classification amongst a population-based cohort, and how the impacts differ across age groups. While risk classification reflects model-based changes in estimated risk categories rather than direct evidence of mis-screening or clinical outcomes, comparison with the current eligibility criteria used to identify women at higher-than-average risk highlights the potential clinical value of a multifactorial risk assessment approach in ensuring more appropriate screening strategies.