Using a state cancer registry to recruit young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives: protocol of a randomized trial testing the efficacy of a targeted versus a tailored intervention to increase breast cancer screening

BMC Cancer

Maria C Katapodi²  Laurel L Northouse²  Ann M Schafenacker²  Debra Duquette³  Sonia A Duffy⁵  David L Ronis¹  Beth Anderson³  Nancy K Janz⁴  Jennifer McLosky³  Kara J Milliron⁸  Sofia D Merajver⁶  Linh M Duong⁷  Glenn Copeland⁹ 

[1] University of Michigan School of Nursing and VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, USA

[2] University of Michigan School of Nursing, 400 N. Ingalls Building, Room 2158, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

[3] Michigan Department of Community Health, Cancer Genomics Program, Lansing, USA

[4] University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, USA

[5] University of Michigan School of Nursing and VA Hospital, Ann Arbor, USA

[6] University of Michigan School of Medicine and Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, USA

[7] Cancer Surveillance Branch, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA

[8] University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, USA

[9] Michigan Cancer Surveillance Program, Lansing, USA

关键词: State-wide community-based sample;    Cancer registry;    Genetic testing;    Screening mammography;    Targeted and enhanced tailored intervention;    Randomized trial;    High-risk relatives;    Young breast cancer survivors;    Familial breast cancer;    Breast cancer screening;   

Others  :  1079893
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-13-97

 received in 2012-07-17, accepted in 2013-02-21,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Michigan Prevention Research Center, the University of Michigan Schools of Nursing, Public Health, and Medicine, and the Michigan Department of Community Health propose a multidisciplinary academic-clinical practice three-year project to increase breast cancer screening among young breast cancer survivors and their cancer-free female relatives at greatest risk for breast cancer.

Methods/design

The study has three specific aims: 1) Identify and survey 3,000 young breast cancer survivors (diagnosed at 20–45 years old) regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 2) Identify and survey survivors’ high-risk relatives regarding their breast cancer screening utilization. 3) Test two versions (Targeted vs. Enhanced Tailored) of an intervention to increase breast cancer screening among survivors and relatives. Following approval by human subjects review boards, 3,000 young breast cancer survivors will be identified through the Michigan Cancer Registry and mailed an invitation letter and a baseline survey. The baseline survey will obtain information on the survivors’: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) family health history. Based on the family history information provided by survivors, we will identify up to two high-risk relatives per survivor. Young breast cancer survivors will be mailed consent forms and baseline surveys to distribute to their selected high-risk relatives. Relatives’ baseline survey will obtain information on their: a) current breast cancer screening status and use of genetic counseling; and b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening. Young breast cancer survivors and high-risk relatives will be randomized as a family unit to receive two versions of an intervention aiming to increase breast cancer screening and use of cancer genetic services. A follow-up survey will be mailed 9 months after the intervention to survivors and high-risk relatives to evaluate the efficacy of each intervention version on: a) use of breast cancer screening and genetic counseling; b) perceived barriers and facilitators to screening; c) self-efficacy in utilizing cancer genetic and screening services; d) family support related to screening; e) knowledge of breast cancer genetics; and f) satisfaction with the intervention.

Discussion

The study will enhance efforts of the state of Michigan surrounding cancer prevention, control, and public health genomics.

Trial registration

NCT01612338

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Katapodi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR): United States Cancer Statistics (UCSC): 1999–2008 Cancer Incidence and Mortality Data. [http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/ webcite]
• [2]Michigan Cancer Consortium: Michigan Cancer Consortium Screening Guidelines for Early Detection of Breast Cacner. 2009. [http://www.michigancancer.org/bcccp/PDFs/MedicalProtocol/Breast/BrCAProtocol-Dec2009.pdf webcite]
• [3]Houssami N: Accuracy and outcomes of screening mammography in women with a personal history of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA 2011, 305:790-799.
• [4]Pharoah PDP, Day NE, Duffy S, Easton DF, Ponder BAJ: Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 1997, 71:800-809.
• [5]Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brooks D, Saslow D, Brawley OW: Cancer screening in the United States, 2010: a review of current American cancer society guidelines and issues in cancer screening. CA: Cancer J Clin 2010, 60:99-119.
• [6]Michigan Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: Health Risk Behaviors in the State of Michigan: 2010 Behavioral Risk Factor Survey. 24th Annual Report. 2010. [http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/2010_MiBRFS_Annual_Report_FINAL_365662_7.pdf webcite]
• [7]National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines TM): Genetic/Familial High-Risk Assessment: Breast and Ovarian V.1.20112011. Available from: www.nccn.org webcite
• [8]National Comprehensive Cancer Network: NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines TM): Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Version 1.20112011; Version 1.2011. Available from: www.nccn.org webcite
• [9]Michigan Department of Community Health: Public Health Code (Excerpt) Act 368 of 1978. 1978. [http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(m40axjyyhlh5dkurhykpdf55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject& objectname=mcl-333-2619 webcite]
• [10]Michigan Department of Community Health: Vital Records & Health Statistics Section. Lansing MI: Michigan Department of Community Health; 2011.
• [11]Katapodi MC, Northouse LL, Pierce P, Milliron KJ, Liu G, Merajver SD: Differences between women who pursued genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and their at-risk relatives who did not. Oncol Nurs Forum 2011, 38:572-581.
• [12]Gail MH, Constantino JP: Validating and improving models for projecting the absolute risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001, 93:334-335.
• [13]Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD: Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Cancer 1994, 73:643-651.
• [14]Ajzen I, Fischbein M: Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.
• [15]Van Harrison R, Janz NK, Wolfe RA, Tedeschi PJ, Chernew M, Stross JK, Huang X, McMahon LFJ: Personalized targeted mailing increases mammography among long-term noncompliant medicare beneficiaries: a randomized trial. Med Care 2003, 41:375-385.
• [16]Kreuter MW, Wray R: Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav 2003, 27:S227-S232.
• [17]Han HR, Lee JE, Kim J, Hedlin HK, Song H, Kim MT: A meta-analysis of intervention to promote mammography among ethnic minority women. Nurs Res 2009, 58:246-254.
• [18]Vernon SW, McQueen A, Tiro JA, del Junco DJ: Interventions to promote repeat breast cancer screening with mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102:1023-1039.
• [19]Wu JH, Fung MC, Chan W, Lairson DR: Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions to enhance mammography compliance using computer modeling (CAN*TROL). Value Health 2004, 7:175-185.
• [20]Katapodi MC, Dodd MJ, Lee KA, Facione NC: Underestimation of breast cancer risk: influence on breast cancer screening. Oncol Nurs Forum 2009, 36:306-314.
• [21]Katapodi MC, Aouizerat B: Do women in the community recognize hereditary and sporadic breast cancer risk factors? Oncol Nurs Forum 2005, 32:617-623.
• [22]Wang C, Gonzalez R, Milliron KJ, Strecher VJ, Merajver SD: Genetic counseling for BRCA1/2: a randomized controlled trial of two strategies to facilitate the education and counseling process. Am J Med Genet 2005, 134:66-73.
• [23]Rakowski W, Andersen MR, Stoddard AM, Urban N, Rimer BK, Lane DS, Fox SA, Constanza ME: Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography. Health Psychol 1997, 16:433-441.
• [24]Stewart SL, Rakowski W, Pasick RJ: Behavioral constructs and mammography in five ethnic groups. Health Educ Behav 2009, 36:36S-54S.
• [25]Katapodi MC, Facione NC, Miaskowski C, Dodd MJ, Waters C: The influence of social support on breast cancer screening in a multicultural community sample. Oncol Nurs Forum 2002, 29:845-852.
• [26]National Cancer Institute (NCI): Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT). 2002. [http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/ webcite]
• [27]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System: 2001 Survey Questions. 2002. [http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionnaires/pdf-ques/2001brfss.pdf webcite]
• [28]Hintze JL: PASS 2008 User’s Guide. Kaysville, UT: Number Cruncher Statistical Software; 2008.