Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

A qualitative study on Singaporean women’s views towards breast cancer screening and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies

Authors: Xin Yi Wong, Kok Joon Chong, Janine A. van Til, Hwee Lin Wee

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Breast cancer is the top cancer by incidence and mortality in Singaporean women. Mammography is by far its best screening tool, but current recommended age and interval may not yield the most benefit. Recent studies have demonstrated the potential of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to improve discriminatory accuracy of breast cancer risk assessment models. This study was conducted to understand Singaporean women’s views towards breast cancer screening and SNPs gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies.

Methods

Focus group discussions were conducted among English-speaking women (n = 27) between 40 to 65 years old, both current and lapsed mammogram users. Women were divided into four groups based on age and mammogram usage. Discussions about breast cancer and screening experience, as well as perception and attitude towards SNPs gene testing were conducted by an experienced moderator. Women were also asked for factors that will influence their uptake of the test. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis to captured similarities and differences in views expressed.

Results

Barriers to repeat mammogram attendance include laziness to make appointment and painful and uncomfortable screening process. However, the underlying reason may be low perceived susceptibility to breast cancer. Facilitators to repeat mammogram attendance include ease of making appointment and timely reminders. Women were generally receptive towards SNPs gene testing, but required information on accuracy, cost, invasiveness, and side effects before they decide whether to go for it. Other factors include waiting time for results and frequency interval. On average, women gave a rating of 7.5 (range 5 to 10) when asked how likely they will go for the test.

Conclusion

Addressing concerns such as pain and discomfort during mammogram, providing timely reminders and debunking breast cancer myths can help to improve screening uptake. Women demonstrated a spectrum of responses towards a novel test like SNPs gene testing, but need more information to make an informed decision. Future public health education on predictive genetic testing should adequately address both benefits and risks. Findings from this study is used to inform a discrete choice experiment to empirically quantify women preferences and willingness-to-pay for SNPs gene testing.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Loy EY, Molinar D, Chow KY, Fock C. National Breast Cancer Screening Programme, Singapore. Evaluation of participation and performance indicators. J Med Screen. 2015 Dec;22(4):194–200.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ministry of Health, Singapore. National Health Survey 2010. Singapore: Epidemiology & Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health; 2010.
6.
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. Breast cancer screening. Practice bulletin no. 122. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:372–82.CrossRef
7.
Bevers TB, Helvie M, Bonaccio E, et al. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast Cancer Screen Diagn. 2016:24–34.
8.
Siu AL. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96.CrossRefPubMed
9.
van Ravesteyn NT, Miglioretti DL, Stout NK, et al. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(9):609–17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Kerlikowske K, Zhu W, Hubbard RA. Et al; breast cancer surveillance consortium. Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(9):807–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
12.
13.
Pace LE, Keating NL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1327–35.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(10):680–91.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Tice JA, Cummings SR, Smith-Bindman R, Ichikawa L, Barlow WE, Kerlikowske K. Using clinical factors and mammographic breast density to estimate breast cancer risk: development and validation of a new predictive model. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(5):337–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Cai Q, Zhang B, Sung H, et al. Genome-wide association analysis in east Asians identifies breast cancer susceptibility loci at 1q32.1, 5q14.3 and 15q26.1. Nat Genet. 2014;46(8):886–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Fejerman L, Ahmadiyeh N, Hu D, et al. Genome-wide association study of breast cancer in Latinas identifies novel protective variants on 6q25. Nat Commun. 2014;5(May):5260.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Michailidou K, Beesley J, Lindstrom S, et al. Genome-wide association analysis of more than 120,000 individuals identifies 15 new susceptibility loci for breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2015;47(4):373–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Zheng W, Zhang B, Cai Q, et al. Common genetic determinants of breast-cancer risk in east Asian women: a collaborative study of 23 637 breast cancer cases and 25 579 controls. Hum Mol Genet. 2013;22(12):2539–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Fletcher O, Johnson N, Orr N, et al. Novel breast cancer susceptibility locus at 9q31.2: results of a genome-wide association study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(5):425–35.CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Darabi H, Czene K, Zhao W, Liu J, Hall P, Humphreys K. Breast cancer risk prediction and individualised screening based on common genetic variation and breast density measurement. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(1):R25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Dite GS, Macinnis RJ, Bickerstaffe A, et al. Breast cancer risk prediction using clinical models and 77 independent risk-associated SNPs for women aged under 50 years: Australian breast cancer family registry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25(2):359–65.CrossRef
24.
Mavaddat N, Pharoah PDP, Michailidou K, et al. Prediction of breast cancer risk based on profiling with common genetic variants. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(5):1–15.CrossRef
25.
Broeks A, Schmidt MK, Sherman ME, et al. Low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility loci are associated with specific breast tumor subtypes: findings from the breast cancer association consortium. Hum Mol Genet. 2011;20(16):3289–303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Stevens KN, Vachon CM, Lee AM, et al. Common breast cancer susceptibility loci are associated with triple negative breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2011;71(19):6240–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Garcia-Closas M, Chanock S. Genetic susceptibility loci for breast cancer by estrogen receptor (ER) status. Clinical Cancer Res. 2008;14(24):8000–9.CrossRef
28.
29.
Hailey D, Nordwall M. Survey on the involvement of consumers in health technology assessment programs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006;22(4):497–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Facey K, Boivin A, Gracia J, et al. Patients’ perspectives in health technology assessment: a route to robust evidence and fair deliberation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26:334–40.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
33.
Leighton JW, Valverde K, Bernhardt BA. The general public’s understanding and perception of direct-to-consumer genetic test results. Public Health Genomics. 2011;15(1):11–21.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Savard J, Mooney-Somers J, Newson AJ, Kerridge I. Australians’ knowledge and perceptions of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing. Intern Med J. 2014;44(1):27–31.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Vayena E, Gourna E, Streuli J, Hafen E, Prainsack B. Experiences of early users of direct-to-consumer genomics in Switzerland: an exploratory study. Public Health Genomics. 2012;15(6):352–62.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Gray SW, Hicks-Courant K, Lathan CS, Garraway L, Park ER, Weeks JC. Attitudes of patients with cancer about personalized medicine and somatic genetic testing. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(6):329–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Graves KD, Peshkin BN, Luta G, Tuong W, Schwartz MD. Interest in genetic testing for modest changes in breast cancer risk: implications for SNP testing. Public Health Genomics. 2011;14(3):178–89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Champion VL, Skinner CS. The health belief model. In: Glanz K, Barbara KR, Viswanath K, editors. Health behaviour and health education: theory, research and practice. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p. 45–62.
39.
40.
Rogers EM. Innovativeness and adopter categories. In: Diffusion of innovation. 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press; 2003. p. 248–50.
41.
Tan EK, Lee J, Hunter C, Shinawi L, Fook-Chong S, Jankovic J. Comparing knowledge and attitudes towards genetic testing in Parkinson’s disease in an American and Asian population. J Neurol Sci. 2007;252:113–20.CrossRefPubMed
42.
43.
Bowen DJ, Harris J, Jorgensen CM, Myers MF, Kuniyuki A. Socioeconomic influences on the effects of a genetic testing direct-to-consumer marketing campaign. Public Health Genomics. 2010;13(3):131–42.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A qualitative study on Singaporean women’s views towards breast cancer screening and Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) gene testing to guide personalised screening strategies
Authors
Xin Yi Wong
Kok Joon Chong
Janine A. van Til
Hwee Lin Wee
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3781-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Cancer 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Therapeutic potential of TAS-115 via c-MET and PDGFRα signal inhibition for synovial sarcoma

Research article

The dose-response relationship between tobacco smoking and the risk of lymphomas: a case-control study

Research article

Examination of multiple UGT1A and DPYD polymorphisms has limited ability to predict the toxicity and efficacy of metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan-based chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis

Database

King’s Health Partners’ Prostate Cancer Biobank (KHP PCaBB)

Research article

Prognostic values of EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-HCC18 index-scores in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma – clinical application of health-related quality-of-life data

Study protocol

DETECT I & DETECT II: a study protocol for a prospective multicentre observational study to validate the UroMark assay for the detection of bladder cancer from urinary cells
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits