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
Breast Cancer Research
Published in: Breast Cancer Research 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Breast Cancer | Research

Risk-management decision-making data from a community-based sample of racially diverse women at high risk of breast cancer: rationale, methods, and sample characteristics of the Daughter Sister Mother Project survey

Authors: Tasleem J. Padamsee, Christina Bijou, Paige Swinehart-Hord, Megan Hils, Anna Muraveva, Rachel J. Meadows, Kate Shane-Carson, Lisa D. Yee, Celia E. Wills, Electra D. Paskett

Published in: Breast Cancer Research | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To understand the dynamics that limit use of risk-management options by women at high risk of breast cancer, there is a critical need for research that focuses on patient perspectives. Prior research has left important gaps: exclusion of high-risk women not in risk-related clinical care, exclusion of non-white populations, and lack of attention to the decision-making processes that underlie risk-management choices. Our objective was to create a more inclusive dataset to facilitate research to address disparities related to decision making for breast cancer risk management.

Methods

The Daughter Sister Mother Project survey collects comprehensive information about the experiences of women at high risk of breast cancer. We collected novel measures of feelings about and reactions to cancer screenings; knowledge, barriers, and facilitators of risk-management options; beliefs related to cancer risk and risk management; and involvement with loved ones who had cancer. Eligible individuals were non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic Black adult women who self-identified as having high risk of breast cancer and had no personal history of cancer. Between October 2018 and August 2019, 1053 respondents completed the online survey. Of these, 717 were confirmed through risk prediction modeling to have a lifetime breast cancer risk of ≥ 20%. Sociodemographic characteristics of this sample were compared to those of nationally representative samples of the US population: the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey and the Pew Research Center report: Jewish Americans in 2020.

Results

The sample of 717 women at objectively high risk of breast cancer was largely (95%) recruited from non-clinical sources. Of these respondents, only 31% had seen a genetic counselor, 34% had had genetic testing specific to breast cancer risk, and 35% had seen at least one breast or cancer care specialist. The sample includes 35% Black respondents and 8% with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. Although encompassing a substantial range of ages, incomes, and education levels, respondents are overall somewhat younger, higher-income, and more educated than the US population as a whole.

Conclusions

The DSM dataset offers comprehensive data from a community-based, diverse sample of women at high risk of breast cancer. The dataset includes substantial proportions of Black and Ashkenazi Jewish women and women who are not already in clinical care related to their breast cancer risk. This sample will facilitate future studies of risk-management behaviors among women who are and are not receiving high-risk care, and of variations in risk-management experiences across race and ethnicity.
Literature
1.
Kuchenbaecker KB, Hopper JL, Barnes DR, Phillips KA, Mooij TM, Roos-Blom MJ, et al. Risks of breast, ovarian, and contralateral breast cancer for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2402–16.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Daly MB, Pal T, Berry MP, Buys SS, Dickson P, Domchek SM, et al. Genetic/familial high-risk assessment: breast, ovarian, and pancreatic, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2021;19(1):77–102.CrossRef
4.
Ludwig KK, Neuner J, Butler A, Geurts JL, Kong AL. Risk reduction and survival benefit of prophylactic surgery in BRCA mutation carriers, a systematic review. Am J Surg. 2016;212(4):660–9.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Jiang X, McGuinness JE, Sin M, Silverman T, Kukafka R, Crew KD. Identifying women at high risk for breast cancer using data from the electronic health record compared with self-report. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2019;3:1–8.PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Padamsee TJ, Wills CE, Yee LD, Paskett ED. Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19(1):34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
9.
Padamsee TJ, Meadows R, Hils M. Layers of information: interacting constraints on breast cancer risk-management by high-risk African American women. Ethn Health. 2018;26(6):1–24.
10.
Padamsee TJ, Hils M, Muraveva A. Understanding low chemoprevention uptake by women at high risk of breast cancer: findings from a qualitative inductive study of women’s risk-reduction experiences. BMC Women’s Health. 2021;21(1):157.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Singh K, Lester J, Karlan B, Bresee C, Geva T, Gordon O. Impact of family history on choosing risk-reducing surgery among BRCA mutation carriers. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(4):329.e1-329.e6.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Hesse-Biber S, An C. Genetic testing and post-testing decision making among BRCA-positive mutation women: a psychosocial approach. J Genet Couns. 2016;25(5):978–92.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Landsbergen KM, Prins JB, Kamm YJL, Brunner HG, Hoogerbrugge N. Female BRCA mutation carriers with a preference for prophylactic mastectomy are more likely to participate an educational-support group and to proceed with the preferred intervention within 2 years. Fam Cancer. 2010;9(2):213–20.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Landsbergen KM, Brunner HG, Manders P, Hoogerbrugge N, Prins JB. Educational-support groups for BRCA mutation carriers satisfy need for information but do not affect emotional distress. Genet Couns. 2010;21(4):423–37.PubMed
15.
Liede A, Mansfield CA, Metcalfe KA, Price MA, Snyder C, Lynch HT, et al. Preferences for breast cancer risk reduction among BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: a discrete-choice experiment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(2):433–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
van Roosmalen M, Stalmeier P, Verhoef L, Hoekstra-Weebers J, Oosterwijk J, Hoogerbrugge N, et al. Randomized trial of a shared decision-making intervention consisting of trade-offs and individualized treatment information for BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(16):3293–301.PubMedCrossRef
17.
18.
Metcalfe KA, Snyder C, Seidel J, Hanna D, Lynch HT, Narod S. The use of preventive measures among healthy women who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Fam Cancer. 2005;4(2):97–103.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Metcalfe KA, Birenbaum-Carmeli D, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Lynch H, Moller P, et al. International variation in rates of uptake of preventive options in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Int J Cancer. 2008;122(9):2017–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Metcalfe KA, Poll A, O’Connor A, Gershman S, Armel S, Finch A, et al. Development and testing of a decision aid for breast cancer prevention for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Clin Genet. 2007;72(3):208–17.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Metcalfe KA, Dennis CL, Poll A, Armel S, Demsky R, Carlsson L, et al. Effect of decision aid for breast cancer prevention on decisional conflict in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation: a multisite, randomized, controlled trial. Genet Med. 2017;19(3):330–6.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Manoukian S, Alfieri S, Bianchi E, Peissel B, Azzollini J, Borreani C. Risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation carriers: Are there factors associated with the choice? Psychooncology. 2019;28(9):1871–8.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Friebel TM, Domchek SM, Neuhausen SL, Wagner T, Evans DG, Isaacs C, et al. Bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy and bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in a prospective cohort of unaffected BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Clin Breast Cancer. 2007;7(11):875–82.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Kim D, Kang E, Hwang E, Sun Y, Hwang Y, Yom CK, et al. Factors affecting the decision to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy among women with BRCA gene mutation. Fam Cancer. 2013;12(4):621–8.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Pal T, Lee JH, Besharat A, Thompson Z, Monteiro ANA, Phelan C, et al. Modes of delivery of genetic testing services and the uptake of cancer risk management strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Clin Genet. 2014;85(1):49–53.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Metcalfe KA, Foulkes WD, Kim-Sing C, Ainsworth P, Rosen B, Armel S, et al. Family history as a predictor of uptake of cancer preventive procedures by women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Clin Genet. 2008;73(5):474–9.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Cragun D, Weidner A, Tezak A, Clouse K, Pal T. Cancer risk management among female BRCA1/2, PALB2, CHEK2, and ATM carriers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2020;182(2):421–8.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Tong A, Kelly S, Nusbaum R, Graves K, Peshkin BN, Valdimarsdottir HB, et al. Intentions for risk-reducing surgery among high-risk women referred for BRCA1/BRCA2 genetic counseling. Psychooncology. 2015;24(1):33–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Ray JA, Loescher LJ, Brewer M. Risk-reduction surgery decisions in high-risk women seen for genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2005;14(6):473–84.PubMedCrossRef
30.
van Driel CMG, Oosterwijk JC, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, van Asperen CJ, Zeijlmans van Emmichoven IA, de Vries J, et al. Psychological factors associated with the intention to choose for risk-reducing mastectomy in family cancer clinic attendees. The Breast. 2016;30:66–72.PubMedCrossRef
31.
van Dijk S, Otten W, Zoeteweij MW, Timmermans DRM, van Asperen CJ, Breuning MH, et al. Genetic counselling and the intention to undergo prophylactic mastectomy: effects of a breast cancer risk assessment. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(11):1675–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
32.
Schott S, Vetter L, Keller M, Bruckner T, Golatta M, Eismann S, et al. Women at familial risk of breast cancer electing for prophylactic mastectomy: frequencies, procedures, and decision-making characteristics. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(6):1451–8.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Connors SK, Goodman MS, Noel L, Chavakula NN, Butler D, Kenkel S, et al. Breast cancer treatment among African American Women in North St. Louis, Missouri. J Urban Health. 2015;92(1):67–82.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Schwartz MD, Isaacs C, Graves KD, Poggi E, Peshkin BN, Gell C, et al. Long term outcomes of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing: risk reduction and surveillance. Cancer. 2012;118(2):510–7.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Connors LM, Voian N, Shi Y, Lally RM, Edge S. Decision making after BRCA genetic testing. Down the road of transition. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18(3):E58-63.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Roetzheim RG, Lee JH, Fulp W, Gomez EM, Clayton E, Tollin S, et al. Acceptance and adherence to chemoprevention among women at increased risk of breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24(1):51–6.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Paquet L, Simmonds L, Yang C, Verma S. An exploratory study of patients’ views about being at high-risk for breast cancer and risk management beliefs and intentions, before and after risk counselling: preliminary evidence of the influence of beliefs on post-counselling prevention intentions. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(3):575–82.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Thorneloe RJ, Horne R, Side L, Wolf MS, Smith SG, Adamson V, et al. Beliefs about medication and uptake of preventive therapy in women at increased risk of breast cancer: results from a multicenter prospective study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2019;19(1):e116–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Bober SL, Hoke LA, Duda RB, Regan MM, Tung NM. Decision-making about tamoxifen in women at high risk for breast cancer: clinical and psychological factors. JCO. 2004;22(24):4951–7.CrossRef
40.
Ozanne EM, Wittenberg E, Garber JE, Weeks JC. Breast cancer prevention: patient decision making and risk communication in the high risk setting. Breast J. 2010;16(1):38–47.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Julian-Reynier CM, Bouchard LJ, Evans DG, Eisinger FA, Foulkes WD, Kerr B, et al. Women’s attitudes toward preventive strategies for hereditary breast or ovarian carcinoma differ from one country to another: differences among English, French, and Canadian women. Cancer. 2001;92(4):959–68.PubMedCrossRef
42.
van der Aa JE, Hoogendam JP, Butter ESF, Ausems MGEM, Verheijen RHM, Zweemer RP. The effect of personal medical history and family history of cancer on the uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Fam Cancer. 2015;14(4):539–44.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Razzaboni E, Toss A, Cortesi L, Marchi I, Sebastiani F, De Matteis E, et al. Acceptability and adherence in a chemoprevention trial among women at increased risk for breast cancer attending the modena familial breast and ovarian cancer center (Italy). Breast J. 2013;19(1):10–21.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Stefanek M, Helzlsouer K, Wilcox P, Houn F. Predictors of and satisfaction with bilateral prophylactic mastectomy. Prev Med. 1995;24:412–9.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Roche CA, Tang R, Coopey SB, Hughes KS. Chemoprevention acceptance and adherence in women with high-risk breast lesions. Breast J. 2019;25(2):190–5.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Flanagan MR, Zabor EC, Stempel M, Mangino DA, Morrow M, Pilewskie ML. Chemoprevention uptake for breast cancer risk reduction varies by risk factor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26(7):2127–35.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Holman LL, Friedman S, Daniels MS, Sun CC, Lu KH. Acceptability of prophylactic salpingectomy with delayed oophorectomy as risk-reducing surgery among BRCA mutation carriers. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;133(2):283–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Yi RHP, Rezende LF, Huynh J, Kramer K, Cranmer M, Schlager L, et al. XRAYS (eXamining Relevance of Articles to Young Survivors) program survey of information needs and media use by young breast cancer survivors and young women at high-risk for breast cancer. Health Commun. 2018;33(12):1525–30.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Matloff ET, Moyer A, Shannon KM, Niendorf KB, Col NF. Healthy women with a family history of breast cancer: impact of a tailored genetic counseling intervention on risk perception, knowledge, and menopausal therapy decision making. Journal of Women’s Health. 2006;15(7):843–56.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Sinicrope PS, Patten CA, Clark LP, Brockman TA, Frost MH, Petersen LR, et al. Adult daughters’ reports of breast cancer risk reduction and early detection advice received from their mothers: an exploratory study. Psychooncology. 2009;18(2):169–78.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Metcalfe KA, Mian N, Enmore M, Poll A, Llacuachaqui M, Nanda S, et al. Long-term follow-up of Jewish women with a BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation who underwent population genetic screening. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(2):735–40.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Dillard AJ, Scherer L, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, McClure JB, et al. Breast cancer anxiety’s associations with responses to a chemoprevention decision aid. Soc Sci Med. 2013;77:13–9.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Dillard AJ, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Nair V, Derry HA, et al. The distinct role of comparative risk perceptions in a breast cancer prevention program. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42(2):262–8.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Nair V, Derry HA, McClure JB, et al. Women’s decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(3):613–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Korfage IJ, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Ubel PA, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Greene SM, McClure JB, et al. Informed choice about breast cancer prevention: randomized controlled trial of an online decision aid intervention. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(5):R74.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
56.
Bellcross CA, Peipins LA, McCarty FA, Rodriguez JL, Hawkins NA, Hensley Alford S, et al. Characteristics associated with genetic counseling referral and BRCA1/2 testing among women in a large integrated health system. Genet Med. 2015;17(1):43–50.PubMedCrossRef
57.
de Bock GH. How women with a family history of breast cancer and their general practitioners act on genetic advice in general practice: prospective longitudinal study. BMJ. 2001;322(7277):26–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Jacobsen PB, Valdimarsdottir HB, Brown KL, Offit K. Decision-making about genetic testing among women at familial risk for breast cancer. Psychosom Med. 1997;59(5):459–66.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Kukafka R, Fang J, Vanegas A, Silverman T, Crew KD. Pilot study of decision support tools on breast cancer chemoprevention for high-risk women and healthcare providers in the primary care setting. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):134.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
Williams CD, Bullard AJ, O’Leary M, Thomas R, Redding TS, Goldstein K. Racial/Ethnic disparities in BRCA counseling and testing: a narrative review. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2019;6(3):570–83.PubMedCrossRef
61.
62.
Phelan JC, Link BG. Is Racism a fundamental cause of inequalities in health? Ann Rev Sociol. 2015;41(1):311–30.CrossRef
63.
64.
Speiser D, Rebitschek FG, Feufel MA, Brand H, Besch L, Kendel F. Accuracy in risk understanding among BRCA1/2-mutation carriers. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102(10):1925–31.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Metcalfe KA, Narod S, Eisen A, Lerner-Ellis J. Treatment decision making and psychosocial outcomes associated with rapid genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. JCO. 2016;34(15_suppl):1586–1586.CrossRef
66.
Meadows R, Padamsee TJ, Paskett ED. Distinctive psychological and social experiences of women choosing prophylactic oophorectomy for cancer prevention. Health Care Women Int. 2018;39(5):595–616.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Padamsee TJ, Muraveva A, Yee LD, Wills CE, Paskett ED. Experiencing the cancer of a loved one influences decision-making for breast cancer prevention. J Health Psychol. 2020;25(8):1064–75.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Padamsee TJ, Muraveva A, Meadows R, Hils M, Yee LD, Wills CE, et al. Racial differences in prevention decision making among women at high risk of breast cancer: a qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(3):e0278742.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
70.
71.
Padamsee TJ, Meadows RJ, Kienzle S, Shane-Carson K. Collecting non-clinical data to address disparities in cancer prevention: lessons from the field. In development. 2021
72.
Tyrer J, Duffy SW, Cuzick J. A breast cancer prediction model incorporating familial and personal risk factors. Stat Med. 2004;23(7):1111–30.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Claus EB, Risch N, Thompson WD. Autosomal dominant inheritance of early-onset breast cancer. Implications for risk prediction. Cancer. 1994;73(3):643–51.PubMedCrossRef
74.
75.
Meadows RJ, Figueroa W, Shane-Carson KP, Padamsee TJ. Predicting breast cancer risk in a racially diverse, community-based sample of potentially high-risk women. Cancer Med. 2022
76.
77.
78.
79.
Meadows RJ, Figueroa W, Shane Carson K, Padamsee TJ. Predicting breast cancer risk in a racially diverse, community-based sample of potentially high-risk women. Under Rev. 2022;11:4043–52.
80.
81.
82.
Whitaker C, Stevelink S, Fear N. The use of facebook in recruiting participants for health research purposes: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(8):e7071.CrossRef
83.
Green MJ, Peterson SK, Baker MW, Harper GR, Friedman LC, Rubinstein WS, et al. Effect of a computer-based decision aid on knowledge, perceptions, and intentions about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibilitya randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004;292(4):442–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
84.
Watts KJ, Sherman KA, Mireskandari S, Meiser B, Taylor A, Tucker K. Predictors of relationship adjustment among couples coping with a high risk of developing breast/ovarian cancer. Psychol Health. 2011;26(suppl 1):21–39.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Hawkins NA, McCarty F, Peipins LA, Rodriguez JL. Measuring the degree of closeness to the cancer experience: development and initial validation of the CONNection to the Experience of Cancer Scale (CONNECS). Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(2):292–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
86.
87.
Wallston KA, Malcarne VL, Flores L, Hansdottir I, Smith CA, Stein MJ, et al. Does god determine your health? The god locus of health control scale. Cogn Ther Res. 1999;23(2):131–42.CrossRef
88.
Shea JA, Micco E, Dean LT, McMurphy S, Schwartz JS, Armstrong K. Development of a revised health care system distrust scale. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(6):727–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
89.
90.
Paskett ED, Caan BJ, Johnson L, Bernardo BM, Young GS, Pennell ML, et al. The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) life and longevity after cancer (LILAC) Study: Description and baseline characteristics of participants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2018;27(2):125–37.CrossRef
91.
Gustafson DH, McTavish FM, Stengle W, Ballard D, Hawkins R, Shaw BR, et al. Use and impact of ehealth system by low-income women with breast cancer. J Health Commun. 2005;10(Suppl 1):195–218.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Ende J, Kazis L, Ash A, Moskowitz MA. Measuring patients’ desire for autonomy: decision making and information-seeking preferences among medical patients. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4(1):23–30.PubMedCrossRef
93.
DuBenske LL, Burke Beckjord E, Hawkins RP, Gustafson DH. Psychometric evaluation of the health information orientation scale: a brief measure for assessing health information engagement and apprehension. J Health Psychol. 2009;14(6):721–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
94.
Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of event scale: a measure of subjective stress. Psychosom Med. 1979;41(3):209–18.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Cuijpers P, Smits N, Donker T, ten Have M, de Graaf R. Screening for mood and anxiety disorders with the five-item, the three-item, and the two-item Mental Health Inventory. Psychiatry Res. 2009;168(3):250–5.PubMedCrossRef
96.
97.
Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P. The control preferences scale. Can J Nurs Res. 1997;29(3):21–43.PubMed
98.
Paskett ED, Young GS, Bernardo BM, Washington C, DeGraffinreid CR, Fisher JL, et al. The CITIES project: understanding the health of underrepresented populations in Ohio. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2019;28(3):442–54.CrossRef
99.
100.
101.
102.
Metadata
Title
Risk-management decision-making data from a community-based sample of racially diverse women at high risk of breast cancer: rationale, methods, and sample characteristics of the Daughter Sister Mother Project survey
Authors
Tasleem J. Padamsee
Christina Bijou
Paige Swinehart-Hord
Megan Hils
Anna Muraveva
Rachel J. Meadows
Kate Shane-Carson
Lisa D. Yee
Celia E. Wills
Electra D. Paskett
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Breast Cancer Research / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1465-542X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-023-01753-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Breast Cancer Research 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Factors associated with overall survival in breast cancer patients with leptomeningeal disease (LMD): a single institutional retrospective review

Research

Quantitative characterization of breast lesions and normal fibroglandular tissue using compartmentalized diffusion-weighted model: comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion and restriction spectrum imaging

Research

Enhancing pathological complete response prediction in breast cancer: the role of dynamic characterization of DCE-MRI and its association with tumor heterogeneity

Research

Association of area- and volumetric-mammographic density and breast cancer risk in women of Asian descent: a case control study

Research

NSABP FB-10: a phase Ib/II trial evaluating ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) with neratinib in women with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer

Research

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound to predict malignant upgrading of atypical ductal hyperplasia
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