The most important risk factor for breast cancer, besides advanced age, is a family history of breast cancer. General practitioners play an important role in identifying women who are at increased risk of breast cancer,1 especially women who are too young to be eligible for population screening. In a prospective longitudinal study with three years of follow up, we studied women's compliance with advice provided by their general practitioner that was based on assessment of genetic risk and whether this genetic advice was in line with the advice of a clinical geneticist.
Participants, methods, and results
The women were patients at a primary healthcare centre linked to a university in the Netherlands. The centre, whose six general practitioners serve 11 500 patients, uses only computerised medical records. This system allows records of patients with specific risk factors and diseases to be marked and selected. A total of 2000 of the 2220 patients aged between 25 and 50 consulted their general practitioner between April 1994 and July 1995, and of these 81 sought advice on their familial risk of breast cancer.2 These women were subsequently interviewed twice. In summer 1995, 67 of the 81 women were interviewed about their family history of breast cancer. A clinical geneticist reviewed each family history, calculated a relative risk of breast cancer for each woman (from <2, representing a normal or slightly increased risk, to ⩾3, a highly increased risk) and gave genetic advice to the general practitioner (table). The genetic advice was in line with Dutch national guidelines as developed in 1999-2000. In autumn 1995 the general practitioners discussed this advice and the risk assessment with each woman in a single consultation (n=63; four women had moved). In autumn 1998, 42 of the women were asked about their reasons for their compliance (or non-compliance) with the genetic advice and with advice on breast self examination. Data on the genetic advice given by the general practitioner to each patient, the surveillance given by the general practitioner (annual palpation by the general practitioner and annual mammography), and patients' visits to family cancer clinics were extracted from the medical records (n=63). The medical ethics committee of the Leiden University Medical Centre approved the study protocol.
The clinical geneticist's advice was not followed by the general practitioner in 30% of the individual consultations; the general practitioners advised surveillance more frequently than did the geneticist (table). Women appreciated surveillance more than reassurance or referral to a family cancer clinic. Nearly 25% of the women reported that they performed breast self examination at least monthly. One third of the women were compliant with the advice on surveillance. The main reasons given for non-compliance were not remembering to do preventive activities and a lack of confidence in the value of surveillance.
Comment
The value of giving genetic advice on breast cancer in primary care is questionable, for three reasons. Firstly, women showed a low level of compliance with genetic advice as given by general practitioners. This is in line with results from other studies on the effectiveness of annual mammography in general practice for asymptomatic women with a family history of breast cancer.3 Secondly, there was a low level of compliance among general practitioners with the clinical geneticist's advice. Thirdly, there is no evidence that surveillance is effective in women under 50.4,5 Breast self examination in women under 50 has not been shown to reduce mortality, not even when combined with palpation by a general practitioner,4 and the sensitivity of mammography in women without breast symptoms is lower when the women are under 50.5 Nevertheless, we believe that there is a place for genetic advice in general practice and that further research could improve its effectiveness.
Supplementary Material
Table.
Genetic advice given by general practitioner* | Relative risk and genetic advice of clinical geneticist
|
|||
---|---|---|---|---|
<2; reassurance | 2-3; surveillance† | ⩾3; referral to family cancer clinic | Total | |
Reassurance | 19 | 0 | 0 | 19 |
Surveillance† | 8 | 17 | 11 | 36 |
Referral to a family cancer clinic | 0 | 0 | 8 | 8 |
Total | 27 | 17 | 19 | 63 |
All women received advice on breast self examination.
Surveillance=annual palpation by the general practitioner and annual mammography.
Acknowledgments
We thank the general practitioners of the “Wantveld” Health Care Centre for their commitment to the study.
Footnotes
Funding: Leiden University Medical Centre.
Competing interests: None declared.
This article is part of the BMJ's randomised controlled trial of open peer review. Documentation relating to the editorial decision making process is available on the BMJ's website
References
- 1.Kinmonth AL, Reinhard J, Bobrow M, Pauker S. The new genetics: implications for clinical services in Britain and the United States. BMJ. 1998;316:767–770. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7133.767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.De Bock GH, Perk C, Oosterwijk JC, Hageman GCHA, Springer MP, Kievit J. Women worried about their familial breast cancer risk—a study on genetic advice in general practice. Fam Pract. 1997;14:40–43. doi: 10.1093/fampra/14.1.40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Duijm LE, Guit GL, Zaat JO. Mammographic surveillance of asymptomatic breast cancer relatives in general practice: rate of re-attendance and GP and patient-related barriers. Fam Pract. 1997;14:450–454. doi: 10.1093/fampra/14.6.450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.16-year mortality from breast cancer in the UK trial of early detection of breast cancer. Lancet. 1999;353:1909–1914. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA. 1996;276:33–38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.