Advanced

Use of the BOADICEA Web Application in clinical practice : appraisals by clinicians from various countries

Brédart, Anne; Kop, Jean Luc; Antoniou, Antonis C.; Cunningham, Alex P.; de Pauw, Antoine; Tischkowitz, Marc; Ehrencrona, Hans LU ; Dolbeault, Sylvie; Robieux, Léonore and Rhiem, Kerstin, et al. (2018) In Familial Cancer 17(1). p.31-41
Abstract

The ‘BOADICEA’ Web Application (BWA) used to assess breast cancer risk, is currently being further developed, to integrate additional genetic and non-genetic factors. We surveyed clinicians’ perceived acceptability of the existing BWA v3. An online survey was conducted through the BOADICEA website, and the British, Dutch, French and Swedish genetics societies. Cross-sectional data from 443 participants who provided at least 50% responses were analysed. Respondents varied in age and, clinical seniority, but mainly comprised women (77%) and genetics professionals (82%). Some expressed negative opinions about the scientific validity of BOADICEA (9%) and BWA v3 risk presentations (7–9%). Data entry time (62%), clinical utility (22%) and... (More)

The ‘BOADICEA’ Web Application (BWA) used to assess breast cancer risk, is currently being further developed, to integrate additional genetic and non-genetic factors. We surveyed clinicians’ perceived acceptability of the existing BWA v3. An online survey was conducted through the BOADICEA website, and the British, Dutch, French and Swedish genetics societies. Cross-sectional data from 443 participants who provided at least 50% responses were analysed. Respondents varied in age and, clinical seniority, but mainly comprised women (77%) and genetics professionals (82%). Some expressed negative opinions about the scientific validity of BOADICEA (9%) and BWA v3 risk presentations (7–9%). Data entry time (62%), clinical utility (22%) and ease of communicating BWA v3 risks (13–17%) received additional negative appraisals. In multivariate analyses, controlling for gender and country, data entry time was perceived as longer by genetic counsellors than clinical geneticists (p < 0.05). Respondents who (1) considered hormonal BC risk factors as more important (p < 0.01), and (2) communicated numerical risk estimates more frequently (p < 0.001), judged BWA v3 of lower clinical utility. Respondents who carried out less frequent clinical activity (p < 0.01) and respondents with ‘11 to 15 years’ seniority (p < 0.01) had less favourable opinions of BWA v3 risk presentations. Seniority of ‘6 to 10 years’ (p < 0.05) and more frequent numerical risk communication (p < 0.05) were associated with higher fear of communicating the BWA v3 risks to patients. The level of genetics training did not affect opinions. Further development of BWA should consider technological, genetics service delivery and training initiatives.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Appraisal, Breast cancer, Clinical practice, Risk prediction model, Survey, Tool
in
Familial Cancer
volume
17
issue
1
pages
31 - 41
publisher
Kluwer
external identifiers
  • scopus:85020540592
ISSN
1389-9600
DOI
10.1007/s10689-017-0014-x
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
00d5ad67-e55a-47ba-8a31-750866e6989b
date added to LUP
2017-08-11 14:26:42
date last changed
2018-01-17 14:27:47
@article{00d5ad67-e55a-47ba-8a31-750866e6989b,
  abstract     = {<p>The ‘BOADICEA’ Web Application (BWA) used to assess breast cancer risk, is currently being further developed, to integrate additional genetic and non-genetic factors. We surveyed clinicians’ perceived acceptability of the existing BWA v3. An online survey was conducted through the BOADICEA website, and the British, Dutch, French and Swedish genetics societies. Cross-sectional data from 443 participants who provided at least 50% responses were analysed. Respondents varied in age and, clinical seniority, but mainly comprised women (77%) and genetics professionals (82%). Some expressed negative opinions about the scientific validity of BOADICEA (9%) and BWA v3 risk presentations (7–9%). Data entry time (62%), clinical utility (22%) and ease of communicating BWA v3 risks (13–17%) received additional negative appraisals. In multivariate analyses, controlling for gender and country, data entry time was perceived as longer by genetic counsellors than clinical geneticists (p &lt; 0.05). Respondents who (1) considered hormonal BC risk factors as more important (p &lt; 0.01), and (2) communicated numerical risk estimates more frequently (p &lt; 0.001), judged BWA v3 of lower clinical utility. Respondents who carried out less frequent clinical activity (p &lt; 0.01) and respondents with ‘11 to 15 years’ seniority (p &lt; 0.01) had less favourable opinions of BWA v3 risk presentations. Seniority of ‘6 to 10 years’ (p &lt; 0.05) and more frequent numerical risk communication (p &lt; 0.05) were associated with higher fear of communicating the BWA v3 risks to patients. The level of genetics training did not affect opinions. Further development of BWA should consider technological, genetics service delivery and training initiatives.</p>},
  author       = {Brédart, Anne and Kop, Jean Luc and Antoniou, Antonis C. and Cunningham, Alex P. and de Pauw, Antoine and Tischkowitz, Marc and Ehrencrona, Hans and Dolbeault, Sylvie and Robieux, Léonore and Rhiem, Kerstin and Easton, Douglas F. and Devilee, Peter and Stoppa-Lyonnet, Dominique and Schmutlzer, Rita},
  issn         = {1389-9600},
  keyword      = {Appraisal,Breast cancer,Clinical practice,Risk prediction model,Survey,Tool},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {31--41},
  publisher    = {Kluwer},
  series       = {Familial Cancer},
  title        = {Use of the BOADICEA Web Application in clinical practice : appraisals by clinicians from various countries},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10689-017-0014-x},
  volume       = {17},
  year         = {2018},
}