Open Access

Women’s preferences for selective estrogen reuptake modulators: an investigation using the time trade-off technique

  • Angelique F Ralph1Email author,
  • Brittany Ager1,
  • Melanie L Bell1, 2, 3,
  • Ian M Collins4,
  • Lesley Andrews6,
  • Kathy Tucker6,
  • Nicole O’Reilly7,
  • Kelly-Anne Phillips5 and
  • Phyllis Butow1, 2, 8
SpringerPlus20143:264

https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-3-264

Received: 24 April 2014

Accepted: 2 May 2014

Published: 24 May 2014

Abstract

Purpose

Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERMs) reduce the risk of breast cancer for women at increased risk by 38%. However, uptake is extremely low and the reasons for this are not completely understood. The aims of this study were to utilize time trade-off methods to determine the degree of risk reduction required to make taking SERMs worthwhile to women, and the factors associated with requiring greater risk reduction to take SERMs.

Methods

Women at increased risk of breast cancer (N = 107) were recruited from two familial cancer clinics in Australia. Participants completed a questionnaire either online or in pen and paper format. Hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was used to analyze the data.

Results

Overall, there was considerable heterogeneity in the degree of risk reduction required to make taking SERMs worthwhile. Women with higher perceived breast cancer risk and those with stronger intentions to undergo (or who had undergone) an oophorectomy required a smaller degree of risk reduction to consider taking SERMs worthwhile.

Conclusion

Women at increased familial risk appear motivated to consider SERMs for prevention. A tailored approach to communicating about medical prevention is essential. Health professionals could usefully highlight the absolute (rather than relative) probability of side effects and take into account an individual’s perceived (rather than objective) risk of breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast cancer Chemoprevention SERMs Patient preferences BRCA1

Introduction

A strong family history of breast cancer and/or carrying a germline mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, substantially increases breast cancer risk (Antoniou et al. 2003; Pharoah et al. 1997). For example, mutation carriers have average lifetime risks of 65% and 45% respectively (Antoniou et al. 2003), compared with 12% for the Australian general population (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009).

Risk reduction strategies for women with an elevated risk of breast cancer include surgery, namely bilateral mastectomy and bilateral pre-menopausal salpingo-oophorectomy, and medication such as selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) (Rebbeck et al. 2009; Rebbeck et al. 2004). There is strong evidence that SERMs such as tamoxifen and raloxifene, taken daily for 5 years, reduce breast cancer risk by 38% (Cuzick et al. 2013). However, uptake of these agents is very low, even in women at high familial-risk (Phillips et al. 2006; Savage 2007; Vogel 2010; Keogh et al. 2009; Evans et al. 2001; Collins et al. 2013). Whilst it has been estimated that 15% of women in the United States aged 35 to 79 could potentially benefit from tamoxifen (Freedman et al. 2003), less than 0.2% of women in this age range are taking tamoxifen (Waters et al. 2010).

The reasons for low SERM uptake are not completely understood, although fear of side effects, difficulty comprehending risk and biases against taking medication, have been shown to be important in several studies (Day et al. 1999; Port et al. 2001; Lovegrove et al. 2000). Understanding how women make decisions about breast cancer risk management might ultimately enhance uptake. The Time Trade-Off (TTO) method, establishes willingness to trade-off quality of life for length of life and has been widely utilized to elicit patients’ preferences in situations that involve complex trade-offs between the benefits and harms of medical decisions (De Haes & Stiggelbout 1996; Duric et al. 2007; Lin et al. 2012; Simes & Coates 2001). Studies investigating patient-preferences for adjuvant-chemotherapy in early breast cancer have found that a surprising number of women judged negligible benefits (0.1% to 1% increase in survival rate) sufficient to make adjuvant-chemotherapy worthwhile (Duric et al. 2007; Simes & Coates 2001). Parenting concerns, minimizing future regret, doubts about information provided by healthcare professionals and feeling they had no choice were the main explanations given by women for judging negligible benefits worthwhile.

The present study aimed to expand on previous research by exploring not only the minimum absolute risk-reduction that women judge necessary to make initiating SERMs worthwhile, but also the clinical and demographic variables associated with this outcome. Based on the literature, we hypothesized that higher objective breast cancer risk, younger age, being a parent and considering risk-reducing surgery would all be associated with requirement of a lower risk reduction to make taking SERMs worthwhile (Lovegrove et al. 2000; Tchou et al. 2004; Jansen et al. 2004).

Methods

Participants

Eligibility criteria included: being at moderate or high risk of breast cancer (see below), competency in English, aged 18 to 70 years, and no personal history of breast or ovarian cancer or bilateral mastectomy. Participants who had previously undergone bilateral oophorectomy (which reduces breast cancer risk if done while pre-menopausal) were not excluded, as their residual risk is still high enough to warrant consideration of SERMs.

Procedure

Consecutive eligible women identified from the clinic databases of two Australian Familial Cancer Clinics (FCCs) were invited to participate by the FCC; interested women were phoned by a researcher to gain verbal consent. Consenting women completed the study online or by paper and pencil. They first completed the consent form, then read a fact sheet that provided information on SERMs, risk-reducing mastectomy and salpingo-oophorectomy to ensure a basic level of knowledge, and then completed the questionnaire. Women were categorized as at moderate or high risk of breast cancer based on family history and BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation status, using Cancer Australia definitions, that is, high risk is greater than three times the population risk and moderate risk is one and a half to three times population risk (NBOCC 2009). Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the University of Sydney and participating sites.

Measures

Demographic characteristics

We collected age, ethnicity, relationship status, parity, number of daughters, plans for future children, menopausal status, BRCA1 BRCA2 mutation status, cigarette smoking status, personal history of blood clots, and family and/or personal history of bilateral mastectomy and/or oophorectomy and/or SERM use.

Intention to take SERMs: patient preferences

The primary outcome, patient preferences, was assessed using the TTO method adapted from (Simes & Coates 2001). Women were presented with hypothetical scenarios and asked to decide between taking and not taking SERMs. Women indicated if they would or would not take SERMs if taking SERMs were to reduce their lifetime breast cancer risk from a starting risk of 50% down to 50% (that is, not reduce their risk at all), then down to 49.5%, to 49%, to 48%, to 45% and so-on down to 0% by 5% increments. A second scenario was presented from a starting risk of 20%, with SERMs hypothetically reducing risk down to 20% (not reducing risk at all) then down to 19.5%, to 19%, to 18%, to 17%, to 15% and so-on down to 0% by increments alternating between 2 and 3%.

These two scenarios were based on the average lifetime risk of developing breast cancer for a woman at high risk (50%) and for a woman at moderate risk (20%). The “tipping-point”, the risk reduction required to make taking SERMs worthwhile, was computed for each participant for both the 50% and 20% risk scenarios by subtracting the percentage where the woman crossed from not taking SERMs to taking SERMs from the corresponding baseline risk. Thus, a lower tipping point represents a lower degree of risk reduction required to intend to take SERMs.

It was emphasized to participants that the choices were hypothetical; there were no right or wrong answers; and the numbers were hypothetical scenarios and did not apply to them personally. Following the TTO, women were asked to list, in order of importance, the three most important factors influencing their decision to take or not take SERMs.

Data analysis

Associations between TTO tipping points scores and clinical and demographic characteristics were explored through correlations and adjusted-analysis using multiple linear regression. In order to represent the equally important views of women who did not ‘tip’ (i.e., women who consistently chose to either take or not take SERMs, regardless of degree of benefit), 0.5 was added to all tipping point scores. Age and risk status were included as covariates in all multiple linear regressions due to strong theoretical rationale (Lovegrove et al. 2000; Tchou et al. 2004). Intention to have bilateral mastectomy and intention to have (or having had) bilateral oophorectomy were also included as binary covariates, as women do not consider SERMs in isolation but rather as an addition or alternative to other risk reduction strategies (Metcalfe et al. 2007). As history of blood clots and smoking status were not correlated with any of the outcomes, they were not included as covariates. Having a daughter/s was also omitted as a covariate as it demonstrated a large and significant correlation of r = .70 (p < .001) with another independent variable, parity.

Items women had listed as important in their decision-making during the TTO were thematically analyzed. For each woman, items were weighted from 3 to 1 from highest to least important, and categorized into identified themes. A weighted-frequency score was then calculated for each theme by summing the weightings of each item in the theme.

As some women in the sample had previously taken SERMs, a sensitivity-analysis was conducted to assess the impact this variable had on each of the models.

Results

Sample

Of the 407 invitations sent, 117 women responded and 107 (26%) completed the questionnaire. Analysis comparing de-identified data on non-responders with that of responders indicated that more women at moderate risk participated (53%) than did not participate (47%) compared to women at high risk (33% versus 67%) or those who were BRCA1 or BRCA2 positive (24% versus 76%). However as few eligible moderate risk women were identified, the absolute numbers were small. There were no other differences identified between responders and non-responders.

Participant characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The mean age was 43 (SD = 10.8). Forty-one women (38% of the sample) were BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation positive, 56 (52%) were at high risk but without a documented mutation and 10 (9%) were at moderate risk.
Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants at moderate risk of breast cancer, high risk of breast cancer and those with a mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene

Variable

Moderate risk

High risk

Mutation positive

Combined

 

n=10

n=56

n=41

N=107

 

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Age (years)

41.8

10.2

44.5

11.0

41.2

10.7

43.0

10.8

 

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

Ethnicity

        

   Australian

4

40

45

80

30

73

79

74

   European

3

30

6

11

4

10

13

12

   Asian

0

0

2

4

2

5

4

4

   Other

3

30

3

5

5

12

11

10

Relationship status

        

   Single

1

10

16

29

14

34

32

30

   Married/de facto

9

90

40

71

27

66

76

71

Children

        

   Yes

5

50

11

20

16

39

32

30

   No

5

50

45

80

25

61

75

70

Daughter/s

        

   Yes

4

40

36

64

21

51

61

57

   No

6

60

19

34

20

49

45

42

Want future children

        

   Yes

4

40

10

18

8

20

22

21

   No

4

40

40

71

28

68

72

67

   Unsure

1

10

6

11

5

12

12

11

Menopausal status

        

   Premenopausal

7

70

31

55

19

46

57

53

   Perimenopausal

1

10

6

11

0

0

7

7

   Menopausal

1

10

15

27

20

49

36

34

   Unsure

1

10

4

7

2

5

7

7

Family history of prophylactic mastectomy

        

   Yes

3

30

14

25

17

41

34

32

   No

7

70

42

75

24

59

73

68

Family history of prophylactic oophorectomy

        

   Yes

1

10

10

18

19

46

30

28

   No

9

90

46

82

22

54

77

72

Family history of SERMs

        

   Yes

5

56

26

46

10

24

41

38

   No

4

44

30

54

30

73

64

60

Personal history of oophorectomy

        

   Yes

0

0

8

14

19

46

27

25

   No

10

100

48

86

22

54

80

75

Personal history of SERMs

        

   Yes

1

10

12

21

5

12

18

17

   No

9

90

44

79

36

88

89

83

Cigarettes per day

        

   None

8

80

53

95

40

98

101

94

   10 or less

2

20

3

5

0

0

5

5

   11 to 20

0

0

0

0

1

2

1

1

History of blood clots

        

   Yes

1

10

0

0

0

0

1

1

   No

9

90

56

100

41

100

106

99

Tipping points

Tipping points are summarized in Figures 1 and 2. Some women had no tipping point. Specifically, 5.4% and 9.2% of women for the 50% and 20% baseline scenarios respectively, invariably chose to take SERMs and 7.5% and 15.3% of women for the 50% and 20% baseline scenarios respectively consistently chose not to take SERMs. There were no significant differences in the mean tipping points between risk groups (i.e., moderate, high, mutation positive) in either the 50%-baseline risk scenario, F(2,90) = 2.48, p = .09, or the 20%-baseline risk scenario, F(2,95) = 1.63, p = .20.
Figure 1

Amongst women who did ‘tip’ (n = 81), cumulative proportions of women considering taking SERMs for various degrees of risk reduction for 50% baseline scenario. Twelve participants were excluded from the analysis of the 50%-baseline scenario as they switched multiple times between taking SERMs and not taking SERMs throughout the same baseline scenario; thus a tipping point could not be calculated.

Figure 2

Amongst women who did ‘tip’ (n = 74), cumulative proportions of women considering taking SERMs for various degrees of risk reduction for 20% baseline scenario. Eight participants were excluded from the analysis of the 20%-baseline scenario as they switched multiple times between taking SERMs and not taking SERMs throughout the same baseline scenario; thus a tipping point could not be calculated.

Sensitivity analysis showed that having previously taken SERMs did not appreciably change multivariate analysis results, therefore the results shown here include the whole sample. As shown in Table 2, perceived risk and intention to undergo, or has undergone oophorectomy accounted for a significant amount of variance in tipping point scores in both scenarios (R 2  = .19, p = .01, R 2  = .17, p = .02 respectively). Women who intended to undergo or had undergone oophorectomy judged smaller amounts of risk reduction sufficient to take SERMs in both the 50% and 20% base risk scenarios. Additionally, women with higher perceived breast cancer risk required a smaller degree of risk reduction for it to be worthwhile for them to take SERMs in the 20% scenario.
Table 2

Multiple linear regression analysis predicting tipping point at 50% and 20% baseline risk

Dependent variable

Independent variables

B (95% CI)

P-value

Tipping point at 50% baseline risk

(R2 = .19)

 

.01

Age

.05 (-.3,.4)

.77

Risk status

  

Moderate

Reference

 

High

-6.9 (-18.3, 4.5)

.23

Mutation positive

-1.5 (-13.8, 4.5)

.81

Has children

-2.7 (-10.1, 4.8)

.48

Intention to have mastectomy

-4.2 (-11.0, 2.6)

.22

Intention to have oophorectomy

-11.7 (-18.5 ,-4.8)

.001

Perceived risk

-0.1 (-.15, .13)

.87

Tipping point at 20% baseline risk

(R2 = .17)

 

.02

Age

.03 (-.1,.2)

.72

Risk status

  

Moderate

Reference

 

High

-1.5 (-.6.4, 3.4)

.54

Mutation positive

-.1 (-5.4, 5.2)

.96

Has children

-.5 (-3.7, 2.7)

.76

Intention to have mastectomy

-.9 (-3.9, 2.0)

.54

Intention to have oophorectomy

-3.7 (-6.7, -.8)

.02

Perceived risk

-.1 (-.1, .0)

.01

Regression coefficients B and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are shown.

Qualitative responses

Issues affecting their decision, listed by women, are summarized in Table 3. The risk reduction offered by SERMs, and one’s personal level of risk and family concerns, were the most cited reasons for hypothetically choosing to take SERMs. Side effects was clearly the most cited reason for not taking SERMs, followed by low perceived efficacy of SERMs and choosing other methods of risk reduction. Most women (n = 53) did not specify which of the possible side effects were influencing their decision, however, of those who did, menopausal symptoms was the most frequently reported (n = 10), followed by unknown long-term consequences (n = 6), sexual function (n = 4), fertility (n = 4), weight gain (n = 2), osteoporosis (n = 3) and cognition (n = 1).
Table 3

Categories of factors women considered most influential in their hypothetical decision to take or not take SERMs

Category

Weighted frequencya

Incentives

 
 

Risk reduction

96

 

Personal risk

52

 

Reduce stress and worry

17

 

Family concerns

25

 

Age

2

 

Side effectsb

2

Barriers

 
 

Side effects

214

 

Other risk reduction methods

46

 

Inadequate efficacy

140

 

Taking medication

29

 

Age

15

 

Lack of information

10

 

Medical advice

18

 

Cost

14

aWeighted frequency was calculated by giving weightings of 3, 2 and 1 to answers listed as of highest importance, of next degree of importance and of least importance respectively. bPositive side effects were listed.

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion

This study is the first to our knowledge to apply the Time Trade-Off (TTO) method to elucidate how women at increased risk of breast cancer make decisions regarding using SERMs to reduce risk. The substantial minority of women who had no tipping-point was surprising. Six percent and 16% of women, for the 50% and 20% baseline scenarios respectively, consistently chose to take SERMs even when there would not be any reduction in the risk of breast cancer. These women reported being most influenced by: minimizing the stress and worry associated with being at increased risk; family concerns; and lowering their risk of breast cancer. Previous research has found that many women judge negligible benefits sufficient to engage in treatment for breast cancer (Duric et al. 2007; Simes & Coates 2001; Heisey et al. 2006). For example, Duric and colleagues found that 52-61% of women with early stage breast cancer judged one extra day in a life expectancy of 5-years sufficient to have adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of the baseline risk, of breast cancer related death (Duric et al. 2007).

Further, many women would consider SERMs if the benefits were sufficiently large, with 70% of moderate and 90% of high risk women respectively willing to consider SERMs for a 40% or less risk reduction (likely realistic). Thus general interest in SERMs in this group of moderate and high risk women was high.

A small proportion of women consistently chose not to take SERMs, even if SERMs reduced their risk of breast cancer to zero. All such women listed side effects as one of the top three important factors influencing their decision. This is congruent with previous research (Port et al. 2001; Lovegrove et al. 2000; Bober et al. 2004) demonstrating that women often decline to take tamoxifen because of fear of side effects which are frequently overestimated. Future research should explore which side effects are most concerning to women. Perhaps women could be offered a trial of SERMs to determine if they are substantially affected by vasomotor and gynecologic side effects, before making a decision whether to plan for 5 years of use. Communicating absolute, rather than relative risks for serious potential side effects such as endometrial cancer and thrombosis may also help to put these into perspective, especially for pre-menopausal women where they are rare (Keogh et al. 2009; Harvey et al. 2011; Fisher et al. 1998).

Unlike low benefits required by most women with breast cancer to take adjuvant chemotherapy (Duric et al. 2007), many women in the current study required a large risk reduction before choosing to take SERMs. In the 20% base risk scenario, over 40% of women needed the risk to be halved to 10% in order to consider taking SERMs to be worthwhile. Previous studies have reported that healthy individuals with no current symptoms have a lower tolerance for potential toxicities. Therefore, women ‘at risk’ rather than ill may require greater potential benefit from SERMs to outweigh the associated negative aspects and increase the likelihood of choosing this risk reduction option (Lawrence et al. 2012).

Younger age, higher objective risk and having children produced results in the predicted direction, however, none were significantly associated with degree of risk reduction required to take SERMs, for either the 20% or the 50% baseline risk scenario. Previous studies have had conflicting findings regarding the association between age and acceptance of risk-reducing tamoxifen (Lovegrove et al. 2000; Tchou et al. 2004; Bober et al. 2004; Meiser et al. 2003). Whilst some women may decline SERMs to avoid premature menopausal symptoms, other women may be more influenced by the fact that the most favorable risk benefit ratio is seen in premenopausal women (Harvey et al. 2011).

Women who reported that they were likely to undergo (or had undergone) an oophorectomy required less risk reduction in order to choose to take SERMs than women who were not considering this procedure. It is perhaps not surprising that women who are motivated enough to consider surgical risk reduction may be more willing to accept SERMs.

Subjective but not objective breast cancer risk was predictive of the degree of risk reduction required to take SERMs in the 20% baseline condition, with neither predictive in the 50% baseline condition. This is congruent with previous studies where subjective but not objective risk was associated with either considering tamoxifen (Meiser et al. 2003) or uptake of tamoxifen (Tchou et al. 2004; Bober et al. 2004). It is a well documented phenomenon that women overestimate their risk of breast cancer e.g. (Lovegrove et al. 2000; Heisey et al. 2006; Black et al. 1995; Davis et al. 2004; Lerman et al. 1995) and that perception of risk is rarely a direct comprehension of accurately understood probability information (Bober et al. 2004; Hopwood 2000). Thus care must be taken in discussing risk with these women, as it will influence their decision-making.

The present study has a number of limitations. It was cross-sectional and hypothetical, thus causation cannot be implied and it is not known whether intention to take SERMs would translate into actual behavior. Furthermore, women are unlikely to consider SERMs in isolation but rather as an addition or alternative to other methods of risk reduction such as bilateral mastectomy and/or oophorectomy. However, it was not feasible in the current study to examine women’s preferences for multiple methods of risk reduction.

The study had a relatively low response rate of 26%, although data on non-responders suggests this did not result in a biased sample. Nevertheless, the relatively high prevalence of previous SERM use in this sample, compared with expected rates, (Collins et al. 2013) suggests that the sample could have been unusual, thus results should be generally applied with some caution. Women who attend Australian familial cancer clinics have above-average educational and socioeconomic levels and may not be representative of the broader population of women at increased risk (Meiser et al. 2000; Coyne & Anderson 1999; Coyne et al. 2000; Cull et al. 1998). Nonetheless, findings are highly relevant to countries such as Australia, where the vast majority of assessment and genetic-testing of women at increased familial risk is done by a network of Family Cancer Centers, and these women are the most likely to be offered SERMs (Keogh et al. 2009).

Practice implications and future research

Many women at increased risk of breast cancer are interested in using SERMs to reduce their risk. Health professionals could focus on informing women about the proven long-term benefits of SERMs and the high quality of the underpinning evidence. As side effects represent a highly salient factor to women, and are often overestimated, the absolute (rather than relative) probability of side effects should be highlighted. Our study shows that individual preferences vary widely and thus a tailored approach to medical prevention is essential, perhaps with the assistance of a computerized decision aid that can effectively translate reported relative benefits and risks into absolute benefits and risks individualized to each woman’s circumstances.

Future research should endeavor to assess women’s preferences for SERMs in the context of other risk-reduction methods and/or in a sample of women who have declined surgical risk reduction procedures.

Ethical standards

This study was carried out according to national legislation and was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (12/020 [HREC/12/POWH/42]).

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank the study participants and the clinical and administrative staff of the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre Family Cancer Clinic. KAP is a National Breast Cancer Foundation Practitioner Fellow.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Psychology, University of Sydney
(2)
Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney
(3)
Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona
(4)
Division of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre
(5)
Sir Peter MacCallum Dept. of Oncology, The University of Melbourne
(6)
Hereditary Cancer Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital
(7)
School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales
(8)
Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), University of Sydney

References

  1. Antoniou A, Pharoah PDP, Narod S, Risch HA, Eyfjord JE, Hopper JL, Loman N, Olsson H, Johannsson O, Borg Å, Pasini B, Radice P, Manoukian S, Eccles DM, Tang N, Olah E, Anton-Culver H, Warner E, Lubinski J, Gronwald J, Gorski B, Tulinius H, Thorlacius S, Eerola H, Nevanlinna H, Syrjäkoski K, Kallioniemi OP, Thompson D, Evans C, Peto J, Lalloo F, Evans DG, Easton DF: Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations detected in case series unselected for family history: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet 2003, 72(5):1117-1130. doi:10.1086/375033View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Breast cancer in Australia: an overview, 2009 (Cancer series no. 50. Cat. no. CAN 46. Cancer series no. 50. Cat. no. CAN 46. AIHW, Canberra; 2009.Google Scholar
  3. Black WC, Nease RF, Tosteson ANA: Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness in women younger than 50 years of age. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995, 87(10):720-731. doi:10.1093/jnci/87.10.720View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. 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. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22(24):4951-4957. doi:10.1200/jco.2004.05.192View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins IM, Milne RL, Weideman P, McLachlan SA, Friedlander ML, Hopper JL, Phillips KA, kConFab Investigators: Preventing breast and ovarian cancers in high-risk BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. (kConFab). Med J Aust 2013, 199: 680-683. 10.5694/mja13.10848View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Coyne JC, Anderson KK: Marital status, marital satisfaction, and support processes among women at high risk for breast cancer. J Fam Psychol 1999, 13(4):629.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Coyne JC, Benazon NR, Gaba CG, Calzone K, Weber BL: Distress and psychiatric morbidity among women from high-risk breast and ovarian cancer families. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000, 68(5):864.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Cull A, Miller H, Porterfield T, Mackay J, Anderson E, Steel C, Elton R: The use of videotaped information in cancer genetic counselling: a randomized evaluation study. Br J Cancer 1998, 77(5):830. 10.1038/bjc.1998.135View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Bonanni B, Costantino JP, Cummings S, DeCensi A, Dowsett M, Forbes JF, Ford L, LaCroix AZ, Mershon J, Mitlak BH, Powles T, Veronesi U, Vogel V, Wickerham DL: Selective oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet 2013, 381(9880):1827-1834. doi: -3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60140 doi: -3 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60140-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis S, Stewart S, Bloom J: Increasing the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk: results from a randomized trial with Cancer Information Service callers. Prev Med 2004, 39(1):64-73. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.02.043View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Day R, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Cronin WM, Wickerham DL, Fisher B: Health-related quality of life and tamoxifen in breast cancer prevention: a report from the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project P-1 study. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17(9):2659.Google Scholar
  12. De Haes J, Stiggelbout A: Assessment of values, utilities and preferences in cancer patients. Cancer Treat Rev 1996, 22: 13-26. doi:10.1016/S0305-7372(96)90059-6View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Duric VM, Butow PN, Sharpe L, Boyle F, Beith J, Wilcken NRC, Heritier S, Coates AS, John Simes R, Stockler MR: Psychosocial factors and patients’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer. Psychooncology 2007, 16(1):48-59. doi:10.1002/pon.1045View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans DGR, Lalloo F, Shenton A, Boggis C, Howell A: Uptake of screening and prevention in women at very high risk of breast cancer. Lancet 2001, 358(9285):889-890. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06039-1View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, Vogel V, Robidoux A, Dimitrov N, Atkins J: Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project P-1 study. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90(18):1371-1388. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.18.1371View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Freedman AN, Graubard BI, Rao SR, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ballard-Barbash R, Gail MH: Estimates of the number of US women who could benefit from tamoxifen. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003, 95(7):526-532. 10.1093/jnci/95.7.526View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Harvey SL, Francis JE, McBride AJ, Bishop JF, Phillips KA: Medication to prevent breast cancer—too much to swallow? Med J Aust 2011, 195(11–12):646-649. doi:10.5694/mja11.10830View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Heisey R, Pimlott N, Clemons M, Cummings S, Drummond N: Women's views on chemoprevention of breast cancer: qualitative study. Can Fam Physician 2006, 52(5):624-625.Google Scholar
  19. Hopwood P: Breast cancer risk perception: what do we know and understand? Breast Cancer Res 2000, 2(6):387. doi:10.1186/bcr83View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Jansen SJT, Otten W, Stiggelbout AM: Review of determinants of patients’ preferences for adjuvant therapy in cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22(15):3181-3190. doi:10.1200/jco.2004.06.109View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Keogh LA, Hopper JL, Rosenthal D, Phillips KA: Australan clinicians and chemoprevention for women at high familial risk for breast cancer. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2009., 7(9): doi:10.1186/1897-4287-7-9Google Scholar
  22. Lawrence L, Narod S, Tuttle TM: SERMs: underused and under the radar. Hem/Onc today 2012, 11(19):1-14.Google Scholar
  23. Lerman C, Lustbader E, Rimer B, Daly M, Miller S, Sands C, Balshem A: Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995, 87(4):286-292. doi:10.1093/jnci/87.4.286View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Lin M, Yu W, Wang S: Examination of assumptions in using time tradeoff and standard gamble utilities in individuals with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 93(2):245-252. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.039View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Lovegrove E, Rumsey N, Harcourt D, Cawthorn S: Factors implicated in the decision whether or not to join the tamoxifen trial in women at high familial risk of breast cancer. Psychooncology 2000, 9(3):193-202. doi:10.1002/1099-1611 10.1002/1099-1611(200005/06)9:3<193::AID-PON454>3.0.CO;2-PView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Meiser B, Butow P, Friedlander M, Schnieden V, Gattas M, Kirk J, Suthers G, Haan E, Tucker K: Intention to undergo prophylactic bilateral mastectomy in women at increased risk of developing hereditary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000, 18(11):2250-2257.Google Scholar
  27. Meiser B, Butow P, Price M, Bennett B, Berry G, Tucker K: Attitudes to prophylactic surgery and chemoprevention in Australian women at increased risk for breast cancer. J Womens Health 2003, 12(8):769-778. 10.1089/154099903322447738View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Metcalfe K, Poll A, O’connor A, Gershman S, Armel S, Finch A, Demsky R, Rosen B, Narod S: Development and testing of a decision aid for breast cancer prevention for women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Clin Genet 2007, 72(3):208-217. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2007.00859.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. National Breast Ovarian Cancer Centre: Breast cancer risk factors: a review of the evidence. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, Sydney; 2009.Google Scholar
  30. Pharoah PD, Day NE, Duffy S, Easton DF, Ponder BA: Family history and the risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta‒analysis. Int J Cancer 1997, 71(5):800-809. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(19970529)71:5<800::AID-IJC18>3.0.CO;2-BView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips KA, Jenkins MA, Lindeman GJ, McLachlan SA, McKinley JM, Weideman PC, Hopper JL, Friedlander ML, kConFab I: Risk-reducing surgery, screening and chemoprevention practices of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a prospective cohort study. Clin Genet 2006, 70(3):198-206. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00665.xView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Port ER, Montgomery LL, Heerdt AS, Borgen PI: Patient reluctance toward tamoxifen use for breast cancer primary prevention. Ann Surg Oncol 2001, 8(7):580-585. 10.1007/s10434-001-0580-9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Rebbeck TR, Friebel T, Lynch HT, Neuhausen SL, van ’t Veer L, Garber JE, Evans GR, Narod SA, Isaacs C, Matloff E, Daly MB, Olopade OI, Weber BL: Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy reduces breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: the PROSE study group. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22(6):1055-1062. doi:10.1200/jco.2004.04.188View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Rebbeck TR, Kauff ND, Domchek SM: Meta-analysis of risk reduction estimates associated with risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009, 101(2):80-87. doi:10.1093/jnci/djn442View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Savage L: Researchers wonder why high-risk women are not taking chemoprevention drugs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007, 99(12):913-914. doi:10.1093/jnci/djm032View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Simes RJ, Coates AS: Patient preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: how much benefit is needed? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001, 2001(30):146-152. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jncimonographs.a003453View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Tchou J, Hou N, Rademaker A, Jordan VC, Morrow M: Acceptance of tamoxifen chemoprevention by physicians and women at risk. Cancer 2004, 100(9):1800-1806. doi:10.1002/cncr.20205View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Vogel VG: Tipping the balance for the primary prevention of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102(22):1683-1685. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq435View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Waters EA, Cronin KA, Graubard BI, Han PK, Freedman AN: Prevalence of tamoxifen use for breast cancer chemoprevention among US women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010, 19(2):443-446. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0930View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Ralph et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.