Journal of medical genetics · 2024
Risk perception and surveillance uptake in individuals at increased risk for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nguyen Denis, Gilad Ophir, Drogan Christine M, Eilers Zoe, Liao Chuanhong, Kupfer Sonia S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surveillance for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is recommended for high-risk individuals with genetic variants in PDAC-associated genes and/or family history. Surveillance uptake and adherence may depend on the perception of PDAC risk and cancer worry. We aimed to determine PDAC risk perception in at-risk individuals and assess factors associated with PDAC surveillance uptake.
METHODS: At-risk individuals identified from a prospective academic registry were sent a survey electronically. PDAC risk perception, cancer worry and surveillance uptake were surveyed. Factors associated with increased risk perception and surveillance were assessed. Five-year PDAC risk was calculated using the PancPRO risk assessment model, and correlation with subjective risk assessment was assessed.
RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 34% (279/816). The median perceived PDAC risk was twofold (IQR 1-4) above respondents' estimates of general population risk. Factors significantly associated with higher perceived PDAC risk included non-Hispanic white race, post-graduate education level, PDAC-affected first-degree relative, genetic variants and lack of personal cancer history. Cancer worry had a very weak correlation across PDAC risk estimates (r=0.16). No correlation between perceived PDAC risk and 5-year calculated PDAC risk was found. Older age, having a first-degree relative with PDAC, meeting with a medical provider about PDAC cancer risk and awareness of surveillance modalities were significant predictors of undergoing PDAC surveillance.
CONCLUSIONS: Individuals at risk for PDAC do not report risk perception that correlates with calculated risk. This presents an opportunity for counselling of at-risk patients to individualise management and improve surveillance uptake for eligible individuals.
METHODS: At-risk individuals identified from a prospective academic registry were sent a survey electronically. PDAC risk perception, cancer worry and surveillance uptake were surveyed. Factors associated with increased risk perception and surveillance were assessed. Five-year PDAC risk was calculated using the PancPRO risk assessment model, and correlation with subjective risk assessment was assessed.
RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 34% (279/816). The median perceived PDAC risk was twofold (IQR 1-4) above respondents' estimates of general population risk. Factors significantly associated with higher perceived PDAC risk included non-Hispanic white race, post-graduate education level, PDAC-affected first-degree relative, genetic variants and lack of personal cancer history. Cancer worry had a very weak correlation across PDAC risk estimates (r=0.16). No correlation between perceived PDAC risk and 5-year calculated PDAC risk was found. Older age, having a first-degree relative with PDAC, meeting with a medical provider about PDAC cancer risk and awareness of surveillance modalities were significant predictors of undergoing PDAC surveillance.
CONCLUSIONS: Individuals at risk for PDAC do not report risk perception that correlates with calculated risk. This presents an opportunity for counselling of at-risk patients to individualise management and improve surveillance uptake for eligible individuals.