Affiliation:
1. Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester , Manchester , UK
2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, St Mary’s Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre , Manchester , UK
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Effective and targeted endometrial cancer prevention strategies could reduce diagnoses by 60%. Whether this approach is acceptable to individuals and general practitioners (GPs) is currently unknown. This study sought to determine attitudes towards the provision of personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments and the acceptability of potential prevention strategies.
Methods
Specific online questionnaires were developed for individuals aged 45–60 years with a uterus and UK-practising GPs, with social media, charity websites, and email used to advertise the study. Individuals completed the questionnaires between February and April 2022.
Results
Of 660 lay questionnaire respondents, 90.3% (n = 596) thought that undergoing an endometrial cancer risk assessment was a good or very good idea and 95.6% (n = 631) would be willing to undergo such an assessment. The commonest reasons for wanting to participate were “to try and reduce my risk” (n = 442, 67.0%), “to be informed” (n = 354, 53.6%), and “it could save my life’ (n = 315, 47.7%). Over 80% of respondents would make lifestyle changes to reduce their endometrial cancer risk (n = 550), with half accepting a pill, Mirena, or hysterectomy for primary prevention. GPs were similarly engaged, with 93.0% (n = 106) willing to offer an endometrial cancer risk assessment if a tool were available, potentially during a Well Woman screen.
Conclusion
Personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments are acceptable to potentially eligible individuals and GPs and could be accommodated within routine practice. Clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification and Mirena for endometrial protection are urgently required and should be targeted at those at greatest disease risk.
Funder
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Manchester Biomedical Research Centre
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献