Perceptions about breast cancer among African American women: do selected educational materials challenge them?

Despite the availability of factual information about breast cancer, there continues to be an abundance of misperceptions about the disease. This study, guided by the Patient/Provider/System Model for cancer screening, describes perceptions about breast cancer among African American women (N = 179) at primary care centers. Data were collected using the Breast Cancer Perceptions and Knowledge Survey and a demographic questionnaire. Breast cancer pamphlets available at the centers were evaluated (readability, extent they challenged misperceptions). The average age of the women was 34 years with an average educational level of 12 years. A number of misperceptions were prevalent. The majority viewed breast self-examination as a form of early detection and some viewed pain as an indicator of cancer. Pamphlets did not explicitly challenge the misperceptions and the SMOG reading level was high. Intervention studies are needed to identify the effective methods to challenge and correct misperceptions about breast cancer for these women.     

Why women do not get micturition syncope?--a hypothesis

In the present communication, the author hypothesises on the rarity of Indian women to suffer from micturition syncope while this is fairly common amongst men of all ages. Most Indian women adopt a squatting posture during micturition in contrast to men who prefer to stand. Squatting induced increased adrenergic drive and the resultant rise of blood pressure seems to negate the parasympathetic overactivity that results from bladder evacuation causing micturition syncope. Significant venous pooling in legs is also prevented by adopting a squatting posture and using a commode seat.     

What do ratings of cancer-specific distress mean among women at high risk of breast and ovarian cancer?

Women recruited from a hereditary cancer registry provided ratings of distress associated with different aspects of high-risk status and genetic testing and completed measures of general psychological distress, emotional and social health, and role functioning. Overall, high-risk status was rated as more distressing than undergoing genetic testing. Women without a personal history of cancer rated the level of distress associated with a positive test result to be greater than that associated with high-risk status. In contrast, level of distress associated with a positive test result was not significantly different from that associated with high-risk status for women with a personal history of cancer. Furthermore, women with a personal cancer history also anticipated that if they had an altered gene associated with increased risk of cancer, it would be less distressing than their diagnosis of cancer had been. Women with the highest ratings of cancer-related stress were less inclined to obtain testing, but were not more generally distressed or maladjusted. The need to interpret psychological distress and the stressfulness of genetic testing among high-risk women with respect to relevant comparison data is discussed.     

NCCP breast cancer referral guidelines--are breast cancer patients prioritised?

Following centralisation of breast cancer services, the National Cancer Control Programme (NCCP) introduced referral guidelines indicating which patients require urgent, early and routine review. This study prospectively analysed referrals to a symptomatic breast unit over 3 months to measure Primary Care Physician (GP) uptake of the NCCP referral guidelines, compare triage patterns of GP and consultant breast surgeon and evaluate the efficacy of the guidelines at identifying patients with breast cancer. 1044 consecutive referrals were categorised according to NCCP guidelines. 637 (61%) were referred using the NCCP form. GP referrals correlated well with consultant breast surgeon for patients requiring urgent review (r = 0.71, p < 0.001; Pearson). Patients categorised as "urgent" were more likely to have a breast biopsy compared to those categorised as "routine" (p < 0.0001; Chi2). The overall cancer incidence was 34 (3.3%) and significantly higher in the "urgent" group at 10.5%. NCCP guidelines were 91% sensitive for triaging breast cancer patients into the correct (urgent) category. The NCCP guidelines are accurate and should be considered the gold-standard for referral to the symptomatic breast service. Consideration should be given to a GP-delivered service to patients outside the "urgent" category.     

How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis

Objectives

Offering breast cancer risk prediction for all women of screening age is being considered globally. For women who have received a clinically derived estimate, risk appraisals are often inaccurate. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of women's lived experiences of receiving an increased breast cancer risk.

Design

One-to-one semi-structured telephone interviews.

Methods

Eight women informed that they were at a 10-year above-average (moderate) or high risk in a breast cancer risk study (BC-Predict) were interviewed about their views on breast cancer, personal breast cancer risk and risk prevention. Interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min. Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

Results

Four themes were generated: (i) encounters with breast cancer and perceived personal significance, where the nature of women's lived experiences of others with breast cancer impacted their views on the significance of the disease, (ii) ‘It's random really’: difficulty in seeking causal attributions, where women encountered contradictions and confusion in attributing causes to breast cancer, (iii) believing versus identifying with a clinically-derived breast cancer risk, where personal risk appraisals and expectations influenced women's ability to internalize their clinically derived risk and pursue preventative action and (iv) perceived utility of breast cancer risk notification, where women reflected on the usefulness of knowing their risk.

Conclusions

Providing (numerical) risk estimates appear to have little impact on stable yet internally contradictory beliefs about breast cancer risk. Given this, discussions with healthcare professionals are needed to help women form more accurate appraisals and make informed decisions.     

Why do we sneeze?

According to textbooks, the function of a sneeze is to send a strong blast of air through the nose to remove foreign bodies. Three simple tests are described that show that the current views are wrong. The pressure developed in the mouth/pharynx of the author during a sneeze was recorded as about 135 mmHg reached in about 0.1s. A forced maximal expiration but with the nose and mouth closed produced a nasal secretion although of smaller amount than in the sneeze, in spite of a greater pressure; this is probably because the speed of tension development was much slower than in the sneeze. It is proposed that the high pressure stimulates secretory neurons via branches in the roof of the mouth. The nasal secretion dilutes irritant material in the nose and thus prevents it getting into the lungs.     

What's the message? Interpretation of an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result for women at risk of familial breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To test the "false-reassurance hypothesis," which suggests that women who receive an uninformative BRCA1/2 test result may incorrectly conclude that they no longer have an elevated risk, with possible harmful consequences for adherence to breast surveillance guidelines. METHODS: A prospective questionnaire design was used to compare 183 women with an uninformative BRCA test result (94 affected and 89 unaffected) with 41 proven BRCA mutation-carriers and 49 true negatives before and after BRCA1/2 test disclosure. RESULTS: After DNA-test disclosure, test applicants differed from each other with regard to their perception of the likelihood of carrying a deleterious gene (P < 0.0001). The BRCA mutation carriers reported the highest perceived likelihood and the true negatives reported the lowest. Compared to the predisclosure measures, women who received an uninformative DNA test result reported a lower perceived risk after disclosure (P < 0.0001), suggesting a relatively high level of reassurance because of the test result. However, after DNA-test disclosure, only 12 women concluded that the risk of carrying a mutation was nonexistent, and perceived likelihood was significantly associated with the pedigree-based risk assessment (P = 0.0001). Moreover, despite the significant decrease in perceived likelihood for uninformative women, intention to obtain mammograms did not change (P = 0.71); it remained at the same almost optimal level as for BRCA mutation carriers. CONCLUSION: No support was found for the suggestion that the nature of uninformative test results is often misunderstood. Moreover, an uninformative test result did not affect the positive mammography intentions of both affected and unaffected women.     

Why cancer cells metastasize?

Metastasis is so complicated and well organized that there should be a good reason for it to happen. Here a hypothesis is proposed that metastasis of cancer cells is an abnormal form of migration of native stem/progenitor cells since cancer cells derive from stem/progenitor cells and may inherit stemness, including migration ability. This is an intrinsic potential and external cause mode. During metastasis, cancer cells are involved in the stem/progenitor cell recruitment to meet the need of organism for homeostasis, regeneration and repair, mediated by external signals and using inherent mechanisms but leading to catastrophic results. The “seed and soil” hypothesis can be redefined as that the “soil” is formed under certain circumstances and the “seed” is attracted to its particular “soil”. Cancer cells in the microenviroment mimicking stem cell niche may have superiority in reactivity to metastatic signals. And very few of migrating cancer cells can form metastases. The conditions suitable for metastasis formation are still waiting to be revealed. The hypothesis tries to explain why cancer cells metastasize. It is hoped that the examination of this hypothesis may lead us to the real answer.     

Why do some cancer patients with depression desire an early death and others do not?

Major depression is a well-documented risk factor for suicide in cancer patients as well as in the general population. However, there are no data explaining why some cancer patients suffering from major depression have suicidal ideation, while others do not. The authors investigated the background differences among cancer patients suffering from major depression with and without suicidal ideation by analyzing the consultation data of patients referred to the psychiatry division. Among the 1,721 referred patients, 220 (12.8%) were diagnosed with major depression, and of these 113 (51.4%) had suicidal ideation. Logistic regression analysis indicated that poor physical functioning and severe depression were significant risk factors. These preliminary findings suggest that the severity of major depression and physical functioning are important indicators of suicidal ideation among cancer patients.     

Why do married women procure abortion? Experiences from Ile-Ife,south western Nigeria

BackgroundIn Nigeria, about 1.25million induced abortions occur annually and the country accounts for one-fifth of abortion-related deaths globally.ObjectivesThe study aimed to assess the determinants of induced abortion among married women.MethodsA mixed methods study was conducted in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. The quantitative component employed a cross-sectional study design while the qualitative aspect comprised focus group discussions. Information on contraceptives use, unintended pregnancy and induced abortion were obtained from 402 married women (with at least one child) aged 18–49 years using a semi-structured questionnaire. Four focus group discussion sessions were conducted among women of reproductive age.ResultsMajority (67.2%) of respondents had ever used a contraceptive method. However, 34.3% of the women have had unintended pregnancies and 14.2% had induced abortion. FGD findings revealed that non-use of contraceptives and contraceptive failure were major reasons for unintended pregnancies and induced abortion. The significant predictors of induced abortion were non-use of contraceptives, age≥ 40 years and multiparity.ConclusionInduced abortion still occur among married women particularly those not using contraceptives, aged ≥40 years and those with high parity. More emphasis should be placed on making contraceptives more accessible to married women.     

Why do some women refuse to allow male residents to perform pelvic exams?

PURPOSE: Many women who receive medical care in residency training clinics refuse to allow male residents to perform their pelvic exams. This study was conducted to identify which women were most likely to refuse and to learn their reasons for refusing. METHOD: From January to March 1997, a questionnaire was given to all women entering a Tri-County Health office and a Planned Parenthood clinic, both in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area, who consented to participate in the study. Data from the questionnaire were analyzed using a statistical software package. RESULTS: A total of 1,437 women entered the clinics during the study period. Of these patients, 1,078 consented to complete the questionnaire. Seven of these 1,078 women did not complete the questionnaire. Women who did not know the training level of the resident performing the pelvic exam were more likely to refuse than were women who knew the training level of the resident (p =.001), but many women preferred a female physician regardless of the physician's training level. Fifty-eight percent said they would allow a male resident to observe a female attending physician perform the exam, compared with 36% who said they would allow a male resident to observe if the attending physician was a man. Common statements from those who would refuse were: "I am just more comfortable with a female," "Women do not want men to examine their private body parts," and "Women explain things better." CONCLUSIONS: A woman's knowledge of the resident's training level correlates with her willingness to have a pelvic exam performed by a male resident. Women who said they would refuse a pelvic exam performed by a male resident gave specific reasons for their decision.     

Why do patients with cancer access out-of-hours primary care? A retrospective study

Background

Identifying why patients with cancer seek out-of-hours (OOH) primary medical care could highlight potential gaps in anticipatory cancer care.

Aim

To explore the reasons for contact and the range and prevalence of presenting symptoms in patients with established cancer who presented to a primary care OOH department.

Design and setting

A retrospective review of 950 anonymous case records for patients with cancer who contacted the OOH general practice service in Grampian, Scotland between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2011.

Method

Subjects were identified by filtering the OOH computer database using the Read Codes ‘neoplasm’, ‘terminal care’, and ‘terminal illness’. Consultations by patients without cancer and repeated consultations by the same patient were excluded. Data were anonymised. Case records were read independently by two authors who determined the presenting symptom(s).

Results

Anonymous case records were reviewed for 950 individuals. Eight hundred and fifty-two patients made contact because of a symptom. The remaining 97 were mostly administrative and data were missing for one patient. The most frequent symptoms were pain (n = 262/852, 30.8%); nausea/vomiting (n = 102/852, 12.0%); agitation (n = 53/852, 6.2%); breathlessness (n = 51/852, 6.0%); and fatigue (n = 48/852, 5.6%). Of the 262 patients who presented with pain, at least 127 (48.5%) had metastatic disease and 141 (53.8%) were already prescribed strong opiate medication.

Conclusion

Almost one-third of patients with cancer seeking OOH primary medical care did so because of poorly controlled pain. Pain management should specifically be addressed during routine anticipatory care planning.     

Prediction of breast cancer metastasis by genomic profiling: where do we stand?

Current concepts conceive “breast cancer” as a complex disease that comprises several very different types of neoplasms. Nonetheless, breast cancer treatment has considerably improved through early diagnosis, adjuvant chemotherapy, and endocrine treatments. The limited prognostic power of classical classifiers determines considerable over-treatment of women who either do not benefit from, or do not at all need, chemotherapy. Several gene expression based molecular classifiers (signatures) have been developed for a more reliable prognostication. Gene expression profiling identifies profound differences in breast cancers, most probably as a consequence of different cellular origin and different driving mutations and can therefore distinguish the intrinsic propensity to metastasize. Existing signatures have been shown to be useful for treatment decisions, although they have been developed using relatively small sample numbers. Major improvements are expected from the use of large datasets, subtype specific signatures and from the re-introduction of functional information. We show that molecular signatures encounter clear limitations given by the intrinsic probabilistic nature of breast cancer metastasis. Already today, signatures are, however, useful for clinical decisions in specific cases, in particular if the personal inclination of the patient towards different treatment strategies is taken into account.     

Should we individualize breast cancer screening?

Publicly organized population breast cancer screening is presently hotly debated. Indeed, population screening is poorly effective, induces harms in a healthy population and is costly. However, stopping all kind of screening of low- and average-risk women would be problematic as about 70% of breast cancers are diagnosed in those subgroups, and maintaining current population screening in high-risk women would be insufficient. We propose herein a review about the advantages and the inconvenients of individualized screening. The latter could be a more efficient strategy. The principles of individualized screening are (a) to start from the age at which the breast cancer risk is equal to that for an average women aged 50 years, (b) to stop when the risk of co-mortality exceeds the risk of breast cancer mortality, (c) to adapt the exams frequency and the imaging modalities to the individual risk and to the breast density, (d) to reassess regularly and individually the screening strategy, and (e) to discuss honestly with each woman in order to help her to decide if she participates or not.