Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening trials
  1. D Gareth Evans1,2,
  2. Michelle Harvie1,
  3. Nigel Bundred1,
  4. Anthony Howell1,3
  1. 1Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
  2. 2Genetic Medicine, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester Foundation Trust, St Mary's Hospital, UK
  3. 3Manchester Breast Centre, University of Manchester, The Christie NHS Trust, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor D Gareth Evans, Central Manchester University foundation Trust, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester M13 0JH, UK; gareth.evans{at}


Background Uptake of cancer trials and in particular prevention trials has been disappointing globally.

Methods Uptake to three randomised chemotherapy breast cancer prevention trials and two dietary prevention trials in women at increased familial risk were assessed and compared with uptake of screening trials across a range of risk categories.

Results Uptake of drug prevention trials remains low at 5.3–13.6%, but is significantly higher in the high (12%) compared to very high risk group (8.4%) for IBIS1 and IBIS2 combined (p=0.004). Recruitment to two dietary prevention studies via mail shot was also disappointingly low at 6.2% and 12.5%. In contrast uptake to two mammography screening trials was >90% in all risk categories.

Conclusions More work must be done to improve recruitment to prevention trials if they are to be seen as viable alternatives to risk reducing surgery.

Impact Trial designs and decision aids need to be developed to improve recruitment.

  • Cancer: breast
  • prevention
  • genetic epidemiology

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests None.

  • Ethics approval Ethics committee approval for the studies described was obtained from the Central Manchester Ethics Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.