PurposeFamily history is an important risk factor for breast cancer incidence, but the parameters conventionally used to categorize it are based solely on numbers and/or ages of breast cancer cases in the family and take no account of the size and age-structure of the woman’s family.MethodsUsing data from the Generations Study, a cohort of over 113,000 women from the general UK population, we analyzed breast cancer risk in relation to first-degree family history using a family history score (FHS) that takes account of the expected number of family cases based on the family’s age-structure and national cancer incidence rates.ResultsBreast cancer risk increased significantly (P trend < 0.0001) with greater FHS. There was a 3.5-fold (95% CI 2.56–4.79) range of risk between the lowest and highest FHS groups, whereas women who had two or more relatives with breast cancer, the strongest conventional familial risk factor, had a 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.83–3.47) increase in risk. Using likelihood ratio tests, the best model for determining breast cancer risk due to family history was that combining FHS and age of relative at diagnosis.ConclusionsA family history score based on expected as well as observed breast cancers in a family can give greater risk discrimination on breast cancer incidence than conventional parameters based solely on cases in affected relatives. Our modeling suggests that a yet stronger predictor of risk might be a combination of this score and age at diagnosis in relatives.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-017-4325-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionOvarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer in women worldwide, and about 1 in 5 women with ovarian cancer do not receive treatment, because they are too unwell by the time they are diagnosed. Symptoms of ovarian cancer are non-specific or can be associated with other common conditions, and women experiencing these symptoms have been shown to self-manage them using over-the-counter medication. Results from a recent proof-of-concept study suggest there may be an increase in the purchases of painkillers and indigestion medication 10–12 months before ovarian cancer diagnosis. We propose a case–control study, as part of a larger project called the Cancer Loyalty Card Study (CLOCS), to investigate whether a significant change in medication purchases could be an indication for early signs of ovarian cancer, using data already collected through store loyalty cards.Methods and analysisUsing a retrospective case–control design, we aim to recruit 500 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer (cases) and 500 women without ovarian cancer (controls) in the UK who hold a loyalty card with at least one participating high street retailer. We will use pre-existing loyalty card data to compare past purchase patterns of cases with those of controls. In order to assess ovarian cancer risk in participants and their purchase patterns, we will collect information from participants on ovarian cancer risk factors and clinical data including symptoms experienced before diagnosis from recruited women with ovarian cancer.Ethics and disseminationCLOCS was reviewed and approved by the North West-Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee (19/NW/0427). Study outcomes will be disseminated through academic publications, the study website, social media and a report to the research sites that support the study once results are published.Trial registration numberISRCTN 14897082, CPMS 43323, NCT03994653.

Background Over-the-counter (OTC) medications are frequently used to self-care for nonspecific ovarian cancer symptoms prior to diagnosis. Monitoring such purchases may provide an opportunity for earlier diagnosis. Objective The aim of the Cancer Loyalty Card Study (CLOCS) was to investigate purchases of OTC pain and indigestion medications prior to ovarian cancer diagnosis in women with and without ovarian cancer in the United Kingdom using loyalty card data. Methods An observational case-control study was performed comparing purchases of OTC pain and indigestion medications prior to diagnosis in women with (n=153) and without (n=120) ovarian cancer using loyalty card data from two UK-based high street retailers. Monthly purchases of pain and indigestion medications for cases and controls were compared using the Fisher exact test, conditional logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Results Pain and indigestion medication purchases were increased among cases 8 months before diagnosis, with maximum discrimination between cases and controls 8 months before diagnosis (Fisher exact odds ratio [OR] 2.9, 95% CI 2.1-4.1). An increase in indigestion medication purchases was detected up to 9 months before diagnosis (adjusted conditional logistic regression OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.04-1.83). The ROC analysis for indigestion medication purchases showed a maximum area under the curve (AUC) at 13 months before diagnosis (AUC=0.65, 95% CI 0.57-0.73), which further improved when stratified to late-stage ovarian cancer (AUC=0.68, 95% CI 0.59-0.78). Conclusions There is a difference in purchases of pain and indigestion medications among women with and without ovarian cancer up to 8 months before diagnosis. Facilitating earlier presentation among those who self-care for symptoms using this novel data source could improve ovarian cancer patients’ options for treatment and improve survival. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03994653; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03994653

Background Health research using commercial data is increasing. The evidence on public acceptability and sociodemographic characteristics of individuals willing to share commercial data for health research is scarce. Objective This survey study investigates the willingness to share commercial data for health research in the United Kingdom with 3 different organizations (government, private, and academic institutions), 5 different data types (internet, shopping, wearable devices, smartphones, and social media), and 10 different invitation methods to recruit participants for research studies with a focus on sociodemographic characteristics and psychological predictors. Methods We conducted a web-based survey using quota sampling based on age distribution in the United Kingdom in July 2020 (N=1534). Chi-squared tests tested differences by sociodemographic characteristics, and adjusted ordered logistic regressions tested associations with trust, perceived importance of privacy, worry about data misuse and perceived risks, and perceived benefits of data sharing. The results are shown as percentages, adjusted odds ratios, and 95% CIs. Results Overall, 61.1% (937/1534) of participants were willing to share their data with the government and 61% (936/1534) of participants were willing to share their data with academic research institutions compared with 43.1% (661/1534) who were willing to share their data with private organizations. The willingness to share varied between specific types of data—51.8% (794/1534) for loyalty cards, 35.2% (540/1534) for internet search history, 32% (491/1534) for smartphone data, 31.8% (488/1534) for wearable device data, and 30.4% (467/1534) for social media data. Increasing age was consistently and negatively associated with all the outcomes. Trust was positively associated with willingness to share commercial data, whereas worry about data misuse and the perceived importance of privacy were negatively associated with willingness to share commercial data. The perceived risk of sharing data was positively associated with willingness to share when the participants considered all the specific data types but not with the organizations. The participants favored postal research invitations over digital research invitations. Conclusions This UK-based survey study shows that willingness to share commercial data for health research varies; however, researchers should focus on effectively communicating their data practices to minimize concerns about data misuse and improve public trust in data science. The results of this study can be further used as a guide to consider methods to improve recruitment strategies in health-related research and to improve response rates and participant retention.

Background Participation in case-control studies is crucial in epidemiological research. The self-sampling bias, low response rate, and poor recruitment of population representative controls are often reported as limitations of case-control studies with limited strategies to improve participation. With greater use of web-based methods in health research, there is a further need to understand the effectiveness of different tools to enhance informed decision-making and willingness to take part in research. Objective This study tests whether the inclusion of an animated decision aid in the recruitment page of a study website can increase participants’ intentions to volunteer as controls. Methods A total of 1425 women were included in a web-based experiment and randomized to one of two experimental conditions: one in which they were exposed to a simulated website that included the animation (animation; n=693, 48.6%), and one in which they were exposed to the simulated website without the animation (control; n=732, 51.4%). The simulated website was adapted from a real website for a case-control study, which invites people to consider taking part in a study that investigates differences in purchasing behaviors between women with and without ovarian cancer and share their loyalty card data collected through 2 high street retailers with the researchers. After exposure to the experimental manipulation, participants were asked to state (1) their intention to take part in the case-control study, (2) whether they would be willing to share their loyalty card for research, and (3) their willingness to be redirected to the real website after completing the survey. Data were assessed using ordinal and binary logistic regression, reported in percentages (%), adjusted odds ratio (AOR), and 95% confidence intervals. Results Including the animation in the simulated website did not increase intentions to participate in the study (AOR 1.09; 95% CI 0.88-1.35) or willingness to visit the real study website after the survey (control 50.5% vs animation 52.6%, AOR 1.08; 95% CI 0.85-1.37). The animation, however, increased the participants’ intentions to share the data from their loyalty cards for research in general (control 17.9% vs animation 26%; AOR 1.64; 95% CI 1.23-2.18). Conclusions While the results of this study indicate that the animated decision aid did not lead to greater intention to take part in our web-based case-control study, they show that they can be effective in increasing people’s willingness to share sensitive data for health research.