New Boadicea breast cancer model: Study shows women under 50 not being referred under current NICE criteria

There doesn't seem to be any mention in the article of risks due to mammography. The only note of caution was this paragraph:

"Ultimately, it will be a trade-off between the practical, resource, and cost implications of data collection and risk assessment, and the potential benefits and harms associated with accurate and inaccurate classification of women."

I suppose mammography could "buried" within this statement, but I'd like to read more about this before I dismiss it due to mammography "risks."

I was one of those under 40s who could have benefited from earlier detection and better understanding of genetics and family history. It was assumed that, because I was young, my risk was negligible, and therefore didn't get a referral straight away. I had to fight for my referral.

If NICE criteria are failing women, I think it's right to consider other options.

BBC report on this:

"This study, by a team from Cambridge University and the Institute of Cancer Research, looks at how to predict breast cancer risk in younger women.

They used a risk calculator called Boadicea that combines factors such as family history, lifestyle, reproductive history and genetic information to give a risk score.

If all women under 50 were to have this done, they estimate about a quarter (26.5%) would be categorised as at above-average risk and referred for further assessment.

This would include a third of women under 50 (34.8%) who develop breast cancer within 10 years.

By comparison, the current Nice criteria would result in 1.4% of women under 50 being referred for further assessment, which would include just 4.4% of those women who develop breast cancer.

A main reason for the disparity, the researchers say, is because three-quarters of women (73%) under 50 who develop breast cancer within a decade have no family history of breast cancer - the key criterion in the Nice guidelines.
[my bold]

Breast cancer checks missing lots of at risk younger women, says study - BBC News

You would think so, but they were just starting to talk about genetic testing when I was diagnosed nearly 20 years ago, and it seems that NICE have not moved on in their criteria since then. I know that research and treatment are now miles ahead of what they were two decades ago, so the issue, it seems to me, is getting the research and treatment to the women.

Which you can't do, if you're stuck on decades-old criteria. This is why they are missing a lot of younger women.

And, surely, lifestyle choices have changed since the last generation? Younger women are no longer smoking, but vaping, and young people don't drink nearly as much as Millennials did/do. There's a lot that has changed.

For NICE to just say "nope, thanks, we're fine as we are" is reckless. I suspect it's more about no staff or funding to take on a new model. It's always about money. And women pay that price.

Would they work harder to adopt a new model if it were for prostate cancer? Would they fund it? Hmmm...

Steep! And out of reach for a lot of women, but at least it can be done. Thanks for this.