Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public

Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments

PURPOSE

Genetic and genomic testing can provide valuable information on individuals' risk of chronic diseases, presenting an opportunity for risk-tailored disease screening to improve early detection and health outcomes. The acceptability, uptake and effectiveness of such programmes is dependent on public preferences for the programme features. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of discrete choice experiments assessing preferences for genetic/genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for discrete choice experiment studies assessing preferences for genetic or genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. Eligible studies were double screened, extracted and synthesised through descriptive statistics and content analysis of themes. Bias was assessed using an existing quality checklist.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. Most studies focused on cancer screening (n = 10) and explored preferences for testing of rare, high-risk variants (n = 10), largely within a targeted population (e.g. subgroups with family history of disease). Two studies explored preferences for the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) at a population level. Twenty-six programme attributes were identified, with most significantly impacting preferences. Survival, test accuracy and screening impact were most frequently reported as most important. Depending on the clinical context and programme attributes and levels, estimated uptake of hypothetical programmes varied from no participation to almost full participation (97%).

CONCLUSION

The uptake of potential programmes would strongly depend on specific programme features and the disease context. In particular, careful communication of potential survival benefits and likely genetic/genomic test accuracy might encourage uptake of genetic and genomic risk-tailored disease screening programmes. As the majority of the literature focused on high-risk variants and cancer screening, further research is required to understand preferences specific to PRS testing at a population level and targeted genomic testing for different disease contexts.

Adherence to melanoma screening and surveillance skin check schedules tailored to personal risk

Population-wide skin cancer screening is not currently recommended in most countries. Instead, most clinical guidelines incorporate risk-based recommendations for skin checks, despite limited evidence around implementation and adherence to recommendations in practice. We aimed to determine adherence to personal risk-tailored melanoma skin check schedules and explore reasons influencing adherence. Patients (with/without a previous melanoma) attending tertiary dermatology clinics at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia, were invited to complete a melanoma risk assessment questionnaire via iPad and provided with personal risk information alongside a risk-tailored skin check schedule. Data were collected from the risk tool, clinician-recorded data on schedule deviations, and appointment booking system. Post-consultation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and clinic staff. We used a convergent segregated mixed methods approach for analysis. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were analysed thematically. Participant data were analysed from clinic records (n = 247) and interviews (n = 29 patients, 11 staff). Overall, there was 62% adherence to risk-tailored skin check schedules. In cases of non-adherence, skin checks tended to occur more frequently than recommended. Decisions to deviate were similarly influenced by patients (44%) and clinicians (56%). Themes driving non-adherence among patients included anxiety and wanting autonomy around decision-making, and among clinicians included concerns around specific lesions and risk estimate accuracy. There was moderate adherence to a clinical service program of personal risk-tailored skin check recommendations. Further adherence may be gained by incorporating strategies to identify and assist patients with high levels of anxiety and supporting clinicians to communicate risk-based recommendations with patients.

Acceptability of artificial intelligence in breast screening: focus groups with the screening-eligible population in England

Introduction

Preliminary studies of artificial intelligence (AI) tools developed to support breast screening demonstrate the potential to reduce radiologist burden and improve cancer detection which could lead to improved breast cancer outcomes. This study explores the public acceptability of the use of AI in breast screening from the perspective of screening-eligible women in England.

Methods

64 women in England, aged 50-70 years (eligible for breast screening) and 45-49 years (approaching eligibility), participated in 12 focus groups-8 online and 4 in person. Specific scenarios in which AI may be used in the mammogram reading process were presented. Data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

Results

Four themes described public perceptions of AI in breast screening found in this study: (1) Things going wrong and being missed summarises a predominant and pervasive concern about an AI tool being used in breast screening; (2) Speed of change and loss of control captures a positive association of AI with technological advances held by the women but also feelings of things being out of their control, and that they were being left behind and in the dark; (3) The importance of humans reports concern around the possibility that AI excludes humans and renders them redundant and (4) Desire for thorough research, staggered implementation and double-checking of scans included insistence that any AI be thoroughly trialled, tested and not solely relied on when initially implemented.

Conclusions

It will be essential that future decision-making and communication about AI implementation in breast screening (and, likely, in healthcare more widely) address concerns surrounding (1) the fallibility of AI, (2) lack of inclusion, control and transparency in relation to healthcare and technology decisions and (3) humans being left redundant and unneeded, while building on women's hopes for the technology.

Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening in Denmark - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Today the prerequisites exist to initiate risk-stratified screening according to a woman's individual risk of breast cancer as opposed to existing one-size-fits-all age-based programmes. This presupposes that the women accept having their personal risk score estimated and their screening intervals changed accordingly. Risk-stratified screening has not yet been implemented in any country, but in the future many European countries will very likely move towards more personalized screening.

METHODS

This qualitative study among 46 women aged 50-69 years used an anthropological approach and interpretive description. Data was collected using semi-structured focus group interviews and telephone interviews. The interviews were analysed using systematic text condensation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore Danish women's understanding of breast cancer risk and their attitudes towards the concept of risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

RESULTS

The women highly valued the current screening program, seeing regular mammograms as crucial for early detection. The women had good knowledge of the causes of breast cancer, but they had not given much thought to their own risk. They found a personalized screening approach more reliable than age-based screening, understanding that low risk is not the same as no risk just as high risk is not equal to ever developing breast cancer. Despite concerns about increased anxiety arising from knowing one's risk, they appreciated the possibility of more frequent screenings for high-risk individuals.

CONCLUSION

In general, the women showed acceptance of a new breast cancer screening concept estimating their personal risk score. Due to concerns about interval cancers and the prolonged screening intervals for women at low risk, offering more intensified screening for high-risk women may be less challenging than deescalating screening for low-risk women. Whether the expressed positive attitude and curious interest will translate into actual participation if implemented, remains to be investigated further in an ongoing Danish trial.

Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think-Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment

CONTEXT

Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk-based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

STUDY DESIGN

Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint-analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty participants based in England aged 40-79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise.

RESULTS

When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age-alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non-personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision-making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out.

CONCLUSION

Risk-stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE.

Attitudes to multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests for population-based screening: A qualitative study in Great Britain

BACKGROUND

Trials are underway to test the clinical utility of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests for screening asymptomatic individuals. We sought to understand the acceptability of MCED blood test screening and potential barriers and facilitators to participation among the general public.

METHODS

We conducted eleven semi-structured online focus groups with 50-77-year-olds (n = 53) in April-November 2022. Participants were purposefully sampled to include a mix of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds as well as people who would not want 'a blood test for cancer'. Participants were shown information about MCED blood tests. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants showed enthusiasm for MCED screening. Perceived benefits included procedural familiarity and the potential to screen for many cancers. Enthusiasm was driven by beliefs that cancer is a real and increasing risk (both at population level and personally with age) and that early detection reduces treatment burden and cancer mortality. Some felt they would not want to know if they had cancer. The potential for MCED tests to raise anxiety was a concern, especially in a false-positive scenario. Participants wanted to avoid unpleasant and unnecessary procedures. The initial blood test was deemed "less invasive" than current screening tests, but potential follow-up procedures were a concern. Views on MCED screening were influenced by wider factors including dislike of uncertainty, desire for choice and control over one's health, and existing relationships with the NHS.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of MCED screening is likely to be appealing due to the simplicity and familiarity of the primary test procedure. Test accuracy needs to be high to facilitate acceptability and should be communicated from the outset. Some people would rather not know if they have cancer, and MCEDs will not appeal to all.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework.

RESULTS

Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice.

AIM

To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs.

METHOD

Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important.

CONCLUSION

GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.

"For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022

BACKGROUND

Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems.

CONCLUSION

We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.

Implementing systematic melanoma risk assessment and risk-tailored surveillance in a skin cancer focussed dermatology clinic: A qualitative study of feasibility and acceptability to patients and clinic staff

BACKGROUND

International bodies recommend that melanoma risk assessment should be integrated into skin cancer care provision, but evidence to support implementation is lacking.

AIM

To explore the acceptability and feasibility of implementing personalised melanoma risk assessment and tailored patient education and skin surveillance within routine clinical care.

METHODS

This prospective qualitative implementation study was informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Personalised, systematic melanoma risk assessment was implemented in the dermatology clinic at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia February-May 2021. Pre- and post-implementation observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and staff were conducted (September 2020-March 2021). Observational notes and interview transcript data were analysed thematically using the TFA as a classifying framework.

RESULTS

A total of 37 h of observations were made, and 29 patients and 12 clinic staff were interviewed. We found that the delivery of personalised melanoma risk estimates did not impact on patient flow through the clinic. Dermatologists reported that the personalised risk information enhanced their confidence in assessing patient risk and recommending tailored surveillance schedules. Most patients reported that the risk assessment and tailored information were a beneficial addition to their care. Among patients whose risk deviated from their expectations, some reported feeling worried, confused or mistrust in the risk information, including those at lower risk who were recommended to decrease surveillance frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible and acceptable to patients and clinic staff to calculate and deliver personalised melanoma risk information and tailored surveillance as part of routine clinical care within dermatology clinics.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants

INTRODUCTION

In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist.

RESULTS

Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging.

CONCLUSION

Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

Should I take aspirin? A qualitative study on the implementation of a decision aid on taking aspirin for bowel cancer prevention

OBJECTIVES

Australian guidelines recommend 50-70 years consider taking aspirin to reduce their bowel cancer risk. We trialled a decision aid in general practice to facilitate the implementation of these guidelines into clinical practice. This publication reports on the qualitative results from the process evaluation of the trial. We aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs) and their patients' approach to shared decision-making (SDM) about taking aspirin to prevent bowel cancer and how the decision aids were used in practice.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with 17 participants who received the decision aid and 12 GPs who participated in the trial between June and November 2021. The interviews were coded inductively, and emerging themes were mapped onto the Revised Programme Theory for SDM.

RESULTS

The study highlighted the dynamics of SDM for taking aspirin to prevent bowel cancer. Some participants discussed the decision aid with their GPs as advised prior to taking aspirin, others either took aspirin or dismissed it outright without discussing it with their GPs. Notably, participants' trust in their GPs, and participants' diverse worldviews played pivotal roles in their decisions. Although the decision aid supported SDM for some, it was not always prioritised in a consultation. This was likely impacted during the trial period as the COVID-19 pandemic was the focus for general practice.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this study illustrated the complexities of SDM through using a decision aid in general practice to implement the guidelines for low-dose aspirin to prevent bowel cancer. While the decision aid prompted some participants to speak to their GPs, they were also heavily influenced by their unwavering trust in the GPs and their different worldviews. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, SDM was not highly prioritised. This study provides insights into the implementation of guidelines into clinical practice and highlights the need for ongoing support and prioritisation of cancer prevention in general practice consultations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620001003965.

Impact of a risk based breast screening decision aid on understanding, acceptance and decision making

Internationally, population breast cancer screening is moving towards a risk-stratified approach and requires engagement and acceptance from current and future screening clients. A decision aid ( www.defineau.org ) was developed based on women's views, values, and knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on women's knowledge, risk perception, acceptance of risk assessment and change of screening frequency, and decision-making. Here we report the results of a pre and post-survey in which women who are clients of BreastScreen Victoria were invited to complete an online questionnaire before and after viewing the decision aid. 3200 potential participants were invited, 242 responded with 127 participants completing both surveys. After reviewing the decision aid there was a significant change in knowledge, acceptance of risk-stratified breast cancer screening and of decreased frequency screening for lower risk. High levels of acceptance of risk stratification, genetic testing and broad support for tailored screening persisted pre and post review. The DEFINE decision aid has a positive impact on acceptance of lower frequency screening, a major barrier to the success of a risk-stratified program and may contribute to facilitating change to the population breast screening program in Australia.

Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening Incorporating a Polygenic Risk Score: A Survey of UK General Practitioners’ Knowledge and Attitudes

A polygenic risk score (PRS) quantifies the aggregated effects of common genetic variants in an individual. A ‘personalised breast cancer risk assessment’ combines PRS with other genetic and nongenetic risk factors to offer risk-stratified screening and interventions. Large-scale studies are evaluating the clinical utility and feasibility of implementing risk-stratified screening; however, General Practitioners’ (GPs) views remain largely unknown. This study aimed to explore GPs’: (i) knowledge of risk-stratified screening; (ii) attitudes towards risk-stratified screening; and (iii) preferences for continuing professional development. A cross-sectional online survey of UK GPs was conducted between July–August 2022. The survey was distributed by the Royal College of General Practitioners and via other mailing lists and social media. In total, 109 GPs completed the survey; 49% were not familiar with the concept of PRS. Regarding risk-stratified screening pathways, 75% agreed with earlier and more frequent screening for women at high risk, 43% neither agreed nor disagreed with later and less screening for women at lower-than-average risk, and 55% disagreed with completely removing screening for women at much lower risk. In total, 81% felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening towards patients and 62% felt positive about the potential impact on their practice. GPs selected training of healthcare professionals as the priority for future risk-stratified screening implementation, preferring online formats for learning. The results suggest limited knowledge of PRS and risk-stratified screening amongst GPs. Training—preferably using online learning formats—was identified as the top priority for future implementation. GPs felt positive about the potential impact of risk-stratified screening; however, there was hesitance and disagreement towards a low-risk screening pathway.

What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing interest in risk-stratified breast screening, whereby the prevention and early detection offers vary by a woman's estimated risk of breast cancer. To date, more focus has been directed towards high-risk screening pathways rather than considering women at lower risk, who may be eligible for extended screening intervals. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the views of three key stakeholder groups on how extending screening intervals for low-risk women should be implemented and communicated as part of a national breast screening programme.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of three qualitative studies exploring the views of distinct stakeholder groups was conducted. Interviews took place with 23 low-risk women (identified from the BC-Predict study) and 17 national screening figures, who were involved in policy-making and implementation. In addition, three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 26 healthcare professionals. A multiperspective thematic analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences between stakeholders.

FINDINGS

Three themes were produced: Questionable assumptions about negative consequences, highlighting how other stakeholders lack trust in how women are likely to understand extended screening intervals; Preserving the integrity of the programme, centring on decision-making and maintaining a positive reputation of breast screening and Negotiating a communication pathway highlighting communication expectations and public campaign importance.

CONCLUSIONS

A risk-stratified screening programme should consider how best to engage women assessed as having a low risk of breast cancer to ensure mutual trust, balance the practicality of change whilst ensuring acceptability, and carefully develop multilevel inclusive communication strategies.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The research within this paper involved patient/public contributors throughout including study design and materials input.

From the patient to the population: Use of genomics for population screening

Genomic medicine is expanding from a focus on diagnosis at the patient level to prevention at the population level given the ongoing under-ascertainment of high-risk and actionable genetic conditions using current strategies, particularly hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC), Lynch Syndrome (LS) and familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). The availability of large-scale next-generation sequencing strategies and preventive options for these conditions makes it increasingly feasible to screen pre-symptomatic individuals through public health-based approaches, rather than restricting testing to high-risk groups. This raises anew, and with urgency, questions about the limits of screening as well as the moral authority and capacity to screen for genetic conditions at a population level. We aimed to answer some of these critical questions by using the WHO Wilson and Jungner criteria to guide a synthesis of current evidence on population genomic screening for HBOC, LS, and FH.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial

The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based breast cancer screening and its integration into regular clinical practice. A single-arm proof-of-concept trial was conducted with a sample of 387 women aged 40-50 years residing in the city of Lleida (Spain). The study intervention consisted of breast cancer risk estimation, risk communication and screening recommendations, and a follow-up. A polygenic risk score with 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to update the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. The women expressed a positive attitude towards varying the frequency of breast screening according to individual risk and, especially, more frequently inviting women at higher-than-average risk. A lower intensity screening for women at lower risk was not as welcome, although half of the participants would accept it. Knowledge of the benefits and harms of breast screening was low, especially with regard to false positives and overdiagnosis. The women expressed a high understanding of individual risk and screening recommendations. The participants' intention to participate in risk-based screening and satisfaction at 1-year were very high.

A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies.

METHODS

We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40-79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, 'Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?' Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high-risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non-modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability.

CONCLUSION

Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co-facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

Risk Stratification in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Cancer Screening: Intervention Eligibility, Strategy Choice, and Optimality

Introduction

There is increasing interest in risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). Current CEA practice regarding risk stratification is heterogeneous and guidance on the best approach is lacking. This article suggests how stratification in CEA can be improved.

Methods

I use a simple example of a hypothetical screening intervention with 3 potential recipient risk strata. The screening intervention has 6 alternative intensities, each with different costs and effects, all of which vary between strata. I consider a series of alternative stratification approaches, demonstrating the consequences for estimated costs, effects, and the choice of optimal strategy. I supplement this analysis with applied examples from the literature.

Results

Adopting the same screening policy for all strata yields the least efficient strategies, where efficiency is understood as the volume of net health benefit generated across a range of cost-effectiveness threshold values. Basic stratification that withholds screening from lower-risk strata while adopting a common strategy for those screened increases efficiency. Greatest efficiency is achieved when different strata receive separate strategies. While complete optimization can be achieved within a single analysis by considering all possible policy combinations, the resulting number of strategy combinations may be inconveniently large. Optimization with separate strata-specific analyses is simpler and more transparent. Despite this, there can be good reasons to simulate all strata together in a single analysis.

Conclusions

If the benefits of risk stratification are to be fully realized, policy makers need to consider the extent to which stratification is feasible, and modelers need to simulate those choices adequately. It is hoped this analysis will clarify those policy and modeling choices and therefore lead to improved population health outcomes.

Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public

BACKGROUND

There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk-stratified (risk-tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset.

RESULTS

Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high-risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low-risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently.

CONCLUSIONS

Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk-stratified cancer screening.