Perceptions about screening for prostate cancer using genetic lifetime risk assessment: a qualitative study

The acceptability and clinical impact of using polygenic scores for risk-estimation of common cancers in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for cancer risk-estimation and show potential as tools to prompt earlier referral for high-risk individuals and aid risk-stratification within cancer screening programmes. This review explores the potential for using PGS to identify individuals at risk of the most common cancers seen in primary care.

METHODS

Two electronic databases were searched up until November 2023 to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that reported on the acceptability and clinical impact of using PGS to identify individuals at highest risk of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer in primary care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies and a narrative synthesis was used to analyse data.

RESULTS

A total of 190 papers were identified, 18 of which were eligible for inclusion. A cancer risk-assessment tool incorporating PGS was acceptable to the general practice population and their healthcare providers but major challenges to implementation were identified, including lack of evidence for PGS in non-European ancestry and a need for healthcare provider education in genomic medicine. A PGS cancer risk-assessment had relatively limited impact on psychosocial outcomes and health behaviours. However, for prostate cancer, potential applications for its use in primary care were shown.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer risk assessment incorporating PGS in primary care is acceptable to patients and healthcare providers but there is a paucity of research exploring clinical impact. Few studies were identified, and more research is required before clinical implementation of PGS can be recommended.

Men's experiences of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis after opportunistic screening-A qualitative descriptive secondary analysis

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is one of the most common types of cancer in men and could occur without symptoms. Screening has been debated but remains controversial and, in most countries, organized population-based screening does not exist. The aim of this study was to describe men's experiences of receiving a prostate cancer diagnosis after opportunistic screening.

METHODS

This study is a secondary analysis from interviews with 17 men (aged 56-80 years) who had undergone curative treatment for prostate cancer. Data were collected in an urban region of Sweden through interviews conducted face to face or by telephone. An inductive content analysis was used with Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research as a reporting checklist.

RESULTS

Two main categories were identified. Screening is a lifesaver enclosed by ethical dilemmas reflects how men considered screening as a lifesaving test. Testing was surrounded by injustice and an eagerness to encourage other men to undergo screening. Facing challenges during diagnosis reflects the men's experiences of being in an unknown field yet expected to engage in decision-making concerning appropriate treatment. Receiving the diagnosis rendered mixed emotions about having a cancer disease, that the treatment could cause lifelong symptom distress and the men described being hesitant to talk about their diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight men's opinions about screening and that the lack of routine screening represents injustice. The men considered this as an ethical question of lifesaving justice, while stakeholders may argue that screening could lead to unnecessary suffering and overtreatment. Men do not always talk openly about their diagnosis, linked to the fact that it concerns intimate areas. It is important to balance the information in relation to shared decision-making regarding treatment. Health care professionals have an ethical responsibility to support and coach the patient in their decision.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This study was based on interviews with men who had experienced a diagnosis of prostate cancer.

How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

RATIONALE

The public should be informed about overtesting and overdiagnosis. Diverse qualitative studies have examined public understandings of this information. A synthesis was needed to systematise the body of evidence and yield new, generalisable insights.

AIM

Synthesise data from qualitative studies exploring patient and public understanding of overtesting and overdiagnosis.

METHODS

We searched Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases from inception to March 18, 2020. We included published English-language primary studies exploring the perspectives of patients/the public about overtesting/overdiagnosis from any setting, year and relating to any condition. Only qualitative parts of mixed-methods studies were synthesised. We excluded studies that only examined overtreatment or sampled people with specialised medical knowledge. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the CASP tool, and assessed confidence in the synthesis findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Data was analysed using thematic meta-synthesis, utilising descriptive and interpretive methods.

RESULTS

We synthesised data from 21 studies, comprising 1638 participants, from 2754 unique records identified. We identified six descriptive themes, all graded as moderate confidence (indicating they are likely to reasonably represent the available evidence): i) high confidence in screening and testing; ii) difficulty in understanding overuse; iii) acceptance that overuse can be harmful; iv) rejection or problematisation of overuse; v) limited impacts of overuse information on intended test and screening uptake; vi) desire for information and shared decision-making regarding overuse. The descriptive themes were underpinned by two analytic themes: i) perceived intrinsic value of information and information gathering, and; ii) differences in comprehension and acceptance of overuse concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified novel and important insights about how lay people interpret overuse concepts. It will guide the development of more effective public messages about overuse, highlighting the importance of interpretative frameworks in these communications.

A genetic risk assessment for prostate cancer influences patients' risk perception and use of repeat PSA testing: a cross-sectional study in Danish general practice

Background

Prostate cancer (PC) is the most common cancer among men in the western world. Genetic lifetime risk assessment could alleviate controversies about prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for early diagnosis.

Aim

To determine how men interpret information about their lifetime risk for PC and how this can affect their choice of having a repeated PSA test.

Design & setting

A genetic test was offered for assessment of individual PC lifetime risk in general practices in Denmark, with the purpose of promoting appropriate use of PSA testing.

Method

Participants had a genetic lifetime risk assessment for PC diagnosis (either high or normal risk). A month after receiving the result, participants answered a questionnaire about their perceived risk of getting or dying from PC compared with other men, as well as their intentions for repeated PSA testing.

Results

Nearly half (44.7%) of 555 participants who received the genetic risk assessment were not aware they had a genetic test. Nevertheless, compared with men with a normal genetic risk, those with high genetic risk reported higher perceived risk for PC (mean difference of 0.74 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.56 to 0.96] on a 5-point scale), higher perceived risk of dying from PC (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.29 to 0.66] on a 5-point scale), and increased intention for repeated PSA testing (mean difference of 0.48 [95% CI = 0.30 to 0.65] on a 4-point scale).

Conclusion

Despite low awareness and/or understanding of the test result, a high genetic risk for PC made participants more aware of their risk, and it increased their intention and probability for repeated PSA testing.

A stitch in time saves nine: Perceptions about colorectal cancer screening after a non-cancer colonoscopy result. Qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore perceptions of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among participants who have experienced a 'false alarm' for CRC, and to explore perceptions about the relevance of screening for themselves or others.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with screening participants who had participated in the Danish CRC screening program and experienced a 'false alarm' for colorectal cancer. A thematic analysis was performed, based on an interpretive tradition of ethnography.

RESULTS

Perceptions about CRC screening after a non-cancer colonoscopy result were characterized by trust in the colonoscopy result showing no CRC, and satisfaction with the screening offer despite the risk for 'false alarm'. The patient-involving behavior of the healthcare professionals during the examination was for most participants a cornerstone for trusting the validity of the colonoscopy result showing no CRC. Strong notions about perceived obligation to participate in screening were common.

CONCLUSIONS

Prominent themes were trust in the result, satisfaction with the procedure, and moral obligations to participate both for themselves and for others.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Information to future invitees after a 'false alarm' experience could build on peoples' trust in the validity of a previous non-cancer result and should underscore the importance of subsequent screening even after a 'false alarm' for cancer.