Cancer risk assessment tools in primary care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Development and external validation of a head and neck cancer risk prediction model

BACKGROUND

Head and neck cancer (HNC) incidence is on the rise, often diagnosed at late stage and associated with poor prognoses. Risk prediction tools have a potential role in prevention and early detection.

METHODS

The IARC-ARCAGE European case-control study was used as the model development dataset. A clinical HNC risk prediction model using behavioral and demographic predictors was developed via multivariable logistic regression analyses. The model was then externally validated in the UK Biobank cohort. Model performance was tested using discrimination and calibration metrics.

RESULTS

1926 HNC cases and 2043 controls were used for the development of the model. The development dataset model including sociodemographic, smoking, and alcohol variables had moderate discrimination, with an area under curve (AUC) value of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.77); the calibration slope (0.75) and tests were suggestive of good calibration. 384 616 UK Biobank participants (with 1177 HNC cases) were available for external validation of the model. Upon external validation, the model had an AUC of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.61-0.64).

CONCLUSION

We developed and externally validated a HNC risk prediction model using the ARCAGE and UK Biobank studies, respectively. This model had moderate performance in the development population and acceptable performance in the validation dataset. Demographics and risk behaviors are strong predictors of HNC, and this model may be a helpful tool in primary dental care settings to promote prevention and determine recall intervals for dental examination. Future addition of HPV serology or genetic factors could further enhance individual risk prediction.

"I Thought Cancer was a Tobacco Issue": Perspectives of Veterans with and without HIV on Cancer and Other Health Risks Associated with Alcohol and Tobacco/Nicotine Use

U.S. Veterans and people living with HIV (PWH) experience higher rates of unhealthy alcohol and tobacco/nicotine use than non-Veterans and people without HIV (PWoH). Both groups are susceptible to adverse health outcomes associated with alcohol and tobacco/nicotine use. We explored awareness of alcohol- and tobacco/nicotine-related cancer and immune health risks among Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients with and without HIV. Among a sample of 41 (46% PWH; 73% male; 39% Black) purposively-selected VA patients receiving care 2020-2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews via telephone; interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using a Rapid Assessment Process. Purposive selection was based on HIV status, alcohol and/or tobacco/nicotine use, and demographics. Among participants, 66% reported current smoking, and most screened positive for unhealthy alcohol use. Participants had high awareness of cancer and other health risks related to smoking but low awareness of synergistic risks and cancer risks associated with alcohol use despite awareness of a range of other alcohol-related risks. Awareness of alcohol and/or tobacco/nicotine's impacts on the immune system was variable. Findings did not distinctly differ between PWH and PWoH. Low awareness of alcohol-related cancer risk, risks of co-occurring use, and varying awareness of the impacts of alcohol and tobacco/nicotine on the immune system suggest a need for improved messaging regarding substance use-related cancer and immune risk. This may be especially important among PWH, for whom the prevalence and adverse effects of alcohol and tobacco use, and immune dysfunction are higher.

Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care

Background

Current cancer prevention guidelines recommend assessing breast cancer risk using validated risk calculators such as Tyrer-Cuzick and assessing genetic testing eligibility with NCCN. Women at high-risk of breast cancer may be recommended to undergo additional or earlier screening. Risk assessment is not consistently implemented in the primary care setting resulting in increased morbidity and mortality in unidentified high-risk individuals.

Methods

A single-arm interventional study was conducted in an academic primary care clinic for women 25-50 years old presenting for primary care appointments. Pre-visit workflows evaluated breast cancer risk using the Cancer Risk Assessment (CRA) Tool and information was provided to the clinician with guideline-based recommendations. Post-visit questionnaires and chart review were conducted.

Results

The survey response rate was 24.5% (144/587) with 80.3% of responses completed online (94/117). The average age of respondents was 35.8 years with 50.4% White and 35.9% Black. There were no differences in response rate based on race. Risk discussion was documented in the medical record in 15.4% of cases with a higher rate of documentation in high-risk patient based on risk assessment as compared with average risk respondents (34.6% vs. 9.7%, p<0.01). In the high-risk women identified 11.4% (4/35) were seen by the high-risk breast clinic, and 5.7% (2/35) were referred for genetic evaluation. None had previously obtained MRI screening or genetic testing.

Conclusions

There is limited identification and evaluation of women at high risk for breast cancer. Pre-visit surveys can be used as a tool to assess breast cancer risk in the primary care setting; however additional strategies are needed to implement systematic risk assessment and facilitate appropriate treatment based on risk level.

Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis

BACKGROUND

The CanRisk tool enables the collection of risk factor information and calculation of estimated future breast cancer risks based on the multifactorial Breast and Ovarian Analysis of Disease Incidence and Carrier Estimation Algorithm (BOADICEA) model. Despite BOADICEA being recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and CanRisk being freely available for use, the CanRisk tool has not yet been widely implemented in primary care.

AIM

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the CanRisk tool in primary care.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A multi-methods study was conducted with primary care practitioners (PCPs) in the East of England.

METHOD

Participants used the CanRisk tool to complete two vignette-based case studies; semi-structured interviews gained feedback about the tool; and questionnaires collected demographic details and information about the structural characteristics of the practices.

RESULTS

Sixteen PCPs (eight GPs and eight nurses) completed the study. The main barriers to implementation included: time needed to complete the tool; competing priorities; IT infrastructure; and PCPs' lack of confidence and knowledge to use the tool. Main facilitators included: easy navigation of the tool; its potential clinical impact; and the increasing availability of and expectation to use risk prediction tools.

CONCLUSION

There is now a greater understanding of the barriers and facilitators that exist when using CanRisk in primary care. The study has highlighted that future implementation activities should focus on reducing the time needed to complete a CanRisk calculation, integrating the CanRisk tool into existing IT infrastructure, and identifying appropriate contexts in which to conduct a CanRisk calculation. PCPs may also benefit from information about cancer risk assessment and CanRisk-specific training.

Should we? Could we? Feasibility of interventions to support prevention or early diagnosis of future cancer following urgent referral: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated perspectives of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on the feasibility of giving additional support to patients after cancer is not found following urgent referral. We sought to understand key facilitators or barriers to offering such support.

METHODS

A convenience sample of primary and secondary care healthcare professionals (n = 36) participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis, inductively and deductively, guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

HCPs indicated that support should be offered if proven to be efficacious. It needs to avoid potential negative consequences such as patient anxiety and information overload. HCPs were more hesitant about whether support could feasibly be offered, due to resource restrictions and perceived remit of the urgent pathway for suspected cancer.

CONCLUSION

HCP support after discharge from urgent cancer referral pathways needs to be resource efficient, developed in collaboration with patients and should have proven efficacy. Development of brief interventions for delivery by a range of staff, and use of technology could mitigate barriers to implementation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Changes to discharge procedures to provide information, endorsement or direction to services could offer much needed support. Additional support would need to overcome logistical challenges and address limited capacity.

Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Precision Approaches to Screening: Brave New World or Worlds Apart?

Current colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations take a "one-size-fits-all" approach using age as the major criterion to initiate screening. Precision screening that incorporates factors beyond age to risk stratify individuals could improve on current approaches and optimally use available resources with benefits for patients, providers, and health care systems. Prediction models could identify high-risk groups who would benefit from more intensive screening, while low-risk groups could be recommended less intensive screening incorporating noninvasive screening modalities. In addition to age, prediction models incorporate well-established risk factors such as genetics (eg, family CRC history, germline, and polygenic risk scores), lifestyle (eg, smoking, alcohol, diet, and physical inactivity), sex, and race and ethnicity among others. Although several risk prediction models have been validated, few have been systematically studied for risk-adapted population CRC screening. In order to envisage clinical implementation of precision screening in the future, it will be critical to develop reliable and accurate prediction models that apply to all individuals in a population; prospectively study risk-adapted CRC screening on the population level; garner acceptance from patients and providers; and assess feasibility, resources, cost, and cost-effectiveness of these new paradigms. This review evaluates the current state of risk prediction modeling and provides a roadmap for future implementation of precision CRC screening.

Perceptions of Breast Cancer Risks Among Women Receiving Mammograph Screening

Importance

Breast density is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. Despite the proliferation of mandated written notifications about breast density following mammography, there is little understanding of how women perceive the relative breast cancer risk associated with breast density.

Objective

To assess women's perception of breast density compared with other breast cancer risks and explore their understanding of risk reduction.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This mixed-methods qualitative study used telephone surveys and semistructured interviews to investigate perceptions about breast cancer risk among a nationally representative, population-based sample of women. Eligible study participants were aged 40 to 76 years, reported having recently undergone mammography, had no history of prior breast cancer, and had heard of breast density. Survey participants who had been informed of their personal breast density were invited for a qualitative interview. Survey administration spanned July 1, 2019, to April 30, 2020, with 2306 women completing the survey. Qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to May 30, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Respondents compared the breast cancer risk associated with breast density with 5 other risk factors. Participants qualitatively described what they thought contributed to breast cancer risk and ways to reduce risk.

Results

Of the 2306 women who completed the survey, 1858 (166 [9%] Asian, 503 [27%] Black, 268 [14%] Hispanic, 792 [43%] White, and 128 [7%] other race or ethnicity; 358 [19%] aged 40-49 years, 906 [49%] aged 50-64 years, and 594 [32%] aged ≥65 years) completed the revised risk perception questions and were included in the analysis. Half of respondents thought breast density to be a greater risk than not having children (957 [52%]), having more than 1 alcoholic drink per day (975 [53%]), or having a prior breast biopsy (867 [48%]). Most respondents felt breast density was a lesser risk than having a first-degree relative with breast cancer (1706 [93%]) or being overweight or obese (1188 [65%]). Of the 61 women who were interviewed, 6 (10%) described breast density as contributing to breast cancer risk, and 43 (70%) emphasized family history as a breast cancer risk factor. Of the interviewed women, 17 (28%) stated they did not know whether it was possible to reduce their breast cancer risk.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this qualitative study of women of breast cancer screening age, family history was perceived as the primary breast cancer risk factor. Most interviewees did not identify breast density as a risk factor and did not feel confident about actions to mitigate breast cancer risk. Comprehensive education about breast cancer risks and prevention strategies is needed.

Roles of Community Pharmacists in Cancer Management

Community pharmacists are among the most easily accessible healthcare practitioners and are usually the first point of contact with the public or community. This is often due to their accessibility, credibility, and widespread within the public sector making them essential members of the healthcare team with significant contributions to the delivery of public health care. Community pharmacists, in addition to their known educational and awareness-raising roles, may play an essential role in risk assessment and screening of patients, detection of symptoms of probable malignancy, and cancer treatments. The pharmacy profession has been evolving from dispensing roles into more patient-oriented outcomes and pharmacists are now participating in more clinical interventions. This places community pharmacists in the best position to provide the necessary knowledge and healthcare to benefit populations at risk of cancer. Active involvement of community pharmacists in the care and management of cancer will significantly contribute to screening and risk assessment, early detection, treatment and eradication of breast, cervical, lung, ovarian and other forms of cancer. As a result, the community pharmacy setting must the developed to maximize its full potential in cancer care.

The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a 'think-aloud' study

BACKGROUND

Risk stratified breast cancer screening is being considered as a means of improving the balance of benefits and harms of mammography. Stratified screening requires the communication of risk estimates. We aimed to co-develop personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications for women attending routine mammography.

METHODS

We conducted think-aloud interviews on prototype breast cancer risk letters and accompanying information leaflets with women receiving breast screening through the UK National Breast Screening Programme. Risk information was redesigned following feedback from 55 women in three iterations. A deductive thematic analysis of participants' speech is presented.

RESULTS

Overall, participants appreciated receiving their breast cancer risk. Their comments focused on positive framing and presentation of the risk estimate, a desire for detail on the contribution of individual risk factors to overall risk and effective risk management strategies, and clearly signposted support pathways.

CONCLUSION

Provision of breast cancer risk information should strive to be personal, understandable and meaningful. Risk information should be continually refined to reflect developments in risk management. Receipt of risk via letter is welcomed but concerns remain around the acceptability of informing women at higher risk in this way, highlighting a need for co-development of risk dissemination and support pathways.

A Clinical Decision Support System for Assessing the Risk of Cervical Cancer: Development and Evaluation Study

Background

Cervical cancer has been recognized as a preventable type of cancer. As the assessment of all the risk factors of a disease is challenging for physicians, information technology and risk assessment models have been used to estimate the degree of risk.

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop a clinical decision support system to assess the risk of cervical cancer.

Methods

This study was conducted in 2 phases in 2021. In the first phase of the study, 20 gynecologists completed a questionnaire to determine the essential parameters for assessing the risk of cervical cancer, and the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In the second phase of the study, the prototype of the clinical decision support system was developed and evaluated.

Results

The findings revealed that the most important parameters for assessing the risk of cervical cancer consisted of general and specific parameters. In total, the 8 parameters that had the greatest impact on the risk of cervical cancer were selected. After developing the clinical decision support system, it was evaluated and the mean values of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 85.81%, 93.82%, and 91.39%, respectively.

Conclusions

The clinical decision support system developed in this study can facilitate the process of identifying people who are at risk of developing cervical cancer. In addition, it can help to increase the quality of health care and reduce the costs associated with the treatment of cervical cancer.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.

RESULTS

Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important.

CONCLUSIONS

These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care

The Division of Cancer Prevention in the NCI sponsored a Roundtable with primary care providers (PCP) to determine barriers for integrating cancer prevention within primary care and discuss potential opportunities to overcome these barriers. The goals were to: (i) assess the cancer risk assessment tools available to PCPs; (ii) gather information on use of cancer prevention resources; and (iii) understand the needs of PCPs to facilitate the implementation of cancer prevention interventions beyond routine screening and interventions. The Roundtable discussion focused on challenges and potential research opportunities related to: (i) cancer risk assessment and management of high-risk individuals; (ii) cancer prevention interventions for risk reduction; (iii) electronic health records/electronic medical records; and (iv) patient engagement and information dissemination. Time constraints and inconsistent/evolving clinical guidelines are major barriers to effective implementation of cancer prevention within primary care. Social determinants of health are important factors that influence patients' adoption of recommended preventive interventions. Research is needed to determine the best means for implementation of cancer prevention across various communities and clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to develop tools that can help providers collect clinical data that can enable them to assess patients' cancer risk and implement appropriate preventive interventions.

Variation in Breast Cancer Risk Model Estimates Among Women in Their 40s Seen in Primary Care

Background: The Gail, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC), and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk prediction models are recommended for use in primary care. Calculating breast cancer risk is particularly important for women in their 40s when deciding on mammography, with some guidelines recommending screening for those with 5-year risk similar to women age 50 (≥1.1%). Yet, little is known about risk estimate agreement among models for these women. Materials and Methods: Four hundred nine Boston-area women 40-49 years of age completed a risk questionnaire before a primary care visit to compute their breast cancer risk. The kappa statistic was used to examine when (1) Gail and BCSC agreed on 5-year risk ≥1.1%; (2) Gail estimated 5-year risk ≥1.7% and Tyrer-Cuzick estimated 10-year risk ≥5% (guideline thresholds for recommending prevention medications); and when (3) Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick agreed on lifetime risk ≥20% (threshold for breast MRI using Tyrer-Cuzick). Results: Participant mean age was 44.1 years, 56.7% were non-Hispanic white, and 7.8% had a first-degree relative with breast cancer. Of 266 with breast density information to estimate both Gail and BCSC, the models agreed on 5-year risk being ≥1.1% for 36 women, kappa = 0.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.23-0.45). Gail and Tyrer-Cuzick estimates led to agreement about prevention medications for 8 women, kappa 0.41 (0.20-0.61), and models agreed on lifetime risk ≥20% for 3 women, kappa 0.08 (-0.01 to 0.16). Conclusions: There is weak agreement on breast cancer risk estimates generated by risk models recommended for primary care. Using different models may lead to different clinical recommendations for women in their 40s.

Patient and practitioner views on cancer risk discussions in primary care: a qualitative study

Background

It is estimated that nearly 600 000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past 5 years if people had healthier lifestyles, with the principle modifiable risk factors being smoking, obesity, alcohol consumption, and inactivity. There is growing interest in the use of cancer risk information in general practice to encourage lifestyle modification.

Aim

To explore the views and experiences of patients and practitioners in relation to cancer prevention and cancer risk discussions in general practice.

Design & setting

Qualitative study among patients and practitioners in general practices in Glasgow, UK.

Method

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine practitioners (five GPs and four practice nurses, recruited purposively from practices based on list size and deprivation status), and 13 patients (aged 30–60 years, with two or more specified comorbidities).

Results

Currently, cancer risk discussions focus on smoking and cancer, with links between alcohol and/or obesity and cancer rarely made. There was support for the use of the personalised cancer risk tool as an additional resource in primary care. Practitioners felt practice nurses were best placed to use it. Use in planned appointments (for example, chronic disease reviews) was preferred over opportunistic use. Concerns were expressed, however, about generating anxiety, time constraints, and widening inequalities.

Conclusion

Health behaviour change is complex and the provision of information alone is unlikely to have significant effects. Personalised risk tools may have a role, but important concerns about their use remain, particularly in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing a cancer risk assessment tool (QCancer) in primary care: a qualitative study

Aim:

We aimed to explore service users’ and primary care practitioners’ perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to implementing a cancer risk assessment tool (RAT), QCancer, in general practice consultations.

Background:

Cancer RATs, including QCancer, are designed to estimate the chances of previously undiagnosed cancer in symptomatic individuals. Little is known about the barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer RATs in primary care consultations.

Methods:

We used a qualitative design, conducting semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups with a convenience sample of service users and primary care practitioners.

Findings:

In all, 36 participants (19 service users, 17 practitioners) living in Lincolnshire, were included in the interviews and focus groups. Before asking for their views, participants were introduced to QCancer and shown an example of how it estimated cancer risk. Participants identified barriers to implementing the tool namely: additional consultation time; unnecessary worry; potential for over-referral; practitioner scepticism; need for training on use of the tool; need for evidence of effectiveness; and need to integrate the tool in general practice systems. Participants also identified facilitators to implementing the tool as: supporting decision-making; modifying health behaviours; improving speed of referral; and personalising care.

Conclusions:

The barriers and facilitators identified should be considered when seeking to implement QCancer in primary care. In addition, further evidence is needed that the use of this tool improves diagnosis rates without an unacceptable increase in harm from unnecessary investigation.

The classification capability of the Asia Pacific Colorectal Screening score in Korea: an analysis of the Cancer Screenee Cohort

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to validate a simple risk assessment tool for estimating the advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) risk at colonoscopy screenings and potential factors relevant for implementing this tool in the Korean population.

METHODS

Our study analyzed data from the Cancer Screenee Cohort Study conducted by the National Cancer Center in Korea. The risk level was assessed using the Asia Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) score developed by the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer. Logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between colorectal-related outcomes and the risk level by APCS score. The discriminatory performance of the APCS score for various colorectal-related outcomes was assessed using C-statistics.

RESULTS

In 12,520 individuals, 317 ACN cases and 4,528 adenoma cases were found. The APCS tool successfully classified the study population into different risk groups, and significant differences in the ACN rate and other outcomes were observed. The APCS score demonstrated acceptable discrimination capability with area under the curve values ranging from 0.62 to 0.65 for various outcomes. The results of the multivariate logistic regression model revealed that the high-risk group had a 3.1-fold higher risk of ACN (95% confidence interval, 2.08 to 4.67) than the average-risk group. Body mass index (BMI) was identified as a significant predictor of ACN in both multivariate and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlighted significant differences in colorectal-related screening outcomes by colorectal risk level measured using the APCS score, and BMI could be used to improve the discriminatory capability of the APCS score.

Feasibility of Utilizing PREMM Score for Lynch Syndrome Identification in an Urban, Minority Patient Population

The PREMM₅ model is a web-based clinical prediction algorithm that estimates the gene-specific risk of an individual carrying a Lynch syndrome germline mutation based on targeted family history questions. The objectives of our study were to determine the feasibility of screening for LS in an urban, minority patient population in a primary care setting using the PREMM₅ model and characterize patient barriers associated with difficulty completing the questions. Participants were recruited from Tulane Internal Medicine primary care clinics on 9 random collection dates. Our data illustrates the difficulty patients have in recalling important details necessary to answer the PREMM questionnaire.

Colorectal cancer lifetime risk accuracy and behavior change intentions before and after risk assessment

PURPOSE

This study examined accuracy of perceived lifetime risk of colorectal cancer prior to and following receipt of cancer risk assessment (CRA) feedback among average risk adults. The specific aims were to identify predictors of improved risk perceptions and assess whether improvement in perceived lifetime risk accuracy was associated with changes in behavioral intentions for physical activity, diet, and colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

Adults with no known history of colorectal cancer (n = 419) were enrolled in a study examining the impact of colorectal cancer risk assessment feedback. Risk perceptions and behavioral intentions were ascertained before and after risk assessment administration.

RESULTS

Accuracy of perceived lifetime risk significantly improved after CRA feedback, often as a result of lowered perceived risk. Those who were White, married, attended some college, and had higher numeracy were more likely to report accurate lifetime risk post-CRA. No differences in behavioral intentions were reported between those with and without improved accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Minorities and those with low numeracy were less likely to report accurate perceptions post-CRA. Although improved accuracy was not associated with increased behavioral intentions as expected, it is reassuring that intentions for health behaviors were not inhibited as perceived risk decreased.

A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis

Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are used widely to prevent the development of and death from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, CRC remains a major cause of cancer mortality and the increasing burden of endoscopic investigations threatens to overwhelm some health services. This Perspective describes the rationale for and approach to improved risk stratification and decision-making for CRC prevention and diagnosis. Limitations of current approaches will be discussed using the UK as an example of the challenges faced by a particular health-care system, followed by discussion of novel risk biomarker utilization. We explore how risk stratification will be advantageous to current health-care providers and users, enabling more efficient use of limited colonoscopy resources. We discuss risk stratification in the setting of population screening as well as the surveillance of high-risk groups and investigation of symptomatic patients. We also address challenges in the development and validation of risk stratification tools and identify key research priorities.

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A randomised controlled trial of the effect of providing online risk information and lifestyle advice for the most common preventable cancers

Few trial data are available concerning the impact of personalised cancer risk information on behaviour. This study assessed the short-term effects of providing personalised cancer risk information on cancer risk beliefs and self-reported behaviour. We randomised 1018 participants, recruited through the online platform Prolific, to either a control group receiving cancer-specific lifestyle advice or one of three intervention groups receiving their computed 10-year risk of developing one of the five most common preventable cancers either as a bar chart, a pictograph or a qualitative scale alongside the same lifestyle advice. The primary outcome was change from baseline in computed risk relative to an individual with a recommended lifestyle (RRI)1 at three months. Secondary outcomes included: health-related behaviours, risk perception, anxiety, worry, intention to change behaviour, and a newly defined concept, risk conviction. After three months there were no between-group differences in change in RRI (p = 0.71). At immediate follow-up, accuracy of absolute risk perception (p < 0.001), absolute and comparative risk conviction (p < 0.001) and intention to increase fruit and vegetables (p = 0.026) and decrease processed meat (p = 0.033) were higher in all intervention groups relative to the control group. The increases in accuracy and conviction were only seen in individuals with high numeracy and low baseline conviction, respectively. These findings suggest that personalised cancer risk information alongside lifestyle advice can increase short-term risk accuracy and conviction without increasing worry or anxiety but has little impact on health-related behaviour. Trial registration: ISRCTN17450583. Registered 30 January 2018.

Effectiveness of interventions to identify and manage patients with familial cancer risk in primary care: a systematic review

This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of strategies to identify and manage patients with familial risk of breast, ovarian, colorectal and prostate cancer in primary care to improve clinical outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched from January 1980 to October 2017. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI). Primary outcomes were cancer incidence, cancer-related clinical outcomes or the identification of cancer predisposition; secondary outcomes were the appropriateness of referral, uptake of preventive strategies and cognitive and psychological effect. From 11,842 abstracts, 111 full texts were reviewed and three eligible studies (nine articles) identified. Two were cluster RCTs and one NRSI; all used risk assessment software. No studies identified our primary outcomes, with no consistent outcome across the three studies. In one RCT, intervention improved the proportion of genetic referrals meeting referral guidelines for breast cancer (OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.6 to 13.1). In the other RCT, there was no difference in screening adherence between the intervention and control group. However, there was borderline increased risk perception (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.59) in the subgroup that under-estimated their colon cancer risk. In the NRSI, there was no change in psychological distress in patients at increased familial breast cancer risk, but population risk patients had reduced anxiety after intervention (state anxiety mean change - 3, 95% CI - 5 to - 2). Future studies should have better-defined comparator groups and longer follow-up and assess outcomes using validated tools.

The CRISP-P study: feasibility of a self-completed colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) globally. Our research team has developed a CRC risk prediction tool for use in primary care to increase targeted screening. This study, Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool - patient ('CRISP-P'), aimed to determine the following to inform a future trial design: (i) the feasibility of self-reporting; (ii) the feasibility of recruitment methods; and (iii) the prevalence of CRC risk.

METHODS

Participants aged between 40 and 75 years were recruited consecutively from three primary care waiting rooms. Participants input data into CRISP on a tablet without receiving clinical advice. Feasibility was evaluated using recruitment rate, timely completion, a self-reported 'ease-of-use', score and field notes. Prevalence of CRC risk was calculated using the CRISP model.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-one (90%) patients agreed to use the tool and 424 (84%) rated the tool easy to use. Despite this, 41% of people were unable to complete the questions without assistance. Patients who were older, without tertiary education or with English as their second language were more likely to require assistance (P < 0.001). Thirty-nine percent of patients were low risk, 58% at slightly increased and 2.4% were at moderately increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the next 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool was perceived as easy to use, although older, less educated people, and patients with English as their second language needed help. The data support the recruitment methods but not the use of a self-completed tool for an efficacy trial.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care.

METHODS

This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation.

DISCUSSION

This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

Online Decision Support Tool for Personalized Cancer Symptom Checking in the Community (REACT): Acceptability, Feasibility, and Usability Study

Background

Improving cancer survival in the UK, despite recent significant gains, remains a huge challenge. This can be attributed to, at least in part, patient and diagnostic delays, when patients are unaware they are suffering from a cancerous symptom and therefore do not visit a general practitioner promptly and/or when general practitioners fail to investigate the symptom or refer promptly. To raise awareness of symptoms that may potentially be indicative of underlying cancer among members of the public a symptom-based risk assessment model (developed for medical practitioner use and currently only used by some UK general practitioners) was utilized to develop a risk assessment tool to be offered to the public in community settings. Such a tool could help individuals recognize a symptom, which may potentially indicate cancer, faster and reduce the time taken to visit to their general practitioner. In this paper we report results about the design and development of the REACT (Risk Estimation for Additional Cancer Testing) website, a tool to be used in a community setting allowing users to complete an online questionnaire and obtain personalized cancer symptom-based risk estimation.

Objective

The objectives of this study are to evaluate (1) the acceptability of REACT among the public and health care practitioners, (2) the usability of the REACT website, (3) the presentation of personalized cancer risk on the website, and (4) potential approaches to adopt REACT into community health care services in the UK.

Methods

Our research consisted of multiple stages involving members of the public (n=39) and health care practitioners (n=20) in the UK. Data were collected between June 2017 and January 2018. User views were collected by (1) the “think-aloud” approach when participants using the website were asked to talk about their perceptions and feelings in relation to the website, and (2) self-reporting of website experiences through open-ended questionnaires. Data collection and data analysis continued simultaneously, allowing for website iterations between different points of data collection.

Results

The results demonstrate the need for such a tool. Participants suggest the best way to offer REACT is through a guided approach, with a health care practitioner (eg, pharmacist or National Health Service Health Check nurse) present during the process of risk evaluation. User feedback, which was generally consistent across members of public and health care practitioners, has been used to inform the development of the website. The most important aspects were: simplicity, ability to evaluate multiple cancers, content emphasizing an inviting community “feel,” use (when possible) of layperson language in the symptom screening questionnaire, and a robust and positive approach to cancer communication relying on visual risk representation both with affected individuals and the entire population at risk.

Conclusions

This study illustrates the benefits of involving public and stakeholders in developing and implementing a simple cancer symptom check tool within community. It also offers insights and design suggestions for user-friendly interfaces of similar health care Web-based services, especially those involving personalized risk estimation.

Effect of interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information on intentions and behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To provide a comprehensive review of the impact on intention to change health-related behaviours and health-related behaviours themselves, including screening uptake, of interventions incorporating information about cancer risk targeted at the general adult population.

DESIGN

A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2017.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of interventions including provision of a personal estimate of future cancer risk based on two or more non-genetic variables to adults recruited from the general population that include at least one behavioural outcome.

RESULTS

We included 19 studies reporting 12 outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies. There is evidence that interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect intention to attend or attendance at screening (relative risk 1.00 (0.97-1.03)). There is limited evidence that they increase smoking abstinence, sun protection, adult skin self-examination and breast examination, and decrease intention to tan. However, they do not increase smoking cessation, parental child skin examination or intention to protect skin. No studies assessed changes in diet, alcohol consumption or physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions incorporating personalised cancer risk information do not affect uptake of screening, but there is limited evidence of effect on some health-related behaviours. Further research, ideally including objective measures of behaviour, is needed before cancer risk information is incorporated into routine practice for health promotion in the general population.

Risk accuracy of type 2 diabetes in middle aged adults: Associations with sociodemographic, clinical, psychological and behavioural factors

OBJECTIVE

To identify the proportion of individuals with an accurate perception of their risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) prior to, immediately after and eight weeks after receiving a personalised risk estimate. Additionally, we aimed to explore what factors are associated with underestimation and overestimation immediately post-intervention.

METHODS

Cohort study based on the data collected in the Diabetes Risk Communication Trial. We included 379 participants (mean age 48.9 (SD 7.4) years; 55.1% women) who received a genotypic or phenotypic risk estimate for T2D.

RESULTS

While only 1.3% of participants perceived their risk accurately at baseline, this increased to 24.7% immediately after receiving a risk estimate and then dropped to 7.3% at eight weeks. Those who overestimated their risk at baseline continued to overestimate it, whereas those who underestimated their risk at baseline improved their risk accuracy. We did not identify any other characteristics associated with underestimation or overestimation immediately after receiving a risk estimate.

CONCLUSION

Understanding a received risk estimate is challenging for most participants with many continuing to have inaccurate risk perception after receiving the estimate.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Individuals who overestimate or underestimate their T2D risk before receiving risk information might require different approaches for altering their risk perception.

Incorporating cancer risk information into general practice: a qualitative study using focus groups with health professionals

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that approximately 40% of all cases of cancer are attributable to lifestyle factors. Providing people with personalised information about their future risk of cancer may help promote behaviour change.

AIM

To explore the views of health professionals on incorporating personalised cancer risk information, based on lifestyle factors, into general practice.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study using data from six focus groups with a total of 24 general practice health professionals from the NHS Nene Clinical Commissioning Group in England.

METHOD

The focus groups were guided by a schedule covering current provision of lifestyle advice relating to cancer and views on incorporating personalised cancer risk information. Data were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and then analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Providing lifestyle advice was viewed as a core activity within general practice but the influence of lifestyle on cancer risk was rarely discussed. The word 'cancer' was seen as a potentially powerful motivator for lifestyle change but the fact that it could generate health anxiety was also recognised. Most focus group participants felt that a numerical risk estimate was more likely to influence behaviour than generic advice. All felt that general practice should provide this information, but there was a clear need for additional resources for it to be offered widely.

CONCLUSION

Study participants were in support of providing personalised cancer risk information in general practice. The findings highlight a number of potential benefits and challenges that will inform the future development of interventions in general practice to promote behaviour change for cancer prevention.

The CRISP colorectal cancer risk prediction tool: an exploratory study using simulated consultations in Australian primary care

Background

In Australia, screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) with colonoscopy is meant to be reserved for people at increased risk, however, currently there is a mismatch between individuals’ risk of CRC and the type of CRC screening they receive.

This paper describes the development and optimisation of a Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool (‘CRISP’) for use in primary care. The aim of the CRISP tool is to increase risk-appropriate CRC screening.

Methods

CRISP development was informed by previous experience with developing risk tools for use in primary care and a systematic review of the evidence. A CRISP prototype was used in simulated consultations by general practitioners (GPs) with actors as patients. GPs were interviewed to explore their experience of using CRISP, and practice nurses (PNs) and practice managers (PMs) were interviewed after a demonstration of CRISP. Transcribed interviews and video footage of the ‘consultations’ were qualitatively analyzed. Themes arising from the data were mapped onto Normalization Process Theory (NPT).

Results

Fourteen GPs, nine PNs and six PMs were recruited from 12 clinics. Results were described using the four constructs of NPT: 1) Coherence: Clinicians understood the rationale behind CRISP, particularly since they were familiar with using risk tools for other conditions; 2) Cognitive participation: GPs welcomed the opportunity CRISP provided to discuss healthy and unhealthy behaviors with their patients, but many GPs challenged the screening recommendation generated by CRISP; 3) Collective Action: CRISP disrupted clinician-patient flow if the GP was less comfortable with computers. GP consultation time was a major implementation barrier and overall consensus was that PNs have more capacity and time to use CRISP effectively; 4) Reflexive monitoring: Limited systematic monitoring of new interventions is a potential barrier to the sustainable embedding of CRISP.

Conclusions

CRISP has the potential to improve risk-appropriate CRC screening in primary care but was considered more likely to be successfully implemented as a nurse-led intervention.

Risk prediction tools for cancer in primary care

Numerous risk tools are now available, which predict either current or future risk of a cancer diagnosis. In theory, these tools have the potential to improve patient outcomes through enhancing the consistency and quality of clinical decision-making, facilitating equitable and cost-effective distribution of finite resources such as screening tests or preventive interventions, and encouraging behaviour change. These potential uses have been recognised by the National Cancer Institute as an ‘area of extraordinary opportunity' and an increasing number of risk prediction models continue to be developed. The data on predictive utility (discrimination and calibration) of these models suggest that some have potential for clinical application; however, the focus on implementation and impact is much more recent and there remains considerable uncertainty about their clinical utility and how to implement them in order to maximise benefits and minimise harms such as over-medicalisation, anxiety and false reassurance. If the potential benefits of risk prediction models are to be realised in clinical practice, further validation of the underlying risk models and research to assess the acceptability, clinical impact and economic implications of incorporating them in practice are needed.