1
|
Dunlop KLA, Singh N, Robbins HA, Zahed H, Johansson M, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review. Prev Med 2024; 181:107897. [PMID: 38378124 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2023] [Revised: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate L A Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Nehal Singh
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hilary A Robbins
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Hana Zahed
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Mattias Johansson
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tiller J, Bakshi A, Dowling G, Keogh L, McInerney-Leo A, Barlow-Stewart K, Boughtwood T, Gleeson P, Delatycki MB, Winship I, Otlowski M, Lacaze P. Community concerns about genetic discrimination in life insurance persist in Australia: A survey of consumers offered genetic testing. Eur J Hum Genet 2024; 32:286-294. [PMID: 37169978 PMCID: PMC10923945 DOI: 10.1038/s41431-023-01373-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/10/2023] [Revised: 03/16/2023] [Accepted: 04/24/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Fears of genetic discrimination in life insurance continue to deter some Australians from genetic testing. In July 2019, the life insurance industry introduced a partial, self-regulated moratorium restricting the use of genetic results in underwriting, applicable to policies up to certain limits (eg AUD$500,000 for death cover).We administered an online survey to consumers who had taken, or been offered, clinical genetic testing for adult-onset conditions, to gather views and experiences about the moratorium and the use of genetic results in life insurance, including its regulation.Most respondents (n = 367) had undertaken a genetic test (89%), and had a positive test result (76%; n = 243/321). Almost 30% (n = 94/326) reported testing after 1 July 2019. Relatively few respondents reported knowing about the moratorium (16%; n = 54/340) or that use of genetic results in life insurance underwriting is legal (17%; n = 60/348). Only 4% (n = 14/350) consider this practice should be allowed. Some respondents reported ongoing difficulties accessing life insurance products, even after the moratorium. Further, discrimination concerns continue to affect some consumers' decision-making about having clinical testing and applying for life insurance products, despite the Moratorium being in place. Most respondents (88%; n = 298/340) support the introduction of legislation by the Australian government to regulate this issue.Despite the introduction of a partial moratorium in Australia, fears of genetic discrimination persist, and continue to deter people from genetic testing. Consumers overwhelmingly consider life insurers should not be allowed to use genetic results in underwriting, and that federal legislation is required to regulate this area.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jane Tiller
- Public Health Genomics, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Australia.
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Andrew Bakshi
- Public Health Genomics, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Grace Dowling
- Public Health Genomics, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Louise Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Aideen McInerney-Leo
- The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, University of Queensland, Dermatology Research Centre, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Kristine Barlow-Stewart
- Northern Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Tiffany Boughtwood
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Martin B Delatycki
- Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Australia
- Victorian Clinical Genetics Services, Parkville, Australia
| | - Ingrid Winship
- Department of Medicine, the University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Genomic Medicine and Family Cancer Clinic, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia
| | - Margaret Otlowski
- Faculty of Law and Centre for Law and Genetics, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
| | - Paul Lacaze
- Public Health Genomics, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Laza-Vásquez C, Martínez-Alonso M, Forné-Izquierdo C, Vilaplana-Mayoral J, Cruz-Esteve I, Sánchez-López I, Reñé-Reñé M, Cazorla-Sánchez C, Hernández-Andreu M, Galindo-Ortego G, Llorens-Gabandé M, Pons-Rodríguez A, Rué M. Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19:10426. [PMID: 36012059 PMCID: PMC9407798 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191610426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2022] [Revised: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza-Vásquez
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy and Health Care Research Group (GRECS), IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Martínez-Alonso
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Carles Forné-Izquierdo
- Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
- Heorfy Consulting, 25007 Lleida, Spain
| | - Jordi Vilaplana-Mayoral
- Department of Computing and Industrial Engineering, University of Lleida, 25001 Lleida, Spain
| | - Inés Cruz-Esteve
- Primer de Maig Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25003 Lleida, Spain
| | | | - Mercè Reñé-Reñé
- Department of Radiology, Arnau de Vilanova University Hospital, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | | | | | | | | | - Anna Pons-Rodríguez
- Example Basic Health Area, Catalan Institute of Health, 25006 Lleida, Spain
- Health PhD Program, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- IRBLleida—Institut de Recerca Biomèdica de Lleida, Department of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Nabi H. Personalized Approaches for the Prevention and Treatment of Breast Cancer. J Pers Med 2022; 12:jpm12081201. [PMID: 35893295 PMCID: PMC9331702 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12081201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/20/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer (BC) remains a major public health issue worldwide [...]
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hermann Nabi
- Oncology Division, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada; ; Tel.: +1-418-682-7511 (ext. 82800)
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center (CRC), Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Moorthie S, Babb de Villiers C, Burton H, Kroese M, Antoniou AC, Bhattacharjee P, Garcia-Closas M, Hall P, Schmidt MK. Towards implementation of comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction tools in health care for personalised prevention. Prev Med 2022; 159:107075. [PMID: 35526672 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107075] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/07/2021] [Revised: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/02/2022] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Advances in knowledge about breast cancer risk factors have led to the development of more comprehensive risk models. These integrate information on a variety of risk factors such as lifestyle, genetics, family history, and breast density. These risk models have the potential to deliver more personalised breast cancer prevention. This is through improving accuracy of risk estimates, enabling more effective targeting of preventive options and creating novel prevention pathways through enabling risk estimation in a wider variety of populations than currently possible. The systematic use of risk tools as part of population screening programmes is one such example. A clear understanding of how such tools can contribute to the goal of personalised prevention can aid in understanding and addressing barriers to implementation. In this paper we describe how emerging models, and their associated tools can contribute to the goal of personalised healthcare for breast cancer through health promotion, early disease detection (screening) and improved management of women at higher risk of disease. We outline how addressing specific challenges on the level of communication, evidence, evaluation, regulation, and acceptance, can facilitate implementation and uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sowmiya Moorthie
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Forvie Site, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambridge CB2 0SR, United Kingdom.
| | | | - Hilary Burton
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Mark Kroese
- PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C Antoniou
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Proteeti Bhattacharjee
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Montserrat Garcia-Closas
- Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, USA
| | - Per Hall
- Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Oncology, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Marjanka K Schmidt
- Division of Molecular Pathology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|