Primary care patient interests in joining a planned multi-cancer early detection clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are being conducted and are being planned to assess the safety and efficacy of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for use in cancer screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of primary care patient outreach in recruiting participants to a planned MCED clinical trial, assess patient interest in trial participation, and measure decisional conflict related to participation. METHODS: The research team used the electronic medical record of a large, urban health care system to identify primary care patients 50-80 years of age who were potentially eligible for a planned MCED trial. We mailed information about the planned MCED trial to identified patients and then contacted the patients by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we contacted consented patients to complete an interview to review the mailed information and elicit perceptions about trial participation. Finally, a research coordinator administered an endpoint telephone survey to assess patient interest in and decisional conflict related to joining the trial. RESULTS: We randomly identified 1000 eligible patients and were able to make contact with 690 (69%) by telephone. Of the patients contacted, 217 (31%) completed the decision counseling session and 219 (32%) completed the endpoint survey. Among endpoint survey respondents, 177 (81%) expressed interest in joining the MCED trial and 162 (74%) reported low decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were contacted and about a quarter of those contacted expressed interest in and low decisional conflict about joining the planned MCED trial. Research is needed to determine how to optimize patient outreach and engage patients in shared decision-making about MCED trial participation.

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Trends Among Immunocompromised Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Immunocompromised patients are at increased risk of contracting severe COVID-19 infection. The purpose of this study was to assess COVID-19 vaccination trends of immunocompromised patients at a large, urban primary care setting. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of immunocompromised patients who had a visit between 1/1/2021 and 5/15/2022 at Thomas Jefferson University's Department of Family and Community Medicine (DFCM) was conducted. Patient charts were reviewed for demographics, number of visits to the DFCM, immunocompromising diagnoses, and COVID-19 mRNA vaccination status, including vaccination type and number of vaccine doses received. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Paired t tests were conducted to assess relationships between immunocompromised patients with ≥3 mRNA vaccine doses and those with ≤2 mRNA vaccine doses. RESULTS: A total of 887 patients were included. Most patients were Black (66.7%), above the age of 50 (82.1%), and male (55.9%). Solid tumor cancers (62.6%) and HIV/AIDS (23.8%) were the most represented immunocompromising diagnoses. Overall, 556 patients received ≥3 mRNA vaccine doses (62.7%) and 331 patients received ≤2 mRNA vaccine doses (37.3%). Eighty-three patients (9.4%) had no COVID-19 vaccines on record. Of the 591 Black patients, 248 (42%) received ≤2 mRNA vaccine doses. CONCLUSION: Despite the majority of the sample receiving ≥3 mRNA vaccine doses, disparities in vaccination rates exist, especially when comparing White and Black patients. Vaccination rates in immunocompromised patients should be improved, and primary care providers should prioritize outreach efforts focusing on patient-centered COVID-19 vaccine education in these populations.

Primary Care Provider Receptivity to Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Use in Cancer Screening.

Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) are blood-based tests that detect biomarkers released or induced by cancer cells. If MCED tests are shown to be safe and effective in cancer screening, they are likely to be ordered and managed in primary care. To understand primary care providers' support for and concerns about the implementation and management of MCED testing, the research team developed a cross-sectional survey that was sent to 939 primary care providers (physicians, residents/fellows, and advanced practice providers) in a large academic health system in the greater Philadelphia area. The survey included standard items used to assess provider background characteristics and to measure provider awareness of challenges related to MCED test use (7 items), perceived competence in MCED testing (5 items), and receptivity to MCED test use in the future (4 items). A total of 351 (37.4%) primary care providers completed the survey. Among respondents, the awareness of challenges in MCED testing (mean = 3.95, sd = 0.64), perceived competence (3.67, sd = 0.85), and receptivity to MCED use in practice (mean = 3.62, 0.75) were moderately high. Multiple regression was performed to identify factors associated with receptivity to MCED testing. We found that provider number of years in practice (DATA), awareness of challenges related to MCED testing (DATA), and perceived competence in MCED test use (DATA) were positively and significantly associated with receptivity to MCED test use in practice. An exploratory factor analysis extracted two components: receptivity to MCEDs and awareness of challenges. Surprisingly, these factors had a positive correlation (r = 0.124, p = 0.024). Providers' perceived competence in using MCED tests and providers' experience level were significantly associated with receptivity to MCED testing. While there was strong agreement with potential challenges to implementing MCEDs, PCPs were generally receptive to using MCEDs in cancer screening. Keeping PCPs updated on the evolving knowledge of MCEDs is likely critical to building receptivity to MCED testing.

Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being developed, but little is known about patient receptivity to their use for cancer screening. The current study assessed patient interest in such testing. Our team conducted a prospective, observational study among primary care patients in a large, urban health system. They were asked to complete a telephone survey that briefly described a new blood test in development to identify multiple types of cancer, but was not currently recommended or covered by insurance. The survey included items to assess respondent background characteristics, perceptions about MCED testing, and interest in having such an MCED test. We also used multivariable analyses to identify factors associated with patient interest in test use. In 2023, we surveyed 159 (32%) of 500 identified patients. Among respondents, 125 (79%) reported a high level of interest in having an MCED test. Interest was not associated with personal background characteristics, but was positively associated with the following expectations: testing would be recommended for cancer screening, be convenient, and be effective in finding early-stage disease (OR = 11.70, 95% CI: 4.02, 34.04, p < 0.001). Research is needed to assess patient interest and actual uptake when detailed information on testing is presented in routine care.

Factors Likely to Affect the Uptake of Genomic Approaches to Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.

Genomic tests are being developed for use in cancer screening. As most screening is offered in primary care settings, primary care provider and patient perceptions of such tests are likely to affect uptake. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize information on factors likely to affect patient and provider use of biospecimen collection and analysis for cancer screening, methods referred to as liquid biopsy or multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing when used to detect multiple cancers. We ultimately identified 7 articles for review and analyzed them for major themes. None reported on primary care provider perspectives. Six articles focused on patient perceptions about testing for a single cancer (colorectal), and 1 reported on patient views related to testing for multiple cancers. Factors favoring this type of testing included its non-invasiveness, and the perceived safety, convenience, and effectiveness of testing. There is a dearth of information in the literature on primary care provider perceptions about liquid biopsy and MCED testing. The limited information on patient perceptions suggests that they are receptive to such tests. Research on primary care provider and patient test-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior is needed to guide future implementation in primary care settings.

Effect of a web-based curriculum on primary care practice: basic skin cancer triage trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Primary care physicians (PCPs) are uniquely positioned to detect melanoma. Effective educational interventions targeted at PCPs may improve early melanoma detection. A previous in-person Basic Skin Cancer Triage (BSCT) 2-hour course demonstrated significant short-term improvement in provider practices, attitudes, ability, confidence, and knowledge. We conducted a randomized trial to test the efficacy of the BSCT course implemented as a web-based learning program, compared to a similar (control) web-based course on weight assessment. METHODS: We recruited a sample of 57 PCPs and 3,341 of their patients from four geographically diverse centers. Skin cancer control activities by PCPs were assessed by physician survey and by chart review and patient telephone interview about their recent visit to their PCP at baseline and at 1--2 months and 12 months after course completion. RESULTS: Some effect of intervention on skin cancer parameters was self-reported by physicians; this was not confirmed by patient survey or chart-extracted data. Rates of skin cancer control practices by PCPs were low across both groups before and after intervention. The positive changes in physician-reported behaviors (total body skin examination [TBSE]), intentions (discuss skin cancer detection), confidence (performing TBSE), office practices, and knowledge (58% skin versus 49% control) were neither matched by differences in practice reported by their patients, nor persisted in a longer term follow-up, hence may be attributable to physician recall bias due to the experience of the course or desire to please study investigators and were less dramatic as compared to our previously reported in-person BSCT intervention. Thus this approach by itself appears unlikely to result in improved PCP handling of skin cancer issues. CONCLUSIONS: Given previous success with our in-person course, the features required to make WBL a more effective tool for medical education must be further explored.

Effective strategies to improve the management of heart failure.

The purpose of this article is to provide resources for primary care physicians to manage heart failure as a chronic disease. We review evidence-based interventions that can be adopted in primary care practices to improve adherence to available guidelines for medication use, promotion of self-care behaviors, transitions of care in acute decompensated heart failure, and end of life care. This information will be valuable to primary care providers who care for patients with heart failure in all care settings but is focused on the management of heart failure in the outpatient setting.

Cancer vaccines.

The term cancer vaccines encompasses 2 different types of vaccines. Prophylactic vaccines block infection by viruses that can alter host DNA and result in cancer. The hepatitis B vaccine and the human papillomavirus vaccines are examples of prophylactic vaccines that can prevent cancer from developing. More recently, therapeutic vaccines have been developed and used as adjunctive therapy in patients who have already been diagnosed with cancer. Therapeutic vaccines stimulate the host's immune system to recognize cancer cells as foreign and to attack them. Most of the therapeutic vaccines being studied are used in combination with other forms of cancer therapy.

Immunologic non-inferiority of a newly licensed inactivated trivalent influenza vaccine versus an established vaccine: a randomized study in US adults.

A trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (Fluarix (™) , GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) was licensed under US accelerated approval regulations. We performed a randomized, observer-blind, post-approval study to demonstrate its immunological non-inferiority versus an established US-licensed vaccine (primary endpoint). Adult (including elderly) subjects received a single injection of newly-licensed vaccine (n = 923) or established vaccine (n = 922). Serum hemagglutination-inhibition titers were determined pre-vaccination and 21-28 days after vaccination. Non-inferiority was assessed by post-vaccination geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio (upper 95% confidence interval [CI] ≤ 1.5) and difference in seroconversion rate (upper 95% CI ≤ 0.1) for all three vaccine strains. Safety was monitored for 6 months. The newly-licensed vaccine was non-inferior to the established vaccine in all subjects (≥ 18 years) and in elderly subjects (≥ 65 years). Adjusted GMT ratios (established/newly-licensed) against the H1N1, H3N2 and B strains were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.73), 0.93 (0.83, 1.04) and 1.13 (1.03, 1.25) for all subjects and 0.75 (0.67, 0.85), 0.95 (0.82, 1.09) and 1.13 (1.00, 1.27) for elderly subjects. Corresponding values for the differences in seroconversion rate (established minus newly-licensed) were -0.12 (-0.16, -0.07), -0.02 (-0.06, 0.03) and 0.01 (-0.04, 0.06) for all subjects and -0.11 (-0.16, -0.05), -0.02 (-0.07, 0.04) and 0.02 (-0.04, 0.08) for elderly subjects. The most common adverse events with both vaccines were injection site pain, fatigue and headache, and no serious adverse events or deaths were considered related; there were no clinically relevant differences between the vaccines. In conclusion, the newly-licensed vaccine was well tolerated and immunologically non-inferior to the established vaccine for all three vaccine strains in the whole population and the elderly.

Screening and prevention: cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in women in developing countries and significant disparities in cervical cancer mortality rates persist in the United States. Improved recognition of the role of human papilloma virus (HPV) in cervical cancer pathogenesis has recently revolutionized screening and prevention strategies. Improved understanding and implementation of these advances will allow primary care physicians to significantly impact the cervical cancer mortality burden. This article reviews the basic physiology of the transformation zone, current understanding of cervical cancer pathogenesis, the history and evolution of cervical cancer screening in general and in specific populations of women, and an overview of the development and current use of the HPV vaccine.

Hematuria: etiology and evaluation for the primary care physician.

Asymptomatic microscopic and gross hematuria are common problems for the primary care physician. The exact definition of microscopic hematuria is debated, but is defined by one group as > 3 red blood cells/high power microscopic field. While the causes of hematuria are extensive, the most common differential diagnosis for both microscopic and gross hematuria in adults includes infection, malignancy, and urolithiasis. Clinical evaluation of these patients often involves urological consultation with urine cytology, urine culture, imaging studies, and cystoscopy. Patients who have no identifiable cause after an extensive workup should be monitored for early detection of malignancy or occult renal disease.

Primary care physician beliefs regarding usefulness of self-monitoring of blood pressure.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that the self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) may improve the identification and control of hypertension. Although endorsed by the Joint National Committee VII guidelines, home monitoring is not currently part of the standard care of hypertension. OBJECTIVE: To assess community- and university-based primary care physicians' opinions of SMBP. METHODS: A written, 5-point, Likert-scale questionnaire was mailed to physicians in a primary care research network. RESULTS: We received completed surveys from 138 of 170 providers (81%). Physician ages ranged from 25 to 72 years. Half of the providers were female, and approximately half were residents. Most physicians (63%) reported having patients using SMBP. Physician opinions of SMBP were unrelated to age, gender and number of years in practice. Three key beliefs were expressed: SMBP could be useful, economical and problematic. Community-based physicians were more likely than university-based physicians to believe in the benefits of SMBP use, and to disagree that the use of SMBP could cause problems for them or their patients (P < 0.05). Compared with their peers, physicians with fewer than five patients using SMBP agreed more strongly with statements that SMBP use could cause problems for themselves and their patients in hypertension treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the providers responded that SMBP could be useful to them in managing hypertension but seem hesitant to endorse it fully at this time, possibly anticipating potential problems that could arise with SMBP use. Physicians with more patients using self-monitoring were more likely to endorse it.

The reliability of patient self-reported blood pressures.

Self-monitoring of blood pressure actively involves patients in hypertension management. However, the usefulness of self-monitoring of blood pressure may be limited by inaccurate patient reporting. The study objective was to assess reliability of patient blood pressure reporting over 6 months. Forty-nine subjects with Joint National Committee stage 1 or 2 hypertension were enrolled. Unaware that the monitors electronically store readings, the subjects were asked to check and record outpatient blood pressures twice weekly. Stored and written readings were compared. On average, patient-recorded blood pressures were equivalent to stored monitor values 80% or more of the time. Reliability of patient self-reporting was sustained over the 6-month study period. Notably, patients did not selectively report lower blood pressure readings. The overall mean self-reported and stored monitor blood pressures were nearly identical: blood pressure (+/-SD) 134+/-16.8/78+/-11.6 mm Hg and 135+/-19.6/80+/-13.3 mm Hg, respectively. The reliability of self-reporting of blood pressures for many patients supports the potential usefulness of self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension management.