Cancer care for people with dementia: Literature overview and recommendations for practice and research.

As many countries experience population aging, patients with cancer are becoming older and have more preexisting comorbidities, which include prevalent, age-related, chronic conditions such as dementia. People living with dementia (PLWD) are vulnerable to health disparities, and dementia has high potential to complicate and adversely affect care and outcomes across the cancer trajectory. This report offers an overview of dementia and its prevalence among patients with cancer and a summary of the research literature examining cancer care for PLWD. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD are more likely to have cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage, receive no or less extensive cancer treatment, and have poorer survival after a cancer diagnosis. These cancer disparities do not necessarily signify inappropriately later diagnosis or lower treatment of people with dementia as a group, and they are arguably less feasible and appropriate targets for care optimization. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD also have an increased risk of cancer-related emergency presentations, lower quality processes of cancer-related decision making, accessibility-related barriers to cancer investigations and treatment, higher experienced treatment burden and higher caregiver burden for families, and undertreated cancer-related pain. The authors propose that optimal cancer care for PLWD should focus on proactively minimizing these risk areas and thus must be highly person-centered, with holistic decision making, individualized reasonable adjustments to practice, and strong inclusion and support of family carers. Comprehensive recommendations are made for clinical practice and future research to help clinicians and providers deliver best and equitable cancer care for PLWD and their families.

Risk-prediction models in postmenopausal patients with symptoms of suspected ovarian cancer in the UK (ROCkeTS): a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple risk-prediction models are used in clinical practice to triage patients as being at low risk or high risk of ovarian cancer. In the ROCkeTS study, we aimed to identify the best diagnostic test for ovarian cancer in symptomatic patients, through head-to-head comparisons of risk-prediction models, in a real-world setting. Here, we report the results for the postmenopausal cohort. METHODS: In this multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited newly presenting female patients aged 16-90 years with non-specific symptoms and raised CA125 or abnormal ultrasound results (or both) who had been referred via rapid access, elective clinics, or emergency presentations from 23 hospitals in the UK. Patients with normal CA125 and simple ovarian cysts of smaller than 5 cm in diameter, active non-ovarian malignancy, or previous ovarian malignancy, or those who were pregnant or declined a transvaginal scan, were ineligible. In this analysis, only postmenopausal participants were included. Participants completed a symptom questionnaire, gave a blood sample, and had transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasounds performed by International Ovarian Tumour Analysis consortium (IOTA)-certified sonographers. Index tests were Risk of Malignancy 1 (RMI1) at a threshold of 200, Risk of Malignancy Algorithm (ROMA) at multiple thresholds, IOTA Assessment of Different Neoplasias in the Adnexa (ADNEX) at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA SRRisk model at thresholds of 3% and 10%, IOTA Simple Rules (malignant vs benign, or inconclusive), and CA125 at 35 IU/mL. In a post-hoc analysis, the Ovarian Adnexal and Reporting Data System (ORADS) at 10% was derived from IOTA ultrasound variables using established methods since ORADS was described after completion of recruitment. Index tests were conducted by study staff masked to the results of the reference standard. The comparator was RMI1 at the 250 threshold (the current UK National Health Service standard of care). The reference standard was surgical or biopsy tissue histology or cytology within 3 months, or a self-reported diagnosis of ovarian cancer at 12 month follow-up. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy at predicting primary invasive ovarian cancer versus benign or normal histology, assessed by analysing the sensitivity, specificity, C-index, area under receiver operating characteristic curve, positive and negative predictive values, and calibration plots in participants with conclusive reference standard results and available index test data. This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry (ISRCTN17160843). FINDINGS: Between July 13, 2015, and Nov 30, 2018, 1242 postmenopausal patients were recruited, of whom 215 (17%) had primary ovarian cancer. 166 participants had missing, inconclusive, or other reference standard results; therefore, data from a maximum of 1076 participants were used to assess the index tests for the primary outcome. Compared with RMI1 at 250 (sensitivity 82·9% [95% CI 76·7 to 88·0], specificity 87·4% [84·9 to 89·6]), IOTA ADNEX at 10% was more sensitive (difference of -13·9% [-20·2 to -7·6], p<0·0001) but less specific (difference of 28·5% [24·7 to 32·3], p<0·0001). ROMA at 29·9 had similar sensitivity (difference of -3·6% [-9·1 to 1·9], p=0·24) but lower specificity (difference of 5·2% [2·5 to 8·0], p=0·0001). RMI1 at 200 had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-4·7 to 0·5], p=0·13) but lower specificity (difference of 3·0% [1·7 to 4·3], p<0·0001). IOTA SRRisk model at 10% had similar sensitivity (difference of -4·3% [-11·0 to -2·3], p=0·23) but lower specificity (difference of 16·2% [12·6 to 19·8], p<0·0001). IOTA Simple Rules had similar sensitivity (difference of -1·6% [-9·3 to 6·2], p=0·82) and specificity (difference of -2·2% [-5·1 to 0·6], p=0·14). CA125 at 35 IU/mL had similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1% [-6·6 to 2·3], p=0·42) but higher specificity (difference of 6·7% [4·3 to 9·1], p<0·0001). In a post-hoc analysis, when compared with RMI1 at 250, ORADS achieved similar sensitivity (difference of -2·1%, 95% CI -8·6 to 4·3, p=0·60) and lower specificity (difference of 10·2%, 95% CI 6·8 to 13·6, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In view of its higher sensitivity than RMI1 at 250, despite some loss in specificity, we recommend that IOTA ADNEX at 10% should be considered as the new standard-of-care diagnostic in ovarian cancer for postmenopausal patients. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Heath Research.

Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

A pilot randomised controlled trial of acceptance and commitment therapy for medication decision-making and quality of life in women with breast cancer: The ACTION trial.

OBJECTIVE: Non-adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) in women with breast cancer is common and associated with medication side-effects and distress. We co-designed an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy intervention (ACTION) to enhance medication decision-making and quality of life (QoL). We undertook a pilot trial of ACTION to inform the feasibility of a phase III trial, and to examine intervention acceptability. METHODS: This was a multi-site, exploratory, two-arm, individually randomised external pilot trial. Women with early breast cancer prescribed AET were randomised (1:1) to receive usual care (UC) or UC + ACTION. The ACTION intervention comprised a remotely delivered one-to-one ACT session followed by three group sessions delivered by clinical psychologists, alongside a website containing ideas for the self-management of side effects. RESULTS: Of the 480 women screened for eligibility, 260 (54.2%) were approached and 79 (30.4%) randomised. 71 (89.9%) women provided data at 3-month and 70 (88.6%) at 6-month 40 women were randomised to receive UC + ACTION and 32 (80.0%) completed the intervention. Most (75.0%) accessed the website at least once. ACTION was acceptable to participants (Borkovec & Nau Scale: mean = 7.8 [SD = 2.7] out of 10). Signals of effectiveness in favour of the UC + ACTION arm were observed for medication adherence (Adherence Starts with Knowledge questionnaire-12), QoL (work and social adjustment scale), health-related QoL (functional assessment of cancer therapy[FACT] general and FACT-ES-19/23), distress (generalised anxiety disorder -7, patient health questionnaire-9) and psychological flexibility (valuing questionnaire). CONCLUSIONS: The ACTION intervention was acceptable to patients. There were promising signals for effectiveness on primary and secondary outcomes. A phase III randomised controlled trial is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12027752.

The National Health Service urgent cancer referral pathway for suspected urological cancers: early economic evaluation of a risk prediction test.

OBJECTIVES: In the UK, the number of patients urgently referred for suspected cancer is increasing, and providers are struggling to cope with demand. We explore the potential cost-effectiveness of a new risk prediction test - the PinPoint test - to triage and prioritize patients urgently referred with suspected urological cancers. METHODS: Two simulation models were developed to reflect the diagnostic pathways for patients with (i) suspected prostate cancer, and (ii) bladder or kidney cancer, comparing the PinPoint test to current practice. An early economic analysis was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. The primary outcomes were the percentage of individuals seen within 2 weeks and health care costs. An exploratory analysis was conducted to understand the potential impact of the Pinpoint test on quality-adjusted life years gained. RESULTS: Across both models and applications, the PinPoint test led to more individuals with urological cancer being seen within 2 weeks. Using PinPoint only to prioritize patients led to increased costs overall, whereas using PinPoint to both triage and prioritize patients led to cost savings. The estimated impact on life years gained/lost was very small and highly uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Using the PinPoint test to prioritize urgent referrals meant that more individuals with urological cancer were seen within 2 weeks, but at additional cost to the NHS. If used as a triage and prioritization tool, the PinPoint test shortens wait times for referred individuals and is cost saving. More data on the impact of short-term delays to diagnosis on health-related quality of life is needed.

Modelled mortality benefits of multi-cancer early detection screening in England.

BACKGROUND: Screening programmes utilising blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests, which can detect a shared cancer signal from any site in the body with a single, low false-positive rate, could reduce cancer burden through early diagnosis. METHODS: A natural history ('interception') model of cancer was previously used to characterise potential benefits of MCED screening (based on published performance of an MCED test). We built upon this using a two-population survival model to account for an increased risk of death from cfDNA-detectable cancers relative to cfDNA-non-detectable cancers. We developed another model allowing some cancers to metastasise directly from stage I, bypassing intermediate tumour stages. We used incidence and survival-by-stage data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to estimate longer-term benefits to a cohort screened between ages 50-79 years. RESULTS: Estimated late-stage and mortality reductions were robust to a range of assumptions. With the least favourable dwell (sojourn) time and cfDNA status hazard ratio assumptions, we estimated, among 100,000 screened individuals, 67 (17%) fewer cancer deaths per year corresponding to 2029 fewer deaths in those screened between ages 50-79 years. CONCLUSION: Realising the potential benefits of MCED tests could substantially reduce late-stage cancer diagnoses and mortality.

Clinical trials in cancer screening, prevention and early diagnosis (SPED): a systematic mapping review.

BACKGROUND: Global annual cancer incidence is forecast to rise to 27.5 M by 2040, a 62% increase from 2018. For most cancers, prevention and early detection are the most effective ways of reducing mortality. This study maps trials in cancer screening, prevention, and early diagnosis (SPED) to identify areas of unmet need and highlight research priorities. METHODS: A systematic mapping review was conducted to evaluate all clinical trials focused on cancer SPED, irrespective of tumour type. The National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) portfolio, EMBASE, PubMed and Medline were searched for relevant papers published between 01/01/2007 and 01/04/2020. References were exported into Covidence software and double-screened. Data were extracted and mapped according to tumour site, geographical location, and intervention type. RESULTS: One hundred seventeen thousand seven hundred one abstracts were screened, 5157 full texts reviewed, and 2888 studies included. 1184 (52%) trials focussed on screening, 554 (24%) prevention, 442 (20%) early diagnosis, and 85 (4%) a combination. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer comprised 61% of all studies compared with 6.4% in lung and 1.8% in liver cancer. The latter two are responsible for 26.3% of global cancer deaths compared with 19.3% for the former three. Number of studies varied markedly according to geographical location; 88% were based in North America, Europe, or Asia. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows clear disparities in the volume of research conducted across different tumour types and according to geographical location. These findings will help drive future research effort so that resources can be directed towards major challenges in cancer SPED.

Priorities for implementation research on diagnosing cancer in primary care: a consensus process.

BACKGROUND: The early detection and diagnosis of cancer to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity is a challenging task in primary health care. There is a growing evidence base on how to enable earlier cancer diagnosis, but well-recognised gaps and delays exist around the translation of new research findings into routine clinical practice. Implementation research aims to accelerate the uptake of evidence by health care systems and professionals. We aimed to identify priorities for implementation research in early cancer diagnosis in primary care. METHODS: We used a RAND/UCLA modified Delphi consensus process to identify and rank research priorities. We asked primary care physicians, patients and researchers to complete an online survey suggesting priorities for implementation research in cancer detection and diagnosis. We summarised and presented these suggestions to an 11-member consensus panel comprising nine primary care physicians and two patients. Panellists independently rated the importance of suggestions on a 1-9 scale (9 = very high priority; 1 = very low priority) before and after a structured group discussion. We ranked suggestions using median ratings. RESULTS: We received a total of 115 suggested priorities for implementation research from 32 survey respondents (including 16 primary care professionals, 11 researchers, and 4 patient and public representatives; 88% of respondents were UK-based). After removing duplicates and ineligible suggestions, we presented 37 suggestions grouped within 17 categories to the consensus panel. Following two rounds of rating, 27 suggestions were highly supported (median rating 7-9). The most highly rated suggestions concerned diagnostic support (e.g., access to imaging) interventions (e.g., professional or patient education), organisation of the delivery of care (e.g., communication within and between teams) and understanding variations in care and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified a set of priorities for implementation research on the early diagnosis of cancer, ranked in importance by primary care physicians and patients. We suggest that researchers and research funders consider these in directing further efforts and resources to improve population outcomes.

Incidence trends for twelve cancers in younger adults-a rapid review.

Many cancer referral guidelines use patient's age as a key criterium to decide who should be referred urgently. A recent rise in the incidence of colorectal cancer in younger adults has been described in high-income countries worldwide. Information on other cancers is more limited. The aim of this rapid review was to determine whether other cancers are also increasing in younger age groups, as this may have important implications for prioritising patients for investigation and referral. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science for studies describing age-related incidence trends for colorectal, bladder, lung, oesophagus, pancreas, stomach, breast, ovarian, uterine, kidney and laryngeal cancer and myeloma. 'Younger' patients were defined based on NICE guidelines for cancer referral. Ninety-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings show that the incidence of colorectal, breast, kidney, pancreas, uterine cancer is increasing in younger age groups, whilst the incidence of lung, laryngeal and bladder cancer is decreasing. Data for oesophageal, stomach, ovarian cancer and myeloma were inconclusive. Overall, this review provides evidence that some cancers are increasingly being diagnosed in younger age groups, although the mechanisms remain unclear. Cancer investigation and referral guidelines may need updating in light of these trends.

Diagnostic routes and time intervals for ovarian cancer in nine international jurisdictions; findings from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP).

BACKGROUND: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 reports the first international comparison of ovarian cancer (OC) diagnosis routes and intervals (symptom onset to treatment start), which may inform previously reported variations in survival and stage. METHODS: Data were collated from 1110 newly diagnosed OC patients aged >40 surveyed between 2013 and 2015 across five countries (51-272 per jurisdiction), their primary-care physicians (PCPs) and cancer treatment specialists, supplement by treatment records or clinical databases. Diagnosis routes and time interval differences using quantile regression with reference to Denmark (largest survey response) were calculated. RESULTS: There were no significant jurisdictional differences in the proportion diagnosed with symptoms on the Goff Symptom Index (53%; P = 0.179) or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG12 guidelines (62%; P = 0.946). Though the main diagnosis route consistently involved primary-care presentation (63-86%; P = 0.068), onward urgent referral rates varied significantly (29-79%; P < 0.001). In most jurisdictions, diagnostic intervals were generally shorter and other intervals, in particular, treatment longer compared to Denmark. CONCLUSION: This study highlights key intervals in the diagnostic pathway where improvements could be made. It provides the opportunity to consider the systems and approaches across different jurisdictions that might allow for more timely ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Participation in community-based lung cancer screening: the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening. METHODS: Individuals aged 55-80 years, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included general practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner. RESULTS: Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders, respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.42-0.46) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54-0.62 for the most versus the least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98). In total, 6650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees. CONCLUSIONS: Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socioeconomic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening.

An exploratory assessment of the impact of a novel risk assessment test on breast cancer clinic waiting times and workflow: a discrete event simulation model.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer clinics across the UK have long been struggling to cope with high demand. Novel risk prediction tools - such as the PinPoint test - could help to reduce unnecessary clinic referrals. Using early data on the expected accuracy of the test, we explore the potential impact of PinPoint on: (a) the percentage of patients meeting the two-week referral target, and (b) the number of clinic 'overspill' appointments generated (i.e. patients having to return to the clinic to complete their required investigations). METHODS: A simulation model was built to reflect the annual flow of patients through a single UK clinic. Due to current uncertainty around the exact impact of PinPoint testing on standard care, two primary scenarios were assessed. Scenario 1 assumed complete GP adherence to testing, with only non-referred cancerous cases returning for delayed referral. Scenario 2 assumed GPs would overrule 20% of low-risk results, and that 10% of non-referred non-cancerous cases would also return for delayed referral. A range of sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of key uncertainties on the model results. Service reconfiguration scenarios, removing individual weekly clinics from the clinic schedule, were also explored. RESULTS: Under standard care, 66.3% (95% CI: 66.0 to 66.5) of patients met the referral target, with 1,685 (1,648 to 1,722) overspill appointments. Under both PinPoint scenarios, > 98% of patients met the referral target, with overspill appointments reduced to between 727 (707 to 746) [Scenario 1] and 886 (861 to 911) [Scenario 2]. The reduced clinic demand was sufficient to allow removal of one weekly low-capacity clinic [N = 10], and the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings from this early analysis indicate that risk prediction tools could have the potential to alleviate pressure on cancer clinics, and are expected to have increased utility in the wake of heightened pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Further research is required to validate these findings with real world evidence; evaluate the broader clinical and economic impact of the test; and to determine outcomes and risks for patients deemed to be low-risk on the PinPoint test and therefore not initially referred.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16872545.

Diagnostic pathways in multiple myeloma and their relationship to end organ damage: an analysis from the Tackling Early Morbidity and Mortality in Myeloma (TEAMM) trial.

Multiple myeloma is associated with significant early morbidity and mortality, with considerable end organ damage often present at diagnosis. The Tackling EArly Morbidity and Mortality in Multiple Myeloma (TEAMM) trial was used to evaluate routes to diagnosis in patients with myeloma and the relationship between diagnostic pathways, time to diagnosis and disease severity. A total of 915 participants were included in the study. Fifty-one per cent were diagnosed by direct referral from primary care to haematology; 29% were diagnosed via acute services and 20% were referred via other secondary care specialties. Patients diagnosed via other secondary care specialties had a longer diagnostic interval (median 120 days vs. 59 days) without an increase in features of severe disease, suggesting they had a relatively indolent disease. Marked intrahospital delay suggests possible scope for improvement. A quarter of those diagnosed through acute services reported >30 days from initial hospital consultation to haematology assessment. Participants diagnosed through acute services had poorer performance status (P < 0·0001) and higher burden of end organ damage (P < 0·0001) with no difference in the overall length of diagnostic pathway compared to those diagnosed by direct referral (median 59 days). This suggests that advanced disease in patients presenting through acute services predominantly reflects disease aggression.

Evaluating diagnostic strategies for early detection of cancer: the CanTest framework.

BACKGROUND: Novel diagnostic triage and testing strategies to support early detection of cancer could improve clinical outcomes. Most apparently promising diagnostic tests ultimately fail because of inadequate performance in real-world, low prevalence populations such as primary care or general community populations. They should therefore be systematically evaluated before implementation to determine whether they lead to earlier detection, are cost-effective, and improve patient safety and quality of care, while minimising over-investigation and over-diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic scoping review of frameworks for the evaluation of tests and diagnostic approaches. RESULTS: We identified 16 frameworks: none addressed the entire continuum from test development to impact on diagnosis and patient outcomes in the intended population, nor the way in which tests may be used for triage purposes as part of a wider diagnostic strategy. Informed by these findings, we developed a new framework, the 'CanTest Framework', which proposes five iterative research phases forming a clear translational pathway from new test development to health system implementation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: This framework is suitable for testing in low prevalence populations, where tests are often applied for triage testing and incorporated into a wider diagnostic strategy. It has relevance for a wide range of stakeholders including patients, policymakers, purchasers, healthcare providers and industry.

Advanced-stage cancer and time to diagnosis: An International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between tumour stage at diagnosis and selected components of primary and secondary care in the diagnostic interval for breast, colorectal, lung and ovarian cancers. METHODS: Observational study based on data from 6,162 newly diagnosed symptomatic cancer patients from Module 4 of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership. We analysed the odds of advanced stage of cancer as a flexible function of the length of primary care interval (days from first presentation to referral) and secondary care interval (days from referral to diagnosis), respectively, using logistic regression with restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: The association between time intervals and stage was similar for each type of cancer. A statistically significant U-shaped association was seen between the secondary care interval and the diagnosis of advanced rather than localised cancer, odds decreasing from the first day onwards and increasing around three and a half months. A different pattern was seen for the primary care interval, flat trends for colorectal and lung cancers and a slightly curved association for ovarian cancer, although not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The results confirm previous findings that some cancers may progress even within the relatively short time frame of regulated diagnostic intervals. The study supports the current emphasis on expediting symptomatic diagnosis of cancer.

Trial of personalised care after treatment-Prostate cancer: A randomised feasibility trial of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The present parallel randomised control trial evaluated the feasibility of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention aimed at improving the self-management of prostate cancer survivors. METHODS: We identified 305 eligible patients from a district general hospital, diagnosed 9-48 months previously, who completed radical treatment, or were monitored clinically (ineligible for treatment). Ninety-five patients were recruited by blinded selection and randomised to Intervention (N = 48) and Control (N = 47) groups. Participant allocation was revealed to patients and researchers after recruitment was completed. For 36 weeks, participants received augmented usual care (Control) or augmented usual care and additional nurse support (Intervention) provided in two community hospitals and a university clinic, or by telephone. RESULTS: Data from 91 participants (Intervention, N = 45; Control, N = 46) were analysed. All feasibility metrics met predefined targets: recruitment rate (31.15%; 95% CI: 25.95%-36.35%), attrition rate (9.47%; 95% CI: 3.58%-15.36%) and outcome measures completion rates (77%-92%). Forty-five patients received the intervention, with no adverse events. The Extended Prostate Cancer Index Composite can inform the minimum sample size for a future effectiveness trial. The net intervention cost was £317 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, suggesting that it should be evaluated in a fully powered trial to assess its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Improving cancer symptom awareness and help-seeking among adults living in socioeconomically deprived communities in the UK using a facilitated health check: A protocol for the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) Randomised Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is lower in socioeconomically deprived communities, partly due to low awareness of symptoms, negative beliefs and delayed help-seeking. We developed an interactive health check questionnaire facilitated by trained lay advisors. It entails 29 questions about background, lifestyle and health with tailored behaviour change advice. Personalised results are printed using a traffic light (red/amber/green) system, highlighting areas where action should be taken. This is an individually randomised control trial to test effectiveness of the health check on symptom recognition. METHODS: A total 246 participants aged 40+ years will be recruited from community and healthcare settings in socioeconomically deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales. Participants will be randomised to receive the health check or standard care (1:1 ratio). Outcome measures include: adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (primary outcome), brief State Trait Anxiety Inventory, intentions and motivation to adopt recommended health behaviours (early symptom presentation, cancer screening and lifestyle behaviours), adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory, brief medical history/screening and demographic questionnaire at: baseline; 2-weeks; and 6-months post-randomisation. A purposive sample of intervention sessions will be audio-recorded (n = 24) and half will additionally be observed (n = 12). Semi-structured interviews will take place at 2-weeks (n = 30) and 6-months (n = 15-20) post-randomisation. The primary analysis will compare cancer symptom recognition scores between arms at 2-weeks. Secondary analysis will assess cancer beliefs, barriers/time to presentation, screening and lifestyle behaviours, anxiety and costs. A process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity, dose and contamination. The London-Surrey NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/LO/1507) approved this trial. DISCUSSION: This is a trial of a theoretically underpinned complex intervention which has undergone phase 1 and 2 development work. The findings will evaluate evidence about the effect of the health check on symptom awareness. Although there are few exclusion criteria there are limitations regarding the population we are able to reach, who may have even higher risks of late diagnosis and poor cancer prognosis. However, the health check has the potential to improve cancer symptom awareness and encourage early help-seeking behaviour in deprived populations, thereby reducing inequalities in longer term cancer outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN (Ref: ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.

Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological Cancer (TOPCAT-G): A Randomized Feasibility Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of completing a parallel-group randomized controlled trial to compare usual follow-up care for women who have completed treatment of gynecological cancer against a nurse-led telephone intervention, known as Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological. METHODS: The unblinded trial aimed to recruit patients who had completed treatment of cervical, endometrial, epithelial ovarian, or vulval cancer within the previous 3 months at 3 North Wales hospitals. We randomized participants to either usual hospital-based follow-up or specialist nurse-led telephone education, empowerment, and structured needs assessment follow-up. The primary outcomes assessed the feasibility of running a larger trial including patient eligibility, recruitment and retention rates, and outcome measure completion. Secondary outcomes were generic and health-related quality of life and a patient self-report health service use (Client Service Receipt Inventory) data collected at 3 time points (baseline, 3 months, and 6 months). RESULTS: Of the 58 women screened, 44 were eligible (76%) and 24 (55%) were recruited and randomized (12:12 to control and intervention, respectively). One participant was lost to follow-up. Recruited participants had a mean (SD) age of 60 (11.2) years and were approximately 5 months from their initial diagnosis (mean [SD], 159 [58] days). Seventeen (71%) of the participants had an endometrial cancer diagnosis. All outcome measure completion rates exceeded 96%. Although not a core feasibility objective, analyses of outcome measures indicated positive changes in quality of life and well-being within the Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological group; exploratory cost consequence analysis indicated that the nurse-led intervention had a mean total service use cost of £27 per patient (bootstrapped 95% confidence interval, -£290 to £240) lower than did the standard care group. CONCLUSION: Eligibility, recruitment, and retention rates as well as outcome measure completion showed that the trial is feasible.

Promoting sunscreen use and skin self-examination to improve early detection and prevent skin cancer: quasi-experimental trial of an adolescent psycho-educational intervention.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer rates are increasing. Interventions to increase adolescent sunscreen use and skin self-examination (SSE) are required. METHODS: Quasi-experimental design; 1 control and 4 intervention group schools in Scotland, UK. Participants were 15-16 year old students on the school register. The intervention was a theoretically-informed (Common-Sense Model and Health Action Process Approach) 50-min presentation, delivered by a skin cancer specialist nurse and young adult skin cancer survivor, to students in a classroom, supplemented by a home-based assignment. Outcome variables were sunscreen use intention, SSE intention/behaviour, planning, illness perceptions and skin cancer communication behaviour, measured 2 weeks pre- and 4 weeks post- intervention using self-completed pen and paper survey. School attendance records were used to record intervention up-take; students self-reported completion of the home-based assignment. Pearson's chi-square test, analysis of variance, and non-parametric Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test were used to measure outcomes and associations between variables. Focus groups elicited students' (n = 29) views on the intervention. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Five of 37 invited schools participated. 639 (81%) students in intervention schools received the intervention; 33.8% completed the home-based assignment. 627 (69.6%) of students on the school register in intervention and control schools completed a questionnaire at baseline; data for 455 (72.6%) students were available at baseline and follow-up. Focus groups identified four themes - personal experiences of skin cancer, distaste for sunscreen, relevance of SSE in adolescence, and skin cancer conversations. Statistically significant (p < 0.05) changes were observed for sunscreen use, SSE, planning, and talk about skin cancer in intervention schools but not the control. Significant associations were found between sunscreen use, planning and 2 illness perceptions (identity and consequence) and between SSE, planning and 3 illness perceptions (timeline, causes, control). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to promote sunscreen use and SSE in the context of an adolescent school-based psychoeducation intention. Further research is required to improve study uptake, intervention adherence and effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN11141528.