Modeled residual current cancer risk after clinical investigation of a positive multicancer early detection test result.

BACKGROUND: Positive results of a multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test require confirmatory diagnostic workup. Here, residual current cancer risk (RR) during the process of diagnostic resolution, including situations where the initial confirmatory test does not provide resolution, was modeled. METHODS: A decision-tree framework was used to model conditional risk in a patient's journey through confirmatory diagnostic options and outcomes. The diagnostic journey assumed that cancer signal detection (a positive MCED test result) had already led to a transition from screening to diagnosis and began with an initial positive predictive value (PPV) from the positive result. Evaluation of a most probable (top) predicted cancer signal origin (CSO) and then a second-most probable predicted CSO followed. Under the assumption that the top- and second-predicted CSOs were each followed by a targeted confirmatory test, the RR was estimated for each subsequent scenario. RESULTS: For an initial MCED test result with typical performance characteristics modeled (PPV, 40%; top-predicted CSO accuracy, 90%), after a negative initial confirmatory test (sensitivity, 70%, 90%, or 100%) the RR ranged from 6% to 20%. A second-predicted CSO (accuracy, 50%), after a negative second confirmatory test, still provided a significant RR (3%-18%) in comparison with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cancer risk threshold warranting investigation in symptomatic individuals (3%). With a 40% PPV for an MCED test and 90% specificity for a confirmatory test, the risk of incidental findings after one or two confirmatory tests was 6% and 12%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results may illustrate the impact of a positive MCED test on follow-up decision-making.

The PATHFINDER Study: Assessment of the Implementation of an Investigational Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test into Clinical Practice.

To examine the extent of the evaluation required to achieve diagnostic resolution and the test performance characteristics of a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test, ~6200 participants ≥50 years with (cohort A) or without (cohort B) ≥1 of 3 additional specific cancer risk factors will be enrolled in PATHFINDER (NCT04241796), a prospective, longitudinal, interventional, multi-center study. Plasma cfDNA from blood samples will be analyzed to detect abnormally methylated DNA associated with cancer (i.e., cancer "signal") and a cancer signal origin (i.e., tissue of origin). Participants with a "signal detected" will undergo further diagnostic evaluation per guiding physician discretion; those with a "signal not detected" will be advised to continue guideline-recommended screening. The primary objective will be to assess the number and types of subsequent diagnostic tests needed for diagnostic resolution. Based on microsimulations (using estimates of cancer incidence and dwell times) of the typical risk profiles of anticipated participants, the median (95% CI) number of participants with a "signal detected" result is expected to be 106 (87-128). Subsequent diagnostic evaluation is expected to detect 52 (39-67) cancers. The positive predictive value of the MCED test is expected to be 49% (39-58%). PATHFINDER will evaluate the integration of a cfDNA-based MCED test into existing clinical cancer diagnostic pathways. The study design of PATHFINDER is described here.

Watchful waiting as a strategy to reduce low-value spinal imaging: study protocol for a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute low back pain frequently request diagnostic imaging, and clinicians feel pressure to acquiesce to such requests to sustain patient trust and satisfaction. Spinal imaging in patients with acute low back pain poses risks from diagnostic evaluation of false-positive findings, patient labeling and anxiety, and unnecessary treatment (including spinal surgery). Watchful waiting advice has been an effective strategy to reduce some low-value treatments, and some evidence suggests a watchful waiting approach would be acceptable to many patients requesting diagnostic tests. METHODS: We will use key informant interviews of clinicians and focus groups with primary care patients to refine a theory-informed standardized patient-based intervention designed to teach clinicians how to advise watchful waiting when patients request low-value spinal imaging for low back pain. We will test the effectiveness of the intervention in a randomized clinical trial. We will recruit 8-10 primary care and urgent care clinics (~ 55 clinicians) in Sacramento, CA; clinicians will be randomized 1:1 to intervention and control groups. Over a 3- to 6-month period, clinicians in the intervention group will receive 3 visits with standardized patient instructors (SPIs) portraying patients with acute back pain; SPIs will instruct clinicians in a three-step model emphasizing establishing trust, empathic communication, and negotiation of a watchful waiting approach. Control physicians will receive no intervention. The primary outcome is the post-intervention rate of spinal imaging among actual patients with acute back pain seen by the clinicians adjusted for rate of imaging during a baseline period. Secondary outcomes are use of targeted communication techniques during a follow-up visit with an SP, clinician self-reported use of watchful waiting with actual low back pain patients, post-intervention rates of diagnostic imaging for other musculoskeletal pain syndromes (to test for generalization of intervention effects beyond back pain), and patient trust and satisfaction with physicians. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine whether standardized patient instructors can help clinicians develop skill in negotiating a watchful waiting approach with patients with acute low back pain, thereby reducing rates of low-value spinal imaging. The trial will also examine the possibility that intervention effects generalize to other diagnostic tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255199 . Registered on January 20, 2020.

Sociopsychological tailoring to address colorectal cancer screening disparities: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Interventions tailored to sociopsychological factors associated with health behaviors have promise for reducing colorectal cancer screening disparities, but limited research has assessed their impact in multiethnic populations. We examined whether an interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) tailored to expanded health belief model sociopsychological factors could promote colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample. METHODS: We undertook a randomized controlled trial, comparing an IMCP tailored to colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers, readiness, test preference, and experiences with a nontailored informational program, both delivered before office visits. The primary outcome was record-documented colorectal cancer screening during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included postvisit sociopsychological factor status and discussion, as well as clinician recommendation of screening during office visits. We enrolled 1,164 patients stratified by ethnicity and language (49.3% non-Hispanic, 27.2% Hispanic/English, 23.4% Hispanic/Spanish) from 26 offices around 5 centers (Sacramento, California; Rochester and the Bronx, New York; Denver, Colorado; and San Antonio, Texas). RESULTS: Adjusting for ethnicity/language, study center, and the previsit value of the dependent variable, compared with control patients, the IMCP led to significantly greater colorectal cancer screening knowledge, self-efficacy, readiness, test preference specificity, discussion, and recommendation. During the followup period, 132 (23%) IMCP and 123 (22%) control patients received screening (adjusted difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI -4.3 to 5.3). IMCP effects did not differ significantly by ethnicity/language. CONCLUSIONS: Sociopsychological factor tailoring was no more effective than nontailored information in encouraging colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample, despite enhancing sociopsychological factors and visit behaviors associated with screening. The utility of sociopsychological tailoring in addressing screening disparities remains uncertain.