The acceptability and clinical impact of using polygenic scores for risk-estimation of common cancers in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic scores (PGS) have been developed for cancer risk-estimation and show potential as tools to prompt earlier referral for high-risk individuals and aid risk-stratification within cancer screening programmes. This review explores the potential for using PGS to identify individuals at risk of the most common cancers seen in primary care. METHODS: Two electronic databases were searched up until November 2023 to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies that reported on the acceptability and clinical impact of using PGS to identify individuals at highest risk of breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancer in primary care. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to assess the quality of included studies and a narrative synthesis was used to analyse data. RESULTS: A total of 190 papers were identified, 18 of which were eligible for inclusion. A cancer risk-assessment tool incorporating PGS was acceptable to the general practice population and their healthcare providers but major challenges to implementation were identified, including lack of evidence for PGS in non-European ancestry and a need for healthcare provider education in genomic medicine. A PGS cancer risk-assessment had relatively limited impact on psychosocial outcomes and health behaviours. However, for prostate cancer, potential applications for its use in primary care were shown. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer risk assessment incorporating PGS in primary care is acceptable to patients and healthcare providers but there is a paucity of research exploring clinical impact. Few studies were identified, and more research is required before clinical implementation of PGS can be recommended.

Implementation and external validation of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score in the UK Biobank cohort.

BACKGROUND: Patients with multiple conditions present a growing challenge for healthcare provision. Measures of multimorbidity may support clinical management, healthcare resource allocation and accounting for the health of participants in purpose-designed cohorts. The recently developed Cambridge Multimorbidity scores (CMS) have the potential to achieve these aims using primary care records, however, they have not yet been validated outside of their development cohort. METHODS: The CMS, developed in the Clinical Research Practice Dataset (CPRD), were validated in UK Biobank participants whose data is not available in CPRD (the cohort used for CMS development) with available primary care records (n = 111,898). This required mapping of the 37 pre-existing conditions used in the CMS to the coding frameworks used by UK Biobank data providers. We used calibration plots and measures of discrimination to validate the CMS for two of the three outcomes used in the development study (death and primary care consultation rate) and explored variation by age and sex. We also examined the predictive ability of the CMS for the outcome of cancer diagnosis. The results were compared to an unweighted count score of the 37 pre-existing conditions. RESULTS: For all three outcomes considered, the CMS were poorly calibrated in UK Biobank. We observed a similar discriminative ability for the outcome of primary care consultation rate to that reported in the development study (C-index: 0.67 (95%CI:0.66-0.68) for both, 5-year follow-up); however, we report lower discrimination for the outcome of death than the development study (0.69 (0.68-0.70) and 0.89 (0.88-0.90) respectively). Discrimination for cancer diagnosis was adequate (0.64 (0.63-0.65)). The CMS performs favourably to the unweighted count score for death, but not for the outcomes of primary care consultation rate or cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK Biobank, CMS discriminates reasonably for the outcomes of death, primary care consultation rate and cancer diagnosis and may be a valuable resource for clinicians, public health professionals and data scientists. However, recalibration will be required to make accurate predictions when cohort composition and risk levels differ substantially from the development cohort. The generated resources (including codelists for the conditions and code for CMS implementation in UK Biobank) are available online.

Risk Prediction Models for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review.

In the last 30 years, there has been an increasing incidence of oral cancer worldwide. Earlier detection of oral cancer has been shown to improve survival rates. However, given the relatively low prevalence of this disease, population-wide screening is likely to be inefficient. Risk prediction models could be used to target screening to those at highest risk or to select individuals for preventative interventions. This review (a) systematically identified published models that predict the development of oral cancer and are suitable for use in the general population and (b) described and compared the identified models, focusing on their development, including risk factors, performance and applicability to risk-stratified screening. A search was carried out in November 2022 in the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to identify primary research papers that report the development or validation of models predicting the risk of developing oral cancer (cancers of the oral cavity or oropharynx). The PROBAST tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the identified studies and the applicability of the models they describe. The search identified 11,222 articles, of which 14 studies (describing 23 models), satisfied the eligibility criteria of this review. The most commonly included risk factors were age (n = 20), alcohol consumption (n = 18) and smoking (n = 17). Six of the included models incorporated genetic information and three used biomarkers as predictors. Including information on human papillomavirus status was shown to improve model performance; however, this was only included in a small number of models. Most of the identified models (n = 13) showed good or excellent discrimination (AUROC > 0.7). Only fourteen models had been validated and only two of these validations were carried out in populations distinct from the model development population (external validation). Conclusions: Several risk prediction models have been identified that could be used to identify individuals at the highest risk of oral cancer within the context of screening programmes. However, external validation of these models in the target population is required, and, subsequently, an assessment of the feasibility of implementation with a risk-stratified screening programme for oral cancer.

Feasibility and acceptability of offering breast cancer risk assessment to general population women aged 30-39 years: a mixed-methods study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer incidence starts to increase exponentially when women reach 30-39 years, hence before they are eligible for breast cancer screening. The introduction of breast cancer risk assessment for this age group could lead to those at higher risk receiving benefits of earlier screening and preventive strategies. Currently, risk assessment is limited to women with a family history of breast cancer only. The Breast CANcer Risk Assessment in Younger women (BCAN-RAY) study is evaluating a comprehensive breast cancer risk assessment strategy for women aged 30-39 years incorporating a questionnaire of breast cancer risk factors, low-dose mammography to assess breast density and polygenic risk. This study will assess the feasibility and acceptability of the BCAN-RAY risk assessment strategy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study involves women undergoing risk assessment as part of the BCAN-RAY case-control study (n=750). They will be aged 30-39 years without a strong family history of breast cancer and invited to participate via general practice. A comparison of uptake rates by socioeconomic status and ethnicity between women who participated in the BCAN-RAY study and women who declined participation will be conducted. All participants will be asked to complete self-report questionnaires to assess key potential harms including increased state anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory), cancer worry (Lerman Cancer Worry Scale) and satisfaction with the decision to participate (Decision Regret Scale), alongside potential benefits such as feeling more informed about breast cancer risk. A subsample of approximately 24 women (12 at average risk and 12 at increased risk) will additionally participate in semistructured interviews to understand the acceptability of the risk assessment strategy and identify any changes needed to it to increase uptake. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by North West-Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/NW/0268). Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and charitable organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05305963.

Risk-stratified screening for the early detection of kidney cancer.

Earlier detection and screening for kidney cancer has been identified as a key research priority, however the low prevalence of the disease in unselected populations limits the cost-effectiveness of screening. Risk-stratified screening for kidney cancer may improve early detection by targeting high-risk individuals whilst limiting harms in low-risk individuals, potentially increasing the cost-effectiveness of screening. A number of models have been identified which estimate kidney cancer risk based on both phenotypic and genetic data, and while several of the former have been shown to identify individuals at high-risk of developing kidney cancer with reasonable accuracy, current evidence does not support including a genetic component. Combined screening for lung cancer and kidney cancer has been proposed, as the two malignancies share some common risk factors. A modelling study estimated that using lung cancer risk models (currently used for risk-stratified lung cancer screening) could capture 25% of patients with kidney cancer, which is only slightly lower than using the best performing kidney cancer-specific risk models based on phenotypic data (27%-33%). Additionally, risk-stratified screening for kidney cancer has been shown to be acceptable to the public. The following review summarises existing evidence regarding risk-stratified screening for kidney cancer, highlighting the risks and benefits, as well as exploring the management of potential harms and further research needs.

Evaluating the potential impact of lifestyle-based behavior change interventions delivered at the time of colorectal cancer screening.

PURPOSE: To analyze interventions implemented at the time of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, or among individuals who have previously undergone investigation for CRC, focused on reducing CRC risk through promotion of lifestyle behavior change. Additionally, this review evaluated to what extent such interventions apply behavior change techniques (BCTs) to achieve their objectives. METHODS: Five databases were systematically searched to identify randomized control trials seeking to reduce CRC risk through behavior change. Outcomes were changes in health-related lifestyle behaviors associated with CRC risk, including changes in dietary habits, body mass index, smoking behaviors, alcohol consumption, and physical activity. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random effects models. BCT's were coded from a published taxonomy of 93 techniques. RESULTS: Ten RCT's met the inclusion criteria. Greater increase in fruit/vegetable consumption in the intervention group were observed with respect to the control (SMD 0.13, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.18; p < 0.001). Across fiber, alcohol, fat, red meat, and multivitamin consumption, and smoking behaviors, similar positive outcomes were observed (SMD 0.09-0.57 for all, p < 0.01). However, among physical activity and body mass index, no difference between the intervention groups compared with controls were observed. A median of 7.5 BCTs were applied across included interventions. CONCLUSION: While magnitude of the observed effect sizes varied, they correspond to potentially important changes in lifestyle behaviors when considered on a population scale. Future interventions should identify avenues to maximize long-term engagement to promote sustained lifestyle behavior change.

Short-term psychosocial outcomes of adding a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate psychological, social, and financial outcomes amongst individuals undergoing a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. A total of 500 participants within the YKST, comprising all who had an abnormal CT scan and a random sample of one-third of those with a normal scan between 14/03/2022 and 24/08/2022 were sent a questionnaire at 3 and 6 months. Outcomes included the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the short-form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels scale (EQ-5D-5L). Data were analysed using regression adjusting for participant age, sex, socioeconomic status, education, baseline quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 380 (76%) participants returned questionnaires at 3 months and 328 (66%) at 6 months. There was no difference in any outcomes between participants with a normal scan and those with abnormal scans requiring no further action. Individuals requiring initial further investigations or referral had higher scores on the negative PCQ than those with normal scans at 3 months (standardised mean difference 0.28 sd, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.54; P = 0.044). The difference was greater in those with anxiety or depression at baseline. No differences were seen at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Screening for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies using abdominal CT alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening is unlikely to cause significant lasting psychosocial or financial harm to participants with incidental findings.

Phenotypes and rates of cancer-relevant symptoms and tests in the year before cancer diagnosis in UK Biobank and CPRD Gold.

Early diagnosis of cancer relies on accurate assessment of cancer risk in patients presenting with symptoms, when screening is not appropriate. But recorded symptoms in cancer patients pre-diagnosis may vary between different sources of electronic health records (EHRs), either genuinely or due to differential completeness of symptom recording. To assess possible differences, we analysed primary care EHRs in the year pre-diagnosis of cancer in UK Biobank and Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) populations linked to cancer registry data. We developed harmonised phenotypes in Read v2 and CTV3 coding systems for 21 symptoms and eight blood tests relevant to cancer diagnosis. Among 22,601 CPRD and 11,594 UK Biobank cancer patients, 54% and 36%, respectively, had at least one consultation for possible cancer symptoms recorded in the year before their diagnosis. Adjusted comparisons between datasets were made using multivariable Poisson models, comparing rates of symptoms/tests in CPRD against expected rates if cancer site-age-sex-deprivation associations were the same as in UK Biobank. UK Biobank cancer patients compared with those in CPRD had lower rates of consultation for possible cancer symptoms [RR: 0.61 (0.59-0.63)], and lower rates for any primary care consultation [RR: 0.86 (95%CI 0.85-0.87)]. Differences were larger for 'non-alarm' symptoms [RR: 0.54 (0.52-0.56)], and smaller for 'alarm' symptoms [RR: 0.80 (0.76-0.84)] and blood tests [RR: 0.93 (0.90-0.95)]. In the CPRD cohort, approximately representative of the UK population, half of cancer patients had recorded symptoms in the year before diagnosis. The frequency of non-specific presenting symptoms recorded in the year pre-diagnosis of cancer was substantially lower among UK Biobank participants. The degree to which results based on highly selected biobank cohorts are generalisable needs to be examined in disease-specific contexts.

A discrete choice experiment to understand public preferences and priorities for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening programmes in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Public acceptability of bowel cancer screening programmes must be maintained, including if risk stratification is introduced. We aimed to describe and quantify preferences for different attributes of risk-stratified screening programmes amongst the UK population, focussing on who to invite for bowel screening. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) including the following attributes: risk factors used to estimate bowel cancer risk (age plus/minus sex, lifestyle factors and genetics); personalisation of risk feedback; risk stratification strategy plus resource implications; default screening in the case of no risk information; number of deaths prevented by screening; and number experiencing physical harm from screening. We used the results of conditional logit regression models to estimate the importance of each attribute, willingness to trade-off between the attributes, and preferences for different programmes using contemporary risk scores and models. RESULTS: 1196 respondents completed the survey, generating 21,528 DCE observations. Deaths prevented was the most influential attribute on respondents' decision-making (contributing to 58.8% of the choice), followed by harms experienced (15.9%). For every three additional deaths prevented, respondents were willing to accept an additional screening harm per 100,000 people. Risk factors and risk stratification strategy contributed to just 11.1% and 3.6% of the choice, respectively. Although the influence on decision-making was small, respondents favoured more personalised feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel cancer screening programmes that improve cancer outcomes, particularly by preventing more deaths amongst those screened, are most preferred by the public. Optimising risk prediction models, developing public communication, and readying infrastructure should be prioritised for implementation.

Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer screening programmes are shifting away from age and/or sex-based screening criteria towards a risk-stratified approach. Any such changes must be acceptable to the public and communicated effectively. We aimed to explore the social and ethical considerations of implementing risk stratification at three different stages of the bowel cancer screening programme and to understand public requirements for communication. METHODS: We conducted two pairs of community juries, addressing risk stratification for screening eligibility or thresholds for referral to colonoscopy and screening interval. Using screening test results (where applicable), and lifestyle and genetic risk scores were suggested as potential stratification strategies. After being informed about the topic through a series of presentations and discussions including screening principles, ethical considerations and how risk stratification could be incorporated, participants deliberated over the research questions. They then reported their final verdicts on the acceptability of risk-stratified screening and what information should be shared about their preferred screening strategy. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Risk stratification of bowel cancer screening was acceptable to the informed public. Using data within the current system (age, sex and screening results) was considered an obvious next step and collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also preferable to age-based screening. Participants acknowledged benefits to individuals and health services, as well as articulating concerns for people with low cancer risk, potential public misconceptions and additional complexity for the system. The need for clear and effective communication about changes to the screening programme and individual risk feedback was highlighted, including making a distinction between information that should be shared with everyone by default and additional details that are available elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration.

Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population.

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals' views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants' information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

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.

Estimating the Effectiveness of Kidney Cancer Screening Within Lung Cancer Screening Programmes: A Validation in UK Biobank.

In the absence of population-based screening, addition of screening for kidney cancer to lung cancer screening could provide an efficient and low-resource means to improve early detection. In this study, we used the UK Biobank cohort (n = 442 865) to determine the performance of the Yorkshire Lung Cancer Screening Trial (YLST) eligibility criteria for selecting individuals for kidney cancer screening. We measured the performance of two models widely used to determine eligibility for lung cancer screening (PLCO[m2012] and the Liverpool-Lung-Project-v2) and the performance of the combined YLST criteria. We found that the lung cancer models have discrimination (area under the receiver operating curve) between 0.60 and 0.68 for kidney cancer. In the UK, one in four cases (25%) of kidney cancer cases is expected to occur in those eligible for lung cancer screening, and one case of kidney cancer detected for every 200 people invited to lung cancer screening. These results suggest that adding kidney cancer screening to lung cancer screening would be an effective strategy to improve early detection rates of kidney cancer. However, most kidney cancers would not be picked up by this approach. This analysis does not address other important considerations about kidney cancer screening, such as overdiagnosis. PATIENT SUMMARY: It has been proposed that adding-on kidney cancer screening to lung cancer screening (both carried out by a computed tomography scan of the chest/abdomen) would be an easy and low-cost way of detecting cases of kidney cancer earlier, when these can be treated more easily. Lung cancer screening is usually targeted at people who are at a high risk (eg, older smokers); therefore, here we look at whether the same group of people are also at a high risk of kidney cancer. Our analysis shows that one in four people later diagnosed with kidney cancer are also at a high risk of lung cancer; hence, a combined screening programme could detect up to a quarter of kidney cancers.

The ethics of risk-stratified cancer screening.

Cancer screening programmes aim to save lives and reduce cancer burden through prevention or early detection of specific cancers. Risk stratification, where one or more elements of a screening programme are systematically tailored based on multiple individual-level risk factors, could improve the balance of screening benefits and harms and programme efficiency. In this article, we explore the resulting ethical issues and how they impact risk-stratified screening policymaking using Beauchamp and Childress's principles of medical ethics. First, in line with universal screening programme principles, we acknowledge that risk-stratified screening should be introduced only when the expected total benefits outweigh the harms, and where it has a favourable overall impact compared to alternative options. We then discuss how these are difficult to both value and quantify, and that risk models typically perform differently in sub-populations. Second, we consider whether screening is an individual right and whether it is fair to offer more or less intensive screening to some and not others based on personal characteristics. Third, we discuss the need to maintain respect for autonomy, including ensuring informed consent and considering the screening implications for those who cannot or choose not to participate in the risk assessment. In summary, from an ethical perspective, focusing on population-level effectiveness alone is insufficient when planning risk-stratified screening programmes and the range of ethical principles must be considered.

Patient experience of follow-up after surgery for kidney cancer: a focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient experience of follow-up care after kidney cancer surgery and to develop recommendations for best practice. METHODS: We conducted two focus groups, including 14 participants with experience of kidney cancer follow-up after surgery, to elicit patient views on current follow-up care. Thematic analysis was used to identify unifying themes to describe the patient experience of follow-up, and the results were then used to develop a set of recommendations for best practice. RESULTS: We identified six themes (feelings of abandonment; uncertainty about the plan; anxiety about appointments; variation in care; a need for information; and a need for emotional support) that described current patient experience and areas in which current care could be improved. In particular, while most of the participants felt that their physical needs had been met, many had struggled with unmet emotional needs and a lack of information and resources. This was especially noted in the period immediately following surgery, when feelings of abandonment were common, and around follow-up scans and routine appointments, which were a source of anxiety. Our participants also described concerns about the lack of consistency between different hospitals and centres around the United Kingdom, with differences in the content and quality of follow-up care. Based on the results, we developed a list of recommendations to address some of the challenges described through relatively minor changes to the care pathway. CONCLUSIONS: We identified gaps and variability in current follow-up care after kidney cancer surgery, and have developed a set of recommendations that, if implemented, would improve the follow-up care experience for these patients.

Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.

In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.

Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation. METHODS: We searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667. RESULTS: A total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement. CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.

Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification has been proposed to improve the efficiency of population-level cancer screening. We aimed to describe and quantify the relative importance of different attributes of potential screening programs among the public, focusing on stratifying eligibility. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which respondents selected between 2 hypothetical screening programs in a series of 9 questions. We presented the risk factors used to determine eligibility (age, sex, or lifestyle or genetic risk scores) and anticipated outcomes based on eligibility criteria with different sensitivity and specificity levels. We performed conditional logit regression models and used the results to estimate preferences for different approaches. We also analyzed free-text comments on respondents' views on the programs. RESULTS: A total of 1,172 respondents completed the survey. Sensitivity was the most important attribute (7 and 11 times more important than specificity and risk factors, respectively). Eligibility criteria based on age and sex or genetics were preferred over age alone and lifestyle risk scores. Phenotypic and polygenic risk prediction models would be more acceptable than screening everyone aged 55 to 70 y if they had high discrimination (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ≥0.75 and 0.80, respectively). LIMITATIONS: Although our sample was representative with respect to age, sex, and ethnicity, it may not be representative of the UK population regarding other important characteristics. Also, some respondents may have not understood all the information provided to inform decision making. CONCLUSIONS: The public prioritized lives saved from cancer over reductions in numbers screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up. Incorporating personal-level risk factors into screening eligibility criteria is acceptable to the public if it increases sensitivity; therefore, maximizing sensitivity in model development and communication could increase uptake. HIGHLIGHTS: The public prioritized lives saved when considering changing from age-based eligibility criteria to risk-stratified cancer screening over reductions in numbers of people being screened or experiencing unnecessary follow-up.The risk stratification strategy used to do this was the least important component, although age plus sex or genetics were relatively preferable to using age alone and lifestyle risk scores.Communication strategies that emphasize improvements in the numbers of cancers detected or not missed across the population are more likely to be salient than reductions in unnecessary investigations or follow-up among some groups.Future research should focus on developing implementation strategies that maximize gains in sensitivity within the context of resource constraints and how to present attributes relating to specificity to facilitate understanding and informed decision making.

Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Risk-stratified cancer screening has the potential to improve resource allocation and the balance of harms and benefits by targeting those most likely to benefit. Public acceptability has implications for engagement, uptake and the success of such a programme. Therefore, this review seeks to understand whether risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to the general public and in what context. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to November 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods papers were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach was used to synthesize the findings and the quality of included literature was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as a coding frame for thematic analysis. PROSPERO record 2021 CRD42021286667. RESULTS: The search returned 12,039 citations, 22 of which were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies related to breast cancer screening; other cancer types included ovarian, kidney, colorectal and prostate cancer. Risk stratification was generally acceptable to the public, who considered it to be logical and of wider benefit than existing screening practices. We identified 10 priorities for implementation across four key areas: addressing public information needs; understanding communication preferences for risk estimates; mitigating barriers to accessibility to avoid exacerbating inequalities; and the role of healthcare professionals in relation to supporting reduced screening for low-risk individuals. CONCLUSION: The public generally find risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes to be acceptable; however, we have identified areas that would improve implementation and require further consideration. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This paper is a systematic review and did not formally involve patients or the public; however, three patient and public involvement members were consulted on the topic and scope before the review commenced.

Agreement between patient's description of abdominal symptoms of possible upper gastrointestinal cancer and general practitioner consultation notes: a qualitative analysis of video-recorded UK primary care consultation data.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal symptoms are common in primary care but infrequently might be due to an upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. Patients' descriptions may differ from medical terminology used by general practitioners (GPs). This may affect how information about abdominal symptoms possibly due to an UGI cancer are documented, creating potential missed opportunities for timely investigation. OBJECTIVES: To explore how abdominal symptoms are communicated during primary care consultations, and identify characteristics of patients' descriptions that underpin variation in the accuracy and completeness with which they are documented in medical records. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Primary care consultation video recordings, transcripts and medical records from an existing dataset were screened for adults reporting abdominal symptoms. We conducted a qualitative content analysis to capture alignments (medical record entries matching patient verbal and non-verbal descriptions) and misalignments (symptom information omitted or differing from patient descriptions). Categories were informed by the Calgary-Cambridge guide's 'gathering information' domains and patterns in descriptions explored. RESULTS: Our sample included 28 consultations (28 patients with 18 GPs): 10 categories of different clinical features of abdominal symptoms were discussed. The information GPs documented about these features commonly did not match what patients described, with misalignments more common than alignments (67 vs 43 instances, respectively). Misalignments often featured patients using vague descriptors, figurative speech, lengthy explanations and broad hand gestures. Alignments were characterised by patients using well-defined terms, succinct descriptions and precise gestures for symptoms with an exact location. Abdominal sensations reported as 'pain' were almost always documented compared with expressions of 'discomfort'. CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal symptoms that are well defined or communicated as 'pain' may be more salient to GPs than those expressed vaguely or as 'discomfort'. Variable documentation of abdominal symptoms in medical records may have implications for the development of clinical decision support systems and decisions to investigate possible UGI cancer.