What are the mechanisms underlying the delivery of survivorship care information in Australia? A realist review.

OBJECTIVE: Quality survivorship information is an essential component of cancer care. However, survivors often report not receiving this information and healthcare professionals report limited practical guidance on how to effectively deliver survivorship information. Therefore, this study used realist review methods to identify mechanisms reported within the published literature for communicating survivorship information and to understand the contextual factors that make these mechanisms effective. METHODS: Full-text papers published in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Ultimate were included. Studies included in this review were conducted in Australia between January 2006 and December 2023, and reported on how information regarding survivorship care was communicated to adult cancer survivors living in the community. This review utilized realist methodologies: text extracts were converted to if-then statements used to generate context-mechanism-outcome theories. RESULTS: Fifty-one studies were included and six theories for mechanisms that underpin the effective delivery of survivorship information were formed. These include: (1) tailoring information based on the survivors' background, (2) enhancing communication among providers, (3) employing dedicated survivorship staff, (4) providing survivorship training, (5) reducing the burden on survivors to navigate their care, and (6) using multiple modalities to provide information. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can inform practical guidance for how survivorship care information is best delivered in practice. Clinicians can apply this guidance to improve their individual interactions with cancer survivors, as can policymakers to develop healthcare systems and procedures that support effective communication of cancer survivorship information.

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.

AIM: To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs. BACKGROUND: Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type. FINDINGS: Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.

Increasing bowel cancer screening using SMS in general practice: the SMARTscreen cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Australia has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) worldwide. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is a best-practice, organised screening programme, but uptake is low (40.9%) and increasing participation could reduce morbidity and mortality associated with CRC. Endorsement by GPs is strongly associated with increasing screening uptake. AIM: This study (SMARTscreen) aimed to test whether a multi-intervention short message service (SMS) sent by general practices to 50-60-year-old patients who were due to receive the NBCSP kit would increase NBCSP uptake, by comparing it with usual care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A stratified cluster randomised controlled trial was undertaken, involving 21 Australian general practices in Western Victoria, Australia. METHOD: For intervention practices, people due to receive the NBCSP kit within a 6-month study period were sent an SMS just before receiving the kit. The SMS included a personalised message from the person's general practice endorsing the kit, a motivational narrative video, an instructional video, and a link to more information. Control practices continued with usual care, comprising at-home testing with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) through the NBCSP. The primary outcome was the between-arm percentage difference in uptake of FIT screening within 12 months from randomisation, which was estimated using generalised linear model regression. RESULTS: In total, 39.2% (1143/2914) of people in 11 intervention practices and 23.0% (583/2537) of people in 10 control practices had a FIT result in their electronic health records - a difference of 16.5% (95% confidence interval = 2.02 to 30.9). CONCLUSION: The SMS intervention increased NBCSP kit return in 50-60-year-old patients in general practice. This finding informed a larger trial - SMARTERscreen - to test this intervention in a broader Australian population.

SCORE: a randomised controlled trial evaluating shared care (general practitioner and oncologist) follow-up compared to usual oncologist follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer.

Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I-III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of -10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference -4.0 (95% CI: -9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

SMARTERscreen protocol: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of patient SMS messaging in general practice to increase participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Australia persistently has one of the highest rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world. Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) sends a biennial Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)-the 'NBCSP kit'-to everyone eligible for the programme between 50 and 74 years old; however, participation in the programme is low, especially in the 50- to 60-year-old age group. Our previous efficacy trial ('SMARTscreen') demonstrated an absolute increase in uptake of 16.5% (95% confidence interval = 2.02-30.9%) for people sent an SMS with motivational and instructional videos, from their general practice prior to receiving their NBCSP kit, compared to those receiving usual care. Building on the strengths of the SMARTscreen trial and addressing limitations, the 'SMARTERscreen' trial will test the effect on participation in the NBCSP of sending either an SMS only or an SMS with online video material to general practice patients due to receive their NBCSP compared to 'usual care'. METHODS: SMARTERscreen is a three-arm stratified cluster randomised controlled trial involving 63 general practices in two states in Australia. Eligible patients are patients who are aged 49-60 years and due to receive their NBCSP kit within the next 2 weeks during the intervention period. General practices will be equally randomised to three trial arms (21:21:21, estimated average 260 patients/practice). The two interventions include (i) an SMS with an encouraging message from their general practice or (ii) the same SMS with weblinks to additional motivational and instructional videos. The control arm will receive 'usual care'. Using the intention-to-treat approach, primary analysis will estimate the three pair-wise between-arm differences in the proportion of eligible patients who participate in the NBCSP within 6 months of when their kit is sent, utilising screening data from the Australian National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR). Patient intervention adherence to the interventions will also be evaluated. Findings will be incorporated into the Policy1-Bowel microsimulation model to estimate the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. DISCUSSION: SMARTERscreen will provide high-level evidence determining whether an SMS or an SMS with web-based material sent to general practice patients prior to receiving their NBCSP kit increases participation in bowel cancer screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000036617. Registered on 13 January 2023. Trial URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385119&isClinicalTrial=False.

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days. CONCLUSION: The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis. REGISTRATION: This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

What are the post-treatment information needs of rural cancer survivors in Australia? A systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review to critically assess the met and unmet post-treatment information needs of cancer survivors living in rural communities in Australia, to inform the improvement of survivors' transition from treatment in major cities to community care. METHODS: Cumulative index of nursing and allied health literature, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL and Academic Search Ultimate databases and websites of 118 cancer organisations were searched for relevant Australian studies published since 2006. Key search terms included 'rural', 'remote', 'regional', 'cancer', 'survivor*', 'living with', and 'post-treatment'. Data reflecting study source, aims, methodology, and reported information needs were extracted and summarised. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. RESULTS: Fifty-two articles met eligibility criteria. Only six of these specified a primary aim of understanding information needs for rural cancer survivors. Information on prognosis and recovery; managing treatment side effects; healthy lifestyle choices; referrals to support services, and face-to-face and written delivery of information at multiple time points were reported as needed and often lacking for rural cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Co-ordinated, multi-step provision of information to support health and recovery after cancer treatment and beyond is likely to be particularly important for rural cancer survivors given their broad range of needs and reduced access to health care services. Findings provide useful recommendations to facilitate patients' transition home to rural communities after cancer treatment in major cities, however, an increased understanding of the information needs of rural survivors is required to inform the development of guidelines that can be used in clinical practice.

The Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a decision support tool for risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective. AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86, P = 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53, P<0.001) principally by increasing faecal occult blood testing in those at average risk. CONCLUSION: A risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test.

Joint Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE)-Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) clinical practice guidelines on the use of non-invasive biomarkers for diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) is effective in reducing CRC related mortality. Current screening methods include endoscopy based and biomarker based approaches. This guideline is a joint official statement of the Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and the Asian Pacific Society of Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE), developed in response to the increasing use of, and accumulating supportive evidence for the role of, non-invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis of CRC and its precursor lesions. A systematic review of 678 publications and a two stage Delphi consensus process involving 16 clinicians in various disciplines was undertaken to develop 32 evidence based and expert opinion based recommendations for the use of faecal immunochemical tests, faecal based tumour biomarkers or microbial biomarkers, and blood based tumour biomarkers for the detection of CRC and adenoma. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided on indications, patient selection and strengths and limitations of each screening tool. Future research to inform clinical applications are discussed alongside objective measurement of research priorities. This joint APAGE-APSDE practice guideline is intended to provide an up-to-date guide to assist clinicians worldwide in utilising non-invasive biomarkers for CRC screening; it has particular salience for clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.

Factors affecting patient decisions to undergo testing for cancer symptoms: an exploratory qualitative study in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to their GP are often concerned their symptoms may be due to cancer. However, there is a lack of evidence on the factors that influence patient decisions to undergo investigation for suspected cancer in the general practice setting. AIM: To identify the factors influencing patient decisions to undertake investigations for suspected cancer in general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: An exploratory qualitative, semi-structured interview study of patients attending rural and metropolitan general practices in Victoria, Australia. METHOD: A purposive sample of 15 general practice patients aged ≥40 years participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts drew on interpretative description methodology and shared decision-making (SDM) theory. RESULTS: Cancer-related concerns such as 'cancer worry' prompt patients to seek investigations from their GP. Participants prefer that their symptoms are investigated regardless of cancer risk. The perceived 'best test' provides the most reassurance. Trust and SDM enhance dialogue between patients and GPs about diagnostic testing strategies. Deterrents to testing included out-of-pocket costs, waiting time, travel time, and competing work and family demands. CONCLUSION: There may be a mismatch between efforts to rationalise investigation use and patient preferences for investigation. SDM that incorporates patient concerns, facilitators, and barriers to testing may ensure appropriate and timely investigation of cancer symptoms.

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research.

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

Variation in suspected cancer referral pathways in primary care: comparative analysis across the International Benchmarking Cancer Partnership.

BACKGROUND: International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries. AIM: To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries. METHOD: Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care. RESULTS: Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes. CONCLUSION: Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice.

Which Test Is Best? A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of a Risk Calculator and Recommendations on Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviour in General Practice.

INTRODUCTION: This cluster-randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effect of the "Which test is best?" tool on risk-appropriate screening (RAS) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. METHODS: General practices in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and a random sub-sample of 460 patients (aged 25-74 years) per practice were invited by post. Clusters were computer randomized independently of the researchers to an online CRC risk calculator with risk-based recommendations versus usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were RAS and screening uptake via self-reported 5-year screening behaviour after 12 months follow-up. The usual care group (UCG) also self-reported 5-year CRC screening behaviour at 12 month post-randomization. RESULTS: Fifty-six practices were randomized (27 to the intervention and 29 to the control, 55 practices participated) with 818 intervention and 677 controls completing the primary outcome measure. The intervention significantly increased RAS in high-risk participants compared with UCG (80.0% vs. 64.0%, respectively; OR = 3.14, 95% CI: 1.25-7.96) but not in average-risk (44.9% vs. 49.5%, respectively; OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.99-1.12) or moderate-risk individuals (67.9% vs. 81.1%, respectively; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.12-1.33). Faecal occult blood testing uptake over 12 months was increased compared with the UCG (24.9% vs. 15.1%; adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.24-2.22), and there was a non-significant increase in colonoscopies during the same period (16.6% vs. 12.2%; adjusted OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.97-2.08). CONCLUSION: An online CRC risk calculator with risk-based screening recommendations increased RAS in high-risk participants and improved screening uptake overall within a 12-month follow-up period. Such tools may be useful for facilitating the uptake of risk-based screening guidelines.

Preferences for a polygenic test to estimate cancer risk in a general Australian population.

PURPOSE: There is significant interest in the use of polygenic risk score (PRS) tests to improve cancer risk assessment and stratified prevention. Our current understanding of preferences regarding different aspects of this novel testing approach is limited. This study examined which attributes of a PRS test most influence the likelihood of testing. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was developed to elicit preferences for different aspects of a PRS test by surveying an online sample of the Australian population. Preferences were assessed using mixed logistic regression, latent class analysis, and marginal willingness to pay. RESULTS: The 1002 surveyed respondents were more likely to choose a PRS test that was more accurate, tested for multiple cancer types, and enabled cancer risk reduction through lifestyle modification, screening, or medication. There was also a preference for testing through a primary care physician rather than online or through a genetic specialist. A test that did not impact life insurance eligibility or premiums was preferred over the one that did. CONCLUSION: This study found that the Australian population prefer a PRS test that is highly accurate, tests for multiple cancers, has noninvasive risk reduction measures, and is performed through primary care.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy. METHODS: Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended. RESULTS: Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important. CONCLUSIONS: These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

Time to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer: A systematic overview of risk factors, interventions and impact on patient outcomes.

Over half of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed at a stage when curative treatment is not possible, suggesting an earlier diagnosis could improve outcomes. This comprehensive overview summarises the evidence on 1) times to diagnosis and treatment, 2) their impact on patient outcomes, 3) risk factors and 4) interventions to reduce time intervals, and 5) key methodological issues in such studies. Eligible articles were relevant systematic or scoping reviews and meta-analyses, searched via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library; published from database inception to 6 August 2020 (PROSPERO identifier: CRD42020203530). A total of 18 systematic and scoping reviews were included. Times to diagnosis and treatment significantly varied and were often longer than recommended in international guidelines. Results regarding the impact of time intervals on survival or tumour stage indicated mixed associations (positive, negative, or no); in each review, however, more studies reported either no or negative association. Risk factors were considerable, categorized at the disease, patient, healthcare provider and system levels. Interventions including fast-access diagnosis programs, patient navigation and multidisciplinary strategies were effective in reducing times to diagnosis and treatment. Methodological issues included large variations in interval definitions and summary measures, lack of addressing an important potential source of bias-the "waiting time paradox"-and few studies of trends over time of these intervals. The current evidence indicates that patients with lung cancer experience diagnosis and treatment delays given guidelines' recommendations, but there are inconsistent findings about the association between times to diagnosis and treatment and patient outcomes. This is partially due to variations in definitions of time intervals, and limitations in analytic approaches that fail to account for a potential waiting time paradox. The identified risk factors and effective interventions demonstrate the potential for improvements in addressing diagnostic and treatment delays, regionally and globally.

The SMARTscreen Trial: a randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy of a GP-endorsed narrative SMS to increase participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Increasing participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is the most efficient and cost-effective way of reducing mortality associated with colorectal cancer by detecting and treating early-stage disease. Currently, only 44% of Australians aged 50-74 years complete the NBCSP. This efficacy trial aims to test whether this SMS intervention is an effective method for increasing participation in the NBCSP. Furthermore, a process evaluation will explore the barriers and facilitators to sending the SMS from general practice. METHODS: We will recruit 20 general practices in the western region of Victoria, Australia to participate in a cluster randomised controlled trial. General practices will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to either a control or intervention group. Established general practice software will be used to identify patients aged 50 to 60 years old who are due to receive a NBCSP kit in the next month. The SMS intervention includes GP endorsement and links to narrative messages about the benefits of and instructions on how to complete the NBCSP kit. It will be sent from intervention general practices to eligible patients prior to receiving the NBCSP kit. We require 1400 eligible patients to provide 80% power with a two-sided 5% significance level to detect a 10% increase in CRC screening participation in the intervention group compared to the control group. Our primary outcome is the difference in the proportion of eligible patients who completed a faecal occult blood test (FOBT) between the intervention and control group for up to 12 months after the SMS was sent, as recorded in their electronic medical record (EMR). A process evaluation using interview data collected from general practice staff (GP, practice managers, nurses) and patients will explore the feasibility and acceptability of sending and receiving a SMS to prompt completing a NBCSP kit. DISCUSSION: This efficacy trial will provide initial trial evidence of the utility of an SMS narrative intervention to increase participation in the NBCSP. The results will inform decisions about the need for and design of a larger, multi-state trial of this SMS intervention to determine its cost-effectiveness and future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001020976 . Registered on 17 October 2020.

Informed choice and attitudes regarding a genomic test to predict risk of colorectal cancer in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: A genomic test to predict personal risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) that targets screening and could be feasibly implemented in primary care. We explored informed decision-making and attitudes towards genomic testing in this setting. METHODS: A CRC genomic test was offered to 150 general practice patients with brief discussion of its implications. We measured informed choice about the test, consisting knowledge, attitudes and test uptake. Sixteen purposively-sampled participants were interviewed. RESULTS: Of 150, 142 (95%) completed the informed choice measure and of 27 invited, 16 (59%) completed an interview. 73% made an informed choice about the test. Interviews revealed that participants with inadequate knowledge on the informed choice scale still understood the gist of the test. While positive attitudes were most prevalent, some had concerns, and many were indifferent to the test. Positive attitudes included: that risk information could facilitate risk reduction; negative attitudes included: that risk results could cause worry and be used for insurance discrimination; indifferent attitudes included: that the test seemed benign and it was easy to do. CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds to the evidence that genomic tests for CRC risk do not pose significant concern to patients in community settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As genomic tests become more prevalent, this study's findings can be used to facilitate informed decision-making and ensure equitable access.