The Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project (Mackenzie's Mission): Design and Implementation.

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie's Mission­the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie's Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program.

Factors Explaining Socio-Economic Inequalities in Survival from Colon Cancer: A Causal Mediation Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Socio-economic inequalities in colon cancer survival exist in high-income countries, but the reasons are unclear. We assessed the mediating effects of stage at diagnosis, comorbidities, and treatment (surgery and intravenous chemotherapy) on survival from colon cancer. METHODS: We identified 2,203 people aged 15 to 79 years with first primary colon cancer diagnosed in Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2011. Colon cancer cases were identified through the Victorian Cancer Registry (VCR), and clinical information was obtained from hospital records. Deaths till December 31, 2016 (n = 807), were identified from Victorian and national death registries. Socio-economic disadvantage was based on residential address at diagnosis. For stage III disease, we decomposed its total effect into direct and indirect effects using interventional mediation analysis. RESULTS: Socio-economic inequalities in colon cancer survival were not explained by stage and were greater for men than women. For men with stage III disease, there were 161 [95% confidence interval (CI), 67-256] additional deaths per 1,000 cases in the 5 years following diagnosis for the most disadvantaged compared with the least disadvantaged. The indirect effects through comorbidities and intravenous chemotherapy explained 6 (95% CI, -10-21) and 15 (95% CI, -14-44) per 1,000 of these additional deaths, respectively. Surgery did not explain the observed gap in survival. CONCLUSIONS: Disadvantaged men have lower survival from stage III colon cancer that is only modestly explained by having comorbidities or not receiving chemotherapy after surgery. IMPACT: Future studies should investigate the potential mediating role of factors occurring beyond the first year following diagnosis, such as compliance with surveillance for recurrence and supportive care services.

A Genomic Test for Colorectal Cancer Risk: Is This Acceptable and Feasible in Primary Care?

INTRODUCTION: Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care. METHODS: Participants aged 45-74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured. RESULTS: In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month -0.5, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.1, p = 0.03; 6 months -0.6, 95% CI: -1.0, -0.2, p = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour.

Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis. AIM: To investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018. METHOD: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper. RESULTS: Of the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP's role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow. CONCLUSION: eCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

Benefits and harms of aspirin to reduce colorectal cancer risk: a cross-sectional study of methods to communicate risk in primary care.

BACKGROUND: New Australian guidelines recommend that GPs actively consider prescribing low-dose aspirin to patients aged 50-70 years to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients and GPs need to understand the relative benefits and harms to support informed decision making. AIM: To develop and examine different methods to communicate the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for CRC prevention. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional, vignette study with patients aged 50-70 years consecutively recruited from general practices in Melbourne, Australia, between July and August 2018. METHOD: Summary estimates from meta-analyses of the effects of aspirin on the incidence of CRC, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and incidence rates in the Australian population to estimate outcomes in a hypothetical population of 10 000 people aged 50-70 years. These estimates were presented using four different risk communication formats. Participants were shown these different formats and asked if they would take aspirin to prevent CRC. RESULTS: A total of 313 participants were recruited (95.1% recruitment rate), of whom 304 completed the study. Most participants (71.7-75.3%) reported they would take aspirin irrespective of risk format presented. Bar charts (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.01 to 1.44) and expected frequency trees (OR 1.18, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.41) were more strongly associated with the intentions to take aspirin compared with icon arrays. Bar charts were most preferred for presenting risk information. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of participants in this study intended to take aspirin to reduce their CRC risk regardless of risk communication format. Bar charts and expected frequency trees were the preferred methods to present the benefits and harms of taking aspirin to prevent CRC.

Revised Australian national guidelines for colorectal cancer screening: family history.

INTRODUCTION: Screening is an effective means for colorectal cancer prevention and early detection. Family history is strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk. We describe the rationale, evidence and recommendations for colorectal cancer screening by family history for people without a genetic syndrome, as reported in the 2017 revised Australian guidelines. Main recommendations: Based on 10-year risks of colorectal cancer, people at near average risk due to no or weak family history (category 1) are recommended screening by immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years from age 50 to 74 years. Individuals with moderate risk due to their family history (category 2) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 40 to 49 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 50 to 74 years. People with a high risk due to their family history (category 3) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 35 to 44 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 45 to 74 years. Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: By 2019, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will offer all Australians free biennial iFOBT screening from age 50 to 74 years, consistent with the recommendations in these guidelines for category 1. Compared with the 2005 guidelines, there are some minor changes in the family history inclusion criteria for categories 1 and 2; the genetic syndromes have been removed from category 3 and, as a consequence, colonoscopy screening is now every 5 years; and for categories 2 and 3, screening begins with iFOBT for people aged 40 and 35 years, respectively, before transitioning to colonoscopy after 10 years.

Benefits, Harms, and Cost-Effectiveness of Potential Age Extensions to the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is rolling out 2-yearly immunochemical fecal occult blood test screening in people aged 50 to 74 years. This study aimed to evaluate the benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending the NBCSP to younger and/or older ages. METHODS: A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate the fully rolled-out NBCSP and alternative strategies assuming screening starts at 40 or 45 years and/or ceases at 79 or 84 years given three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence (100%), (ii) high adherence (60%), and (ii) low adherence (40%, as currently achieved). RESULTS: The current NBCSP will reduce colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) by 23% to 51% (36% to 74%) compared with no screening (range reflects participation); extending screening to younger or older ages would result in additional reductions of 2 to 6 (2 to 9) or 1 to 3 (3 to 7) percentage points, respectively. With an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS), only screening from 50 to 74 years [incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER): A$2,984-5,981/LYS) or from 45 to 74 years (ICER: A$17,053-29,512/LYS) remained cost-effective in all participation scenarios. The number-needed-to-colonoscope to prevent a death over the lifetime of a cohort in the current NBCSP is 35 to 49. Starting screening at 45 years would increase colonoscopy demand for program-related colonoscopies by 3% to 14% and be associated with 55 to 170 additional colonoscopies per additional death prevented. CONCLUSIONS: Starting screening at 45 years could be cost-effective, but it would increase colonoscopy demand and would be associated with a less favorable incremental benefits-to-harms trade-off than screening from 50 to 74 years. IMPACT: The study underpins recently updated Australian colorectal cancer management guidelines that recommend that the NBCSP continues to offer bowel screening from 50 to 74 years.

Family history-based colorectal cancer screening in Australia: A modelling study of the costs, benefits, and harms of different participation scenarios.

BACKGROUND: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Screening uptake was low across all family history risk categories (64%-56% reported no screening). For participants at average risk, 18% reported overscreening, while 37% of those in the highest risk categories screened according to guidelines. Higher screening levels would substantially reduce CRC mortality across all risk categories (95 to 305 fewer deaths per 100,000 persons in the 70% scenario versus baseline). For those at average risk, a fully implemented NBCSP represented the most cost-effective approach to prevent CRC deaths (AUS$13,000-16,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). For those at moderately increased risk, higher adherence to recommended screening was also highly cost-effective (AUS$19,000-24,000 per QALY). CONCLUSION: Investing in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

Evaluation of the benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of potential alternatives to iFOBT testing for colorectal cancer screening in Australia.

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll-out 2-yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10-yearly, or once-off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51-67(74-80)% in comparison with no screening; 2-yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2-yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost-effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS-A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled-out NBCSP is highly cost-effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia.

A 'One Stop' Prostate Clinic for rural and remote men: a report on the first 200 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the structure and outcomes of a new 'One Stop' Prostate Clinic (OSPC) designed specifically for rural and remote men. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study of the first 200 rural or remote men to access a new OSPC at a public tertiary-level hospital in Western Australia between August 2011 and August 2014. Men attended for urological assessment, and proceeded to same-day transrectal ultrasonography-guided prostate biopsies, if appropriate. Referral criteria were either two abnormal age-related prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in the absence of urinary tract infection (UTI), or an abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) regardless of PSA level. RESULTS: The median (range) distance travelled was 1545 (56-3229) km and median (range) time from referral to assessment was 33 (2-165) days. The median (range) age was 62 (38-85) years, PSA level was 6.7 (0.5-360) ng/mL and 39% (78/200) had a suspicious DRE. In all, 92% (184/200) of men proceeded to prostate biopsies, and 60% (111/184) of these men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Our complication rate was 3.5% (6/172). Radical prostatectomy (46/111), active surveillance (28/111) and external beam radiation therapy (26/111) were the commonest subsequent treatment methods. A $1045 (Australian dollars) cost-saving per person was estimated based on the reduced need for travel with the OSPC model. CONCLUSION: The OSPC is an effective and efficient model for assessing men suspected of having prostate cancer living in rural and remote areas of Western Australia, and this model may be applicable to other areas.

The Improving Rural Cancer Outcomes (IRCO) Trial: a factorial cluster-randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to reduce time to diagnosis in rural patients with cancer in Western Australia: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: While overall survival for most common cancers in Australia is improving, the rural-urban differential has been widening, with significant excess deaths due to lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancer in regional Australia. Internationally a major focus on understanding variations in cancer outcomes has been later presentation to healthcare and later diagnosis. Approaches to reducing time to diagnosis of symptomatic cancer include public symptom awareness campaigns and interventions in primary care to improve early cancer detection. This paper reports the protocol of a factorial cluster-randomised trial of community and general practice (GP) level interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of cancer in rural Western Australia (WA). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The community intervention is a symptom awareness campaign tailored for rural Australians delivered through a community engagement model. The GP intervention includes a resource card with symptom risk assessment charts and local referral pathways implemented through multiple academic detailing visits and case studies. Participants are eligible if recently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer who reside in specific regions of rural WA with a planned sample size of 1350. The primary outcome is the Total Diagnostic Interval, defined as the duration from first symptom (or date of cancer screening test) to cancer diagnosis. Secondary outcomes include cancer stage, healthcare utilisation, disease-free status, survival at 2 and 5 years and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by the University of Western Australia and from all relevant hospital recruitment sites in WA. RESULTS: Results of this trial will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and in conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12610000872033.

Psychological impact of family history risk assessment in primary care: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Routine family history risk assessment for chronic diseases could enable primary care practitioners to efficiently identify at-risk patients and promote preventive management strategies. OBJECTIVES: To investigate patients' understanding and responses to family history risk assessment in primary care. METHOD: A mixed methods study set in 10 Eastern England general practices. Participants in a family history questionnaire validation study were triaged into population or increased risk for four chronic diseases (type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer). Questionnaires completed immediately prior to the family history consultation (baseline) and 4 weeks later (follow-up) assessed the psychological impact, including State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. Semi-structured interviews explored the meaning participants gave to their personal familial disease risk. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-three participants completed both baseline and follow-up questionnaires and 30 were interviewed. At follow-up, there was no increase in anxiety among either group, or differences between the groups [difference in mean change 0.02, 95% confidence interval -2.04, 2.08, P = 0.98]. There were no significant changes over time in self-rated health in either group. At follow-up, participants at increased risk (n = 153) were more likely to have recent changes to behaviour and they had stronger intentions to make changes to diet (P = 0.001), physical activity (P = 0.006) and to seek further information in the future than those at population risk (n = 300; P < 0.001). Using qualitative analysis, five themes were developed representing ways in which participants gave meaning to familial disease risk ('Being reassured', 'Controlling risk', 'Dealing with it later', 'Beyond my control', 'Disbelieving the risk'). The meanings they attributed to increased risk appeared to shape their intention to undertake behaviour change. CONCLUSION: Routine assessment for familial risk of chronic diseases may be undertaken in primary care without causing anxiety or reducing self-rated health. Patient responses to family history risk assessment may inform promotion of preventive management strategies.

Are older Western Australians exposed to potentially inappropriate medications according to the Beers Criteria? A 13-year prevalence study.

AIM: To examine time trends and factors associated with exposure to potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) by the Beers Criteria. METHODS: PIM consumption days accumulated from the pharmaceutical claims of 251 305 Western Australians aged ≥65 years (1993-2005) and person follow-up times produced counts/rates. Logistic/Poisson regression generated odds/rate ratios. RESULTS: A total of 187 616 participants (74.7%) took ≥1 PIM (1993-2005), the cohort consuming 109 415 PIM daily doses/1000 person-years. Annual exposure decreased from 45-47% to 40%, and annual consumption rate declined from 117 836 to 90 364 daily doses/1000 person-years. Temazepam had the highest exposures (>17 000 daily doses/1000 person-years). Number of medications taken (OR 35.03; 95% CI 34.37-35.71 for ≥10 vs. 0-2 drugs), annual drug intake (2.08; 2.04-2.12 for highest vs. lowest quartile), and high-level residential aged care (1.96; 1.91-2.01) were most predictive of PIM exposure. CONCLUSIONS: PIM exposure remains high in older Western Australians. Our findings identify patients most at risk and medications to consider on Australia-specific PIM lists.

Risk assessment to guide prostate cancer screening decisions: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To apply the most recent evidence from randomised trials of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and explore the potential value of risk assessments to guide the use of PSA screening in practice. DESIGN: A decision model that incorporated a Markov process was developed in 2012 to estimate the net benefit and cost of PSA screening versus no screening as a function of baseline risk. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life-2013s (QALYs) and costs. RESULTS: The harms of screening outweighed the benefits under a number of plausible scenarios. Conclusions were sensitive to the estimated quality-of-life impacts of prostate cancer treatment as well as the incidence of cancers not detected by screening tests (poorer prognosis) and those that were detected by screening tests (better prognosis). The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PSA screening was $168,611 per QALY for men with average risk, $73,452 per QALY for men with two times the average risk, and $22,938 [corrected] per QALY for men with five times the average risk. CONCLUSIONS: PSA screening was not found to be cost-effective for men at an average-to-high risk of prostate cancer, but may be cost-effective for men at very high risk. Inexpensive approaches for identifying men at very high risk are needed, as is further research on the size of clinical benefit of early detection in this population. The potential for the costs of risk assessment to be offset by reduced costs of PSA screening also warrants investigation.

The cost-effectiveness of a novel SIAscopic diagnostic aid for the management of pigmented skin lesions in primary care: a decision-analytic model.

OBJECTIVES: Pigmented skin lesions are commonly presented in primary care. Appropriate diagnosis and management is challenging because the vast majority are benign. The MoleMate system is a handheld SIAscopy scanner integrated with a primary care diagnostic algorithm aimed at improving the management of pigmented skin lesions in primary care. METHODS: This decision-model-based economic evaluation draws on the results of a randomized controlled trial of the MoleMate system versus best practice (ISRCTN79932379) to estimate the expected long-term cost and health gain of diagnosis with the MoleMate system versus best practice in an English primary care setting. The model combines trial results with data from the wider literature to inform long-term prognosis, health state utilities, and cost. RESULTS: Results are reported as mean and incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis. Over a lifetime horizon, the MoleMate system is expected to cost an extra £18 over best practice alone, and yield an extra 0.01 QALYs per patient examined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is £1,896 per QALY gained, with a 66.1% probability of being below £30,000 per QALY gained. The expected value of perfect information is £43.1 million. CONCLUSIONS: Given typical thresholds in the United Kingdom (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY), the MoleMate system may be cost-effective compared with best practice diagnosis alone in a primary care setting. However, there is considerable decision uncertainty, driven particularly by the sensitivity and specificity of MoleMate versus best practice, and the risk of disease progression in undiagnosed melanoma; future research should focus on reducing uncertainty in these parameters.

Diagnosing cancer in the bush: a mixed-methods study of symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour in people with cancer from rural Western Australia.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have focused on the treatment received by rural cancer patients and have not examined their diagnostic pathways as reasons for poorer outcomes in rural Australia. OBJECTIVES: To compare and explore symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour in patients with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer from rural Western Australia (WA). METHODS: A mixed-methods study of people recently diagnosed with breast, lung, prostate or colorectal cancer from rural WA. The time from first symptom to diagnosis (i.e. total diagnostic interval, TDI) was calculated from interviews and medical records. RESULTS: Sixty-six participants were recruited (24 breast, 20 colorectal, 14 prostate and 8 lung cancer patients). There was a highly significant difference in time from symptom onset to seeking help between cancers (P = 0.006). Geometric mean symptom appraisal for colorectal cancer was significantly longer than that for breast and lung cancers [geometric mean differences: 2.58 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.64-4.53), P = 0.01; 3.97 (1.63-6.30), P = 0.001, respectively]. There was a significant overall difference in arithmetic mean TDI (P = 0.046); breast cancer TDI was significantly shorter than colorectal or prostate cancer TDI [mean difference : 266.3 days (95% CI: 45.9-486.8), P = 0.019; 277.0 days, (32.1-521.9), P = 0.027, respectively]. These differences were explained by the nature and personal interpretation of symptoms, perceived as well as real problems of access to health care, optimism, stoicism, machismo, fear, embarrassment and competing demands. CONCLUSIONS: Longer symptom appraisal was observed for colorectal cancer. Participants defined core characteristics of rural Australians as optimism, stoicism and machismo. These features, as well as access to health care, contribute to later presentation of cancer.

Effect of adding a diagnostic aid to best practice to manage suspicious pigmented lesions in primary care: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether adding a novel computerised diagnostic tool, the MoleMate system (SIAscopy with primary care scoring algorithm), to current best practice results in more appropriate referrals of suspicious pigmented lesions to secondary care, and to assess its impact on clinicians and patients. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 15 general practices in eastern England. PARTICIPANTS: 1297 adults with pigmented skin lesions not immediately diagnosed as benign. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assessed by trained primary care clinicians using best practice (clinical history, naked eye examination, seven point checklist) either alone (control group) or with the MoleMate system (intervention group). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Appropriateness of referral, defined as the proportion of referred lesions that were biopsied or monitored. Secondary outcomes related to the clinicians (diagnostic performance, confidence, learning effects) and patients (satisfaction, anxiety). Economic evaluation, diagnostic performance of the seven point checklist, and five year follow-up of melanoma incidence were also secondary outcomes and will be reported later. RESULTS: 1297 participants with 1580 lesions were randomised: 643 participants with 788 lesions to the intervention group and 654 participants with 792 lesions to the control group. The appropriateness of referral did not differ significantly between the intervention or control groups: 56.8% (130/229) v 64.5% (111/172); difference -8.1% (95% confidence interval -18.0% to 1.8%). The proportion of benign lesions appropriately managed in primary care did not differ (intervention 99.6% v control 99.2%, P=0.46), neither did the percentage agreement with an expert decision to biopsy or monitor (intervention 98.5% v control 95.7%, P=0.26). The percentage agreement with expert assessment that the lesion was benign was significantly lower with MoleMate (intervention 84.4% v control 90.6%, P<0.001), and a higher proportion of lesions were referred (intervention 29.8% v control 22.4%, P=0.001). Thirty six histologically confirmed melanomas were diagnosed: 18/18 were appropriately referred in the intervention group and 17/18 in the control group. Clinicians in both groups were confident, and there was no evidence of learning effects, and therefore contamination, between groups. Patients in the intervention group ranked their consultations higher for thoroughness and reassuring care, although anxiety scores were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the MoleMate system improved appropriateness of referral. The systematic application of best practice guidelines alone was more accurate than the MoleMate system, and both performed better than reports of current practice. Therefore the systematic application of best practice guidelines (including the seven point checklist) should be the paradigm for management of suspicious skin lesions in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN79932379.

Effects of the Medicare enhanced primary care program on primary care physician contact in the population of older Western Australians with chronic diseases.

OBJECTIVE: Assess uptake of Medicare's enhanced primary care (EPC) services in Western Australia (WA) in 2001 to 2006, evaluating effect of EPC services on the regularity of contact with general practitioners (GPs) in patients aged 65+ years. METHOD: Whole-population cohort study using linked routinely collected health service data from State and Federal health databases. Analyses include age-standardised rate of EPC services, odds of EPC utilisation relative to other GP services using logistic regression, and total GP service regularity pre- and post-implementation of the EPC program. RESULTS: EPC services provided to WA seniors increased 345% 2001 to 2006, comprising an increasing proportion of the total GP services (1.1 to 3.6%). Uptake of EPC services accelerated abruptly after 2004 due to greater use of 'care plans'. EPC services were associated with a history of chronic disease, especially type 2 diabetes (OR=1.74, 95% CI 1.66-1.82). Regularity of total GP services was improved with any EPC service exposure, with greater improvement occurring in the presence of annual EPC service exposure. CONCLUSIONS: EPC item uptake responded favourably to item changes from Medicare Australia. Prior exposure to EPC items increased the regularity of GP services, an outcome inversely associated with chronic disease progression.