Adherence to melanoma screening and surveillance skin check schedules tailored to personal risk.

Population-wide skin cancer screening is not currently recommended in most countries. Instead, most clinical guidelines incorporate risk-based recommendations for skin checks, despite limited evidence around implementation and adherence to recommendations in practice. We aimed to determine adherence to personal risk-tailored melanoma skin check schedules and explore reasons influencing adherence. Patients (with/without a previous melanoma) attending tertiary dermatology clinics at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia, were invited to complete a melanoma risk assessment questionnaire via iPad and provided with personal risk information alongside a risk-tailored skin check schedule. Data were collected from the risk tool, clinician-recorded data on schedule deviations, and appointment booking system. Post-consultation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and clinic staff. We used a convergent segregated mixed methods approach for analysis. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were analysed thematically. Participant data were analysed from clinic records (n = 247) and interviews (n = 29 patients, 11 staff). Overall, there was 62% adherence to risk-tailored skin check schedules. In cases of non-adherence, skin checks tended to occur more frequently than recommended. Decisions to deviate were similarly influenced by patients (44%) and clinicians (56%). Themes driving non-adherence among patients included anxiety and wanting autonomy around decision-making, and among clinicians included concerns around specific lesions and risk estimate accuracy. There was moderate adherence to a clinical service program of personal risk-tailored skin check recommendations. Further adherence may be gained by incorporating strategies to identify and assist patients with high levels of anxiety and supporting clinicians to communicate risk-based recommendations with patients.

Impact of an Online Risk Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity on Management of Patients with T1 and T2 Melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Predicting which patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T1-T2 melanomas will have a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) is challenging. Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) developed an internationally validated SLN metastatic risk calculator. This study evaluated the nomogram's impact on T1-T2 melanoma patient management at MIA. METHODS: SLN biopsy (SLNB) rates were compared for the pre- and post-nomogram periods of 1 July 2018-30 June 2019 and 1 August 2020-31 July 2021, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 850 patients were identified (pre-nomogram, 383; post-nomogram, 467). SLNB was performed in 29.0% of patients in the pre-nomogram group and 34.5% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.091). The overall positivity rate was 16.2% in the pre-nomogram group and 14.9% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.223). SLNB was performed less frequently in T1a melanoma patients in the pre-nomogram group (1.1%, n = 2/177) than in the post-nomogram group (8.6%, n = 17/198) [p ≤ 0.001]. This increase was particularly for melanomas with a risk score ≥ 5%, with an SLN positivity rate of 11.8% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.004) compared with zero. For T1b melanomas with a risk score of > 10%, the SLNB rate was 40.0% (8/20) pre-nomogram and 75.0% (12/16) post-nomogram (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In this specialized center, the SLN risk calculator appears to influence practice for melanomas previously considered low risk for metastasis, with increased use of SLNB for T1a and higher-risk T1b melanomas. Further evaluation is required across broader practice settings. Melanoma management guidelines could be updated to incorporate the availability of nomograms to better select patients for SLNB than previous criteria.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS: Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Patient demographic characteristics and risk factors associated with sun protection behaviours in specialist melanoma clinics.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between sun protection behaviours and demographic and melanoma risk characteristics of patients attending Australian melanoma specialist clinics. This may assist in targeting and tailoring melanoma prevention patient education for people at high-risk and specific population subgroups. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected from participants attending the dermatology clinics at two major melanoma centres in Sydney, Australia between February 2021 and September 2023. The primary outcome was Sun Protection Habits (SPH) index (a summary score measured as habitual past month use of sunscreen, hats, sunglasses, a shirt with sleeves that covers the shoulders, limiting midday sun exposure and seeking shade, using a Likert scale). The primary analysis considered the SPH index and its component items scored as continuous. RESULTS: Data from 883 people were analysed. Factors associated with less frequent sun protection behaviours overall included male gender, no personal history of melanoma, lower perceived risk, lower calculated 10-year risk of developing melanoma, and no private health insurance. People aged >61 years reported lower use of sunscreen but higher use of hats and sleeved-shirts compared with people in the younger age group. There was no difference in overall sun protection behaviours according to family history of melanoma, country of birth or by lifetime melanoma risk among people without a personal history of melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential for targeting high-risk individuals with less frequent use of sun protection for patient education, public health messaging and ultimately improving sun protection behaviours.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. AIM: To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. RESULTS: Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. CONCLUSION: GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.

A review of skin cancer primary prevention activities in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVES: Skin cancer is highly preventable through primary prevention activities such as avoiding ultraviolet radiation exposure during peak times and regular use of sun protection. General practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses have key responsibilities in promoting sustained primary prevention behaviour. We aimed to review the evidence on skin cancer primary prevention activities in primary care settings, including evidence on feasibility, effectiveness, barriers and enablers. STUDY TYPE: Rapid review and narrative synthesis. METHODS: We searched published literature from January 2011 to October 2022 in Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central and CINAHL. The search was limited to skin cancer primary prevention activities within primary care settings, for studies or programs conducted in Australia or countries with comparable health systems. Analysis of barriers and enablers was informed by an implementation science framework. RESULTS: A total of 31 peer-reviewed journal articles were included in the review. We identified four main primary prevention activities: education and training programs for GPs; behavioural counselling on prevention; the use of novel risk assessment tools and provision of risk-tailored prevention strategies; and new technologies to support early detection that have accompanying primary prevention advice. Enablers to delivering skin cancer primary prevention in primary care included pairing preventive activities with early detection activities, and access to patient resources and programs that fit with existing workflows and systems. Barriers included unclear requirements for skin cancer prevention counselling, competing demands within the consultation and limited access to primary care services, especially in regional and remote areas. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight potential opportunities for improving skin cancer prevention activities in primary care. Ensuring ease of program delivery, integration with early detection and availability of resources such as risk assessment tools are enablers to encourage and increase uptake of primary prevention behaviours in primary care, for both practitioners and patients.

Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

PURPOSE: Genetic and genomic testing can provide valuable information on individuals' risk of chronic diseases, presenting an opportunity for risk-tailored disease screening to improve early detection and health outcomes. The acceptability, uptake and effectiveness of such programmes is dependent on public preferences for the programme features. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of discrete choice experiments assessing preferences for genetic/genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for discrete choice experiment studies assessing preferences for genetic or genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. Eligible studies were double screened, extracted and synthesised through descriptive statistics and content analysis of themes. Bias was assessed using an existing quality checklist. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. Most studies focused on cancer screening (n = 10) and explored preferences for testing of rare, high-risk variants (n = 10), largely within a targeted population (e.g. subgroups with family history of disease). Two studies explored preferences for the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) at a population level. Twenty-six programme attributes were identified, with most significantly impacting preferences. Survival, test accuracy and screening impact were most frequently reported as most important. Depending on the clinical context and programme attributes and levels, estimated uptake of hypothetical programmes varied from no participation to almost full participation (97%). CONCLUSION: The uptake of potential programmes would strongly depend on specific programme features and the disease context. In particular, careful communication of potential survival benefits and likely genetic/genomic test accuracy might encourage uptake of genetic and genomic risk-tailored disease screening programmes. As the majority of the literature focused on high-risk variants and cancer screening, further research is required to understand preferences specific to PRS testing at a population level and targeted genomic testing for different disease contexts.

Quality measures in primary care skin cancer management: a qualitative study of the views of key informants.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored potential quality measures to improve skin cancer management in primary care settings, and the barriers and facilitators associated with their implementation. DESIGN: Semistructured interviews and qualitative proforma surveys were conducted with skin cancer experts from a range of healthcare settings. Framework analysis was employed to identify key groups of quality measures within the domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process, outcome). Interview and survey data were triangulated to identify common groups of quality measures, barriers and facilitators. PARTICIPANTS: We purposively recruited skin cancer experts from Australia and internationally with knowledge and experience in skin cancer management. The final sample consisted of 15 participants who had clinical or academic backgrounds. RESULTS: Participants unequivocally expressed the need for quality measures to guide skin cancer care. Ten groups of quality measures were identified: three groups related to the structural elements of care (eg, diagnostic tools), four related to the processes of care (eg, diagnostic process) and three related to outcomes of care (eg, treatment outcomes). Implementation barriers included clinician resistance, system inadequacies and external factors (eg, patient risk). Facilitators included incentives, education, agreed and feasible indicators and support and guidance. CONCLUSIONS: To service a growing population of skin cancer patients in Australia, the role of primary care needs to be more clearly specified, and its care providers supported and more engaged in quality improvement processes. Structure, process and outcome quality measures, derived from detailed guidance for primary care settings, can be used to track practitioner performance and facilitate ongoing improvement.

Cancer in general practice research priorities in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) is funded by Cancer Australia to support the development of new cancer in primary care research. We undertook a research prioritisation exercise to identify cancer research priorities in Australian general practice. METHOD: We adapted the nominal group technique, including a literature search and stakeholder survey. An expert group from the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group consolidated and ranked priorities. A second stakeholder survey reviewing the top 50 priorities informed a final prioritisation workshop. RESULTS: Overall, 311 priorities were identified across the cancer continuum. Nearly one-third of priorities were related to cancer survivorship and included strategies to detect recurrence, behavioural interventions and tools to assess physical and psychosocial aspects of survivorship. Prevention/early detection comprised 43.4% of priorities. Palliative care produced the least priorities (9.6%). Cross cutting research priorities (15.1%) included quality and models of care. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to identify cancer research priorities for general practice in Australia. It could be used to inform the development of targeted research and funding to improve the care and outcomes for Australians affected by cancer.