Primary care patient interests in joining a planned multi-cancer early detection clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are being conducted and are being planned to assess the safety and efficacy of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for use in cancer screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of primary care patient outreach in recruiting participants to a planned MCED clinical trial, assess patient interest in trial participation, and measure decisional conflict related to participation. METHODS: The research team used the electronic medical record of a large, urban health care system to identify primary care patients 50-80 years of age who were potentially eligible for a planned MCED trial. We mailed information about the planned MCED trial to identified patients and then contacted the patients by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we contacted consented patients to complete an interview to review the mailed information and elicit perceptions about trial participation. Finally, a research coordinator administered an endpoint telephone survey to assess patient interest in and decisional conflict related to joining the trial. RESULTS: We randomly identified 1000 eligible patients and were able to make contact with 690 (69%) by telephone. Of the patients contacted, 217 (31%) completed the decision counseling session and 219 (32%) completed the endpoint survey. Among endpoint survey respondents, 177 (81%) expressed interest in joining the MCED trial and 162 (74%) reported low decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were contacted and about a quarter of those contacted expressed interest in and low decisional conflict about joining the planned MCED trial. Research is needed to determine how to optimize patient outreach and engage patients in shared decision-making about MCED trial participation.

Primary Care Provider Receptivity to Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Use in Cancer Screening.

Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) are blood-based tests that detect biomarkers released or induced by cancer cells. If MCED tests are shown to be safe and effective in cancer screening, they are likely to be ordered and managed in primary care. To understand primary care providers' support for and concerns about the implementation and management of MCED testing, the research team developed a cross-sectional survey that was sent to 939 primary care providers (physicians, residents/fellows, and advanced practice providers) in a large academic health system in the greater Philadelphia area. The survey included standard items used to assess provider background characteristics and to measure provider awareness of challenges related to MCED test use (7 items), perceived competence in MCED testing (5 items), and receptivity to MCED test use in the future (4 items). A total of 351 (37.4%) primary care providers completed the survey. Among respondents, the awareness of challenges in MCED testing (mean = 3.95, sd = 0.64), perceived competence (3.67, sd = 0.85), and receptivity to MCED use in practice (mean = 3.62, 0.75) were moderately high. Multiple regression was performed to identify factors associated with receptivity to MCED testing. We found that provider number of years in practice (DATA), awareness of challenges related to MCED testing (DATA), and perceived competence in MCED test use (DATA) were positively and significantly associated with receptivity to MCED test use in practice. An exploratory factor analysis extracted two components: receptivity to MCEDs and awareness of challenges. Surprisingly, these factors had a positive correlation (r = 0.124, p = 0.024). Providers' perceived competence in using MCED tests and providers' experience level were significantly associated with receptivity to MCED testing. While there was strong agreement with potential challenges to implementing MCEDs, PCPs were generally receptive to using MCEDs in cancer screening. Keeping PCPs updated on the evolving knowledge of MCEDs is likely critical to building receptivity to MCED testing.

Primary care outreach and decision counseling for lung cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer screening rates are very low despite a level B recommendation from the United States Preventive Services Task Force since 2013 and clear evidence that lung cancer screening reduces mortality. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services requires shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening reimbursement. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an SDM intervention on lung cancer screening in primary care. METHODS: The study design was a single-arm clinical trial design. The intervention included phone contact outside of a primary care visit and the use of the Decision Counseling Program ®, an online interactive decision aid focused on determining the factors which influence patients to screen or not screen, prioritizing those factors, and determining a decision preference score. The primary outcome was the completion of low-dose computed tomography scan (LDCT) 1 year after the SDM session compared in participants versus nonparticipants. RESULTS: From six practices, there were 1359 potentially eligible patients in electronic medical record data, and 336 were reached to assess eligibility criteria. A total of 80 patients consented to be in the study, 64 completed a decision counseling session and 16 did not complete a session. Among the 64 people who agreed to have decision counseling, 45% had LDCT, higher than typically seen in routine clinical practice. Although not a comparable group, among the 16 people who declined decision counseling, none had LDCT. CONCLUSIONS: Decision counseling is a promising intervention that might support SDM in the context of improving uptake of lung cancer screening in primary care. However, further, larger studies are needed.

Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being developed, but little is known about patient receptivity to their use for cancer screening. The current study assessed patient interest in such testing. Our team conducted a prospective, observational study among primary care patients in a large, urban health system. They were asked to complete a telephone survey that briefly described a new blood test in development to identify multiple types of cancer, but was not currently recommended or covered by insurance. The survey included items to assess respondent background characteristics, perceptions about MCED testing, and interest in having such an MCED test. We also used multivariable analyses to identify factors associated with patient interest in test use. In 2023, we surveyed 159 (32%) of 500 identified patients. Among respondents, 125 (79%) reported a high level of interest in having an MCED test. Interest was not associated with personal background characteristics, but was positively associated with the following expectations: testing would be recommended for cancer screening, be convenient, and be effective in finding early-stage disease (OR = 11.70, 95% CI: 4.02, 34.04, p < 0.001). Research is needed to assess patient interest and actual uptake when detailed information on testing is presented in routine care.

The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community: a multi-health-system, citywide approach to lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening uptake for individuals at high risk is generally low across the United States, and reporting of lung cancer screening practices and outcomes is often limited to single hospitals or institutions. We describe a citywide, multicenter analysis of individuals receiving lung cancer screening integrated with geospatial analyses of neighborhood-level lung cancer risk factors. METHODS: The Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community consists of lung cancer screening clinicians and researchers at the 3 largest health systems in the city. This multidisciplinary, multi-institutional team identified a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community study cohort that included 11 222 Philadelphia residents who underwent low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer screening from 2014 to 2021 at a Philadelphia Lung Cancer Learning Community health-care system. Individual-level demographic and clinical data were obtained, and lung cancer screening participants were geocoded to their Philadelphia census tract of residence. Neighborhood characteristics were integrated with lung cancer screening counts to generate bivariate choropleth maps. RESULTS: The combined sample included 37.8% Black adults, 52.4% women, and 56.3% adults who currently smoke. Of 376 residential census tracts in Philadelphia, 358 (95.2%) included 5 or more individuals undergoing lung cancer screening, and the highest counts were geographically clustered around each health system's screening sites. A relatively low percentage of screened adults resided in census tracts with high tobacco retailer density or high smoking prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: The sociodemographic characteristics of lung cancer screening participants in Philadelphia varied by health system and neighborhood. These results suggest that a multicenter approach to lung cancer screening can identify vulnerable areas for future tailored approaches to improving lung cancer screening uptake. Future directions should use these findings to develop and test collaborative strategies to increase lung cancer screening at the community and regional levels.

Factors Likely to Affect the Uptake of Genomic Approaches to Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.

Genomic tests are being developed for use in cancer screening. As most screening is offered in primary care settings, primary care provider and patient perceptions of such tests are likely to affect uptake. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize information on factors likely to affect patient and provider use of biospecimen collection and analysis for cancer screening, methods referred to as liquid biopsy or multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing when used to detect multiple cancers. We ultimately identified 7 articles for review and analyzed them for major themes. None reported on primary care provider perspectives. Six articles focused on patient perceptions about testing for a single cancer (colorectal), and 1 reported on patient views related to testing for multiple cancers. Factors favoring this type of testing included its non-invasiveness, and the perceived safety, convenience, and effectiveness of testing. There is a dearth of information in the literature on primary care provider perceptions about liquid biopsy and MCED testing. The limited information on patient perceptions suggests that they are receptive to such tests. Research on primary care provider and patient test-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior is needed to guide future implementation in primary care settings.

Outreach to primary care patients in lung cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial.

Current guidelines recommend annual lung cancer screening (LCS), but rates are low. The current study evaluated strategies to increase LCS. This study was a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of patient outreach and shared decision making (SDM) about LCS among patients in four primary care practices. Patients 50 to 80 years of age and at high risk for lung cancer were randomized to Outreach Contact plus Decision Counseling (OC-DC, n = 314), Outreach Contact alone (OC, n = 314), or usual care (UC, n = 1748). LCS was significantly higher in the combined OC/OC-DC group versus UC controls (5.5% vs. 1.8%; hazard ratio, HR = 3.28; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.98 to 5.41; p = 0.001). LCS was higher in the OC-DC group than in the OC group, although not significantly so (7% vs. 4%, respectively; HR = 1.75; 95% CI: 0.86 to 3.55; p = 0.123). LCS referral/scheduling was also significantly higher in the OC/OC-DC group compared to controls (11% v. 5%; odds ratio, OR = 2.02; p = 0.001). We observed a similar trend for appointment keeping, but the effect was not statistically significant (86% v. 76%; OR = 1.93; p = 0.351). Outreach contacts significantly increased LCS among primary care patients. Research is needed to assess the additional value of SDM on screening uptake.

Engaging Patients with Late-Stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in Shared Decision Making about Treatment.

Few treatment decision support interventions (DSIs) are available to engage patients diagnosed with late-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in treatment shared decision making (SDM). We designed a novel DSI that includes care plan cards and a companion patient preference clarification tool to assist in shared decision making. The cards answer common patient questions about treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, clinical trial participation, and supportive care). The form elicits patient treatment preference. We then conducted interviews with clinicians and patients to obtain feedback on the DSI. We also trained oncology nurse educators to implement the prototype. Finally, we pilot tested the DSI among five patients with NSCLC at the beginning of an office visit scheduled to discuss treatment with an oncologist. Analyses of pilot study baseline and exit survey data showed that DSI use was associated with increased patient awareness of the alternatives' treatment options and benefits/risks. In contrast, patient concern about treatment costs and uncertainty in treatment decision making decreased. All patients expressed a treatment preference. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to assess DSI implementation feasibility and efficacy in clinical care.

Racial Differences in Lung Cancer Screening Beliefs and Screening Adherence.

BACKGROUND: One challenge in high-quality lung cancer screening (LCS) is maintaining adherence with annual and short-interval follow-up screens among high-risk individuals who have undergone baseline low-dose CT (LDCT). This study aimed to characterize attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS and to identify factors associated with LCS adherence. METHODS: We administered a questionnaire to 269 LCS participants to assess attitudes and beliefs toward lung cancer and LCS. Clinical data including sociodemographics and screening adherence were obtained from the LCS Program Registry. RESULTS: African-American individuals had significantly greater lung cancer worries compared with Whites (6.10 vs. 4.66, P < .001). In making the decision to undergo LCS, African-American participants described screening convenience and cost as very important factors significantly more frequently than Whites (60% vs. 26.8%, P< .001 and 58.4% vs. 37.8%, P = .001; respectively). African-American individuals with greater than high school education had significantly higher odds of LCS adherence (aOR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.14-5.60) than Whites with less than high school education. Participants who described screening convenience and cost as "very important" had significantly lower odds of completing screening follow-up after adjusting for demographic and other factors (aOR 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.97 and aOR 0.54; 95% CI, 0.33-0.91, respectively). CONCLUSION: Racial differences in beliefs about lung cancer and LCS exist among African-American and White individuals enrolled in an LCS program. Cost, convenience, and low educational attainment may be barriers to LCS adherence, specifically among African-American individuals. IMPACT: More research is needed on how barriers can be overcome to improve LCS adherence.

Whole-exome sequencing identifies somatic mutations and intratumor heterogeneity in inflammatory breast cancer.

Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most aggressive form of breast cancer. Although it is a rare subtype, IBC is responsible for roughly 10% of breast cancer deaths. In order to obtain a better understanding of the genomic landscape and intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) in IBC, we conducted whole-exome sequencing of 16 tissue samples (12 tumor and four normal samples) from six hormone-receptor-positive IBC patients, analyzed somatic mutations and copy number aberrations, and inferred subclonal structures to demonstrate ITH. Our results showed that KMT2C was the most frequently mutated gene (42%, 5/12 samples), followed by HECTD1, LAMA3, FLG2, UGT2B4, STK33, BRCA2, ACP4, PIK3CA, and DNAH8 (all nine genes tied at 33% frequency, 4/12 samples). Our data indicated that PTEN and FBXW7 mutations may be considered driver gene mutations for IBC. We identified various subclonal structures and different levels of ITH between IBC patients, and mutations in the genes EIF4G3, IL12RB2, and PDE4B may potentially generate ITH in IBC.

A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (CRCS) facilitates early detection and lowers CRC mortality. OBJECTIVES: To increase CRCS in a randomized trial of stepped interventions. Step 1 compared three modes of delivery of theory-informed minimal cue interventions. Step 2 was designed to more intensively engage those not completing CRCS after Step 1. METHODS: Recruitment packets (60,332) were mailed to a random sample of individuals with a record of U.S. military service during the Vietnam-era. Respondents not up-to-date with CRCS were randomized to one of four Step 1 groups: automated telephone, telephone, letter, or survey-only control. Those not completing screening after Step 1 were randomized to one of three Step 2 groups: automated motivational interviewing (MI) call, counselor-delivered MI call, or Step 2 control. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses assessed CRCS on follow-up surveys mailed after each step. RESULTS: After Step 1 (n = 1784), CRCS was higher in the letter, telephone, and automated telephone groups (by 1%, 5%, 7%) than in survey-only controls (43%), although differences were not statistically significant. After Step 2 (n = 516), there were nonsignificant increases in CRCS in the two intervention groups compared with the controls. CRCS following any combination of stepped interventions overall was 7% higher (P = 0.024) than in survey-only controls (55.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In a nationwide study of Veterans, CRCS after each of two stepped interventions of varying modes of delivery did not differ significantly from that in controls. However, combined overall, the sequence of stepped interventions significantly increased CRCS.

Improved Prognostic Stratification Using Circulating Tumor Cell Clusters in Patients with Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Liquid biopsy-based biomarkers have advantages in monitoring the dynamics of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), a bone-predominant metastatic disease. Previous studies have demonstrated associations between circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and clinical outcomes of mCRPC patients, but little is known about the prognostic value of CTC-clusters. In 227 longitudinally collected blood samples from 64 mCRPC patients, CTCs and CTC-clusters were enumerated using the CellSearch platform. The associations of CTC and CTC-cluster counts with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), individually and jointly, were evaluated by Cox models. CTCs and CTC-clusters were detected in 24 (37.5%) and 8 (12.5%) of 64 baseline samples, and in 119 (52.4%) and 27 (11.9%) of 227 longitudinal samples, respectively. CTC counts were associated with both PFS and OS, but CTC-clusters were only independently associated with an increased risk of death. Among patients with unfavorable CTCs (≥5), the presence of CTC-clusters signified a worse survival (log-rank p = 0.0185). mCRPC patients with both unfavorable CTCs and CTC-clusters had the highest risk for death (adjusted hazard ratio 19.84, p = 0.0072), as compared to those with <5 CTCs. Analyses using longitudinal data yielded similar results. In conclusion, CTC-clusters provided additional prognostic information for further stratifying death risk among patients with unfavorable CTCs.

Prognostic value of HER2 status on circulating tumor cells in advanced-stage breast cancer patients with HER2-negative tumors.

PURPOSE: Discordance between HER2 expression in tumor tissue (tHER2) and HER2 status on circulating tumor cells (cHER2) has been reported. It remains largely underexplored whether patients with tHER2-/cHER2+ can benefit from anti-HER2 targeted therapies. METHODS: cHER2 status was determined in 105 advanced-stage patients with tHER2- breast tumors. Association between cHER2 status and progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed by univariate and multivariate Cox models and survival differences were compared by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Compared to the patients with low-risk cHER2 (cHER2+ < 2), those with high-risk cHER2 (cHER2+ ≥ 2) had shorter survival time and an increased risk for disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] 2.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-3.88, P = 0.010). Among the patients with high-risk cHER2, those who received anti-HER2 targeted therapies had improved PFS compared with those who did not (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10-0.92, P = 0.035). In comparison, anti-HER2 targeted therapy did not affect PFS among those with low-risk cHER2 (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.36-1.38, P = 0.306). Similar results were obtained after adjusting covariates. A longitudinal analysis of 67 patients with cHER2 detected during follow-ups found that those whose cHER2 status changed from high-risk at baseline to low-risk at first follow-up exhibited a significantly improved survival compared to those whose cHER2 remained high-risk (median PFS: 11.7 weeks vs. 2.0 weeks, log-rank P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: In advanced-stage breast cancer patients with tHER2- tumors, cHER2 status has the potential to guide the use of anti-HER2 targeted therapy in patients with high-risk cHER2.

Predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal Cancer screening adherence.

This study investigated predictors of overall and test-specific colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). Stool blood test (SBT) and/or colonoscopy screening were offered to primary care patients in two randomized controlled trials which assessed the impact of behavioral interventions on screening. Data were obtained through surveys and electronic medical records. Among 1942 participants, 646 (33%) screened. Exposure to interventions was associated with higher overall CRCS by twofold to threefold; older age, African American race, being married, and having a higher screening decision stage were also associated with higher overall CRCS (odds ratios = 1.30, 1.31, 1.34, and 5.59, respectively). Intervention, older age, female gender, and being married were associated with higher SBT adherence, while preference for colonoscopy was associated with lower SBT adherence. Intervention and higher decision stage were associated with higher colonoscopy adherence, while preference for SBT was associated with lower colonoscopy adherence. Among older individuals, African Americans had higher overall CRCS than whites, but this was not true among younger individuals (interaction p = .041). The higher screening adherence of African Americans over whites was due to stronger screening with a non-preferred test, i.e., higher SBT adherence only among individuals who preferred colonoscopy and higher colonoscopy adherence only among individuals who preferred SBT. Intervention exposure, sociodemographic background, and screening decision stage predicted overall CRCS adherence. Gender and test preference also affected test-specific screening adherence. Interactions involving race and test preference suggest that it is important to provide both colonoscopy and SBT screening options to patients, particularly African Americans.

Telephone-Based Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care.

The national rate of  lung cancer screening, approximately 3-5%, is too low and strategies which include shared decision-making and increase screening are needed. A feasibility study in one large primary care practice of telephone-based delivery of decision support via an online tool, the Decision Counseling Program© (DCP) was administered to patients eligible for lung cancer screening according to USPSTF screening guidelines. We collected data on demographics, decisional conflict, and conducted chart audits to ascertain screening. From electronic medical record data, we identified 829 age-eligible current or former smokers. Of the 297 individuals reached, 54 were eligible and 28 were recruited to the study and 20 underwent the DCP© intervention. Participants in the intervention were more likely to complete low-dose CT scans at 90 days. Current smokers were less likely to complete the DCP. Women were less likely to complete LDCT. This non-persuasive, high-quality shared decision-making intervention significantly increased lung cancer screening and was feasible in real-world clinical care. This intervention offers a promising model whereby patients can be supported in a decision, based on their values and beliefs while also supporting gains in lung cancer screening.

The Case for Patient Navigation in Lung Cancer Screening in Vulnerable Populations: A Systematic Review.

Patient navigation has been proposed to combat cancer disparities in vulnerable populations. Vulnerable populations often have poorer cancer outcomes and lower levels of screening, adherence, and treatment. Navigation has been studied in various cancers, but few studies have assessed navigation in lung cancer. Additionally, there is a lack of consistency in metrics to assess the quality of navigation programs. The authors conducted a systematic review of published cancer screening studies to identify quality metrics used in navigation programs, as well as to recommend standardized metrics to define excellence in lung cancer navigation. The authors included 26 studies evaluating navigation metrics in breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, and lung cancer. After reviewing the literature, the authors propose the following navigation metrics for lung cancer screening programs: (1) screening rate, (2) compliance with follow-up, (3) time to treatment initiation, (4) patient satisfaction, (5) quality of life, (6) biopsy complications, and (7) cultural competency.

Decision Support and Navigation to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Hispanic Patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective strategies are needed to raise colorectal cancer screening rates among Hispanics. METHODS: We surveyed and randomized 400 Hispanic primary care patients either to a Decision Support and Navigation Intervention (DSNI) Group (n = 197) or a Standard Intervention (SI) Group (n = 203). Both groups received a colorectal cancer screening kit [bilingual informational booklet, fecal immunochemical stool blood test (SBT), and colonoscopy screening instructions]. The DSNI Group received a telephone contact from a patient navigator. The navigator clarified screening test preference and likelihood of test performance, helped to develop a screening plan, and provided guidance through test performance. An endpoint telephone survey and medical chart review were completed. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess 12-month screening adherence, change in decision stage, and knowledge and perceptions. RESULTS: Screening adherence was significantly higher in the DSNI Group than the SI Group [OR, 4.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 3.1-7.6]. The DSNI Group, compared with the SI Group, also displayed higher SBT screening [OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 2.6-6.7), higher colonoscopy screening (OR, 8.8; 95% CI, 4.1-18.7), and greater forward change in screening decision stage (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 2.6-9.5). At endpoint, study groups did not differ in screening knowledge or perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The DSNI had a greater positive impact on colorectal cancer screening outcomes than the SI. IMPACT: Health system implementation of DSNI strategies may help to reduce Hispanic colorectal cancer screening disparities in primary care.