Development of a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway for women aged 30-39 years: Views of UK primary care providers on the role of primary care.

BACKGROUND: Identifying women aged 30-39 years at increased risk of developing breast cancer would allow them to receive screening and prevention offers. For this to be feasible, the practicalities of organising risk assessment and primary prevention must be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would be responsible for delivery. It has been proposed that primary care providers are best placed to deliver a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway. The present study aimed to investigate a range of primary care provider's views on the development and implementation of a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway within primary care for women aged 30-39 years. METHODS: Twenty-five primary care providers working at general practices in either Greater Manchester or Cambridgeshire and Peterborough participated in five focus groups (n = 18) and seven individual interviews. Data were analysed thematically and organised using a framework approach. RESULTS: Three themes were developed. Challenges with delivering a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway within primary care highlights that primary care are willing to facilitate but not lead delivery of such a pathway given the challenges with existing workload pressures and concerns about ensuring effective clinical governance. Primary care's preferred level of involvement describes the aspects of the pathway participants thought primary care could be involved in, namely co-ordinating data collection for risk assessment and calculating and communicating risk. Requirements for primary care involvement captures the need to provide a training and education package to address deficits in knowledge prior to involvement. Additionally, the reservations primary care have about being involved in the management of women identified as being at increased risk are discussed and suggestions are provided for facilitating primary care to take on this role. CONCLUSIONS: Despite optimism that primary care might lead a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway, participants had a range of concerns that should be considered when developing such a pathway.

Abdominal Noncontrast Computed Tomography Scanning to Screen for Kidney Cancer and Other Abdominal Pathology Within Community-based Computed Tomography Screening for Lung Cancer: Results of the Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) assessed the feasibility of adding abdominal noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) to lung cancer screening to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology. METHODS: A prospective diagnostic study offered abdominal NCCT to 55-80-yr-old ever-smokers attending a UK randomised lung cancer screening trial (May 2021 to October 2022). The exclusion criteria were dementia, frailty, previous kidney/lung cancer, and computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and thorax within previous 6 and 12 mo, respectively. Six-month follow-up was undertaken. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 4438 people attended lung screening, of whom 4309 (97%) were eligible for and 4019 (93%) accepted abdominal NCCT. Only 3.9% respondents regretted participating. The additional time to conduct the YKST processes was 13.3 min. Of the participants, 2586 (64%) had a normal abdominal NCCT, whilst 787 (20%) required an abdominal NCCT imaging review but no further action and 611 (15%) required further evaluation (investigations and/or clinic). Of the participants, 211 (5.3%) had a new serious finding, including 25 (0.62%) with a renal mass/complex cyst, of whom ten (0.25%) had histologically proven kidney cancer; ten (0.25%) with other cancers; and 60 (1.5%) with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Twenty-five (0.62%) participants had treatment with curative intent. Of the participants, 1017 (25%) had nonserious findings, most commonly benign renal cysts (727 [18%]), whereas only 259 (6.4%) had nonserious findings requiring further tests. The number needed to screen to detect one serious abdominal finding was 18; it was 93 to detect one suspicious renal lesion and 402 to detect one histologically confirmed renal cancer. Limitations of the cohort were fixed age range and being prior lung cancer screening attendees. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: In this first prospective risk-stratified screening study of abdominal NCCT offered alongside CT thorax, uptake and participant satisfaction were high. The prevalence of serious findings, cancers, and AAAs, is in the range of established screening programmes such as bowel cancer. Longer-term outcomes and cost effectiveness should now be evaluated.

Age and sex specific thresholds for risk stratification of cardiovascular disease and clinical decision making: prospective open cohort study.

Objective: To quantify the potential advantages of using 10 year risk prediction models for cardiovascular disease, in combination with risk thresholds specific to both age and sex, to identify individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease for allocation of statin treatment. Design: Prospective open cohort study. Setting: Primary care data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, linked with hospital admissions from Hospital Episode Statistics and national mortality records from the Office for National Statistics in England, 1 January 2006 to 31 May 2019. Participants: 1 046 736 individuals (aged 40-85 years) with no cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or a history of statin treatment at baseline using data from electronic health records. Main outcome measures: 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease, calculated with version 2 of the QRISK cardiovascular disease risk algorithm (QRISK2), with two main strategies to identify individuals at high risk: in strategy A, estimated risk was a fixed cut-off value of ≥10% (ie, as per the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines); in strategy B, estimated risk was ≥10% or ≥90th centile of age and sex specific risk distributions. Results: Compared with strategy A, strategy B stratified 20 241 (149.8%) more women aged ≤53 years and 9832 (150.2%) more men aged ≤47 years as having a high risk of cardiovascular disease; for all other ages the strategies were the same. Assuming that treatment with statins would be initiated in those identified as high risk, differences in the estimated gain in cardiovascular disease-free life years from statin treatment for strategy B versus strategy A were 0.14 and 0.16 years for women and men aged 40 years, respectively; among individuals aged 40-49 years, the numbers needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular disease event for strategy B versus strategy A were 39 versus 21 in women and 19 versus 15 in men, respectively. Conclusions: This study quantified the potential gains in cardiovascular disease-free life years when implementing prevention strategies based on age and sex specific risk thresholds instead of a fixed risk threshold for allocation of statin treatment. Such gains should be weighed against the costs of treating more younger people with statins for longer.

Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). This study explored the acceptability of the combined screening approach to participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the trial. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs and 25 participants returning for the second round of scanning within YLST, 20 who had taken up the offer of the additional abdominal CT scan and five who had declined. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS: Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose thoracic CT was considered acceptable to participants, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. The offer of the additional scan made sense and fitted well within the process, and participants could see benefits in terms of efficiency, cost and convenience both for themselves as individuals and also more widely for the NHS. Almost all participants made an instant decision at the point of initial invitation based more on trust and emotions than the information provided. Despite this, there was a clear desire for more time to decide whether to accept the scan or not. HCPs also raised concerns about the burden on the study team and wider healthcare system arising from additional workload both within the screening process and downstream following findings on the abdominal CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to community-based CT screening for lung cancer is acceptable to both participants and healthcare professionals. Giving potential participants prior notice and having clear pathways for downstream management of findings will be important if it is to be offered more widely.

Systematic review: risk prediction models for metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia after polypectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death globally. CRC surveillance is a common indication for colonoscopy, representing a considerable burden for endoscopy services. Accurate identification of high-risk patients who would benefit from more intensive surveillance, as well as low-risk patients suitable for less frequent follow-up, could improve the effectiveness of surveillance protocols and resource use. Our aim was to identify and critically appraise published risk models for the occurrence of metachronous advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN), defined here as CRC or advanced adenomas detected during surveillance colonoscopy. METHODS: We searched PubMed and EMBASE for primary research studies reporting the development and/or validation of multivariable models that predict metachronous ACN risk. Screening of studies for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two researchers independently. RESULTS: We identified nine studies describing nine risk models. Six models were internally validated and two were externally validated. No model underwent both internal and external validation. Good model discrimination (concordance index > 0.7) was reported for two models during internal validation and for one model during external validation. Calibration was acceptable when assessed (n = 4). Methodological limitations and a high risk of bias were observed for all studies. CONCLUSIONS: Several published models predicting metachronous ACN risk showed some promise. However, adherence to methodological standards was limited, and only two models were externally validated. Head-to-head comparisons of existing models using populations independent from model development cohorts should be prioritized to identify models suitable for use in clinical practice.

Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think-Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment.

CONTEXT: Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk-based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. STUDY DESIGN: Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint-analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty participants based in England aged 40-79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise. RESULTS: When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age-alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non-personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision-making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out. CONCLUSION: Risk-stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE.

Relationship between research activity and general practice performance: cross sectional and longitudinal analyses.

BACKGROUND: Research activity usually improves outcomes by being translated into practice. However, there is developing evidence that research activity itself may improve the overall performance of health care organisations. However, evidence that these relationships represent a causal impact of research activity is less clear. Additionally, the bulk of the existing evidence relates to hospital settings, and it is not known if those relationships would also be found in general practice, where most patient contacts occur. AIM: We sought to (a) test whether there were significant relationships between research activity in general practice and organisational performance (b) test whether those relationships were plausibly causal. DESIGN AND SETTING: We analysed national data between 2008 and 2019 using cross sectional and longitudinal analyses, on general practices in England. METHODS: We used cross-sectional, panel and instrumental variable analyses to explore relationships between research activity (including measures from the NIHR Clinical Research Network and the Royal College of General Practitioners) and practice performance (including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, prescribing quality and hospital admissions) Results: In cross-sectional analyses, research activity was positively associated with several measures of practice performance, including clinical quality of care, patient reported experience of care, and reduced hospital admissions. The associations were generally modest in magnitude. However, longitudinal analyses did not support a reliable causal relationship. CONCLUSION: Similar to findings from hospital settings, research activity in general practice is associated with practice performance. There is less evidence that research is causing those improvements, although this may reflect the limited level of research activity in most practices. We identified no negative impacts, suggesting that research activity is a potential marker of quality and something that high quality practices can deliver alongside their core responsibilities.

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.

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

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

Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms that might underlie that relationship. AIM: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity may impact on the performance of general practices. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. METHOD: Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in 'research-ready' or 'research-active' general practices, and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a framework approach. RESULTS: Participants described potential 'direct' and 'indirect' impacts on their work. 'Direct' impacts included improved knowledge and skills that could change practice work (for example, additional records searches for particular conditions); bringing in additional resources (for example, access to investigations or staff); and improving relationships with patients. 'Indirect' impacts included job satisfaction (for example, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout); and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Responders identified few negative impacts. CONCLUSION: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, responders generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators.

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

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

Risk Prediction Models for Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review.

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

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

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

Risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in patients with previous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general population, people with a previous melanoma are at increased risk of developing another primary melanoma. Understanding the risk factors associated with multiple primary melanomas can inform patient education and tailored surveillance. OBJECTIVES: To examine the risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in people with a previous melanoma, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase and MEDLINE. Studies that reported a risk estimate or raw frequencies and conducted between 1982 and August 2022 were included. Adjusted risk estimates were prioritized over univariable risk estimates. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to derive pooled estimates. Quality assessment was conducted by two researchers using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. GRADE was used to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Data from 27 studies involving 413 181 participants were pooled and analysed. Risk factors assessed included age and sex, environmental, lifestyle, phenotypic, genetic and histopathological factors, and there was wide variation in how they were categorized and analysed. Independent risk factors identified from pooled analyses included male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-1.53], increasing age per 10 years (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.24), light skin colour (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.23-1.70), family history [odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.25-2.56], CDKN2A mutation (OR 5.29, 95% CI 2.70-10.37), a high or moderate naevus count [OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.61-4.30) and OR 1.64 (95% CI 1.07-2.51), respectively], one or more atypical naevi (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.52-5.97), first lesions occurring on the head or neck, lentigo maligna subtype (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.17), other subtype (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27) and inadequate sun protection (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.98-3.50). Based on the GRADE criteria, there was high to very low confidence in the pooled effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identified several consistent, independent risk factors for the development of subsequent primary melanoma. These findings will help stratify the risk of subsequent melanoma, tailor skin-check schedules and inform patient education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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