The psychosocial impact of prostate cancer screening for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.

OBJECTIVES: To report the long-term outcomes from a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the 'Identification of Men with a genetic predisposition to ProstAte Cancer: Targeted Screening in men at higher genetic risk and controls' (IMPACT) study. The IMPACT study is a multi-national study of targeted prostate cancer (PrCa) screening in individuals with a known germline pathogenic variant (GPV) in either the BReast CAncer gene 1 (BRCA1) or the BReast CAncer gene 2 (BRCA2). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Participants enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a psychosocial questionnaire prior to each annual screening visit for a minimum of 5 years. The questionnaire included questions on sociodemographics and the following measures: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Impact of Event Scale, 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, Memorial Anxiety Scale for PrCa, Cancer Worry Scale, risk perception and knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 760 participants completed questionnaires: 207 participants with GPV in BRCA1, 265 with GPV in BRCA2 and 288 controls (non-carriers from families with a known GPV). We found no evidence of clinically concerning levels of general or cancer-specific distress or poor health-related quality of life in the cohort as a whole. Individuals in the control group had significantly less worry about PrCa compared with the carriers; however, all mean scores were low and within reported general population norms, where available. BRCA2 carriers with previously high prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels experience a small but significant increase in PrCa anxiety (P = 0.01) and PSA-specific anxiety (P < 0.001). Cancer risk perceptions reflected information provided during genetic counselling and participants had good levels of knowledge, although this declined over time. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report the longitudinal psychosocial impact of a targeted PrCa screening programme for BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. The results reassure that an annual PSA-based screening programme does not have an adverse impact on psychosocial health or health-related quality of life in these higher-risk individuals. These results are important as more PrCa screening is targeted to higher-risk groups.

Should I Take Aspirin? (SITA): randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for cancer chemoprevention.

BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that people aged 50-70 years consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). AIM: To determine the effect of a consultation with a researcher before an appointment in general practice using a decision aid presenting the benefits and harms of taking low-dose aspirin compared with a general CRC prevention brochure on patients' informed decision making and low-dose aspirin use. DESIGN AND SETTING: Individually randomised controlled trial in six general practices in Victoria, Australia, from October 2020 to March 2021. METHOD: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50-70 years attending a GP. The intervention was a consultation using a decision aid to discuss taking aspirin to reduce CRC risk while control consultations discussed reducing CRC risk generally. Self-reported co-primary outcomes were the proportion of individuals making informed choices about taking aspirin at 1 month and on low-dose aspirin uptake at 6 months, respectively. The intervention effect was estimated using a generalised linear model and reported with Bonferroni-adjusted 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values. RESULTS: A total of 261 participants (86% of eligible patients) were randomised into trial arms (n = 129 intervention; n = 132 control). Of these participants, 17.7% (n = 20/113) in the intervention group and 7.6% (n = 9/118) in the control group reported making an informed choice about taking aspirin at 1 month, an estimated 9.1% (95% CI = 0.29 to 18.5) between-arm difference in proportions (odds ratio [OR] 2.47, 97.5% CI = 0.94 to 6.52, P = 0.074). The proportions of individuals who reported taking aspirin at 6 months were 10.2% (n = 12/118) of the intervention group versus 13.8% (n = 16/116) of the control group, an estimated between-arm difference of -4.0% (95% CI = -13.5 to 5.5; OR 0.68 [97.5% CI = 0.27 to 1.70, P = 0.692]). CONCLUSION: The decision aid improved informed decision making but this did not translate into long-term regular use of aspirin to reduce CRC risk. In future research, decision aids should be delivered alongside various implementation strategies.

The PRESIDE (PhaRmacogEnomicS In DEpression) Trial: a double-blind randomised controlled trial of pharmacogenomic-informed prescribing of antidepressants on depression outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder in primary care.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing is growing, and guidelines exist for the use of PGx testing to inform prescribing of 13 antidepressants. Although previous randomised controlled trials of PGx testing for antidepressant prescribing have shown an association with remission of depression in clinical psychiatric settings, few trials have focused on the primary care setting, where most antidepressant prescribing occurs. METHODS: The PRESIDE Trial is a stratified double-blinded randomised controlled superiority trial that aims to evaluate the impact of a PGx-informed antidepressant prescribing report (compared with standard prescribing using the Australian Therapeutic Guidelines) on depressive symptoms after 12 weeks, when delivered in primary care. Six hundred seventy-two patients aged 18-65 years of general practitioners (GPs) in Victoria with moderate to severe depressive symptoms, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), will be randomly allocated 1:1 to each arm using a computer-generated sequence. Participants and GPs will be blinded to the study arm. The primary outcome is a difference between arms in the change of depressive symptoms, measured using the PHQ-9 after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes include a difference between the arms in change in PHQ-9 score at 4, 8 and 26 weeks, proportion in remission at 12 weeks, a change in side effect profile of antidepressant medications, adherence to antidepressant medications, change in quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether PGx-informed antidepressant prescribing is clinically efficacious and cost-effective. It will inform national and international policy and guidelines about the use of PGx to select antidepressants for people with moderate to severe depressive symptoms presenting in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000181808. Registered on 22 February 2021.

Serum testosterone and prostate cancer in men with germline BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants.

Objectives: The relation of serum androgens and the development of prostate cancer (PCa) is subject of debate. Lower total testosterone (TT) levels have been associated with increased PCa detection and worse pathological features after treatment. However, data from the Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) and Prostate Cancer Prevention (PCPT) trial groups indicate no association. The aim of this study is to investigate the association of serum androgen levels and PCa detection in a prospective screening study of men at higher genetic risk of aggressive PCa due to BRCA1/2 pathogenic variants (PVs), the IMPACT study. Methods: Men enrolled in the IMPACT study provided serum samples during regular visits. Hormonal levels were calculated using immunoassays. Free testosterone (FT) was calculated from TT and sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) using the Sodergard mass equation. Age, body mass index (BMI), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and hormonal concentrations were compared between genetic cohorts. We also explored associations between age and TT, SHBG, FT and PCa, in the whole subset and stratified by BRCA1/2 PVs status. Results: A total of 777 participants in the IMPACT study had TT and SHBG measurements in serum samples at annual visits, giving 3940 prospective androgen levels, from 266 BRCA1 PVs carriers, 313 BRCA2 PVs carriers and 198 non-carriers. The median number of visits per patient was 5. There was no difference in TT, SHBG and FT between carriers and non-carriers. In a univariate analysis, androgen levels were not associated with PCa. In the analysis stratified by carrier status, no significant association was found between hormonal levels and PCa in non-carriers, BRCA1 or BRCA2 PVs carriers. Conclusions: Male BRCA1/2 PVs carriers have a similar androgen profile to non-carriers. Hormonal levels were not associated with PCa in men with and without BRCA1/2 PVs. Mechanisms related to the particularly aggressive phenotype of PCa in BRCA2 PVs carriers may therefore not be linked with circulating hormonal levels.

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

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

Designing a decision aid for cancer prevention: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Australian guidelines recommend people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The aim was to design sex-specific decision aids (DAs) with clinician and consumer input, including expected frequency trees (EFTs) to communicate the risks and benefits of taking aspirin. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians. Focus groups were conducted with consumers. The interview schedules covered ease of comprehension, design, potential effects on decision-making, and approaches to implementation of the DAs. Thematic analysis was employed; independent coding by 2 researchers was inductive. Themes were developed through consensus between authors. RESULTS: Sixty-four clinicians were interviewed over 6 months in 2019. Twelve consumers aged 50-70 years participated in two focus groups in February and March 2020. The clinicians agreed that the EFTs would be helpful to facilitate a discussion with patients but suggested including an additional estimate of the effects of aspirin on all-cause mortality. The consumers felt favourable about the DAs and suggested changes to the design and wording to ease comprehension. CONCLUSION: DAs were designed to communicate the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin for disease prevention. The DAs are currently being trialled in general practice to determine their impact on informed decision-making and aspirin uptake.

Aspirin can help to prevent bowel cancer up by to 25% and the chances of dying from it by up to 33%. Australian guidelines recommend that people aged 50­70 years old to consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of bowel cancer. To encourage GPs and their patients to discuss the guidelines, we designed a brochure called a decision aid with the help of clinicians and people in the community of Victoria, Australia. The decision aid covered the benefits and risks of taking aspirin. Clinicians participated in interviews and provided feedback on the statistics presented in a chart called an expected frequency tree. People in the community participated in group discussions and improved the design and comprehension of the decision aid. The clinicians and people who participated in this study do not fully represent the diversity of the Australian population, as they were mostly white and highly educated. We are now testing if the decision aid is effective for supporting a discussion between patients and general practitioners, helping their patients make an informed decision about taking aspirin, and whether it encourages them to take aspirin daily after being shown the decision aid in general practice.

The SCRIPT trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a polygenic risk score to tailor colorectal cancer screening in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and target screening more precisely than current guidelines using age and family history alone. Primary care, as a far-reaching point of healthcare and routine provider of cancer screening and risk information, may be an ideal location for their widespread implementation. METHODS: This trial aims to determine whether the SCRIPT intervention results in more risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months in individuals attending general practice, compared with standard cancer risk reduction information. The SCRIPT intervention consists of a CRC PRS, tailored risk-specific screening recommendations and a risk report for participants and their GP, delivered in general practice. Patients aged between 45 and 70 inclusive, attending their GP, will be approached for participation. For those over 50, only those overdue for CRC screening will be eligible to participate. Two hundred and seventy-four participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arms, stratified by general practice, using a computer-generated allocation sequence. The primary outcome is risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months. For those in the intervention arm, risk-appropriate screening is defined using PRS-derived risk; for those in the control arm, it is defined using family history and national screening guidelines. Timing, type and results of the previous screening are considered in both arms. Objective health service data will capture screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cancer-specific worry, risk perception, predictors of CRC screening behaviour, screening intentions and health service use at 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention delivery. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine whether a PRS-derived personalised CRC risk estimate delivered in primary care increases risk-appropriate CRC screening. A future population risk-stratified CRC screening programme could incorporate risk assessment within primary care while encouraging adherence to targeted screening recommendations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000092897p. Registered on 1 February 2021.

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

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

Heterogeneity in the psychosocial and behavioral responses associated with a diagnosis of suspected Lynch syndrome in women with endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: A suspected Lynch syndrome (SLS) diagnosis is made when a tumor exhibits DNA mismatch repair deficiency but cannot be definitively assigned to an inherited or non-inherited etiology. This diagnosis poses challenges for healthcare professionals, patients, and their families in managing future cancer risks and clinical care. METHODS: This qualitative study aimed to explore the psychosocial and behavioral responses of endometrial cancer (EC) patients receiving a SLS diagnosis (EC-SLS). Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 EC-SLS women, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Most who interpreted their result as negative for Lynch syndrome (LS) believed they were at population-level risk of cancer and felt happy and relieved. Many participants who interpreted their result as inconclusive/not definitive for LS were confused about their cancer risk and experienced negative emotions of anger and frustration. Despite variation in colorectal cancer screening recommendations reported by participants, most adhered to the advice given. Almost all participants communicated their genetic test result to immediate family members; however, communication of family cancer risk management advice was more limited due to most participants reporting not receiving family screening advice. A family history of cancer and a professional healthcare background influenced participants' engagement in regular cancer screening. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight variability in the psychosocial and behavioral responses associated with EC-SLS, providing insight into how healthcare professionals can optimally manage and support such individuals.

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

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

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

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

The BARCODE1 Pilot: a feasibility study of using germline single nucleotide polymorphisms to target prostate cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility and uptake of a community-based prostate cancer (PCa) screening programme selecting men according to their genetic risk of PCa. To assess the uptake of PCa screening investigations by men invited for screening. The uptake of the pilot study would guide the opening of the larger BARCODE1 study recruiting 5000 men. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Healthy males aged 55-69 years were invited to participate via their general practitioners (GPs). Saliva samples were collected via mailed collection kits. After DNA extraction, genotyping was conducted using a study specific assay. Genetic risk was based on genotyping 130 germline PCa risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A polygenic risk score (PRS) was calculated for each participant using the sum of weighted alleles for 130 SNPs. Study participants with a PRS lying above the 90th centile value were invited for PCa screening by prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and biopsy. RESULTS: Invitation letters were sent to 1434 men. The overall study uptake was 26% (375/1436) and 87% of responders were eligible for study entry. DNA genotyping data were available for 297 men and 25 were invited for screening. After exclusions due to medical comorbidity/invitations declined, 18 of 25 men (72%) underwent MRI and biopsy of the prostate. There were seven diagnoses of PCa (38.9%). All cancers were low-risk and were managed with active surveillance. CONCLUSION: The BARCODE1 Pilot has shown this community study in the UK to be feasible, with an overall uptake of 26%. The main BARCODE1 study is now open and will recruit 5000 men. The results of BARCODE1 will be important in defining the role of genetic profiling in targeted PCa population screening. Patient Summary What is the paper about? Very few prostate cancer screening programmes currently exist anywhere in the world. Our pilot study investigated if men in the UK would find it acceptable to have a genetic test based on a saliva sample to examine their risk of prostate cancer development. This test would guide whether men are offered prostate cancer screening tests. What does it mean for patients? We found that the study design was acceptable: 26% of men invited to take part agreed to have the test. The majority of men who were found to have an increased genetic risk of prostate cancer underwent further tests offered (prostate MRI scan and biopsy). We have now expanded the study to enrol 5000 men. The BARCODE1 study will be important in examining whether this approach could be used for large-scale population prostate cancer screening.

"Left in limbo": Exploring how patients with colorectal cancer interpret and respond to a suspected Lynch syndrome diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of suspected Lynch syndrome (SLS) is given when a tumour displays characteristics consistent with Lynch syndrome (LS), but no germline pathogenic variant is identified. This inconclusive diagnosis results in uncertainty around appropriate cancer risk management. This qualitative study explored how patients with CRC interpret and respond to an SLS diagnosis. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 patients with CRC who received an SLS diagnosis, recruited from cancer genetics services across Australia. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Participant responses were compared with appointment summary letters from cancer genetics services. RESULTS: Participants' interpretations of genetic test results were found to vary widely. While this variation often aligned with variation in interpretations by cancer genetics services, participants also had difficulties with the complexity and recall of genetic test results. Participants had a range of psychological responses to the uncertainty that their results presented, from relief to disappointment and doubt. Cancer risk perceptions also varied widely, with participants' interpretations of their genetic test results just one of several influencing factors. Despite this variability, almost all participants adhered to cancer risk management advice, although different participants received different advice. All participants also communicated any cancer risk management advice to first-degree relatives, motivated by protecting them, but information communicated was not always consistent with advice received. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings highlight the variability in patients' interpretations of their diagnosis, cancer risk management and family communication when a diagnosis of SLS is received, and provide novel insights into how healthcare professionals can better support patients with SLS.

An RCT of a decision aid to support informed choices about taking aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer and other chronic diseases: a study protocol for the SITA (Should I Take Aspirin?) trial.

BACKGROUND: Australian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50-70 years old actively consider taking daily low-dose aspirin (100-300 mg per day) for 2.5 to 5 years to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the change of national CRC prevention guidelines, there has been no active implementation of the guidelines into clinical practice. We aim to test the efficacy of a health consultation and decision aid, using a novel expected frequency tree (EFT) to present the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin prior to a general practice consultation with patients aged 50-70 years, on informed decision-making and uptake of aspirin. METHODS: Approximately five to seven general practices in Victoria, Australia, will be recruited to participate. Patients 50-70 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner (GP) for any reason, will be invited to participate in the trial. Two hundred fifty-eight eligible participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to intervention or active control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice, sex, and mode of trial delivery (face-to-face or teletrial). There are two co-primary outcomes: informed decision-making at 1-month post randomisation, measured by the Multi-dimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), and self-reported daily use of aspirin at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict at 1-month and other behavioural changes to reduce CRC risk at both time points. DISCUSSION: This trial will test the efficacy of novel methods for implementing national guidelines to support informed decision-making about taking aspirin in 50-70-year-olds to reduce the risk of CRC and other chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620001003965 . Registered on 10 October 2020.

Newly diagnosed seizures assessed at two established first seizure clinics: Clinic characteristics, investigations, and findings over 11 years.

Objective: 'First seizure' clinics (FSCs) aim to achieve early expert assessment for individuals with possible new-onset epilepsy. These clinics also have substantial potential for research into epilepsy evolution, outcomes, and costs. However, a paucity of FSCs details has implications for interpretation and utilization of this research. Methods: We reviewed investigation findings over 11 years (2000-2010) from two established independent FSCs at Austin Health (AH) and Royal Melbourne Hospital (RMH), Australia. These adult clinics are in major public hospitals and operate with similar levels of expertise. Organizational differences include screening and dedicated administration at AH. Included were N = 1555 patients diagnosed with new-onset unprovoked seizures/epilepsy (AH n = 901, RMH n = 654). Protocol-driven interviews and investigations had been recorded prospectively and were extracted from medical records for study. Results: Median patient age was 37 (IQR 26-52, range 18-94) years (AH 34 vs RMH 42 years; P < .001). Eighty-six percent of patients attended FSC within three weeks postindex seizure (median AH 12 vs RMH 25 days; P < .01). By their first appointment, 42% had experienced ≥2 seizures. An EEG was obtained within three weeks postindex seizure in 73% of patients, demonstrating epileptiform discharges in 25% (AH 33% vs RMH 15%). Seventy-six percent of patients had an MRI within 6 weeks. Of those with imaging (n = 1500), 19% had potentially epileptogenic abnormalities (RMH 28% vs AH 12%; P < .01). At both sites, changes due to previous stroke/hemorrhage were the commonest lesions, followed by traumatic brain injury. ≥WHO level 1 brain tumors diagnosed at presentation comprised a very small proportion (<1%) at each clinic. At both sites, epilepsy type could be determined in 60% of patients; RMH had more focal and AH more generalized epilepsy diagnoses. Significance: Differences between the clinics' administrative and screening practices may contribute to differences in investigation findings. Insight into these differences will facilitate interpretation and utilization, and planning of future research.

Clinicians' opinions on recommending aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer to Australians aged 50-70 years: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Australian guidelines recommend all adults aged 50-70 years old without existing contraindications consider taking low-dose aspirin (100-300 mg per day) for at least 2.5 years to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer. We aimed to explore clinicians' practices, knowledge, opinions, and barriers and facilitators to the implementation of these new guidelines. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians to whom the new guidelines may be applicable (Familial Cancer Clinic staff (geneticists, oncologists and genetic counsellors), gastroenterologists, pharmacists and general practitioners (GPs)). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains: characteristics of the intervention, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics and process. RESULTS: Sixty-four interviews were completed between March and October 2019. Aspirin was viewed as a safe and cheap option for cancer prevention. GPs were considered by all clinicians as the most important health professionals for implementation of the guidelines. Cancer Council Australia, as a trusted organisation, was an important facilitator to guideline adoption. Uncertainty about aspirin dosage and perceived strength of the evidence, precise wording of the recommendation, previous changes to guidelines about aspirin and conflicting findings from trials in older populations were barriers to implementation. CONCLUSION: Widespread adoption of these new guidelines could be an important strategy to reduce the incidence of bowel cancer, but this will require more active implementation strategies focused on primary care and the wider community. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620001003965).

The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, population colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is based on age and family history, though more precise risk prediction could better target screening. We examined the impact of a CRC risk prediction model (incorporating age, sex, lifestyle, genomic, and family history factors) to target screening under several feasible screening scenarios. METHODS: We estimated the model's predicted CRC risk distribution in the Australian population. Predicted CRC risks were categorized into screening recommendations under 3 proposed scenarios to compare with current recommendations: 1) highly tailored, 2) 3 risk categories, and 3) 4 sex-specific risk categories. Under each scenario, for 35- to 74-year-olds, we calculated the number of CRC screens by immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT) and colonoscopy and the proportion of predicted CRCs over 10 years in each screening group. RESULTS: Currently, 1.1% of 35- to 74-year-olds are recommended screening colonoscopy and 56.2% iFOBT, and 5.7% and 83.2% of CRCs over 10 years were predicted to occur in these groups, respectively. For the scenarios, 1) colonoscopy was recommended to 8.1% and iFOBT to 37.5%, with 36.1% and 50.1% of CRCs in each group; 2) colonoscopy was recommended to 2.4% and iFOBT to 56.0%, with 13.2% and 76.9% of cancers in each group; and 3) colonoscopy was recommended to 5.0% and iFOBT to 54.2%, with 24.5% and 66.5% of cancers in each group. CONCLUSIONS: A highly tailored CRC screening scenario results in many fewer screens but more cancers in those unscreened. Category-based scenarios may provide a good balance between number of screens and cancers detected and are simpler to implement.

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.

Continuing a pregnancy after diagnosis of a lethal fetal abnormality: Views and perspectives of Australian health professionals and parents.

BACKGROUND: Couples who receive a prenatal diagnosis of a fetal anomaly in Victoria, Australia, are generally offered a choice about whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. When a severe or 'lethal' abnormality is diagnosed, some couples decide to continue the pregnancy in the knowledge that their baby may die before or shortly after birth. Several Australian parents who published personal accounts of that experience describe a lack of clear clinical pathways, suggesting those who decide to continue a pregnancy following a diagnosis of a 'lethal fetal abnormality' (LFA) may not be receiving optimal care. AIMS: This study aimed to provide empirical Australian evidence of views and experiences of care provision from health professionals (HPs) and parents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two sequential phases of this qualitative study purposively recruited a range of key HPs and parents. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Findings reveal that current care provision following prenatal diagnosis of an LFA is 'ad hoc' with both participant groups identifying disparities between parents' needs and available care. However, the goodwill and good intentions of all HPs involved was apparent. There was strong support from both groups for considering a model of perinatal palliative care (PPC) based on existing programs overseas. CONCLUSIONS: Future care provision in this setting needs to be redefined. A formal PPC program could ensure better and more consistent experiences of support for parents as well as the HPs working in the field.