Co-design of patient information leaflets for germline predisposition to cancer: recommendations for clinical practice from the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) funded CanGene-CanVar Programme and the Association of Genetic Nurse Counsellors (AGNC).

BACKGROUND: Testing for germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in cancer predisposition genes is increasingly offered as part of routine care for patients with cancer. This is often urgent in oncology clinics due to potential implications on treatment and surgical decisions. This also allows identification of family members who should be offered predictive genetic testing. In the UK, it is common practice for healthcare professionals to provide a patient information leaflet (PIL) at point of care for diagnostic genetic testing in patients with cancer, after results disclosure when a GPV is identified, and for predictive testing of at-risk relatives. Services usually create their own PIL, resulting in duplication of effort and wide variability regarding format, content, signposting and patient input in co-design and evaluation. METHODS: Representatives from UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) funded CanGene-CanVar programme and Association of Genetic Nurse Counsellors (AGNC) held a 2-day meeting with the aim of making recommendations for clinical practice regarding co-design of PIL for germline cancer susceptibility genetic testing. Lynch syndrome and haematological malignancies were chosen as exemplar conditions. RESULTS: Meeting participants included patient representatives including as co-chair, multidisciplinary clinicians and other experts from across the UK. High-level consensus for UK recommendations for clinical practice was reached on several aspects of PIL using digital polling, including that PIL should be offered, accessible, co-designed and evaluated with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations from the meeting are likely to be applicable for PIL co-design for a wide range of germline genetic testing scenarios.

'A good decision is the one that feels right for me': Codesign with patients to inform theoretical underpinning of a decision aid website.

INTRODUCTION: Patient decision aids (PtDA) complement shared decision-making with healthcare professionals and improve decision quality. However, PtDA often lack theoretical underpinning. We are codesigning a PtDA to help people with increased genetic cancer risks manage choices. The aim of an innovative workshop described here was to engage with the people who will use the PtDA regarding the theoretical underpinning and logic model outlining our hypothesis of how the PtDA would lead to more informed decision-making. METHODS: Short presentations about psychological and behavioural theories by an expert were interspersed with facilitated, small-group discussions led by patients. Patients were asked what is important to them when they make health decisions, what theoretical constructs are most meaningful and how this should be applied to codesign of a PtDA. An artist created a visual summary. Notes from patient discussions and the artwork were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The overarching theme was: It's personal. Contextual factors important for decision-making were varied and changed over time. There was no one 'best fit' theory to target support needs in a PtDA, suggesting an inductive, flexible framework approach to programme theory would be most effective. The PtDA logic model was revised based on patient feedback. CONCLUSION: Meaningful codesign of PtDA including discussions about the theoretical mechanisms through which they support decision-making has the potential to lead to improved patient care through understanding the intricately personal nature of health decisions, and tailoring content and format for holistic care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients with lived experience were involved in codesign and coproduction of this workshop and analysis as partners and coauthors. Patient discussions were the primary data source. Facilitators provided a semi-structured guide, but they did not influence the patient discussions or provide clinical advice. The premise of this workshop was to prioritise the importance of patient lived experience: to listen, learn, then reflect together to understand and propose ideas to improve patient care through codesign of a PtDA.

Utility of polygenic risk scores in UK cancer screening: a modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is proposed that, through restriction to individuals delineated as high risk, polygenic risk scores (PRSs) might enable more efficient targeting of existing cancer screening programmes and enable extension into new age ranges and disease types. To address this proposition, we present an overview of the performance of PRS tools (ie, models and sets of single nucleotide polymorphisms) alongside harms and benefits of PRS-stratified cancer screening for eight example cancers (breast, prostate, colorectal, pancreas, ovary, kidney, lung, and testicular cancer). METHODS: For this modelling analysis, we used age-stratified cancer incidences for the UK population from the National Cancer Registration Dataset (2016-18) and published estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for current, future, and optimised PRS for each of the eight cancer types. For each of five PRS-defined high-risk quantiles (ie, the top 50%, 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1%) and according to each of the three PRS tools (ie, current, future, and optimised) for the eight cancers, we calculated the relative proportion of cancers arising, the odds ratios of a cancer arising compared with the UK population average, and the lifetime cancer risk. We examined maximal attainable rates of cancer detection by age stratum from combining PRS-based stratification with cancer screening tools and modelled the maximal impact on cancer-specific survival of hypothetical new UK programmes of PRS-stratified screening. FINDINGS: The PRS-defined high-risk quintile (20%) of the population was estimated to capture 37% of breast cancer cases, 46% of prostate cancer cases, 34% of colorectal cancer cases, 29% of pancreatic cancer cases, 26% of ovarian cancer cases, 22% of renal cancer cases, 26% of lung cancer cases, and 47% of testicular cancer cases. Extending UK screening programmes to a PRS-defined high-risk quintile including people aged 40-49 years for breast cancer, 50-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 60-69 years for prostate cancer has the potential to avert, respectively, a maximum of 102, 188, and 158 deaths annually. Unstratified screening of the full population aged 48-49 years for breast cancer, 58-59 years for colorectal cancer, and 68-69 years for prostate cancer would use equivalent resources and avert, respectively, an estimated maximum of 80, 155, and 95 deaths annually. These maximal modelled numbers will be substantially attenuated by incomplete population uptake of PRS profiling and cancer screening, interval cancers, non-European ancestry, and other factors. INTERPRETATION: Under favourable assumptions, our modelling suggests modest potential efficiency gain in cancer case detection and deaths averted for hypothetical new PRS-stratified screening programmes for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Restriction of screening to high-risk quantiles means many or most incident cancers will arise in those assigned as being low-risk. To quantify real-world clinical impact, costs, and harms, UK-specific cluster-randomised trials are required. FUNDING: The Wellcome Trust.

Initiatives to enhance the quality and efficiency of statin and PPI prescribing in the UK: impact and implications.

AIM: To assess the impact of a range of national and regional initiatives introduced in the North Lancashire Teaching Primary Care Trust (NLTPCT) since 2004 to enhance the quality and efficiency of prescribing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), statins and ezetimibe. In addition, to suggest additional measures that could be introduced in NLTPCT to further enhance the quality and efficiency of prescribing based on initiatives in other European countries. METHOD: A before-and-after observational study was undertaken on the utilization and expenditure of prescriptions dispensed in ambulatory care in NLTPCT from 2004 to 2007. Utilization was assessed using 'defined daily doses' (DDDs) and 'DDDs/1000 inhabitants per day' and compared over the study period. Reimbursed expenditure was assessed in terms of overall expenditure, expenditure/DDD, as well as expenditure/1000 inhabitants per year. RESULTS: The combination of measures and initiatives enhanced the utilization of generic PPIs. International Nonproprietary Name (INN) prescribing of omeprazole reached 98% of all omeprazole by 2007. The measures also resulted in limited utilization of esomeprazole and lowered reimbursed expenditure/DDD of generic omeprazole to GB pound0.13 by 2007. This was 87% below 2004 originator prices, leading to a 41% fall in PPI expenditure during the study period despite increased utilization. Utilization of statins grew by over 130% during the study period enhanced by increased utilization of high doses of simvastatin and atorvastatin following the introduction of the quality and outcomes framework. Simvastatin dominated statin utilization by 2007, with generic simvastatin accounting for over 99.5% of total simvastatin. Reimbursed expenditure/DDD for generic simvastatin was pound0.03 in 2007, 95% below 2004 originator prices, leading to a fall in overall expenditure on statins. It proved difficult to undertake an impact analysis as, typically, a range of measures were introduced sequentially and simultaneously during the study period. CONCLUSION: The findings are in line with expectations and do provide examples to other European countries. This includes a high rate of INN prescribing, low reimbursed prices for generic simvastatin and omeprazole and growing utilization of higher strength statins. The high rate of INN prescribing reduces the need for additional measures that have been instigated in other European countries to further enhance the prescribing and dispensing of generics to fully realize the resource benefits. Additional demand side measures are feasible and have already been instigated to conserve resources.