Cancer in general practice research priorities in Australia.

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

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.

AIM: To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs. BACKGROUND: Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type. FINDINGS: Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.

SMARTERscreen protocol: a three-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of patient SMS messaging in general practice to increase participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Australia persistently has one of the highest rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world. Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) sends a biennial Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)-the 'NBCSP kit'-to everyone eligible for the programme between 50 and 74 years old; however, participation in the programme is low, especially in the 50- to 60-year-old age group. Our previous efficacy trial ('SMARTscreen') demonstrated an absolute increase in uptake of 16.5% (95% confidence interval = 2.02-30.9%) for people sent an SMS with motivational and instructional videos, from their general practice prior to receiving their NBCSP kit, compared to those receiving usual care. Building on the strengths of the SMARTscreen trial and addressing limitations, the 'SMARTERscreen' trial will test the effect on participation in the NBCSP of sending either an SMS only or an SMS with online video material to general practice patients due to receive their NBCSP compared to 'usual care'. METHODS: SMARTERscreen is a three-arm stratified cluster randomised controlled trial involving 63 general practices in two states in Australia. Eligible patients are patients who are aged 49-60 years and due to receive their NBCSP kit within the next 2 weeks during the intervention period. General practices will be equally randomised to three trial arms (21:21:21, estimated average 260 patients/practice). The two interventions include (i) an SMS with an encouraging message from their general practice or (ii) the same SMS with weblinks to additional motivational and instructional videos. The control arm will receive 'usual care'. Using the intention-to-treat approach, primary analysis will estimate the three pair-wise between-arm differences in the proportion of eligible patients who participate in the NBCSP within 6 months of when their kit is sent, utilising screening data from the Australian National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR). Patient intervention adherence to the interventions will also be evaluated. Findings will be incorporated into the Policy1-Bowel microsimulation model to estimate the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. DISCUSSION: SMARTERscreen will provide high-level evidence determining whether an SMS or an SMS with web-based material sent to general practice patients prior to receiving their NBCSP kit increases participation in bowel cancer screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000036617. Registered on 13 January 2023. Trial URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385119&isClinicalTrial=False.

Surveillance for liver cancer in primary care: A systematic review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In Australia, mortality rates for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are rising. Targeted surveillance is recommended to increase early diagnosis. The aim of this study was to synthesise evidence regarding HCC surveillance in primary care and identify barriers and facilitators to surveillance. METHOD: A systematic review was performed, with searches conducted in five biomedical databases, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination website and the grey literature. Study quality was assessed using the National Institute for Heath and Care Excellence (NICE) quality appraisal checklists. RESULTS: In all, 32 studies, focusing on viral hepatitis and cirrhosis patients, were included in the review. HCC surveillance rates were lower for patients managed by primary care providers (PCPs) than for those managed by gastroenterologists/hepatologists. HCC surveillance rates increased when additional support was provided to PCPs (eg reminder systems, nurse follow-up). Key barriers were a lack of awareness of HCC risks and surveillance recommendations, as well as competing priorities PCPs must address when working with patients with multimorbidity. DISCUSSION: HCC surveillance programs in primary care should be accompanied by additional support for PCPs and strategies to increase awareness of clinical recommendations.

The effect of time before diagnosis and treatment on colorectal cancer outcomes: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer. METHODS: Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose-response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose-response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days. CONCLUSION: The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis. REGISTRATION: This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864.

The nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research: A systematic review.

Patient and public involvement can produce high-quality, relevant research that better addresses the needs of patients and their families. This systematic review investigated the nature and impact of patient and public involvement in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research. Two patient representatives were involved as members of the review team. Databases (Medline, EMBASE, Emcare, Involve Evidence Library) were searched for English-language studies published 1995-March 2022. Titles/abstracts were screened by two reviewers independently. For eligible studies, data were extracted on study characteristics, patient and public involvement (who, when, how, and impact on research outcomes), and reporting quality using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2-Short Form. Of 4095 articles screened, 58 were eligible. Most research was from the United States (81%) and examined cancer screening or prevention (82%). Community members/organisations/public were the most involved (71%); fewer studies involved patients and/or carers (14%). Over half reported a high-level of involvement (i.e. partner and/or expert involvement), although this declined in later stages of the research cycle, e.g. data analysis. Common positive impacts included improved study design, research methods and recruitment, although most papers (62%) did not describe methods to determine impact. Reporting quality was sub-optimal, largely due to failure to consider challenges. This review found that high-level involvement of patients and the public in cancer prevention, screening and early detection research is feasible and has several advantages. However, improvements are needed to encourage involvement across the research cycle, and in evaluating and reporting its impact.

A systematic review of methodological considerations in time to diagnosis and treatment in colorectal cancer research.

Research focusing on timely diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer is necessary to improve outcomes for people with cancer. Previous attempts to consolidate research on time to diagnosis and treatment have noted varied methodological approaches and quality, limiting the comparability of findings. This systematic review was conducted to comprehensively assess the scope of methodological issues in this field and provide recommendations for future research. Eligible articles had to assess the role of any interval up to treatment, on any outcome in colorectal cancer, in English, with no limits on publication time. Four databases were searched (Ovid Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE and PsycInfo). Papers were screened by two independent reviewers using a two-stage process of title and abstract followed by full text review. In total, 130 papers were included and had data extracted on specific methodological and statistical features. Several methodological problems were identified across the evidence base. Common issues included arbitrary categorisation of intervals (n = 107, 83%), no adjustment for potential confounders (n = 65, 50%), and lack of justification for included covariates where there was adjustment (n = 40 of 65 papers that performed an adjusted analysis, 62%). Many articles introduced epidemiological biases such as immortal time bias (n = 37 of 80 papers that used survival as an outcome, 46%) and confounding by indication (n = 73, 56%), as well as other biases arising from inclusion of factors outside of their temporal sequence. However, determination of the full extent of these problems was hampered by insufficient reporting. Recommendations include avoiding artificial categorisation of intervals, ensuring bias has not been introduced due to out-of-sequence use of key events and increased use of theoretical frameworks to detect and reduce bias. The development of reporting guidelines and domain-specific risk of bias tools may aid in ensuring future research can reliably contribute to recommendations regarding optimal timing and strengthen the evidence base.

General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013-2019.

BACKGROUND: General practice plays a critical role in the prevention, diagnosis, management, and survivorship care of patients with cancer. Mapping research outputs over time provides valuable insights into the evolving role of general practice in cancer care. AIM: To describe and compare the distribution of cancer in general practice research publications by country, cancer type, area of the cancer continuum, author sex, and journal impact factor. DESIGN AND SETTING: A bibliometric analysis using a systematic approach to identify publications. METHOD: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for studies published between 2013 and 2019, which reported on cancer in general practice. Included studies were mapped to the cancer continuum framework. Descriptive statistics were used to present data from the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 2798 publications were included from 714 journals, spanning 79 countries. The publication rate remained stable over this period. Overall, the US produced the most publications (n = 886, 31.7%), although, per general population capita, Denmark produced nearly 10 times more publications than the US (20.0 publications per million compared with 2.7 publications per million). Research across the cancer continuum varied by country, but, overall, most studies focused on cancer screening, diagnosis, and survivorship. More than half of included studies used observational study designs (n = 1523, 54.4%). Females made up 66.5% (n = 1304) of first authors, but only 47.0% (n = 927) of last authors. CONCLUSION: Cancer in general practice is a stable field where research is predominantly observational. There is geographical variation in the focus of cancer in general practice research, which may reflect different priorities and levels of investment between countries. Overall, these results support future consideration of how to improve under-represented research areas and the design, conduct, and translation of interventional research.

Effectiveness and implementation of models of cancer survivorship care: an overview of systematic reviews.

PURPOSE: To critically assess the effectiveness and implementation of different models of post-treatment cancer survivorship care compared to specialist-led models of survivorship care assessed in published systematic reviews. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from January 2005 to May 2021. Systematic reviews that compared at least two models of cancer survivorship care were included. Article selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal were conducted independently by two authors. The models were evaluated according to cancer survivorship care domains, patient and caregiver experience, communication and decision-making, care coordination, quality of life, healthcare utilization, costs, and mortality. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were also synthesized. RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews were included, capturing 53 primary studies. Effectiveness for managing survivors' physical and psychosocial outcomes was found to be no different across models. Nurse-led and primary care provider-led models may produce cost savings to cancer survivors and healthcare systems. Barriers to the implementation of different models of care included limited resources, communication, and care coordination, while facilitators included survivor engagement, planning, and flexible services. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence regarding the equivalent effectiveness of nurse-led, primary care-led, or shared care models, these models are not widely adopted, and evidence-based recommendations to guide implementation are required. Further research is needed to address effectiveness in understudied domains of care and outcomes and across different population groups. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Rather than aiming for an optimal "one-size fits all" model of survivorship care, applying the most appropriate model in distinct contexts can improve outcomes and healthcare efficiency.

Interventions for head and neck cancer survivors: Systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Interventions for head/neck cancer (HNC) survivors may not address their cancer-related and general health needs. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guided this systematic review of studies from 2000 to 2021 of interventions targeting cancer survivors treated with curative-intent, using MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Interventions were categorized into domains of the Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework to characterize the scope and quality of interventions. RESULTS: We identified 28 studies for inclusion: 13 randomized and 15 non-randomized. Most targeted surveillance/management of physical effects (n = 24) including 13 that also targeted psychosocial effects. Four studies addressed prevention/surveillance for recurrence/new cancers, one addressed health promotion/disease prevention, and one addressed chronic medical conditions. Most studies (n = 27) had medium-high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: There are few high-quality studies addressing HNC survivorship. Future rigorously designed studies should address broader areas of care, including chronic disease management and health promotion/disease prevention.

Health care system factors influencing primary healthcare workers' engagement in national cancer screening programs: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore factors across the environment, organisation and care team levels of the health care system that influence the engagement of primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) in Australia's national cancer screening programs. METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with PHCWs - general practitioners (n=10), practices nurses (n=10), and practice managers (n=10) from settings across Australia. Transcripts were analysed using the Framework Method. RESULTS: Two environment-level factors were found to influence several organisation and care team level factors. Firstly, the financial structure of primary health care, impacting on practitioner: time, practice culture, screening knowledge and opportunistic conversations. Secondly, the structure of screening programs had flow-on effects for: access to patient screening records, recall and reminder systems, and sense of program ownership. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging more effective PHCW engagement in the screening programs requires the consideration and mitigation of overarching financial and structural barriers. Up-to-date and easy-to-use recall and reminder systems, whole-of-practice approaches which optimise the role of each PHCW and the identification of a 'champion' to drive implementation should be considered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: This study offers insights into what elements practice and practitioner targeted initiatives in Australia should incorporate, potentially leading to improved engagement of PHCWs and increased cancer screening participation rates.

Exploring the role of general practitioners in addressing financial toxicity in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity (FT) describes financial distress or hardship as an outcome of cancer and its treatment. Minimising the impact of FT requires early assessment and intervention. General practice plays a significant role in the support of a person with cancer and may have an important role in the management of FT. The purpose of this study was to understand perspectives of general practitioners (GP) on addressing FT in the primary care setting, which may then help inform strategies to further support collaborative efforts to address FT. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive approach was utilised for this study. GPs were recruited through a GP conference and other professional networks using purposive, snowballing sampling techniques. Data collection continued until sufficient rich data had been obtained. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using inductive analysis techniques. RESULTS: Twenty (n = 20) GPs participated in semi-structured in-depth telephone interviews. GPs identified that their role positions them well to provide some FT support, but there are limitations. Perceptions and philosophies about cancer management were drivers of referrals and financial conversations. Priorities for care of FT by GPs included improved cost information provision and accessible support. CONCLUSION: GPs can play an important role in helping to address FT associated with cancer and its treatments if supported with the right information.

Long-term consumer involvement in cancer research: Working towards partnership.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful consumer involvement in health research is important. There are limited data on how to maintain long-term consumer involvement. OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful long-term consumer involvement in research. DESIGN: Six semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) Community Advisory Group (CAG) and included the review of 40 supporting documents. Interviews and documents were analysed using inductive thematic analysis; the themes were mapped onto the domains of Cancer Australia's National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control. RESULTS: Equality, respect and feeling valued were facilitators to long-term involvement. These elements were part of an overarching theme of organizational commitment. Creating balance, managing competing deadlines and integrating a consumer role with a personal life were key barriers to involvement. These themes mapped strongly to the National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control domains of committed organizations, capable consumers, inclusive groups and shared focus. CONCLUSION: Research networks should reflect on several factors to maintain long-term consumer involvement. Networks should aim to build a meaningful relationship, using clear communication and education, that reinforces the value and scope of a consumers contributions. We found that consumer education needs do not diminish over time and adequate skill development, support and feedback need to be on-going. Creating regular opportunities for feedback and reflection are important to continue to meet best practice guidelines.

Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Lower Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Lower gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are a major cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Prognosis improves with earlier diagnosis, and non-invasive biomarkers have the potential to aid with early detection. Substantial investment has been made into the development of biomarkers; however, studies are often carried out in specialist settings and few have been evaluated for low-prevalence populations. METHODS: We aimed to identify novel biomarkers for the detection of lower GI cancers that have the potential to be evaluated for use in primary care. MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2019. Reference lists of included studies were also assessed. Studies had to report on measures of diagnostic performance for biomarkers (single or in panels) used to detect colorectal or anal cancers. We included all designs and excluded studies with fewer than 50 cases/controls. Data were extracted from published studies on types of biomarkers, populations and outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used, and measures of specificity and sensitivity were meta-analysed where possible. RESULTS: We identified 142 studies reporting on biomarkers for lower GI cancers, for 24,844 cases and 45,374 controls. A total of 378 unique biomarkers were identified. Heterogeneity of study design, population type and sample source precluded meta-analysis for all markers except methylated septin 9 (mSEPT9) and pyruvate kinase type tumour M2 (TuM2-PK). The estimated sensitivity and specificity of mSEPT9 was 80.6% (95% CI 76.6-84.0%) and 88.0% (95% CI 79.1-93.4%) respectively; TuM2-PK had an estimated sensitivity of 81.6% (95% CI 75.2-86.6%) and specificity of 80.1% (95% CI 76.7-83.0%). CONCLUSION: Two novel biomarkers (mSEPT9 and TuM2-PK) were identified from the literature with potential for use in lower-prevalence populations. Further research is needed to validate these biomarkers in primary care for screening and assessment of symptomatic patients.

Identifying Novel Biomarkers Ready for Evaluation in Low-Prevalence Populations for the Early Detection of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Detecting upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers in primary care is challenging, as cancer symptoms are common, often non-specific, and most patients presenting with these symptoms will not have cancer. Substantial investment has been made to develop biomarkers for cancer detection, but few have reached routine clinical practice. We aimed to identify novel biomarkers for upper GI cancers which have been sufficiently validated to be ready for evaluation in low-prevalence populations. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, and Web of Science for studies published in English from January 2000 to October 2019 (PROSPERO registration CRD42020165005). Reference lists of included studies were assessed. Studies had to report on second measures of diagnostic performance (beyond discovery phase) for biomarkers (single or in panels) used to detect pancreatic, oesophageal, gastric, and biliary tract cancers. We included all designs and excluded studies with less than 50 cases/controls. Data were extracted on types of biomarkers, populations and outcomes. Heterogeneity prevented pooling of outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 149 eligible studies, involving 22,264 cancer cases and 49,474 controls. A total of 431 biomarkers were identified (183 microRNAs and other RNAs, 79 autoantibodies and other immunological markers, 119 other proteins, 36 metabolic markers, 6 circulating tumour DNA and 8 other). Over half (n = 231) were reported in pancreatic cancer studies. Only 35 biomarkers had been investigated in at least two studies, with reported outcomes for that individual marker for the same tumour type. Apolipoproteins (apoAII-AT and apoAII-ATQ), and pepsinogens (PGI and PGII) were the most promising biomarkers for pancreatic and gastric cancer, respectively. CONCLUSION: Most novel biomarkers for the early detection of upper GI cancers are still at an early stage of matureness. Further evidence is needed on biomarker performance in low-prevalence populations, in addition to implementation and health economic studies, before extensive adoption into clinical practice can be recommended.

Look who's talking now: Cancer in primary care on Twitter. An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Twitter is a microblogging platform that helps share information. It is a dynamic tool that has been embraced by many user types including consumers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Currently, there are no data on how cancer in primary care features on Twitter. AIM: To explore the type of users and information shared about cancer in primary care on Twitter. DESIGN & SETTING: A descriptive exploratory study took place of publicly available Twitter data. METHOD: Tweets were searched between July 2015 and June 2017 for 'GP', 'general practice', 'primary care', or 'general practitioner' in conjunction with 'cancer'. A 20% random sample was coded for geographic location, user type, type of tweet, and theme. Tweet sentiment was analysed using R package sentimentr. Content that gained traction was compared by combining original tweets, retweets, favourites, and duration. RESULTS: There were a total of 3413 tweets from 1611 users in 44 countries. Consumers were the largest user group followed by health organisations, healthcare professionals, and the media. The most common theme across user types was diagnostic delay. Other themes that emerged included cancer screening, symptom awareness, and early diagnosis. Consumers published more negative tweets, particularly in relation to diagnostic delay. Health organisations focused on symptom awareness and screening. Over half of media tweets were stories that featured delayed diagnosis or screening. CONCLUSION: A broad range of users engage with Twitter to share information about cancer in primary care. Content is different between user groups, but diagnostic delay and symptom awareness are common themes. Healthcare and professional organisations may need to consider approaches to counter negative messages about diagnostic delay.

Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis. AIM: To investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018. METHOD: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper. RESULTS: Of the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP's role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow. CONCLUSION: eCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

General practitioners' management of cancers in Australian adolescents and young adults.

General practitioners (GPs) are often the first point of contact adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 10-29) with cancer have with the health system, and they are well-placed to coordinate their complex medical and psychosocial care. This study is the first to report characteristics of patients, GPs and cancers involved in AYA cancer management consultations in Australia, using data from a nationally representative sample of 972,100 patient-GP encounters in 2006-2016. AYA cancers were managed in 212 encounters, equating to approximately 137 per 100,000 AYA consultations. This rate was higher in older AYAs (25-29 years) and those who held a concession card. Approximately 30% of cancers managed were classified as "new", with GPs primarily providing counselling, education, and referrals to specialist care, imaging and pathology. This suggests that GPs are involved in the ongoing care of AYAs with cancer from diagnosis, in conjunction with other healthcare professionals. This is an encouraging indication of the potential for integrated multidisciplinary care extending from active treatment into survivorship; however, further work is needed to explore the changing role of GPs across the cancer trajectory.

DogMATIC--A Remote Biospecimen Collection Kit for Biobanking.

Canine tumors are valuable comparative oncology models. This research was designed to create a sustainable biobank of canine mammary tumors for breast cancer research. The aim was to provide a well-characterized sample cohort for specimen sharing, data mining, and long-term research aims. Canine mammary tumors are most frequently managed at a local veterinary clinic or hospital. We adopted a biobank framework based on a large number of participating veterinary hospitals and clinics acting as collection centers that were serviced by a centralized storage facility. Recruitment was targeted at rural veterinary clinics. A tailored, stable collection kit (DogMATIC) was designed that was used by veterinarians in remote or rural locations to collect both fresh and fixed tissue for submission to the biobank. To validate this methodology the kit design, collection rate, and sample quality were analyzed. The Australian Veterinary Cancer Biobank was established as a network of 47 veterinary clinics and three veterinary pathology laboratories spanning over 200,000 km(2). In the first 12 months, 30 canine mammary tumor cases were submitted via the DogMATIC kit. Pure intact RNA was isolated in over 80% of samples with an average yield of 14.49 µg. A large network biobank, utilizing off-site collection with the DogMATIC kit, was successfully coordinated. The creation of the Australian Veterinary Cancer Biobank has established a long-term, sustainable, comparative oncology research resource in Australia. There are broader implications for biobanking with this very different form of collection and banking.