The role of the genetic testing industry in patient education of hereditary cancer: An observational study assessing the quality of patient education videos.

OBJECTIVES: Genetic testing (GT) companies have developed patient education videos to supplement or replace pre-test genetic counseling (GC) by certified genetic counselors (CGC). The aim of this study was to assess the quality of these videos compared to the standard of care (SOC). METHODS: Videos from four major GT companies were selected from an internet search identifying pre-test patient education videos. A scoring rubric with 22 questions and 36 total points was devised to assess quality metrics, as described by the National Cancer Institute and National Society of Genetic Counselors. Twenty-two individuals with varying genetics expertise (3 gynecologic oncologists, 3 academic generalists, 4 CGC, a genetics community health worker, 3 cancer care navigators, and 8 medical students) scored each video. Scorers were blinded to others' assessments. RESULTS: Invitae had the highest median score (26/36), followed by Myriad (22/36), Ambry (17.5/36), and Color (15/36). All videos scored highly in explaining DNA basics, cancer development, and hereditary cancer predisposition. All addressed benefits of GT but failed to address potential disadvantages. All scored poorly in explaining medical terms and different GT options. There was variability in addressing patient concerns including cost, privacy, and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the content of pre-test patient education videos between GT companies. None of the videos met the SOC for pre-test GC, and none addressed disadvantages of GT, possibly due to a conflict of interest. With improvement in content, accessibility, and use of interactive platforms, these videos may serve as an adjunct to in-person pre-test GC.

Merkel Cell Carcinoma: rising incidence in the East of England.

BACKGROUND: Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC) is an infrequent but highly aggressive skin cancer. Five-year survival rates are poor, as there are high rates of metastases at primary diagnoses. Recurrences are also common. There is controversy about actual incidence rates which vary considerably between developed countries with majority populations of fair skin types. OBJECTIVES: We report the age-standardized incidence rates of MCC for both males and females from the East of England, and use linear regression analyses to estimate numbers of cases for 2020 and 2025 to aid healthcare planning and allocation of resources. METHODS: All cases of MCC diagnosed histopathologically between 1st January 2004 and 31st December 2013 were extracted from the databases of the Eastern Office, National Cancer Registration Service, Public Health England, and the Pathology department of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, which serves as the tertiary referral centre for the region. Age-standardization incidence rate calculations (ASIs) and linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: The ASIs for males and females were 0.70 and 1.08 per 100 000 person-years respectively. The total age-adjusted incidence rate was therefore 1.78 per 100 000 person-years. The ratio of female: male disease was 3:2. The total number of cases for this region over the time period studied was 73. There has been a threefold increase over this period. Estimated cases for this region are 17 in 2020, and 22 in 2025. Estimated UK cases for 2020 are 920, and 1134 in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: MCC is increasing steadily in the East of England, and has risen threefold over the last 10 years and is similar to the highest reported rates from Western Australia. These data are 12-fold higher than previous UK estimates, and suggest that the incidence rate is also rising in other regions of the UK.

Estimating the potential survival gains by eliminating socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis of melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Although inequalities in cancer survival are thought to reflect inequalities in stage at diagnosis, little evidence exists about the size of potential survival gains from eliminating inequalities in stage at diagnosis. METHODS: We used data on patients diagnosed with malignant melanoma in the East of England (2006-2010) to estimate the number of deaths that could be postponed by completely eliminating socioeconomic and sex differences in stage at diagnosis after fitting a flexible parametric excess mortality model. RESULTS: Stage was a strong predictor of survival. There were pronounced socioeconomic and sex inequalities in the proportion of patients diagnosed at stages III-IV (12 and 8% for least deprived men and women and 25 and 18% for most deprived men and women, respectively). For an annual cohort of 1025 incident cases in the East of England, eliminating sex and deprivation differences in stage at diagnosis would postpone approximately 24 deaths to beyond 5 years from diagnosis. Using appropriate weighting, the equivalent estimate for England would be around 215 deaths, representing 11% of all deaths observed within 5 years from diagnosis in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing socioeconomic and sex inequalities in stage at diagnosis would result in substantial reductions in deaths within 5 years of a melanoma diagnosis.

The impact of eliminating age inequalities in stage at diagnosis on breast cancer survival for older women.

BACKGROUND: Older women with breast cancer have poorer relative survival outcomes, but whether achieving earlier stage at diagnosis would translate to substantial reductions in mortality is uncertain. METHODS: We analysed data on East of England women with breast cancer (2006-2010) aged 70+ years. We estimated survival for different stage-deprivation-age group strata using both the observed and a hypothetical stage distribution (assuming that all women aged 75+ years acquired the stage distribution of those aged 70-74 years). We subsequently estimated deaths that could be postponed beyond 5 years from diagnosis if women aged 75+ years had the hypothetical stage distribution. We projected findings to the English population using appropriate age and socioeconomic group weights. RESULTS: For a typically sized annual cohort in the East of England, 27 deaths in women with breast cancer aged 75+ years can be postponed within 5 years from diagnosis if their stage distribution matched that of the women aged 70-74 years (4.8% of all 566 deaths within 5 years post diagnosis in this population). Under assumptions, we estimate that the respective number for England would be 280 deaths (5.0% of all deaths within 5 years post diagnosis in this population). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support ongoing development of targeted campaigns aimed at encouraging prompt presentation in older women.

Changing presentation of prostate cancer in a UK population--10 year trends in prostate cancer risk profiles in the East of England.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer incidence is rising in the United Kingdom but there is little data on whether the disease profile is changing. To address this, we interrogated a regional cancer registry for temporal changes in presenting disease characteristics. METHODS: Prostate cancers diagnosed from 2000 to 2010 in the Anglian Cancer Network (n=21,044) were analysed. Risk groups (localised disease) were assigned based on NICE criteria. Age standardised incidence rates (IRs) were compared between 2000-2005 and 2006-2010 and plotted for yearly trends. RESULTS: Over the decade, overall IR increased significantly (P<0.00001), whereas metastasis rates fell (P<0.0007). For localised disease, IR across all risk groups also increased but at different rates (P<0.00001). The most striking change was a three-fold increase in intermediate-risk cancers. Increased IR was evident across all PSA and stage ranges but with no upward PSA or stage shift. In contrast, IR of histological diagnosis of low-grade cancers fell over the decade, whereas intermediate and high-grade diagnosis increased significantly (P<0.00001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests evidence of a significant upward migration in intermediate and high-grade histological diagnosis over the decade. This is most likely to be due to a change in histological reporting of diagnostic prostate biopsies. On the basis of this data, increasing proportions of newly diagnosed cancers will be considered eligible for radical treatment, which will have an impact on health resource planning and provision.

How much of the deprivation gap in cancer survival can be explained by variation in stage at diagnosis: an example from breast cancer in the East of England.

Socioeconomic differences in cancer patient survival exist in many countries and across cancer sites. In our article, we estimated the number of deaths in women with breast cancer that could be avoided within 5 years from diagnosis if it were possible to eliminate socioeconomic differences in stage at diagnosis. We analysed data on East of England women with breast cancer (2006-2010). We estimated survival for different stage-age-deprivation strata using both the observed and a hypothetical stage distribution (assuming all women acquired the stage distribution of the most affluent women). Data were analysed on 20,738 women with complete stage information (92%). Affluent women were less likely to be diagnosed in advanced stage. Relative survival decreased with increasing level of deprivation. Eliminating differences in stage at diagnosis could be expected to nearly eliminate differences in relative survival for women in deprivation groups 3 and 4, but would only approximately halve the difference in relative survival for women in the most deprived group (5). This means, for a typical cohort of women diagnosed in a calendar year with breast cancer, eliminating deprivation differences in stage at diagnosis would prevent ∼40 deaths in the East of England from occurring within 5 years from diagnosis. Using appropriate weighting we estimated the respective number of avoidable deaths for the whole of England to be ∼450. The findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing inequalities in stage at diagnosis between women with breast cancer are important to reduce inequalities in breast cancer survival.

Basal cell carcinoma epidemiology in the UK: the elephant in the room.

BACKGROUND: UK Cancer registries have difficulties in recording the incidence of basal cell carcinoma (BCC). AIM: To estimate the total numbers of BCCs in the UK requiring surgical treatment. METHODS: The histopathology records of each year from 1999 to 2010 were examined to estimate the total annual numbers of BCCs and of people with BCC in the East Norfolk and Waveney area of the UK. RESULTS: Over this period, the numbers of patients with surgically treated BCCs increased by 81%, and the numbers of BCCs by 70%. The ratio of BCCs recorded by the cancer registry was 2-2.2 times lower than that recorded in the histopathology data. Extrapolating the data to the UK population suggests that in 2010, approximately 200,000 patients had 247,000 BCCs treated surgically (this estimate does not include those treated by other means such as cryotherapy, topical chemotherapy, photodynamic therapy or radiotherapy, without histology). In 2008, 114,000 nonmelanoma skin cancers were registered in England and Wales and 309,000 total cancers (excluding nonmelanoma skin cancers) were registered in the UK. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that in the UK, BCC is nearly as common as all other cancers in all other body sites combined.

Socio-demographic inequalities in stage of cancer diagnosis: evidence from patients with female breast, lung, colon, rectal, prostate, renal, bladder, melanoma, ovarian and endometrial cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding socio-demographic inequalities in stage at diagnosis can inform priorities for cancer control. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed data on the stage at diagnosis of East of England patients diagnosed with any of 10 common cancers, 2006-2010. Stage information was available on 88 657 of 98 942 tumours (89.6%). RESULTS: Substantial socio-demographic inequalities in advanced stage at diagnosis (i.e. stage III/IV) existed for seven cancers, but their magnitude and direction varied greatly by cancer: advanced stage at diagnosis was more likely for older patients with melanoma but less likely for older patients with lung cancer [odds ratios for 75-79 versus 65-69 1.60 (1.38-1.86) and 0.83 (0.77-0.89), respectively]. Deprived patients were more likely to be diagnosed in advanced stage for melanoma, prostate, endometrial and (female) breast cancer: odds ratios (most versus least deprived quintile) from 2.24 (1.66-3.03) for melanoma to 1.31 (1.15-1.49) for breast cancer. In England, elimination of socio-demographic inequalities in stage at diagnosis could decrease the number of patients with cancer diagnosed in advanced stage by ∼5600 annually. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial socio-demographic inequalities in stage at diagnosis for most cancers. Earlier detection interventions and policies can be targeted on patients at higher risk of advanced stage diagnosis.

PREDICT Plus: development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast cancer that includes HER2.

BACKGROUND: Predict (www.predict.nhs.uk) is an online, breast cancer prognostication and treatment benefit tool. The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of HER2 status in a new version (Predict+), and to compare its performance with the original Predict and Adjuvant!. METHODS: The prognostic effect of HER2 status was based on an analysis of data from 10 179 breast cancer patients from 14 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. The hazard ratio estimates were incorporated into Predict. The validation study was based on 1653 patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer identified from the British Columbia Breast Cancer Outcomes Unit. Predicted overall survival (OS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) for Predict+, Predict and Adjuvant! were compared with observed outcomes. RESULTS: All three models performed well for both OS and BCSS. Both Predict models provided better BCSS estimates than Adjuvant!. In the subset of patients with HER2-positive tumours, Predict+ performed substantially better than the other two models for both OS and BCSS. CONCLUSION: Predict+ is the first clinical breast cancer prognostication tool that includes tumour HER2 status. Use of the model might lead to more accurate absolute treatment benefit predictions for individual patients.

Variation in advanced stage at diagnosis of lung and female breast cancer in an English region 2006-2009.

BACKGROUND: Understanding variation in stage at diagnosis can inform interventions to improve the timeliness of diagnosis for patients with different cancers and characteristics. METHODS: We analysed population-based data on 17,836 and 13,286 East of England residents diagnosed with (female) breast and lung cancer during 2006-2009, with stage information on 16,460 (92%) and 10,435 (79%) patients, respectively. Odds ratios (ORs) of advanced stage at diagnosis adjusted for patient and tumour characteristics were derived using logistic regression. RESULTS: We present adjusted ORs of diagnosis in stages III/IV compared with diagnosis in stages I/II. For breast cancer, the frequency of advanced stage at diagnosis increased stepwise among old women (ORs: 1.21, 1.46, 1.68 and 1.78 for women aged 70-74, 75-79, 80-84 and ≥85, respectively, compared with those aged 65-69 , P<0.001). In contrast, for lung cancer advanced stage at diagnosis was less frequent in old patients (ORs: 0.82, 0.74, 0.73 and 0.66, P<0.001). Advanced stage at diagnosis was more frequent in more deprived women with breast cancer (OR: 1.23 for most compared with least deprived, P=0.002), and in men with lung cancer (OR: 1.14, P=0.011). The observed patterns were robust to sensitivity analyses approaches for handling missing stage data under different assumptions. CONCLUSION: Interventions to help improve the timeliness of diagnosis of different cancers should be targeted at specific age groups.

The incidence of basal cell carcinoma in the under-30s in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the commonest cancer in many countries, but the current incidence in young people from the UK is unknown. AIM: To ascertain a recent incidence of BCC in the under-30 population in the UK. Methods. Cancer registry data from part of the Eastern Region of the UK was analysed for two periods: 1981-1989 and 1998-2006. Case notes were examined for a cohort of the patients from 1998 to 2006. RESULTS: The incidence of BCC increased from 0.73 to 1.79 per 100 000 in those aged < 30 years over the study period. More than half (55%) of BCCs were on the head and neck, and the most common histological subtype was superficial BCC (38%). CONCLUSIONS: The reported incidence of BCC in those aged < 30 years has increased by 145% during this period, corresponding to an average annual increase of 8.53%. This may be partially due to earlier presentation and to increased use of surgical treatments.

The association of diagnosis in the private or NHS sector on prostate cancer stage and treatment.

BACKGROUND: To examine associations of private healthcare with stage and management of prostate cancer. METHODS: Regional population-based cancer registry information on 15 916 prostate cancer patients. RESULTS: Compared with patients diagnosed in the National Health Service (NHS) (94%), those diagnosed in private hospitals (5%) were significantly more affluent (69 versus 52% in deprivation quintiles 1-2), younger (mean 69 versus 73 years) and diagnosed at earlier stage (72 versus 79% in Stages

A population-based validation of the prognostic model PREDICT for early breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Predict (www.predict.nhs.uk) is a prognostication and treatment benefit tool developed using UK cancer registry data. The aim of this study was to compare the 10-year survival estimates from Predict with observed 10-year outcome from a British Columbia dataset and to compare the estimates with those generated by Adjuvant! (www.adjuvantonline.com). METHOD: The analysis was based on data from 3140 patients with early invasive breast cancer diagnosed in British Columbia, Canada, from 1989-1993. Demographic, pathologic, staging and treatment data were used to predict 10-year overall survival (OS) and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) using Adjuvant! and Predict models. Predicted outcomes from both models were then compared with observed outcomes. RESULTS: Calibration of both models was excellent. The difference in total number of deaths estimated by Predict was 4.1 percent of observed compared to 0.7 percent for Adjuvant!. The total number of breast cancer specific deaths estimated by Predict was 3.4 percent of observed compared to 6.7 percent for Adjuvant! Both models also discriminate well with similar AUC for Predict and Adjuvant! respectively for both OS (0.709 vs 0.712) and BCSS (0.723 vs 0.727). Neither model performed well in women aged 20-35. CONCLUSION: In summary Predict provided accurate overall and breast cancer specific survival estimates in the British Columbia dataset that are comparable with outcome estimates from Adjuvant! Both models appear well calibrated with similar model discrimination. This study provides further validation of Predict as an effective predictive tool following surgery for invasive breast cancer.

How safe is it to transplant organs from deceased donors with primary intracranial malignancy? An analysis of UK Registry data.

Patients dying from primary intracranial malignancy are a potential source of organs for transplantation. However, a perceived risk of tumor transfer to the organ recipient has limited their use. We evaluated the risk of tumor transmission by reviewing the incidence in patients transplanted in the UK. Information from the UK Transplant Registry was combined with that from the national cancer registries of England, Wales and Northern Ireland to identify all organ donors between 1985 and 2001 inclusive with a primary intracranial malignancy and to identify the occurrence of posttransplant malignancy in the recipients of the organs transplanted. Of 11,799 organ donors in the study period, 179 were identified as having had a primary intracranial malignancy, including 33 with high-grade malignancy (24 grade IV gliomas and 9 medulloblastomas). A total of 448 recipients of 495 organs from 177 of these donors were identified. No transmission of donor intracranial malignancy occurred. Organs from patients dying from primary intracranial malignancy, including those with high-grade tumors, should be considered for transplantation and the small risk of tumor transmission should be balanced against the likely mortality for potential recipients who remain on the transplant waiting list.

Multiple primary malignancies in patients with Merkel cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a rare malignant cutaneous tumour, the incidence of which is increasing. Second malignancies have been reported to occur with high incidence in these patients. OBJECTIVES: We report the rate and nature of multiple malignancies in patients with MCC treated over a 10 year period in Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge, United Kingdom, as well as the temporal relationship of these additional malignancies to the diagnosis of MCC. RESULTS: The 27 patients had an approximately equal sex incidence with a median age at diagnosis of 79 years. Seventy percent (n=19) of patients had a second primary malignant tumour; and 7 of these patients had two or more tumours in addition to the MCC. Eighteen patients had additional cutaneous malignancies: melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma, and 8 patients presented non-cutaneous malignancy including colorectal, haematological and breast tumours. Of the 28 additional tumours in our patients, half were diagnosed prior to presentation of MCC, 32% within 6 months of diagnosis, and 18% between 6 months and 3 years after diagnosis. Possible reasons for the high rate of additional tumours in this population are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Our figures reflect a higher incidence of multiple malignancies in those with Merkel cell tumour than has previously been reported. This has important implications for the care and surveillance of these patients.

Treatment and survival in breast cancer in the Eastern Region of England.

BACKGROUND: The reasons for variation in survival in breast cancer are multifactorial. METHODS: From 1999 to 2003, the vital status of 9051 cases of invasive breast cancer was identified in the Eastern Region of England. Survival analysis was by Cox proportional hazards regression. Data were analysed separately for patients aged <70 years and those older due to differences in treatment policies. RESULTS: Overall 5-year survival was 78%. In patients aged <70 years, significant differences in survival lost their formal significance after adjustment for detection mode and node status, although this remained close to statistical significance with some residual differences between relative hazards. There was significant negative ecological correlation between proportion with nodes positive or not examined and 9-year survival rates. Patients with estrogen receptor (ER) status unknown were at significantly higher risk of dying than ER-positive patients. There was a clear trend of increasing hazard of dying with increasing deprivation. Survival differences in women aged > or =70 years were related to whether surgery was included as part of treatment. CONCLUSION: This variation in treatment and survival may be attributed to lack of information, in particular nodal and ER status, thereby impacting on staging and prescription of adjuvant therapy.

Radiological staging in breast cancer: which asymptomatic patients to image and how.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 4% of patients diagnosed with early breast cancer have occult metastases at presentation. Current national and international guidelines lack consensus on whom to image and how. METHODS: We assessed practice in baseline radiological staging against local guidelines for asymptomatic newly diagnosed breast cancer patients presenting to the Cambridge Breast Unit over a 9-year period. RESULTS: A total of 2612 patients were eligible for analysis; 91.7% were appropriately investigated. However in the subset of lymph node negative stage II patients, only 269 out of 354 (76.0%) investigations were appropriate. No patients with stage 0 or I disease had metastases; only two patients (0.3%) with stage II and < or =3 positive lymph nodes had metastases. Conversely, 2.2, 2.6 and 3.8% of these groups had false-positive results. The incidence of occult metastases increased by stage, being present in 6, 13.9 and 57% of patients with stage II (> or =4 positive lymph nodes), III and IV disease, respectively. CONCLUSION: These results prompted us to propose new local guidelines for staging asymptomatic breast cancer patients: only clinical stage III or IV patients require baseline investigation. The high specificity and convenience of computed tomography (chest, abdomen and pelvis) led us to recommend this as the investigation of choice in breast cancer patients requiring radiological staging.

Molecular characteristics of screen-detected vs symptomatic breast cancers and their impact on survival.

BACKGROUND: Several recent studies have shown that screen detection remains an independent prognostic factor after adjusting for disease stage at presentation. This study compares the molecular characteristics of screen-detected with symptomatic breast cancers to identify if differences in tumour biology may explain some of the survival benefit conferred by screen detection. METHODS: A total of 1379 women (aged 50-70 years) with invasive breast cancer from a large population-based case-control study were included in the analysis. Individual patient data included tumour size, grade, lymph node status, adjuvant therapy, mammographic screening status and mortality. Immunohistochemistry was performed on tumour samples using 11 primary antibodies to define five molecular subtypes. The effect of screen detection compared with symptomatic diagnosis on survival was estimated after adjustment for grade, nodal status, Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) and the molecular markers. RESULTS: Fifty-six per cent of the survival benefit associated with screen-detected breast cancer was accounted for by a shift in the NPI, a further 3-10% was explained by the biological variables and more than 30% of the effect remained unexplained. CONCLUSION: Currently known biomarkers remain limited in their ability to explain the heterogeneity of breast cancer fully. A more complete understanding of the biological profile of breast tumours will be necessary to assess the true impact of tumour biology on the improvement in survival seen with screen detection.