Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 88
Filtrar
1.
Diagnosis (Berl) ; 2021 Jan 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33544479

RESUMO

A positive patient experience has been long recognised as a key feature of a high-quality health service, however, often assessment of patient experience excludes diagnostic care. Experience of diagnostic services and the acceptability of diagnostic tests are often conflated, with lack of clarity about when and how either should be measured. These problems contrast with the growth in the development and marketing of new tests and investigation strategies. Building on the appraisal of current practice, we propose that the experience of diagnostic services and the acceptability of tests should be assessed separately, and describe distinct components of each. Such evaluations will enhance the delivery of patient-centred care, and facilitate patient choice.

2.
Intern Med J ; 2021 Jan 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33462903

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of National and Victorian colonoscopy triage guidelines and potential redistribution of triage categories. METHODS: Diagnostic validation study comparing colonoscopy triage guidelines against a reference colonoscopy dataset. PARTICIPANTS: reference dataset of 2,378 colonoscopies from 1 October 2014 to 30 June 2016. Comparison with triage categorisation determined using: National Cancer Council Australia guidelines; Victorian triage guidelines; Optimal Cancer Care Pathways recommendations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: i. Proportion of colonoscopies assigned to each triage category; ii. detection rate (proportion of cancers assigned to triage Category 1); iii. conversion rate (proportion of triage Category 1 colonoscopies which diagnose a cancer). RESULTS: After adjusting for data absent in referrals, the National and Victorian guidelines reduced the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies compared with the reference triage (National 76.3% vs 58.6%; 95% CI for difference 15.0 - 20.3% p<0.0001. Victorian 76.3% vs 66.3%; 95% CI for difference 7.4 - 12.6% p<0.0001). Victorian guidelines were associated with the highest detection rate (91.4%) and a conversion rate of 5.4% although the number of cancers limited the power to detect significant differences on these metrics. There was a higher proportion of unclassifiable colonoscopies using the National guidelines than the Victorian ones due to their focus on symptomatic indications. CONCLUSIONS: The Victorian guidelines could reduce the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies by 10% without reducing conversion or detection rates. This would require improvements in the quality of referrals and ordering faecal occult blood tests in 6% of symptomatic patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

4.
JNCI Cancer Spectr ; 4(5): pkaa062, 2020 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33134836

RESUMO

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.

5.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33115784

RESUMO

Guidelines endorse the use of chemoprevention for breast cancer risk reduction. This study examined the barriers and facilitators to chemoprevention use for Australian women at increased risk of breast cancer, and their clinicians. Surveys, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, were mailed to 1,113 women at ≥16% lifetime risk of breast cancer who were enrolled in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer cohort study (kConFab), and their 524 treating clinicians. 725 women (65%) and 221 (42%) clinicians responded. Only 10 (1.4%) kConFab women had ever taken chemoprevention. 378 (52%) kConFab women, two (3%) breast surgeons and 51 (35%) family physicians were not aware of chemoprevention. For women, the strongest barriers to chemoprevention were side-effects (31%) and inadequate information (23%) which operate in the Theoretical Domains Framework domains of "beliefs about consequences" and "knowledge", respectively. Strongest facilitators related to tamoxifen's long-term efficacy (35%, "knowledge", "beliefs about consequences" and "goals" domains), staying healthy for family (13%, "social role" and "goals" domains) and abnormal breast biopsy (13%, "environmental context" domain). The strongest barrier for family physicians was insufficient knowledge (45%, "knowledge" domain) and for breast surgeons was medication side-effects (40%, "beliefs about consequences" domain). The strongest facilitators for both clinician groups related to clear guidelines, strong family history and better tools to select patients ("environmental context and resources" domain). Clinician knowledge and resources, and beliefs about the side-effect consequences of chemoprevention are key domains that could be targeted to potentially enhance uptake.

6.
Public Health Genomics ; 23(3-4): 110-121, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32688362

RESUMO

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.

7.
J Rural Health ; 36(4): 517-535, 2020 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32485017

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer patients living in rural areas have poorer outcomes than urban counterparts, but such disparities are not found for breast cancer. Although time to care may contribute to rural-urban disparities, few studies examine patient experiences to understand how and why delays may occur. We compared rural and urban patient experiences of pathways to colorectal or breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 43 patients (49% colorectal; 60% rural, median 7 months postdiagnosis). A framework analysis was applied using the Model of Pathways to Treatment. FINDINGS: Rural and urban patients expressed similar attitudes and reasons for prolonged symptom appraisal and help-seeking triggers. However, some rural patients reported long waiting times to see a Primary Care Practitioner (PCP) and perceived greater gatekeeping to diagnostic services. Patient perceptions of the urgency of PCP referral could impact behavior, such as waiting longer to book appointments. Colorectal cancer patients reported more variable types of symptoms, interpretation, and coping strategies, as well as diverse presentation routes and reduced sense of urgency, compared to breast cancer patients. Waiting time for colonoscopy could be long, particularly in the public health system, but mammograms were quickly arranged. CONCLUSIONS: Pathway variation was more evident by cancer type than residential location. However, access to primary care and diagnostic services for rural patients with colorectal cancer may be important policy targets. Future research should investigate the impact of diagnostic service accessibility on PCP referral behavior to further understand rural-urban disparities.

8.
Australas J Dermatol ; 61(3): 231-236, 2020 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32050041

RESUMO

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Some international guidelines recommend a risk-based approach to screening for melanoma, but few suggest how to account for multiple risk factors or how to implement risk-based screening in practice. This study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of identifying patients at increased risk of melanoma in Australian general practice using a self-completed risk assessment tool. Stratification of risk was based on the validated Williams melanoma risk prediction model. METHODS: Patients and companions aged 18 or older in Australian general practices were approached in the waiting room and invited to enter information about their melanoma risk factors into the tool using an iPad. Acceptability was measured by the proportion of people willing to participate from those invited and feasibility by the number of people able to complete the tool unaided. Risk of developing melanoma was stratified into four risk categories using the Williams model. RESULTS: 1535 (90.4%) participants were recruited from two general practices. Only 200 participants (13%) needed assistance to complete the tool. The mean risk score for participants was 15.2 (±SD 9.8). The Williams model estimated between 5% and 19% of the sample were at increased risk accounting for an estimated 30% to 60% of future incident melanomas. CONCLUSIONS: A risk-stratified tool using the Williams model was acceptable and feasible for patients to self-complete in general practice clinics. This could be an effective way to identify people in primary care for implementing risk-based targeted melanoma screening and prevention.

9.
Cancer Prev Res (Phila) ; 13(6): 509-520, 2020 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32071122

RESUMO

The aim of this study was to compare and externally validate risk scores developed to predict incident colorectal cancer that include common genetic variants (SNPs), with or without established lifestyle/environmental (questionnaire-based/classical/phenotypic) risk factors. We externally validated 23 risk models from a previous systematic review in 443,888 participants ages 37 to 73 from the UK Biobank cohort who had 6-year prospective follow-up, no prior history of colorectal cancer, and data for incidence of colorectal cancer through linkage to national cancer registries. There were 2,679 (0.6%) cases of incident colorectal cancer. We assessed model discrimination using the area under the operating characteristic curve (AUC) and relative risk calibration. The AUC of models including only SNPs increased with the number of included SNPs and was similar in men and women: the model by Huyghe with 120 SNPs had the highest AUC of 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.59-0.64] in women and 0.64 (95% CI, 0.61-0.66) in men. Adding phenotypic risk factors without age improved discrimination in men but not in women. Adding phenotypic risk factors and age increased discrimination in all cases (P < 0.05), with the best performing models including SNPs, phenotypic risk factors, and age having AUCs between 0.64 and 0.67 in women and 0.67 and 0.71 in men. Relative risk calibration varied substantially across the models. Among middle-aged people in the UK, existing polygenic risk scores discriminate moderately well between those who do and do not develop colorectal cancer over 6 years. Consideration should be given to exploring the feasibility of incorporating genetic and lifestyle/environmental information in any future stratified colorectal cancer screening program.

10.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(2): e200001, 2020 02 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32101302

RESUMO

Importance: Melanoma is among the most lethal skin cancers; it has become the fifth most common cancer in the United Kingdom, and incidence rates are rising. Population approaches to reducing incidence have focused on mass media campaigns to promote earlier presentation and potentially improve melanoma outcomes; however, interventions using smartphone applications targeting those with the greatest risk could promote earlier presentation to health care professionals for individuals with new or changing skin lesions. Objective: To study the effect of a commercially available skin self-monitoring (SSM) smartphone application among individuals with increased risk of melanoma on their decision to seek help for changing skin lesions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial was conducted in 12 family practices in Eastern England between 2016 and 2017. A total of 238 participants, aged 18 to 75 years and with an increased risk of melanoma, were identified using a real-time melanoma risk assessment tool in family practice waiting rooms. Analysis was intention to treat. Participants were observed for 12 months, and data analysis was conducted from January to August 2018. Intervention: The intervention and control groups received a consultation with standard written advice on sun protection and skin cancer detection. The intervention group had an SSM application loaded on their smartphone and received instructions for use and monthly self-monitoring reminders. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were skin consultation rates with family practice physicians and patient intervals, measured as the time between noticing a skin change and consulting with a family practice clinician. Follow-up questionnaires were sent at 6 and 12 months, and consultation rates were extracted from family practice records. Secondary outcomes included skin self-examination benefits and barriers, self-efficacy for consulting without delay, perceived melanoma risk, sun protection habits, and potential harms. Results: A total of 238 patients were randomized (median [interquartile range] age, 55 [43-65] years, 131 [55.0%] women, 227 [95.4%] white British; 119 [50.0%] randomized to the intervention group). Overall, 51 participants (21.4%) had consultations regarding skin changes during the 12 months of follow-up, and 157 participants (66.0%) responded to at least 1 follow-up questionnaire. There were no significant differences in skin consultation rates (adjusted risk ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.66; P = .89), measures of SSM (adjusted mean difference, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.83 to 1.00; P = .86), or psychological harm (eg, Melanoma Worry Scale: adjusted mean difference, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.31; P = .58). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, recruitment, retention, and initial delivery of the intervention were feasible, and this research provided no evidence of harm from the SSM smartphone application. However, no evidence of benefit on skin self-examination or health care consulting was found, and there is no reason at this stage to recommend its implementation in this population at increased risk of melanoma. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16061621.


Assuntos
Melanoma/diagnóstico , Aplicativos Móveis , Autoexame/métodos , Neoplasias Cutâneas/diagnóstico , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição de Risco/métodos , Smartphone , Tempo para o Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
11.
BJGP Open ; 4(1)2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31911419

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Late stage diagnosis of oesophageal and gastric cancer is common, which limits treatment options and contributes to poor survival. AIM: To explore patients' understanding, experience and presentation of symptoms before a diagnosis of oesophageal or gastric cancer. DESIGN & SETTING: Between May 2016 and October 2017, all patients newly diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer were identified at weekly multidisciplinary team meetings at two large hospitals in England. A total of 321 patients were invited to participate in a survey and secondary care medical record review; 127 (40%) participants responded (102 patients had oesophageal cancer and 25 had gastric cancer). Of these, 26 participated in an additional face-to-face interview. METHOD: Survey and medical record data were analysed descriptively. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the Model of Pathways to Treatment. RESULTS: Participants experienced multiple symptoms before diagnosis. The most common symptom associated with oesophageal cancer was dysphagia (n = 66, 65%); for gastric cancer, fatigue or tiredness (n = 20, 80%) was the most common symptom. Understanding of heartburn, reflux and indigestion, and associated symptoms differed between participants and often contrasted with clinical perspectives. Bodily changes attributed to personal and/or lifestyle factors were self-managed, with presentation to primary care prompted when symptoms persisted, worsened, or impacted daily life, or were notably severe or unusual. Participants rarely presented all symptoms at the initial consultation. CONCLUSION: The patient interval may be lengthened by misinterpretation of key terms, such as heartburn, or misattribution or non-recognition of important bodily changes. Clearly defined symptom awareness messages may encourage earlier help-seeking, while eliciting symptom experience and meanings in primary care consultations could prompt earlier referral and diagnosis.

12.
Br J Gen Pract ; 69(689): e843-e849, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31740461

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: New Australian guidelines recommend that GPs actively consider prescribing low-dose aspirin to patients aged 50-70 years to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients and GPs need to understand the relative benefits and harms to support informed decision making. AIM: To develop and examine different methods to communicate the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for CRC prevention. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional, vignette study with patients aged 50-70 years consecutively recruited from general practices in Melbourne, Australia, between July and August 2018. METHOD: Summary estimates from meta-analyses of the effects of aspirin on the incidence of CRC, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and incidence rates in the Australian population to estimate outcomes in a hypothetical population of 10 000 people aged 50-70 years. These estimates were presented using four different risk communication formats. Participants were shown these different formats and asked if they would take aspirin to prevent CRC. RESULTS: A total of 313 participants were recruited (95.1% recruitment rate), of whom 304 completed the study. Most participants (71.7-75.3%) reported they would take aspirin irrespective of risk format presented. Bar charts (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.01 to 1.44) and expected frequency trees (OR 1.18, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.41) were more strongly associated with the intentions to take aspirin compared with icon arrays. Bar charts were most preferred for presenting risk information. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of participants in this study intended to take aspirin to reduce their CRC risk regardless of risk communication format. Bar charts and expected frequency trees were the preferred methods to present the benefits and harms of taking aspirin to prevent CRC.


Assuntos
Anti-Inflamatórios não Esteroides/uso terapêutico , Aspirina/uso terapêutico , Neoplasias Colorretais/prevenção & controle , Tomada de Decisões , Comunicação em Saúde/métodos , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Idoso , Austrália , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Medicina Geral , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Preferência do Paciente , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Medição de Risco , Comportamento de Redução do Risco
13.
Br J Gen Pract ; 69(689): e809-e818, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31740460

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Sistemas de Apoio a Decisões Clínicas , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Ciência da Implementação , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Confiança , Fluxo de Trabalho
14.
Br J Gen Pract ; 69(689): e836-e842, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31636127

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In Australia, evidence-based guidelines recommend that women consider taking selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) to reduce their risk of breast cancer. In practice, this requires effective methods for communicating the harms and benefits of taking SERMs so women can make an informed choice. AIM: To evaluate how different risk presentations influence women's decisions to consider taking SERMs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, correlational study of Australian women in general practice. METHOD: Three risk communication formats were developed that included graphics, numbers, and text to explain the reduction in breast cancer risk and risk of side effects for women taking SERMs (raloxifene or tamoxifen). Women aged 40-74 years in two general practices were shown the risk formats using vignettes of hypothetical women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer and asked to choose 'If this was you, would you consider taking a SERM?' Descriptive statistics and predictors (risk format, level of risk, and type of SERM) of choosing SERMs were determined by logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 288 women were recruited (an 88% response rate) between March and May 2017. The risk formats that showed a government statement and an icon array were associated with a greater likelihood of considering SERMs relative to one that showed a novel expected frequency tree. Risk formats for raloxifene and for the high-risk vignettes were also more strongly associated with choosing to consider SERMs. No associations were found with any patient demographics. CONCLUSION: Specific risk formats may lead to more women considering taking SERMs to reduce breast cancer risk, especially if they are at high risk of the condition. Raloxifene may be a more acceptable SERM to patients.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama/prevenção & controle , Tomada de Decisões , Comunicação em Saúde/métodos , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Risco , Moduladores Seletivos de Receptor Estrogênico/uso terapêutico , Austrália , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Medicina Geral , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Cloridrato de Raloxifeno/uso terapêutico , Medição de Risco , Tamoxifeno/uso terapêutico
15.
CA Cancer J Clin ; 69(6): 497-520, 2019 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31339560

RESUMO

Tools have been developed to facilitate communication and support information exchange between people diagnosed with cancer and their physicians. Patient-reported outcome measures, question prompt lists, patient-held records, tape recordings of consultations, decision aids, and survivorship care plans have all been promoted as potential tools, and there is extensive literature exploring their impact on patient outcomes. Eleven systematic reviews of studies evaluating tools to facilitate patient-physician communication were reviewed and summarized in this overview of systematic reviews. Across the systematic reviews, 87 publications reported on 84 primary studies involving 15,381 participants. Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures and feedback of results to clinicians can improve pain management, physician-patient communication, and symptom detection and control; increase utilization of supportive care; and increase patient involvement in care. Question prompt lists can increase the number of questions asked by patients without increasing consultation length and may encourage them to reflect and plan questions before the consultation. There is limited benefit in audio recording consultations or using patient-held records during consultations. Physicians should be supported by adequately resourced health services to respond effectively to the range of clinical and broader patient needs identified through the routine use of tools to facilitate communication.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Neoplasias , Relações Médico-Paciente , Encaminhamento e Consulta , Humanos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/psicologia , Neoplasias/terapia , Participação do Paciente , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente
16.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev ; 28(10): 1580-1593, 2019 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31292139

RESUMO

Colorectal cancer screening reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Risk models based on phenotypic variables have relatively good discrimination in external validation and may improve efficiency of screening. Models incorporating genetic variables may perform better. In this review, we updated our previous review by searching Medline and EMBASE from the end date of that review (January 2014) to February 2019 to identify models incorporating at least one SNP and applicable to asymptomatic individuals in the general population. We identified 23 new models, giving a total of 29. Of those in which the SNP selection was on the basis of published genome-wide association studies, in external or split-sample validation the AUROC was 0.56 to 0.57 for models that included SNPs alone, 0.61 to 0.63 for SNPs in combination with other risk factors, and 0.56 to 0.70 when age was included. Calibration was only reported for four. The addition of SNPs to other risk factors increases discrimination by 0.01 to 0.06. Public health modeling studies suggest that, if determined by risk models, the range of starting ages for screening would be several years greater than using family history alone. Further validation and calibration studies are needed alongside modeling studies to assess the population-level impact of introducing genetic risk-based screening programs.


Assuntos
Biomarcadores Tumorais/genética , Neoplasias Colorretais/genética , Modelos Estatísticos , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Estudo de Associação Genômica Ampla/métodos , Humanos , Polimorfismo de Nucleotídeo Único , Valor Preditivo dos Testes , Prognóstico , Medição de Risco/métodos , Fatores de Risco
17.
Fam Pract ; 36(6): 730-735, 2019 11 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31237329

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) globally. Our research team has developed a CRC risk prediction tool for use in primary care to increase targeted screening. This study, Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool - patient ('CRISP-P'), aimed to determine the following to inform a future trial design: (i) the feasibility of self-reporting; (ii) the feasibility of recruitment methods; and (iii) the prevalence of CRC risk. METHODS: Participants aged between 40 and 75 years were recruited consecutively from three primary care waiting rooms. Participants input data into CRISP on a tablet without receiving clinical advice. Feasibility was evaluated using recruitment rate, timely completion, a self-reported 'ease-of-use', score and field notes. Prevalence of CRC risk was calculated using the CRISP model. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-one (90%) patients agreed to use the tool and 424 (84%) rated the tool easy to use. Despite this, 41% of people were unable to complete the questions without assistance. Patients who were older, without tertiary education or with English as their second language were more likely to require assistance (P < 0.001). Thirty-nine percent of patients were low risk, 58% at slightly increased and 2.4% were at moderately increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the next 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The tool was perceived as easy to use, although older, less educated people, and patients with English as their second language needed help. The data support the recruitment methods but not the use of a self-completed tool for an efficacy trial.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Diagnóstico por Computador/métodos , Atenção Primária à Saúde/métodos , Medição de Risco/métodos , Autorrelato , Adulto , Idoso , Austrália , Simulação por Computador , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Clínicos Gerais , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
18.
Fam Cancer ; 18(4): 389-397, 2019 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31209717

RESUMO

Before SNP-based risk can be incorporated in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the ability of these SNPs to estimate CRC risk for persons with and without a family history of CRC, and the screening implications need to be determined. We estimated the association with CRC of a 45 SNP-based risk using 1181 cases and 999 controls, and its correlation with CRC risk predicted from detailed family history. We estimated the predicted change in the distribution across predefined risk categories, and implications for recommended screening commencement age, from adding SNP-based risk to family history. The inter-quintile risk ratio for colorectal cancer risk of the SNP-based risk was 3.28 (95% CI 2.54-4.22). SNP-based and family history-based risks were not correlated (r = 0.02). For persons with no first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 4 years earlier for women (5 years for men) in the highest quintile of SNP-based risk. For persons with two first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 16 years earlier for men and women in the highest quintile, and 7 years earlier for the lowest quintile. This 45 SNP panel in conjunction with family history, can identify people who could benefit from earlier screening. Risk reclassification by 45 SNPs could inform targeted screening for CRC prevention, particularly in clinical genetics settings when mutations in high-risk genes cannot be identified. Yet to be determined is cost-effectiveness, resources requirements, community, patient and clinician acceptance, and feasibility with potentially ethical, legal and insurance implications.


Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais/genética , Polimorfismo de Nucleotídeo Único , Adulto , Idoso , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Neoplasias Colorretais/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Humanos , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento , Anamnese , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Razão de Chances
19.
BMC Cancer ; 19(1): 586, 2019 Jun 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31200676

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Novel diagnostic triage and testing strategies to support early detection of cancer could improve clinical outcomes. Most apparently promising diagnostic tests ultimately fail because of inadequate performance in real-world, low prevalence populations such as primary care or general community populations. They should therefore be systematically evaluated before implementation to determine whether they lead to earlier detection, are cost-effective, and improve patient safety and quality of care, while minimising over-investigation and over-diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a systematic scoping review of frameworks for the evaluation of tests and diagnostic approaches. RESULTS: We identified 16 frameworks: none addressed the entire continuum from test development to impact on diagnosis and patient outcomes in the intended population, nor the way in which tests may be used for triage purposes as part of a wider diagnostic strategy. Informed by these findings, we developed a new framework, the 'CanTest Framework', which proposes five iterative research phases forming a clear translational pathway from new test development to health system implementation and evaluation. CONCLUSION: This framework is suitable for testing in low prevalence populations, where tests are often applied for triage testing and incorporated into a wider diagnostic strategy. It has relevance for a wide range of stakeholders including patients, policymakers, purchasers, healthcare providers and industry.


Assuntos
Detecção Precoce de Câncer/métodos , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Humanos , Modelos Biológicos , Triagem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA