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

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

Patient Preferences for Investigating Cancer-Related Symptoms in Australian General Practice: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Striking the right balance between early cancer diagnosis and the risk of excessive testing for low-risk symptoms is of paramount importance. Patient-centred care must also consider patient preferences for testing. AIM: To investigate diagnostic testing preferences of the Australian public for symptoms associated with oesophagogastric (OG), bowel, or lung cancer. DESIGN AND SETTING: One of three discrete choice experiments (DCEs) related to either OG, bowel, or lung cancer were administered to a nationally representative sample of Australians aged 40 and above. METHODS: Each DCE comprised three scenarios with symptom positive predictive values (PPVs) for undiagnosed cancer ranging from 1% to 3%. The numerical risk was concealed from participants. DCE attributes encompassed the testing strategy, GP familiarity, test and result waiting times, travel duration, and test cost. Preferences were estimated using conditional and mixed logit models. RESULTS: A total of 3013 individuals participated in one of three DCEs: OG (n=1004), Bowel (n=1006), and Lung (n=1003). Preferences were chiefly driven by waiting time, test cost followed by the test type. There was preference for more invasive tests. When confronted with symptoms carrying an extremely low risk (symptom PPV of 1% or less), participants were more inclined to abstain from testing. CONCLUSIONS: Access-related factors, particularly waiting times and testing costs, emerged as the most pivotal elements influencing preferences, underscoring the substantial impact of these systemic factors on patient choices regarding investigations.

Factors affecting patient decisions to undergo testing for cancer symptoms: an exploratory qualitative study in Australian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting to their GP are often concerned their symptoms may be due to cancer. However, there is a lack of evidence on the factors that influence patient decisions to undergo investigation for suspected cancer in the general practice setting. AIM: To identify the factors influencing patient decisions to undertake investigations for suspected cancer in general practice. DESIGN & SETTING: An exploratory qualitative, semi-structured interview study of patients attending rural and metropolitan general practices in Victoria, Australia. METHOD: A purposive sample of 15 general practice patients aged ≥40 years participated. Thematic analysis of transcripts drew on interpretative description methodology and shared decision-making (SDM) theory. RESULTS: Cancer-related concerns such as 'cancer worry' prompt patients to seek investigations from their GP. Participants prefer that their symptoms are investigated regardless of cancer risk. The perceived 'best test' provides the most reassurance. Trust and SDM enhance dialogue between patients and GPs about diagnostic testing strategies. Deterrents to testing included out-of-pocket costs, waiting time, travel time, and competing work and family demands. CONCLUSION: There may be a mismatch between efforts to rationalise investigation use and patient preferences for investigation. SDM that incorporates patient concerns, facilitators, and barriers to testing may ensure appropriate and timely investigation of cancer symptoms.