Longitudinal post-radiotherapy plasma Epstein-Barr virus DNA trends inform on optimal risk stratification in endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize longitudinal changes in Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) DNA post-radiotherapy in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) patients, and investigate whether an early (0-2 weeks) or delayed (8-12 weeks) EBV DNA result better predicts for disease-free survival (DFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histologically-confirmed NPC patients with ≥1 EBV DNA test quantified using the harmonized BamHI-W polymerase chain reaction-based assay at 0-2 and 8-12 weeks post-radiotherapy were included. RESULTS: We identified 302 patients with EBV DNA measured at 0-2 weeks post-radiotherapy; of which, 110 (36.4 %) underwent a repeat test at 8-12 weeks post-treatment. Patients harboring a detectable EBV DNA at 0-2 weeks experienced an inferior DFS (adjusted HR1-264 copies 1.72 [95 %CI: 1.05-2.83], P = 0.031; AHR≥265 copies 4.39 [95 %CI: 1.68-11.44], P = 0.002 relative to 0 copies/mL). At 8-12 weeks, we observed substantial shifts in EBV DNA readings from 0 to 2 weeks; 76/110 (69.1 %) and 34/110 (30.9 %) patients at 0-2 weeks versus 90/110 (81.8 %) and 20/110 (18.2 %) at 8-12 weeks recorded undetectable and detectable EBV DNA, respectively. Positive EBV DNA at 8-12 weeks was strongly associated with relapse (73.3 % [11/15] for 1-264; 80.0 % [4/5] for ≥265 subgroups had relapses versus 15.6 % [14/90] for 0 copies/mL). Area under receiver operating curve values for 2-year relapse rates were 0.817 (95 %CI: 0.725-0.909) for stage + EBV DNA8-12w versus 0.654 (95 %CI: 0.542-0.765) for stage + EBV DNA0-2w. CONCLUSION: EBV DNA is dynamic post-radiotherapy, and delayed EBV DNA testing better enriched for higher-risk NPC patients. This implicates trials investigating adjuvant chemotherapy intensification based on early EBV DNA testing.

Patients' perception of colorectal cancer surveillance in the community: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: All patients who underwent curative resection for colorectal cancer (CRC) are frequently reviewed in tertiary institutions to ensure timely detection of any disease recurrence. There has been no local study that evaluated the feasibility of monitoring their condition in the community as a possible new model of care. This study henceforth seeks to understand CRC patients' views and receptiveness of having their surveillance consultations conducted in a community setting. METHODS: We convenience sampled Stage I and II CRC patients who were within five years post-operation in the outpatient clinics. An open-ended questionnaire aimed at elucidating their perception towards cancer surveillance in a community setting was administered. Content analysis was used to group and quantify responses from participants. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants agreed to participate in the study. Only 48% of the participants felt that having phlebotomy procedures in a community or home setting was acceptable. Participants were less willing to be reviewed by a physician who is not their primary surgeon, with only 32% agreeable to seeing a different doctor for surveillance if given a choice. However, most participants were open to having a telephone consultation in place of a physical face-to-face consultation before (72%) and after (76%) going through medical imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Participants remained keen to be managed by their primary surgeons and were hesitant towards having their follow-up surveillance consultations in community and primary care settings. Further studies should be conducted to understand whether these perceptions are generalisable, and if more can be done to change public perception towards the role of community and primary care institutions.

Colorectal cancer patients advocating screening to their siblings: a randomized behavioral intervention.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Siblings of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of developing CRC, but screening rates remain low. Through a randomized behavioral intervention, this study aimed to determine whether patients can advocate screening to their siblings using a tailored educational package. METHODS: CRC survivors were recruited and randomized into relaying either tailored materials (intervention group) or existing national screening guidelines (control group) to their siblings. Siblings could respond to the study team if they were interested in learning about CRC screening. Study outcomes were patient advocacy rates (number of patients who had successfully contacted at least 1 eligible sibling) between groups and the proportion of eligible siblings who responded. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and March 2021, 219 CRC patients were randomized to the intervention (n = 110) and control (n = 109) groups. Patient advocacy rates were high and did not differ significantly between groups. However, only 14.3% of eligible siblings (n = 85) responded to the study team. Siblings of patients from the intervention group were more likely to respond (adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.0; P < .05). Moreover, after controlling for potential confounders, siblings aged ≥60 years were significantly less likely to respond (adjusted odds ratio, .3; 95% confidence interval, .1-.7; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: CRC patients are willing advocates of screening, and siblings contacted by patients from the intervention group were also more likely to reach out to the study team. However, overall sibling response rates were low despite advocacy, suggesting that patient-led advocacy should at best be used as an adjunct to other, multipronged CRC screening promotion modalities.

Colorectal cancer patients can be advocates for colorectal cancer screening for their siblings: A study on siblings' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to explore in-depth, the issues and barriers pertaining to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening amongst the siblings of CRC patients in view of their higher risk of developing CRC. METHODS: A qualitative study of siblings of CRC patients was performed from August 2017 to October 2018. Semi-structured interviewed were performed until data saturation was achieved. The data was then thematically analysed. RESULTS: A total of 36 siblings of CRC patients, with a median age of 59 (range 39-78) years old completed the interviews. All the interviews were conducted alone with the participants. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. None of the participants has undergone screening colonoscopy prior to the interviews. After thematic analysis, five themes were identified. These include: (i) Misunderstanding their own risk of developing colorectal cancer; (ii) Misperceptions of the role of "screening" for colorectal cancer.; (iii) Misconception of the CRC screening modality for FDRs; (iv) Barriers and facilitators of undergoing screening; (v) Misperceptions of national healthcare policies. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying and addressing the identified barriers for these siblings to undergo screening colonoscopy is easily attainable. A multi-pronged approach should also be adopted to address the various concerns so as to reduce the incidence of CRC amongst these higher risk individuals.

Screening in spouses of colorectal cancer patients: a missed opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Spouses of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients could be at increased risk of developing CRC due to shared lifestyle habits with the patients which is a notable risk factor. This study explores the various issues surrounding CRC screening among these spouses. METHODS: A mixed method study comprising in-depth qualitative semi-structured interviews followed by structured quantitative questionnaire was administered to spouses who accompanied CRC patients during their appointments, from January 2016 to February 2017. RESULTS: Fifty spouses of CRC patients, median age of 60 (range, 41-82) years, were qualitatively interviewed but 5 of them did not complete the questionnaire. Only 26 (57.8%) of them were current with CRC screening. Data saturation was reached at the 48th participant. Four main themes emerged from the qualitative interviews. These included (i) adequacy of knowledge and attitudes about CRC screening, (ii) suboptimal public health promotion efforts of CRC screening, (iii) barriers of CRC screening, and (iv) need for mutual spousal support. From the questionnaires, spouses who were not current with CRC screening were more likely to report more barriers and have different cues to actions than those who are current. The majority of the spouses demonstrated high levels of knowledge on CRC, understood its severity and their susceptibility. CONCLUSION: Spouses exhibit high levels of knowledge and awareness of the implications of CRC. Apart from addressing psychological issues during the acute phases, targeted interventions should be considered to improve their screening rates and to use them as advocates for CRC screening among family and community.

Getting the first degree relatives to screen for colorectal cancer is harder than it seems-patients' and their first degree relatives' perspectives.

INTRODUCTION: First degree relatives (FDR) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients are at increased risk of CRC compared to the general population. However, screening colonoscopy rates amongst the FDRs remain dismal. The aim of the study was to explore the various issues amongst the patients and their FDR precluding their adoption of screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A qualitative study of CRC patients and their FDRs was performed. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants using open-ended questions until data saturation was achieved. These qualitative data were then thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty CRC patients and thirty-one FDRs were recruited between June 2015 and December 2015. For the patients, three main themes emerged, which include (i) poor understanding of the CRC screening guidelines for their FDRs, (ii) recommendations are lacking amongst medical professionals and (iii) numerous barriers are hindering patients from being advocates for screening colonoscopy for their FDRs. For the FDRs, three main themes emerged. These include (i) poor understanding of the exact CRC screening guidelines amongst the FDRs, (ii) the lack of health promotion efforts amongst medical professionals and (iii) barriers to the uptake of screening colonoscopy such as fear of colonoscopy, high cost of the procedure, its associated inconvenience and perceived invulnerability of the individual. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and FDRs are not aware of the increased risks of developing CRC amongst the family members. Guidelines regarding screening are also not clearly understood. The numerous barriers that are present amongst the CRC patients and their FDRs can be addressed.