Public Preferences for Genetic and Genomic Risk-Informed Chronic Disease Screening and Early Detection: A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments.

PURPOSE: Genetic and genomic testing can provide valuable information on individuals' risk of chronic diseases, presenting an opportunity for risk-tailored disease screening to improve early detection and health outcomes. The acceptability, uptake and effectiveness of such programmes is dependent on public preferences for the programme features. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of discrete choice experiments assessing preferences for genetic/genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, EconLit and Cochrane Library were searched in October 2023 for discrete choice experiment studies assessing preferences for genetic or genomic risk-tailored chronic disease screening. Eligible studies were double screened, extracted and synthesised through descriptive statistics and content analysis of themes. Bias was assessed using an existing quality checklist. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included. Most studies focused on cancer screening (n = 10) and explored preferences for testing of rare, high-risk variants (n = 10), largely within a targeted population (e.g. subgroups with family history of disease). Two studies explored preferences for the use of polygenic risk scores (PRS) at a population level. Twenty-six programme attributes were identified, with most significantly impacting preferences. Survival, test accuracy and screening impact were most frequently reported as most important. Depending on the clinical context and programme attributes and levels, estimated uptake of hypothetical programmes varied from no participation to almost full participation (97%). CONCLUSION: The uptake of potential programmes would strongly depend on specific programme features and the disease context. In particular, careful communication of potential survival benefits and likely genetic/genomic test accuracy might encourage uptake of genetic and genomic risk-tailored disease screening programmes. As the majority of the literature focused on high-risk variants and cancer screening, further research is required to understand preferences specific to PRS testing at a population level and targeted genomic testing for different disease contexts.

Patient demographic characteristics and risk factors associated with sun protection behaviours in specialist melanoma clinics.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between sun protection behaviours and demographic and melanoma risk characteristics of patients attending Australian melanoma specialist clinics. This may assist in targeting and tailoring melanoma prevention patient education for people at high-risk and specific population subgroups. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected from participants attending the dermatology clinics at two major melanoma centres in Sydney, Australia between February 2021 and September 2023. The primary outcome was Sun Protection Habits (SPH) index (a summary score measured as habitual past month use of sunscreen, hats, sunglasses, a shirt with sleeves that covers the shoulders, limiting midday sun exposure and seeking shade, using a Likert scale). The primary analysis considered the SPH index and its component items scored as continuous. RESULTS: Data from 883 people were analysed. Factors associated with less frequent sun protection behaviours overall included male gender, no personal history of melanoma, lower perceived risk, lower calculated 10-year risk of developing melanoma, and no private health insurance. People aged >61 years reported lower use of sunscreen but higher use of hats and sleeved-shirts compared with people in the younger age group. There was no difference in overall sun protection behaviours according to family history of melanoma, country of birth or by lifetime melanoma risk among people without a personal history of melanoma. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential for targeting high-risk individuals with less frequent use of sun protection for patient education, public health messaging and ultimately improving sun protection behaviours.

Impact of an Online Risk Calculator for Sentinel Node Positivity on Management of Patients with T1 and T2 Melanomas.

BACKGROUND: Predicting which patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) T1-T2 melanomas will have a positive sentinel lymph node (SLN) is challenging. Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) developed an internationally validated SLN metastatic risk calculator. This study evaluated the nomogram's impact on T1-T2 melanoma patient management at MIA. METHODS: SLN biopsy (SLNB) rates were compared for the pre- and post-nomogram periods of 1 July 2018-30 June 2019 and 1 August 2020-31 July 2021, respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 850 patients were identified (pre-nomogram, 383; post-nomogram, 467). SLNB was performed in 29.0% of patients in the pre-nomogram group and 34.5% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.091). The overall positivity rate was 16.2% in the pre-nomogram group and 14.9% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.223). SLNB was performed less frequently in T1a melanoma patients in the pre-nomogram group (1.1%, n = 2/177) than in the post-nomogram group (8.6%, n = 17/198) [p ≤ 0.001]. This increase was particularly for melanomas with a risk score ≥ 5%, with an SLN positivity rate of 11.8% in the post-nomogram group (p = 0.004) compared with zero. For T1b melanomas with a risk score of > 10%, the SLNB rate was 40.0% (8/20) pre-nomogram and 75.0% (12/16) post-nomogram (p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: In this specialized center, the SLN risk calculator appears to influence practice for melanomas previously considered low risk for metastasis, with increased use of SLNB for T1a and higher-risk T1b melanomas. Further evaluation is required across broader practice settings. Melanoma management guidelines could be updated to incorporate the availability of nomograms to better select patients for SLNB than previous criteria.

Association of optimism and social support with health-related quality of life among Australian women cancer survivors - A cohort study.

AIM: Large-scale studies investigating health-related quality of life (HRQL) in cancer survivors are limited. This study aims to investigate HRQL and its relation to optimism and social support among Australian women following a cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Data were from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health, a large cohort study (n = 14,715; born 1946-51), with 1428 incident cancer cases ascertained 1996-2017 via linkage to the Australian Cancer Database. HRQL was measured using the Short Form-36 (median 1.7 years post-cancer-diagnosis). Multivariable linear regression was performed on each HRQL domain, separately for all cancers combined, major cancer sites, and cancer-free peers. RESULTS: Higher optimism and social support were significantly associated with better HRQL across various domains in women with and without a cancer diagnosis (p < 0.05). Mean HRQL scores across all domains for all cancer sites were significantly higher among optimistic versus not optimistic women with cancer (p < 0.05). Adjusting for sociodemographic and other health conditions, lower optimism was associated with reduced scores across all domains, with greater reductions in mental health (adjusted mean difference (AMD) = -11.54, p < 0.01) followed by general health (AMD = -11.08, p < 0.01). Social support was less consistently related to HRQL scores, and following adjustment was only significantly associated with social functioning (AMD = -7.22, p < 0.01) and mental health (AMD = -6.34, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight a strong connection between optimism, social support, and HRQL among cancer survivors. Providing psychosocial support and addressing behavioral and socioeconomic factors and other health conditions associated with optimism and social support may improve HRQL.

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.

A review of skin cancer primary prevention activities in primary care settings.

OBJECTIVES: Skin cancer is highly preventable through primary prevention activities such as avoiding ultraviolet radiation exposure during peak times and regular use of sun protection. General practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses have key responsibilities in promoting sustained primary prevention behaviour. We aimed to review the evidence on skin cancer primary prevention activities in primary care settings, including evidence on feasibility, effectiveness, barriers and enablers. STUDY TYPE: Rapid review and narrative synthesis. METHODS: We searched published literature from January 2011 to October 2022 in Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central and CINAHL. The search was limited to skin cancer primary prevention activities within primary care settings, for studies or programs conducted in Australia or countries with comparable health systems. Analysis of barriers and enablers was informed by an implementation science framework. RESULTS: A total of 31 peer-reviewed journal articles were included in the review. We identified four main primary prevention activities: education and training programs for GPs; behavioural counselling on prevention; the use of novel risk assessment tools and provision of risk-tailored prevention strategies; and new technologies to support early detection that have accompanying primary prevention advice. Enablers to delivering skin cancer primary prevention in primary care included pairing preventive activities with early detection activities, and access to patient resources and programs that fit with existing workflows and systems. Barriers included unclear requirements for skin cancer prevention counselling, competing demands within the consultation and limited access to primary care services, especially in regional and remote areas. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight potential opportunities for improving skin cancer prevention activities in primary care. Ensuring ease of program delivery, integration with early detection and availability of resources such as risk assessment tools are enablers to encourage and increase uptake of primary prevention behaviours in primary care, for both practitioners and patients.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. AIM: To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. RESULTS: Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. CONCLUSION: GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes. METHODS: Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework. RESULTS: Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in patients with previous melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the general population, people with a previous melanoma are at increased risk of developing another primary melanoma. Understanding the risk factors associated with multiple primary melanomas can inform patient education and tailored surveillance. OBJECTIVES: To examine the risk factors for subsequent primary melanoma in people with a previous melanoma, by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available data. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase and MEDLINE. Studies that reported a risk estimate or raw frequencies and conducted between 1982 and August 2022 were included. Adjusted risk estimates were prioritized over univariable risk estimates. PRISMA reporting guidelines were followed. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to derive pooled estimates. Quality assessment was conducted by two researchers using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. GRADE was used to rate the certainty and quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Data from 27 studies involving 413 181 participants were pooled and analysed. Risk factors assessed included age and sex, environmental, lifestyle, phenotypic, genetic and histopathological factors, and there was wide variation in how they were categorized and analysed. Independent risk factors identified from pooled analyses included male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-1.53], increasing age per 10 years (HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.14-1.24), light skin colour (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.23-1.70), family history [odds ratio (OR) 1.79, 95% CI 1.25-2.56], CDKN2A mutation (OR 5.29, 95% CI 2.70-10.37), a high or moderate naevus count [OR 2.63 (95% CI 1.61-4.30) and OR 1.64 (95% CI 1.07-2.51), respectively], one or more atypical naevi (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.52-5.97), first lesions occurring on the head or neck, lentigo maligna subtype (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.15-1.17), other subtype (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.03-1.27) and inadequate sun protection (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.98-3.50). Based on the GRADE criteria, there was high to very low confidence in the pooled effect estimates. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis identified several consistent, independent risk factors for the development of subsequent primary melanoma. These findings will help stratify the risk of subsequent melanoma, tailor skin-check schedules and inform patient education.

Full-body skin examination in screening for cutaneous malignancy: a focus on concealed sites and the practices of Australian dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Full-body skin examination (FSE) is a vital practice in the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancy. Precisely how FSE should be conducted with respect to concealed site inclusion remains poorly elucidated. OBJECTIVE: To establish the approach of Australian dermatologists to concealed site examination (CSE). METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed consisting of an online self-administered 11-question survey delivered to fellows of the Australasian College of Dermatologists. RESULTS: There were 237 respondents. Anogenitalia was the least often examined concealed site (4.6%), and 59.9, 32.9, and 14.3% reported always examining the scalp, breasts, and oral mucosa, respectively. Patient concern was the most frequently cited factor prompting examination, while many cited low incidence of pathology and limited chaperone availability as the main barriers to routine examination of these sites. CONCLUSION: Most Australian dermatologists do not routinely examine breasts, oral mucosal, or anogenital sites as part of an FSE. Emphasis should be made on identifying individual patient risk factors and education regarding self-examination of sensitive sites. A consensus approach to the conduct of the FSE, including concealed sites, is needed to better delineate clinician responsibilities and address medicolegal implications.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants.

INTRODUCTION: In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers. METHODS: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging. CONCLUSION: Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of a melanoma prevention program using genomic risk information compared with standard prevention advice in Australia.

PURPOSE: Evidence indicates that a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counseling can affect prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective. METHODS: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of genomic risk provision (intervention) compared with standard prevention advice. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using randomized trial data to simulate lifetime cost-effectiveness. All costs were presented in 2018/19 Australian dollars (AUD). The intervention effect on reduced sunburns was stratified by sex and traditional risk, which was calculated through a validated prediction model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: The per participant cost of intervention was AUD$189. Genomic risk provision targeting high-traditional risk individuals produced an ICER of AUD$35,254 (per quality-adjusted life year gained); sensitivity analyses indicated the intervention would be cost-effective in more than 50% of scenarios. When the intervention was extended to low-traditional risk groups, the ICER was AUD$43,746 with a 45% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas.

ACEMID cohort study: protocol of a prospective cohort study using 3D total body photography for melanoma imaging and diagnosis.

INTRODUCTION: Three-dimensional (3D) total body photography may improve early detection of melanoma and facilitate surveillance, leading to better prognosis and lower healthcare costs. The Australian Centre of Excellence in Melanoma Imaging and Diagnosis (ACEMID) cohort study will assess long-term outcomes from delivery of a precision strategy of monitoring skin lesions using skin surface imaging technology embedded into health services across Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective cohort study will enrol 15 000 participants aged 18 years and above, across 15 Australian sites. Participants will attend study visits according to their melanoma risk category: very high risk, high risk or low/average risk, every 6, 12 and 24 months, respectively, over 3 years. Participants will undergo 3D total body photography and dermoscopy imaging at study visits. A baseline questionnaire will be administered to collect sociodemographic, phenotypic, quality of life and sun behaviour data. A follow-up questionnaire will be administered every 12 months to obtain changes in sun behaviour and quality of life. A saliva sample will be collected at the baseline visit from a subsample. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ACEMID cohort study was approved by the Metro South Health Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: HREC/2019/QMS/57206) and the University of Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number: 2019003077). The findings will be reported through peer-reviewed and lay publications and presentations at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001706167.

Association of functional, inherited vitamin D-binding protein variants with melanoma-specific death.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether genetic variants affecting vitamin D metabolism are associated with melanoma prognosis. Two functional missense variants in the vitamin D-binding protein gene (GC), rs7041 and rs4588, determine 3 common haplotypes, Gc1s, Gc1f, and Gc2, of which Gc1f may be associated with decreased all-cause death among melanoma patients based on results of a prior study, but the association of Gc1f with melanoma-specific death is unclear. METHODS: We investigated the association of the Gc1s, Gc1f, and Gc2 haplotypes with melanoma-specific and all-cause death among 4490 individuals with incident, invasive primary melanoma in 2 population-based studies using multivariable Cox-proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of both datasets, the patients with the Gc1f haplotype had a 37% lower risk of melanoma-specific death than the patients without Gc1f (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47 to 0.83, P = .001), with adjustments for age, sex, study center, first- or higher-order primary melanoma, tumor site, pigmentary phenotypes, and Breslow thickness. Associations were similar in both studies. In pooled analyses stratified by Breslow thickness, the corresponding melanoma-specific death HRs for those patients with the Gc1f haplotype compared with those without Gc1f were 0.89 (95% CI = 0.63 to 1.27) among participants with tumor Breslow thickness equal to or less than 2.0 mm and 0.40 (95% CI = 0.25 to 0.63) among participants with tumor Breslow thickness greater than 2.0 mm (Pinteraction = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that individuals with the GC haplotype Gc1f may have a lower risk of dying from melanoma-specifically from thicker, higher-risk melanoma-than individuals without this Gc1f haplotype.

Sex-Specific Associations of MDM2 and MDM4 Variants with Risk of Multiple Primary Melanomas and Melanoma Survival in Non-Hispanic Whites.

MDM2-SNP309 (rs2279744), a common genetic modifier of cancer incidence in Li-Fraumeni syndrome, modifies risk, age of onset, or prognosis in a variety of cancers. Melanoma incidence and outcomes vary by sex, and although SNP309 exerts an effect on the estrogen receptor, no consensus exists on its effect on melanoma. MDM2 and MDM4 restrain p53-mediated tumor suppression, independently or together. We investigated SNP309, an a priori MDM4-rs4245739, and two coinherited variants, in a population-based cohort of 3663 primary incident melanomas. Per-allele and per-haplotype (MDM2_SNP309-SNP285; MDM4_rs4245739-rs1563828) odds ratios (OR) for multiple-melanoma were estimated with logistic regression models. Hazard ratios (HR) for melanoma death were estimated with Cox proportional hazards models. In analyses adjusted for covariates, females carrying MDM4-rs4245739*C were more likely to develop multiple melanomas (ORper-allele = 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.51, and Ptrend = 0.03), while MDM2-rs2279744*G was inversely associated with melanoma-death (HRper-allele = 0.63, 95% CI 0.42-0.95, and Ptrend = 0.03). We identified 16 coinherited expression quantitative loci that control the expression of MDM2, MDM4, and other genes in the skin, brain, and lungs. Our results suggest that MDM4/MDM2 variants are associated with the development of subsequent primaries and with the death of melanoma in a sex-dependent manner. Further investigations of the complex MDM2/MDM4 motif, and its contribution to the tumor microenvironment and observed associations, are warranted.