Primary care patient interests in joining a planned multi-cancer early detection clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are being conducted and are being planned to assess the safety and efficacy of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests for use in cancer screening. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of primary care patient outreach in recruiting participants to a planned MCED clinical trial, assess patient interest in trial participation, and measure decisional conflict related to participation. METHODS: The research team used the electronic medical record of a large, urban health care system to identify primary care patients 50-80 years of age who were potentially eligible for a planned MCED trial. We mailed information about the planned MCED trial to identified patients and then contacted the patients by telephone to obtain consent and administer a baseline survey. Subsequently, we contacted consented patients to complete an interview to review the mailed information and elicit perceptions about trial participation. Finally, a research coordinator administered an endpoint telephone survey to assess patient interest in and decisional conflict related to joining the trial. RESULTS: We randomly identified 1000 eligible patients and were able to make contact with 690 (69%) by telephone. Of the patients contacted, 217 (31%) completed the decision counseling session and 219 (32%) completed the endpoint survey. Among endpoint survey respondents, 177 (81%) expressed interest in joining the MCED trial and 162 (74%) reported low decisional conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients were contacted and about a quarter of those contacted expressed interest in and low decisional conflict about joining the planned MCED trial. Research is needed to determine how to optimize patient outreach and engage patients in shared decision-making about MCED trial participation.

Primary Care Patient Interest in Multi-Cancer Early Detection for Cancer Screening.

Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being developed, but little is known about patient receptivity to their use for cancer screening. The current study assessed patient interest in such testing. Our team conducted a prospective, observational study among primary care patients in a large, urban health system. They were asked to complete a telephone survey that briefly described a new blood test in development to identify multiple types of cancer, but was not currently recommended or covered by insurance. The survey included items to assess respondent background characteristics, perceptions about MCED testing, and interest in having such an MCED test. We also used multivariable analyses to identify factors associated with patient interest in test use. In 2023, we surveyed 159 (32%) of 500 identified patients. Among respondents, 125 (79%) reported a high level of interest in having an MCED test. Interest was not associated with personal background characteristics, but was positively associated with the following expectations: testing would be recommended for cancer screening, be convenient, and be effective in finding early-stage disease (OR = 11.70, 95% CI: 4.02, 34.04, p < 0.001). Research is needed to assess patient interest and actual uptake when detailed information on testing is presented in routine care.

Factors Likely to Affect the Uptake of Genomic Approaches to Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.

Genomic tests are being developed for use in cancer screening. As most screening is offered in primary care settings, primary care provider and patient perceptions of such tests are likely to affect uptake. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize information on factors likely to affect patient and provider use of biospecimen collection and analysis for cancer screening, methods referred to as liquid biopsy or multi-cancer early detection (MCED) testing when used to detect multiple cancers. We ultimately identified 7 articles for review and analyzed them for major themes. None reported on primary care provider perspectives. Six articles focused on patient perceptions about testing for a single cancer (colorectal), and 1 reported on patient views related to testing for multiple cancers. Factors favoring this type of testing included its non-invasiveness, and the perceived safety, convenience, and effectiveness of testing. There is a dearth of information in the literature on primary care provider perceptions about liquid biopsy and MCED testing. The limited information on patient perceptions suggests that they are receptive to such tests. Research on primary care provider and patient test-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior is needed to guide future implementation in primary care settings.

Association of Patient and Site-of-Care Characteristics With Reproductive Carrier Screening Timing in a Large Integrated Health System.

Importance: Reproductive genetic carrier screening can be performed prior to or during pregnancy to assess a reproductive couple's risk of having a child with a recessively inherited disorder. Although professional societies endorse preconception screening as preferable to prenatal screening to allow for greater reproductive choice, implementation of preconception screening is challenging. Objective: To determine how carrier screening timing varies by multilevel factors associated with health care delivery including patient, clinician, and location across a large integrated health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a mixed-methods approach including (1) quantitative analysis of multilevel factors associated with the timing of reproductive carrier screening and (2) qualitative analyses of data from interviews conducted with clinicians ordering carrier screenings. The setting was the Mass General Brigham, a large integrated health care system in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area. Participants included adult female patients who completed reproductive carrier screening performed by Myriad Women's Health between October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. Exposures: Site of care (ordering clinical location and hospital affiliate), ordering clinician specialty, and patient characteristics, including age at date of test collection, self-reported race and ethnicity, primary insurance payor, and number of comorbidities. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the timing of carrier screening (preconception vs prenatal). A series of 4 multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to measure the relative contribution of site, clinician, and patient-level factors on the timing of screening. Interviews with ordering clinicians (N = 9) were analyzed using a framework approach to explore barriers to preconception screening. Results: Among 6509 adult female patients who completed carrier screenings, 770 (12%) were Asian, 352 (5%) were Hispanic, 640 (10%) were non-Hispanic Black, 3844 (59%) were non-Hispanic White, 858 (13%) were other or multiple races and ethnicities, and 2611 (40%) were aged 31 to 35 years; 4701 (63%) had prenatal screening and 2438 (37%) had preconception screening; screenings were ordered by 161 distinct clinicians across 32 clinical locations affiliated with 4 hospitals. In model 1, adjusted for hospital (fixed effect), clinic and clinician (random effects), 49% of the variability in timing was associated with clinician-level effects (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.49) and 28% was associated with clinic-level effects (ICC, 0.28). Clinician specialty explained the greatest amount of variation in screening timing. Interviewed clinicians (N = 9) supported preconception screening but cited several barriers to offering population-based preconception screening. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, multilevel factors were associated with carrier screening timing. These findings suggest that increasing access to preconception screening may involve engaging specific medical specialties.