Co-design of a paediatric oncology medicines database (ProCure) to support complex care provision for children with a hard-to-treat cancer.

Objectives: Paediatric oncologists often encounter challenges when seeking compassionate access to off-label therapies for their patients. This study employed implementation science and co-design techniques to develop the ProCure medicines database, with the goal of streamlining the application process and addressing identified barriers in paediatric oncology. Methods: This study utilised an exploratory qualitative research design. Seventeen healthcare providers, including oncologists, nurse consultants, and allied health professionals, participated in semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a visual process map aid. Deductive qualitative data analysis, according to the CFIR constructs, identified key barriers and facilitators. Collaborative design sessions engaged multidisciplinary teams to develop the ProCure beta version. Results: Barriers to off-label therapy access included resource-intensive applications, time sensitive decision-making, and complex pharmaceutical information. Facilitators included Drug Access Navigators, Molecular Tumour Boards, and a multi-disciplinary approach. ProCure addressed end-user needs by centralising medicines information. Additional features suggested by healthcare providers included blood-brain-barrier penetrability data and successful application examples. Conclusion: ProCure represents a promising solution to the challenges paediatric oncologists face in accessing off-label therapies. By centralising information, it simplifies the application process, aids decision-making, and promotes a collaborative approach to patient care. The potential of the database to stream and enhance off-label therapy access underscores its relevance in improving paediatric oncology practise. Further research and implementation efforts are warranted to assess ProCure's real-world impact and refine its features based on user feedback.

Communicating with families of young people with hard-to-treat cancers: Healthcare professionals' perspectives on challenges, skills, and training.

OBJECTIVES: Hard-to-treat childhood cancers are those where standard treatment options do not exist and the prognosis is poor. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are responsible for communicating with families about prognosis and complex experimental treatments. We aimed to identify HCPs' key challenges and skills required when communicating with families about hard-to-treat cancers and their perceptions of communication-related training. METHODS: We interviewed Australian HCPs who had direct responsibilities in managing children/adolescents with hard-to-treat cancer within the past 24 months. Interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 10 oncologists, 7 nurses, and 3 social workers. HCPs identified several challenges for communication with families including: balancing information provision while maintaining realistic hope; managing their own uncertainty; and nurses and social workers being underutilized during conversations with families, despite widespread preferences for multidisciplinary teamwork. HCPs perceived that making themselves available to families, empowering them to ask questions, and repeating information helped to establish and maintain trusting relationships with families. Half the HCPs reported receiving no formal training for communicating prognosis and treatment options with families of children with hard-to-treat cancers. Nurses, social workers, and less experienced oncologists supported the development of communication training resources, more so than more experienced oncologists. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Resources are needed which support HCPs to communicate with families of children with hard-to-treat cancers. Such resources may be particularly beneficial for junior oncologists and other HCPs during their training, and they should aim to prepare them for common challenges and foster greater multidisciplinary collaboration.

Aligning intuition and theory: a novel approach to identifying the determinants of behaviours necessary to support implementation of evidence into practice.

BACKGROUND: Disentangling the interplay between experience-based intuition and theory-informed implementation is crucial for identifying the direct contribution theory can make for generating behaviour changes needed for successful evidence translation. In the context of 'clinicogenomics', a complex and rapidly evolving field demanding swift practice change, we aimed to (a) describe a combined clinician intuition- and theory-driven method for identifying determinants of and strategies for implementing clinicogenomics, and (b) articulate a structured approach to standardise hypothesised behavioural pathways and make potential underlying theory explicit. METHODS: Interview data from 16 non-genetic medical specialists using genomics in practice identified three target behaviour areas across the testing process: (1) identifying patients, (2) test ordering and reporting, (3) communicating results. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to group barriers and facilitators to performing these actions. Barriers were grouped by distinct TDF domains, with 'overarching' TDF themes identified for overlapping barriers. Clinician intuitively-derived implementation strategies were matched with corresponding barriers, and retrospectively coded against behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Where no intuitive strategies were provided, theory-driven strategies were generated. An algorithm was developed and applied to articulate how implementation strategies address barriers to influence behaviour change. RESULTS: Across all target behaviour areas, 32 identified barriers were coded across seven distinct TDF domains and eight overarching TDF themes. Within the 29 intuitive strategies, 21 BCTs were represented and used on 49 occasions to address 23 barriers. On 10 (20%) of these occasions, existing empirical links were found between BCTs and corresponding distinct TDF-coded barriers. Twenty additional theory-driven implementation strategies (using 19 BCTs on 31 occasions) were developed to address nine remaining barriers. CONCLUSION: Clinicians naturally generate their own solutions when implementing clinical interventions, and in this clinicogenomics example these intuitive strategies aligned with theoretical recommendations 20% of the time. We have matched intuitive strategies with theory-driven BCTs to make potential underlying theory explicit through proposed structured hypothesised causal pathways. Transparency and efficiency are enhanced, providing a novel method to identify determinants of implementation. Operationalising this approach to support the design of implementation strategies may optimise practice change in response to rapidly evolving scientific advances requiring swift translation into healthcare.

In person and virtual process mapping experiences to capture and explore variability in clinical practice: application to genetic referral pathways across seven Australian hospital networks.

Genetic referral for Lynch syndrome (LS) exemplifies complex clinical pathways. Identifying target behaviours (TBs) for change and associated barriers requires structured group consultation activities with busy clinicians - consolidating implementation activities whilst retaining rigour is crucial. This study aimed to: i) use process mapping to gain in-depth understandings of site-specific LS testing and referral practices in Australian hospitals and support identification of TBs for change, ii) explore if barriers to identified TBs could be identified through process mapping focus-group data, and iii) demonstrate pandemic-induced transition from in-person to virtual group interactive process mapping methods. LS clinical stakeholders attended interactive in-person or virtual focus groups to develop site-specific "process maps" visually representing referral pathways. Content analysis of transcriptions informed site-specific process maps, then clinical audit data was compared to highlight TBs for change. TBs were reviewed in follow-up focus groups. Secondary thematic analysis explored barriers to identified TBs, coded against the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). The transition from in-person to pandemic-induced virtual group interactive process mapping methods was documented. Process mapping highlighted six key areas of clinical practice variation across sites and site-specific TBs for change were identified. Key barriers to identified TBs emerged, categorised to seven TDF domains. Process mapping revealed variations in clinical practices surrounding LS referral between sites. Incorporating qualitative perspectives enhances process mapping by facilitating identification of TBs for change and barriers, providing a pathway to developing targeted interventions. Virtual process mapping activities produced detailed data and enabled comprehensive map development.

To achieve change in the health system using implementation approaches, time-poor clinicians must engage in information-gathering and idea-generation activities. This research revealed that qualitative process mapping focus groups held both in-person and virtually can be used to streamline these activities, by simultaneously identifying target behaviours for change, and barriers to change, while gaining information about site-specific clinical processes. Hospital process mapping shows that complex clinical processes vary significantly between sites, and that understanding local variation is crucial to developing targeted interventions. This study has informed new approaches to implementation research methods.

Lynch syndrome testing of colorectal cancer patients in a high-income country with universal healthcare: a retrospective study of current practice and gaps in seven australian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: To inform effective genomic medicine strategies, it is important to examine current approaches and gaps in well-established applications. Lynch syndrome (LS) causes 3-5% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). While guidelines commonly recommend LS tumour testing of all CRC patients, implementation in health systems is known to be highly variable. To provide insights on the heterogeneity in practice and current bottlenecks in a high-income country with universal healthcare, we characterise the approaches and gaps in LS testing and referral in seven Australian hospitals across three states. METHODS: We obtained surgery, pathology, and genetics services data for 1,624 patients who underwent CRC resections from 01/01/2017 to 31/12/2018 in the included hospitals. RESULTS: Tumour testing approaches differed between hospitals, with 0-19% of patients missing mismatch repair deficiency test results (total 211/1,624 patients). Tumour tests to exclude somatic MLH1 loss were incomplete at five hospitals (42/187 patients). Of 74 patients with tumour tests completed appropriately and indicating high risk of LS, 36 (49%) were missing a record of referral to genetics services for diagnostic testing, with higher missingness for older patients (0% of patients aged ≤ 40 years, 76% of patients aged > 70 years). Of 38 patients with high-risk tumour test results and genetics services referral, diagnostic testing was carried out for 25 (89%) and identified a LS pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant for 11 patients (44% of 25; 0.7% of 1,624 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Given the LS testing and referral gaps, further work is needed to identify strategies for successful integration of LS testing into clinical care, and provide a model for hereditary cancers and broader genomic medicine. Standardised reporting may help clinicians interpret tumour test results and initiate further actions.

Genetic counselling and personalised risk assessment in the Australian pancreatic cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is an aggressive disease with a dismal 5-year survival rate. Surveillance of high-risk individuals is hoped to improve survival outcomes by detection of precursor lesions or early-stage malignancy. METHODS: Since 2011, a national high-risk cohort recruited through St Vincent's Hospital, Sydney, has undergone prospective PC screening incorporating annual endoscopic ultrasound, formal genetic counselling and mutation analysis as appropriate. PancPRO, a Bayesian PC risk assessment model, was used to estimate 5-year and lifetime PC risks for familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) participants and this was compared to their perceived chance of pancreatic and other cancers. Genetic counselling guidelines were developed to improve consistency. Follow-up questionnaires were used to assess the role of genetic counselling and testing. RESULTS: We describe the Australian PC screening program design and recruitment strategy and the results of the first 102 individuals who have completed at least one-year of follow-up. Seventy-nine participants met the FPC criteria (≥ two first-degree relatives affected), 22 individuals had both a BRCA2 pathogenic variant and a close relative with PC and one had a clinical diagnosis of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Participants reported a high perceived chance of developing PC regardless of their genetic testing status. PancPRO reported FPC participants' mean 5-year and lifetime PC risks as 1.81% (range 0.2-3.2%) and 10.17% (range 2.4-14.4%), respectively. Participants' perceived PC chance did not correlate with their PancPRO 5-year (r = - 0.17, p = 0.128) and lifetime PC risks (r = 0.19, p = 0.091). Two-thirds felt that current genetic testing would help them, and 91% of tested participants were glad to have undergone genetic testing. Overall, 79% of participants found genetic counselling to be helpful, and 88% reported they would recommend counselling to their relatives. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported multiple benefits of genetic counselling and testing but continue to seek greater clarification about their individual PC risk. Extension of PancPRO is required to enable personalised PC risk assessment for all high-risk sub-groups. More detailed discussion of PC risk for BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers, providing a written summary in all cases and a plan for genetics review were identified as areas for improvement.

Corrigendum: Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nature21063.

Lost in translation: returning germline genetic results in genome-scale cancer research.

BACKGROUND: The return of research results (RoR) remains a complex and well-debated issue. Despite the debate, actual data related to the experience of giving individual results back, and the impact these results may have on clinical care and health outcomes, is sorely lacking. Through the work of the Australian Pancreatic Cancer Genome Initiative (APGI) we: (1) delineate the pathway back to the patient where actionable research data were identified; and (2) report the clinical utilisation of individual results returned. Using this experience, we discuss barriers and opportunities associated with a comprehensive process of RoR in large-scale genomic research that may be useful for others developing their own policies. METHODS: We performed whole-genome (n = 184) and exome (n = 208) sequencing of matched tumour-normal DNA pairs from 392 patients with sporadic pancreatic cancer (PC) as part of the APGI. We identified pathogenic germline mutations in candidate genes (n = 130) with established predisposition to PC or medium-high penetrance genes with well-defined cancer associated syndromes or phenotypes. Variants from candidate genes were annotated and classified according to international guidelines. Variants were considered actionable if clinical utility was established, with regard to prevention, diagnosis, prognostication and/or therapy. RESULTS: A total of 48,904 germline variants were identified, with 2356 unique variants undergoing annotation and in silico classification. Twenty cases were deemed actionable and were returned via previously described RoR framework, representing an actionable finding rate of 5.1%. Overall, 1.78% of our cohort experienced clinical benefit from RoR. CONCLUSION: Returning research results within the context of large-scale genomics research is a labour-intensive, highly variable, complex operation. Results that warrant action are not infrequent, but the prevalence of those who experience a clinical difference as a result of returning individual results is currently low.

Whole-genome landscape of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours.

The diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNETs) is increasing owing to more sensitive detection methods, and this increase is creating challenges for clinical management. We performed whole-genome sequencing of 102 primary PanNETs and defined the genomic events that characterize their pathogenesis. Here we describe the mutational signatures they harbour, including a deficiency in G:C > T:A base excision repair due to inactivation of MUTYH, which encodes a DNA glycosylase. Clinically sporadic PanNETs contain a larger-than-expected proportion of germline mutations, including previously unreported mutations in the DNA repair genes MUTYH, CHEK2 and BRCA2. Together with mutations in MEN1 and VHL, these mutations occur in 17% of patients. Somatic mutations, including point mutations and gene fusions, were commonly found in genes involved in four main pathways: chromatin remodelling, DNA damage repair, activation of mTOR signalling (including previously undescribed EWSR1 gene fusions), and telomere maintenance. In addition, our gene expression analyses identified a subgroup of tumours associated with hypoxia and HIF signalling.

Hypermutation In Pancreatic Cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is molecularly diverse, with few effective therapies. Increased mutation burden and defective DNA repair are associated with response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in several other cancer types. We interrogated 385 pancreatic cancer genomes to define hypermutation and its causes. Mutational signatures inferring defects in DNA repair were enriched in those with the highest mutation burdens. Mismatch repair deficiency was identified in 1% of tumors harboring different mechanisms of somatic inactivation of MLH1 and MSH2. Defining mutation load in individual pancreatic cancers and the optimal assay for patient selection may inform clinical trial design for immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer.