Search

Background The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program sends an immunochemical faecal occult blood test to Australians aged 50–74 years to screen for bowel cancer, but uptake is low (40.9%). The SMARTscreen trial demonstrated that sending a short messaging services (SMS) prompt from the participant's general practitioner (GP) increased the proportion of kit returns by 16.5%. This research aimed to determine the acceptability and feasibility of implementing SMARTscreen. Method SMARTscreen was a cluster randomized controlled trial set in 21 Australian general practices in regional Australia. Participants and general practice staff involved in the trial were included in this study. Acceptability and feasibility were measured quantitatively by calculating proportions of the SMS received, viewed, or opted out of, and qualitatively by interviewing people who sent and received the SMS. Results Of 2914 SMS sent, 2645 SMS (91%) were received by participants, 1128 (43%) people opened the weblink, and 59 (2%) people opted out of receiving future SMS. Interviews with general practice staff (n = 17) and participants (n = 18) found that sending and receiving the SMS was acceptable and feasible. The SMS was considered a low-burden activity that easily integrated into the clinic's workflow without impacting clinicians' time. Participants reported an increased intention to participate in screening, but some people worried the weblink was spam, and some suggested sending it out of working hours. Conclusion The SMS-based intervention was widely accepted by GP staff and participants. Future research should test the SMS with and without the weblink, and send the SMS at a more convenient time of the day/week. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ovarian cancer is commonly diagnosed symptomatically at an advanced stage. Better survival for early disease suggests improving diagnostic pathways may increase survival. This study examines literature assessing diagnostic intervals and their association with clinical and psychological outcomes. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and EmCare databases were searched for studies including quantitative measures of at least one interval, published between January 1, 2000 and August 9, 2022. Interval measures and associations (interval, outcomes, analytic strategy) were synthesized. Risk of bias of association studies was assessed using the Aarhus Checklist and ROBINS-E tool. Results: In total, 65 papers (20 association studies) were included and 26 unique intervals were identified. Interval estimates varied widely and were impacted by summary statistic used (mean or median) and group focused on. Of Aarhus-defined intervals, patient (symptom to presentation, n = 23; range [median]: 7–168 days) and diagnostic (presentation to diagnosis, n = 22; range [median]: 7–270 days) were most common. Nineteen association studies examined survival or stage outcomes with most, including five low risk-of-bias studies, finding no association. Conclusions: Studies reporting intervals for ovarian cancer diagnosis are limited by inconsistent definitions and reporting. Greater utilization of the Aarhus statement to define intervals and appropriate analytic methods is needed to strengthen findings from future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The platelet count is an established marker of cancer. In healthy populations, platelet count varies by age and sex; despite that variation, a single reference range is used. This study aimed to identify age- and sex-specific upper thresholds for platelet count at which cancer should be considered in primary care, using audits of primary care-based clinical data in England, Canada, and Australia. Across all three cohorts, there was a clear upwards trend in cancer incidence with increasing platelet count for both sexes and at all age groups. The appropriate threshold will vary by country and will depend on local healthcare needs and priorities. As colorectal and lung cancers predominate, initial investigation may target these sites. Further investigation, depending on the patient's symptoms, could be CT imaging, endoscopy, or CA125. The platelet count, a component of the full blood count, has been identified as a useful diagnostic marker for cancer in primary care. The reference range for the platelet count is 150 to 400 or 450 × 109/L; this range does not account for natural variation in platelet count by age and sex. This study used three primary care cohorts from England, Canada, and Australia. Patients aged 40 years and over with a full blood count were included and stratified by age (in 10-year bands), sex, (male/female), and platelet count group. Cancer incidence within one year of the test date was estimated from linked registry data. In all three countries, there was a clear upwards trend in cancer incidence with increasing platelet count for both sexes and at all age groups. Lung and colorectal were the most common sites. These results have important implications for the international application of this work; analysis of local health datasets will be crucial to determining appropriate thresholds. Appropriate upper thresholds will depend on local populations, healthcare needs, and priorities. Further research is needed to assess the likely impact of new recommendations on the healthcare system, on cancer outcomes, and patient benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the challenges and complexities of diagnosing cancer in general practice. It emphasizes the importance of early detection and prevention, but notes that the low prevalence of cancer in primary care settings makes it difficult to accurately identify symptoms. The article critiques current guidelines for relying on specialist opinion rather than primary care research and suggests the need for a syndromic approach that addresses shared symptoms among different types of cancer. It also discusses the potential use of risk assessment and decision support tools, but acknowledges the need for evidence to support their effectiveness and acceptability. The article recognizes the expertise of general practitioners in investigating ambiguous symptoms and highlights the need for tailored resources and tools for their use. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Australia has one of the highest incidences of colorectal cancer (CRC) worldwide. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is a best-practice, organised screening programme, but uptake is low (40.9%) and increasing participation could reduce morbidity and mortality associated with CRC. Endorsement by GPs is strongly associated with increasing screening uptake. Aim: This study (SMARTscreen) aimed to test whether a multi-intervention short message service (SMS) sent by general practices to 50–60-year-old patients who were due to receive the NBCSP kit would increase NBCSP uptake, by comparing it with usual care. Design and setting: A stratified cluster randomised controlled trial was undertaken, involving 21 Australian general practices in Western Victoria, Australia. Method: For intervention practices, people due to receive the NBCSP kit within a 6-month study period were sent an SMS just before receiving the kit. The SMS included a personalised message from the person's general practice endorsing the kit, a motivational narrative video, an instructional video, and a link to more information. Control practices continued with usual care, comprising at-home testing with a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) through the NBCSP. The primary outcome was the between-arm percentage difference in uptake of FIT screening within 12 months from randomisation, which was estimated using generalised linear model regression. Results: In total, 39.2% (1143/2914) of people in 11 intervention practices and 23.0% (583/2537) of people in 10 control practices had a FIT result in their electronic health records — a difference of 16.5% (95% confidence interval = 2.02 to 30.9). Conclusion: The SMS intervention increased NBCSP kit return in 50–60-year-old patients in general practice. This finding informed a larger trial — SMARTERscreen — to test this intervention in a broader Australian population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Quality survivorship information is an essential component of cancer care. However, survivors often report not receiving this information and healthcare professionals report limited practical guidance on how to effectively deliver survivorship information. Therefore, this study used realist review methods to identify mechanisms reported within the published literature for communicating survivorship information and to understand the contextual factors that make these mechanisms effective. Methods: Full‐text papers published in CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Ultimate were included. Studies included in this review were conducted in Australia between January 2006 and December 2023, and reported on how information regarding survivorship care was communicated to adult cancer survivors living in the community. This review utilized realist methodologies: text extracts were converted to if‐then statements used to generate context‐mechanism‐outcome theories. Results: Fifty‐one studies were included and six theories for mechanisms that underpin the effective delivery of survivorship information were formed. These include: (1) tailoring information based on the survivors' background, (2) enhancing communication among providers, (3) employing dedicated survivorship staff, (4) providing survivorship training, (5) reducing the burden on survivors to navigate their care, and (6) using multiple modalities to provide information. Conclusions: Findings can inform practical guidance for how survivorship care information is best delivered in practice. Clinicians can apply this guidance to improve their individual interactions with cancer survivors, as can policymakers to develop healthcare systems and procedures that support effective communication of cancer survivorship information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objective Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival in Australia differs by health insurance status, but why this occurs is uncertain. There are growing concerns about out-of-pocket healthcare costs. We examined patient experiences of referral pathways to diagnosis and treatment of CRC in Victoria, Australia, and discussions about costs, comparing public, private and mixed healthcare system users. Methods Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 16 purposively sampled, English-speaking patients aged ≥40 years with CRC. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Results Private patients described greater out-of-pocket expenses balanced by greater choice of provider and access. Public patients perceived limited choice in their diagnostic or treatment provider, although some considered switching systems. Patients trusted their general practitioner or specialist for referrals. Discussions about costs did not meet guideline recommendations. Discussion There are limited opportunities for informed decision making about public versus private care for cancer diagnosis and treatment, which could contribute to inequalities in outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Australia persistently has one of the highest rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the world. Australia's National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) sends a biennial Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)—the 'NBCSP kit'—to everyone eligible for the programme between 50 and 74 years old; however, participation in the programme is low, especially in the 50- to 60-year-old age group. Our previous efficacy trial ('SMARTscreen') demonstrated an absolute increase in uptake of 16.5% (95% confidence interval = 2.02–30.9%) for people sent an SMS with motivational and instructional videos, from their general practice prior to receiving their NBCSP kit, compared to those receiving usual care. Building on the strengths of the SMARTscreen trial and addressing limitations, the 'SMARTERscreen' trial will test the effect on participation in the NBCSP of sending either an SMS only or an SMS with online video material to general practice patients due to receive their NBCSP compared to 'usual care'. Methods: SMARTERscreen is a three-arm stratified cluster randomised controlled trial involving 63 general practices in two states in Australia. Eligible patients are patients who are aged 49–60 years and due to receive their NBCSP kit within the next 2 weeks during the intervention period. General practices will be equally randomised to three trial arms (21:21:21, estimated average 260 patients/practice). The two interventions include (i) an SMS with an encouraging message from their general practice or (ii) the same SMS with weblinks to additional motivational and instructional videos. The control arm will receive 'usual care'. Using the intention-to-treat approach, primary analysis will estimate the three pair-wise between-arm differences in the proportion of eligible patients who participate in the NBCSP within 6 months of when their kit is sent, utilising screening data from the Australian National Cancer Screening Register (NCSR). Patient intervention adherence to the interventions will also be evaluated. Findings will be incorporated into the Policy1-Bowel microsimulation model to estimate the long-term health benefits and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Discussion: SMARTERscreen will provide high-level evidence determining whether an SMS or an SMS with web-based material sent to general practice patients prior to receiving their NBCSP kit increases participation in bowel cancer screening. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000036617. Registered on 13 January 2023. Trial URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=385119&isClinicalTrial=False [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate existing evidence on the relationship between diagnostic and treatment intervals and outcomes for colorectal cancer. Methods: Four databases were searched for English language articles assessing the role of time before initial treatment in colorectal cancer on any outcome, including stage and survival. Two reviewers independently screened articles for inclusion and data were synthesised narratively. A dose–response meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between treatment interval and survival. Results: One hundred and thirty papers were included in the systematic review, eight were included in the meta-analysis. Forty-five different intervals were considered in the time from first symptom to treatment. The most common finding was of no association between the length of intervals on any outcome. The dose–response meta-analysis showed a U-shaped association between the treatment interval and overall survival with the nadir at 45 days. Conclusion: The review found inconsistent, but mostly a lack of, association between interval length and colorectal cancer outcomes, but study design and quality were heterogeneous. Meta-analysis suggests survival becomes increasingly poorer for those commencing treatment more than 45 days after diagnosis. Registration: This review was registered, and the protocol is available, in PROSPERO, the international database of systematic reviews, with the registration ID CRD42021255864. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening could result in a more acceptable balance of benefits and harms, and be more cost-effective. Aim: To determine the effect of a consultation in general practice using a computerised risk assessment and decision support tool (Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction, CRISP) on risk-appropriate CRC screening. Design and setting: Randomised controlled trial in 10 general practices in Melbourne, Australia, from May 2017 to May 2018. Method: Participants were recruited from a consecutive sample of patients aged 50–74 years attending their GP. Intervention consultations included CRC risk assessment using the CRISP tool and discussion of CRC screening recommendations. Control group consultations focused on lifestyle CRC risk factors. The primary outcome was risk-appropriate CRC screening at 12 months. Results: A total of 734 participants (65.1% of eligible patients) were randomised (369 intervention, 365 control); the primary outcome was determined for 722 (362 intervention, 360 control). There was a 6.5% absolute increase (95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.28 to 13.2) in risk-appropriate screening in the intervention compared with the control group (71.5% versus 65.0%; odds ratio [OR] 1.36, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.86, P = 0.057). In those due CRC screening during follow-up, there was a 20.3% (95% CI = 10.3 to 30.4) increase (intervention 59.8% versus control 38.9%; OR 2.31, 95% CI = 1.51 to 3.53, P<0.001) principally by increasing faecal occult blood testing in those at average risk. Conclusion: A risk assessment and decision support tool increases risk-appropriate CRC screening in those due screening. The CRISP intervention could commence in people in their fifth decade to ensure people start CRC screening at the optimal age with the most cost-effective test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To conduct a systematic literature review to critically assess the met and unmet post‐treatment information needs of cancer survivors living in rural communities in Australia, to inform the improvement of survivors' transition from treatment in major cities to community care. Methods: Cumulative index of nursing and allied health literature, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL and Academic Search Ultimate databases and websites of 118 cancer organisations were searched for relevant Australian studies published since 2006. Key search terms included 'rural', 'remote', 'regional', 'cancer', 'survivor*', 'living with', and 'post‐treatment'. Data reflecting study source, aims, methodology, and reported information needs were extracted and summarised. Study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Results: Fifty‐two articles met eligibility criteria. Only six of these specified a primary aim of understanding information needs for rural cancer survivors. Information on prognosis and recovery; managing treatment side effects; healthy lifestyle choices; referrals to support services, and face‐to‐face and written delivery of information at multiple time points were reported as needed and often lacking for rural cancer survivors. Conclusions: Co‐ordinated, multi‐step provision of information to support health and recovery after cancer treatment and beyond is likely to be particularly important for rural cancer survivors given their broad range of needs and reduced access to health care services. Findings provide useful recommendations to facilitate patients' transition home to rural communities after cancer treatment in major cities, however, an increased understanding of the information needs of rural survivors is required to inform the development of guidelines that can be used in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International variations in cancer outcomes persist and may be influenced by differences in the accessibility and organisation of cancer patient pathways. More evidence is needed to understand to what extent variations in the structure of primary care referral pathways for cancer investigation contribute to differences in the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes in different countries. Aim: To explore the variation in primary care referral pathways for the management of suspected cancer across different countries. Design and setting: Descriptive comparative analysis using mixed methods across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) countries. Method: Schematics of primary care referral pathways were developed across 10 ICBP jurisdictions. The schematics were initially developed using the Aarhus statement (a resource providing greater insight and precision into early cancer diagnosis research) and were further supplemented with expert insights through consulting leading experts in primary care and cancer, existing ICBP data, a focused review of existing evidence on the management of suspected cancer, published primary care cancer guidelines, and evaluations of referral tools and initiatives in primary care. Results: Referral pathway schematics for 10 ICBP jurisdictions were presented alongside a descriptive comparison of the organisation of primary care management of suspected cancer. Several key areas of variation across countries were identified: inflexibility of referral pathways, lack of a managed route for non-specific symptoms, primary care practitioner decision-making autonomy, direct access to investigations, and use of emergency routes. Conclusion: Analysing the differences in referral processes can prompt further research to better understand the impact of variation on the timeliness of diagnoses and cancer outcomes. Studying these schematics in local contexts may help to identify opportunities to improve care and facilitate discussions on what may constitute best referral practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reproductive genetic carrier screening (RGCS) provides people with information about their chance of having children with autosomal recessive or X-linked genetic conditions, enabling informed reproductive decision-making. RGCS is recommended to be offered to all couples during preconception or in early pregnancy. However, cost and a lack of awareness may prevent access. To address this, the Australian Government funded Mackenzie's Mission—the Australian Reproductive Genetic Carrier Screening Project. Mackenzie's Mission aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an easily accessible RGCS program, provided free of charge to the participant. In study Phase 1, implementation needs were mapped, and key study elements were developed. In Phase 2, RGCS is being offered by healthcare providers educated by the study team. Reproductive couples who provide consent are screened for over 1200 genes associated with >750 serious, childhood-onset genetic conditions. Those with an increased chance result are provided comprehensive genetic counseling support. Reproductive couples, recruiting healthcare providers, and study team members are also invited to complete surveys and/or interviews. In Phase 3, a mixed-methods analysis will be undertaken to assess the program outcomes, psychosocial implications and implementation considerations alongside an ongoing bioethical analysis and a health economic evaluation. Findings will inform the implementation of an ethically robust RGCS program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In some countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, point-of-care testing (POCT) is more widely implemented in general practice compared to countries such as England and Australia. To comprehend what is necessary to realize the benefits of POCT, regarding its integration in primary care, it would be beneficial to have an overview of the structure of healthcare operations and the transactions between stakeholders (also referred to as value networks). The aim of this paper is to identify the current value networks in place applying to POCT implementation at general practices in England, Australia, Norway and the Netherlands and to compare these networks in terms of seven previously published factors that support the successful implementation, sustainability and scale-up of innovations. Methods: The value networks were described based on formal guidelines and standards published by the respective governments, organizational bodies and affiliates. The value network of each country was validated by at least two relevant stakeholders from the respective country. Results: The analysis revealed that the biggest challenge for countries with low POCT uptake was the lack of effective communication between the several organizations involved with POCT as well as the high workload for general practitioners (GPs) aiming to implement POCT. It is observed that countries with a single national authority responsible for POCT have a better uptake as they can govern the task of POCT roll-out and management and reduce the workload for GPs by assisting with set-up, quality control, training and support. Conclusion: Setting up a single national authority may be an effective step towards realizing the full benefits of POCT. Although it is possible for day-to-day operations to fall under the responsibility of the GP, this is only feasible if support and guidance are readily available to ensure that the workload associated with POCT is limited and as low as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This cluster-randomized controlled trial aimed to assess the effect of the "Which test is best?" tool on risk-appropriate screening (RAS) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake. Methods: General practices in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and a random sub-sample of 460 patients (aged 25–74 years) per practice were invited by post. Clusters were computer randomized independently of the researchers to an online CRC risk calculator with risk-based recommendations versus usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were RAS and screening uptake via self-reported 5-year screening behaviour after 12 months follow-up. The usual care group (UCG) also self-reported 5-year CRC screening behaviour at 12 month post-randomization. Results: Fifty-six practices were randomized (27 to the intervention and 29 to the control, 55 practices participated) with 818 intervention and 677 controls completing the primary outcome measure. The intervention significantly increased RAS in high-risk participants compared with UCG (80.0% vs. 64.0%, respectively; OR = 3.14, 95% CI: 1.25–7.96) but not in average-risk (44.9% vs. 49.5%, respectively; OR = 0.97, 95% CI: 0.99–1.12) or moderate-risk individuals (67.9% vs. 81.1%, respectively; OR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.12–1.33). Faecal occult blood testing uptake over 12 months was increased compared with the UCG (24.9% vs. 15.1%; adjusted OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.24–2.22), and there was a non-significant increase in colonoscopies during the same period (16.6% vs. 12.2%; adjusted OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 0.97–2.08). Conclusion: An online CRC risk calculator with risk-based screening recommendations increased RAS in high-risk participants and improved screening uptake overall within a 12-month follow-up period. Such tools may be useful for facilitating the uptake of risk-based screening guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.Methods: Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.Results: Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important.Conclusions: These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Increasing participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is the most efficient and cost-effective way of reducing mortality associated with colorectal cancer by detecting and treating early-stage disease. Currently, only 44% of Australians aged 50-74 years complete the NBCSP. This efficacy trial aims to test whether this SMS intervention is an effective method for increasing participation in the NBCSP. Furthermore, a process evaluation will explore the barriers and facilitators to sending the SMS from general practice.Methods: We will recruit 20 general practices in the western region of Victoria, Australia to participate in a cluster randomised controlled trial. General practices will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to either a control or intervention group. Established general practice software will be used to identify patients aged 50 to 60 years old who are due to receive a NBCSP kit in the next month. The SMS intervention includes GP endorsement and links to narrative messages about the benefits of and instructions on how to complete the NBCSP kit. It will be sent from intervention general practices to eligible patients prior to receiving the NBCSP kit. We require 1400 eligible patients to provide 80% power with a two-sided 5% significance level to detect a 10% increase in CRC screening participation in the intervention group compared to the control group. Our primary outcome is the difference in the proportion of eligible patients who completed a faecal occult blood test (FOBT) between the intervention and control group for up to 12 months after the SMS was sent, as recorded in their electronic medical record (EMR). A process evaluation using interview data collected from general practice staff (GP, practice managers, nurses) and patients will explore the feasibility and acceptability of sending and receiving a SMS to prompt completing a NBCSP kit.Discussion: This efficacy trial will provide initial trial evidence of the utility of an SMS narrative intervention to increase participation in the NBCSP. The results will inform decisions about the need for and design of a larger, multi-state trial of this SMS intervention to determine its cost-effectiveness and future implementation.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001020976 . Registered on 17 October 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Lung cancer patients from ethnic minorities have poorer outcomes than their Caucasian counterparts. We compared lung cancer intervals between culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and Anglo‐Australian patients to identify ethnic disparities. Methods: This was a prospective, observational cohort study comprising a patient survey and reviews of patients' hospital and general practice records. Across three states, 577 (407 Anglo‐Australian and 170 CALD) patients were recruited and their hospital records reviewed. The survey was returned by 189 (135 Anglo‐Australian and 54 CALD) patients, and a review was completed by general practitioners (GPs) of 99 (76 Anglo‐Australian and 23 CALD) patients. Survival and Cox regression analyses were conducted. Results: CALD patients had longer hospital diagnostic interval [median 30 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 26–34] than Anglo‐Australian patients (median 17, 95% CI 14–20), p = 0.005, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.32 (95% CI 1.09–1.60). This difference persisted after relevant factors were taken into consideration, adjusted HR = 1.26 (95% CI 1.03–1.54, p = 0.022). CALD patients also reported longer prehospital intervals; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Target interventions need to be developed to address ethnic disparity in hospital diagnostic interval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A positive patient experience has been long recognised as a key feature of a high-quality health service, however, often assessment of patient experience excludes diagnostic care. Experience of diagnostic services and the acceptability of diagnostic tests are often conflated, with lack of clarity about when and how either should be measured. These problems contrast with the growth in the development and marketing of new tests and investigation strategies. Building on the appraisal of current practice, we propose that the experience of diagnostic services and the acceptability of tests should be assessed separately, and describe distinct components of each. Such evaluations will enhance the delivery of patient-centred care, and facilitate patient choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Managing the growing demand for colonoscopies is challenging. Aims: To assess the diagnostic performance of National and Victorian colonoscopy triage guidelines and potential redistribution of triage categories. Methods: This is a diagnostic validation study comparing colonoscopy triage guidelines against a reference colonoscopy dataset. Participants were a reference dataset of 2378 colonoscopies from 1 October 2014 to 30 June 2016. Comparison with triage categorisation determined using National Cancer Council Australia guidelines; Victorian triage guidelines; Optimal Cancer Care Pathways recommendations. Main outcome measures were as follows: (i) proportion of colonoscopies assigned to each triage category; (ii) detection rate (proportion of cancers assigned to triage Category 1); and (iii) conversion rate (proportion of triage Category 1 colonoscopies that diagnose a cancer). Results: After adjusting for data absent in referrals, the National and Victorian guidelines reduced the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies compared with the reference triage (National 76.3% vs 58.6%; 95% CI for difference 15.0–20.3%, P < 0.0001. Victorian 76.3% vs 66.3%; 95% CI for difference 7.4–12.6%, P < 0.0001). Victorian guidelines were associated with the highest detection rate (91.4%) and a conversion rate of 5.4% although the number of cancers limited the power to detect significant differences on these metrics. There was a higher proportion of unclassifiable colonoscopies using the National guidelines than the Victorian ones due to their focus on symptomatic indications. Conclusions: The Victorian guidelines could reduce the proportion of Category 1 colonoscopies by 10% without reducing conversion or detection rates. This would require improvements in the quality of referrals and ordering faecal occult blood tests in 6% of symptomatic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meaningful consumer involvement in health research is important. There are limited data on how to maintain long‐term consumer involvement. Objective: To identify barriers and facilitators to meaningful long‐term consumer involvement in research. Design: Six semi‐structured interviews were conducted with members of the Primary Care Collaborative Cancer Clinical Trials Group (PC4) Community Advisory Group (CAG) and included the review of 40 supporting documents. Interviews and documents were analysed using inductive thematic analysis; the themes were mapped onto the domains of Cancer Australia's National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control. Results: Equality, respect and feeling valued were facilitators to long‐term involvement. These elements were part of an overarching theme of organizational commitment. Creating balance, managing competing deadlines and integrating a consumer role with a personal life were key barriers to involvement. These themes mapped strongly to the National Framework for Consumer Involvement in Cancer Control domains of committed organizations, capable consumers, inclusive groups and shared focus. Conclusion: Research networks should reflect on several factors to maintain long‐term consumer involvement. Networks should aim to build a meaningful relationship, using clear communication and education, that reinforces the value and scope of a consumers contributions. We found that consumer education needs do not diminish over time and adequate skill development, support and feedback need to be on‐going. Creating regular opportunities for feedback and reflection are important to continue to meet best practice guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) sponsored an expert-led, consensus-driven, four-stage process, based on a modified Delphi methodology, to determine a set of clinical indicators as quality measures of cancer service provision in Australia. This was done in response to requests from institutional health care providers seeking accreditation, which were additional and complementary to the existing radiation oncology set. The steering group members comprised multidisciplinary key opinion leaders and a consumer representative. Five additional participants constituted the stakeholder group, who deliberated on the final indicator set.Methods and Recommendations: An initial meeting of the steering group scoped the high level nature of the desired set. In stage 2, 65 candidate indicators were identified by a literature review and a search of international metrics. These were ranked by survey, based on ease of data accessibility and collectability and clinical relevance. The top 27 candidates were debated by the stakeholder group and culled to a final set of 16 indicators. A user manual was created with indicators mapped to clinical codes. The indicator set was ratified by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and is now available for use by health care organisations participating in the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. This inaugural cancer clinical indicator set covers high level assessment of various critical processes in cancer service provision in Australia. Regular reviews and updates will ensure usability.Changes in Management AsA Result Of This Statement: This is the inaugural indicator set for cancer care for use across Australia and internationally under the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. Multidisciplinary involvement through a modified Delphi process selected indicators representing both generic and specific aspects of care across the cancer journey pathway and will provide a functional tool to compare health care delivery across multiple settings. It is anticipated that this will drive continual improvement in cancer care provision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Successful breast cancer screening relies on timely follow-up of abnormal mammograms. Delayed or failure to follow-up abnormal mammograms undermines the potential benefits of screening and is associated with poorer outcomes. However, a comprehensive review of inadequate follow-up of abnormal mammograms in primary care has not previously been reported in the literature. This review could identify modifiable factors that influence follow-up, which if addressed, may lead to improved follow-up and patient outcomes.Methods: A systematic literature review to determine the extent of inadequate follow-up of abnormal screening mammograms in primary care and identify factors impacting on follow-up was conducted. Relevant studies published between 1 January, 1990 and 29 October, 2020 were identified by searching MEDLINE®, Embase, CINAHL® and Cochrane Library, including reference and citation checking. Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias of included studies according to study design.Results: Eighteen publications reporting on 17 studies met inclusion criteria; 16 quantitative and two qualitative studies. All studies were conducted in the United States, except one study from the Netherlands. Failure to follow-up abnormal screening mammograms within 3 and at 6 months ranged from 7.2-33% and 27.3-71.6%, respectively. Women of ethnic minority and lower education attainment were more likely to have inadequate follow-up. Factors influencing follow-up included physician-patient miscommunication, information overload created by automated alerts, the absence of adequate retrieval systems to access patient's results and a lack of coordination of patient records. Logistical barriers to follow-up included inconvenient clinic hours and inconsistent primary care providers. Patient navigation and case management with increased patient education and counselling by physicians was demonstrated to improve follow-up.Conclusions: Follow-up of abnormal mammograms in primary care is suboptimal. However, interventions addressing amendable factors that negatively impact on follow-up have the potential to improve follow-up, especially for populations of women at risk of inadequate follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Twitter is a microblogging platform that helps share information. It is a dynamic tool that has been embraced by many user types including consumers and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Currently, there are no data on how cancer in primary care features on Twitter. Aim: To explore the type of users and information shared about cancer in primary care on Twitter. Design & setting: A descriptive exploratory study took place of publicly available Twitter data. Method: Tweets were searched between July 2015 and June 2017 for 'GP', 'general practice', 'primary care', or 'general practitioner' in conjunction with 'cancer'. A 20% random sample was coded for geographic location, user type, type of tweet, and theme. Tweet sentiment was analysed using R package sentimentr. Content that gained traction was compared by combining original tweets, retweets, favourites, and duration. Results: There were a total of 3413 tweets from 1611 users in 44 countries. Consumers were the largest user group followed by health organisations, healthcare professionals, and the media. The most common theme across user types was diagnostic delay. Other themes that emerged included cancer screening, symptom awareness, and early diagnosis. Consumers published more negative tweets, particularly in relation to diagnostic delay. Health organisations focused on symptom awareness and screening. Over half of media tweets were stories that featured delayed diagnosis or screening. Conclusion: A broad range of users engage with Twitter to share information about cancer in primary care. Content is different between user groups, but diagnostic delay and symptom awareness are common themes. Healthcare and professional organisations may need to consider approaches to counter negative messages about diagnostic delay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In many countries, population colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is based on age and family history, though more precise risk prediction could better target screening. We examined the impact of a CRC risk prediction model (incorporating age, sex, lifestyle, genomic, and family history factors) to target screening under several feasible screening scenarios. Methods We estimated the model's predicted CRC risk distribution in the Australian population. Predicted CRC risks were categorized into screening recommendations under 3 proposed scenarios to compare with current recommendations: 1) highly tailored, 2) 3 risk categories, and 3) 4 sex-specific risk categories. Under each scenario, for 35- to 74-year-olds, we calculated the number of CRC screens by immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT) and colonoscopy and the proportion of predicted CRCs over 10 years in each screening group. Results Currently, 1.1% of 35- to 74-year-olds are recommended screening colonoscopy and 56.2% iFOBT, and 5.7% and 83.2% of CRCs over 10 years were predicted to occur in these groups, respectively. For the scenarios, 1) colonoscopy was recommended to 8.1% and iFOBT to 37.5%, with 36.1% and 50.1% of CRCs in each group; 2) colonoscopy was recommended to 2.4% and iFOBT to 56.0%, with 13.2% and 76.9% of cancers in each group; and 3) colonoscopy was recommended to 5.0% and iFOBT to 54.2%, with 24.5% and 66.5% of cancers in each group. Conclusions A highly tailored CRC screening scenario results in many fewer screens but more cancers in those unscreened. Category-based scenarios may provide a good balance between number of screens and cancers detected and are simpler to implement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Colorectal cancer patients living in rural areas have poorer outcomes than urban counterparts, but such disparities are not found for breast cancer. Although time to care may contribute to rural‐urban disparities, few studies examine patient experiences to understand how and why delays may occur. We compared rural and urban patient experiences of pathways to colorectal or breast cancer diagnosis and treatment in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with 43 patients (49% colorectal; 60% rural, median 7 months postdiagnosis). A framework analysis was applied using the Model of Pathways to Treatment. Findings: Rural and urban patients expressed similar attitudes and reasons for prolonged symptom appraisal and help‐seeking triggers. However, some rural patients reported long waiting times to see a Primary Care Practitioner (PCP) and perceived greater gatekeeping to diagnostic services. Patient perceptions of the urgency of PCP referral could impact behavior, such as waiting longer to book appointments. Colorectal cancer patients reported more variable types of symptoms, interpretation, and coping strategies, as well as diverse presentation routes and reduced sense of urgency, compared to breast cancer patients. Waiting time for colonoscopy could be long, particularly in the public health system, but mammograms were quickly arranged. Conclusions: Pathway variation was more evident by cancer type than residential location. However, access to primary care and diagnostic services for rural patients with colorectal cancer may be important policy targets. Future research should investigate the impact of diagnostic service accessibility on PCP referral behavior to further understand rural‐urban disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: Some international guidelines recommend a risk‐based approach to screening for melanoma, but few suggest how to account for multiple risk factors or how to implement risk‐based screening in practice. This study investigated the acceptability and feasibility of identifying patients at increased risk of melanoma in Australian general practice using a self‐completed risk assessment tool. Stratification of risk was based on the validated Williams melanoma risk prediction model. Methods: Patients and companions aged 18 or older in Australian general practices were approached in the waiting room and invited to enter information about their melanoma risk factors into the tool using an iPad. Acceptability was measured by the proportion of people willing to participate from those invited and feasibility by the number of people able to complete the tool unaided. Risk of developing melanoma was stratified into four risk categories using the Williams model. Results: 1535 (90.4%) participants were recruited from two general practices. Only 200 participants (13%) needed assistance to complete the tool. The mean risk score for participants was 15.2 (±SD 9.8). The Williams model estimated between 5% and 19% of the sample were at increased risk accounting for an estimated 30% to 60% of future incident melanomas. Conclusions: A risk‐stratified tool using the Williams model was acceptable and feasible for patients to self‐complete in general practice clinics. This could be an effective way to identify people in primary care for implementing risk‐based targeted melanoma screening and prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Genomic tests can predict risk and tailor screening recommendations for colorectal cancer (CRC). Primary care could be suitable for their widespread implementation. Objective: We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of administering a CRC genomic test in primary care. Methods: Participants aged 45–74 years recruited from 4 Australian general practices were offered a genomic CRC risk test. Participants received brief verbal information about the test comprising 45 CRC-associated single-nucleotide polymorphisms, before choosing whether to undertake the test. Personalized risks were given to testers. Uptake and knowledge of the genomic test, cancer-specific anxiety (Cancer Worry Scale), psychosocial impact (Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment [MICRA] score), and impact on CRC screening behaviour within 6 months were measured. Results: In 150 participants, test uptake was high (126, 84%), with 125 (83%) having good knowledge of the genomic test. Moderate risk participants were impacted more by the test (MICRA mean: 15.9) than average risk participants (mean: 9.5, difference in means: 6.4, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 11.2, p = 0.01), but all scores were low. Average risk participants' cancer-specific anxiety decreased (mean differences from baseline: 1 month −0.5, 95% CI: −1.0, −0.1, p = 0.03; 6 months −0.6, 95% CI: −1.0, −0.2, p = 0.01). We found limited evidence for genomic testers being more likely to complete the risk-appropriate CRC screening than non-testers (41 vs. 17%, odds ratio = 3.4, 95% CI: 0.6, 34.8, p = 0.19), but some mediators of screening behaviour were altered in genomic testers. Conclusions: Genomic testing for CRC risk in primary care is acceptable and likely feasible. Further development of the risk assessment intervention could strengthen the impact on screening behaviour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Late stage diagnosis of oesophageal and gastric cancer is common, which limits treatment options and contributes to poor survival. Aim: To explore patients' understanding, experience and presentation of symptoms before a diagnosis of oesophageal or gastric cancer. Design & setting: Between May 2016 and October 2017, all patients newly diagnosed with oesophageal or gastric cancer were identified at weekly multidisciplinary team meetings at two large hospitals in England. A total of 321 patients were invited to participate in a survey and secondary care medical record review; 127 (40%) participants responded (102 patients had oesophageal cancer and 25 had gastric cancer). Of these, 26 participated in an additional face-to- face interview. Method: Survey and medical record data were analysed descriptively. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the Model of Pathways to Treatment. Results: Participants experienced multiple symptoms before diagnosis. The most common symptom associated with oesophageal cancer was dysphagia (n = 66, 65%); for gastric cancer, fatigue or tiredness (n = 20, 80%) was the most common symptom. Understanding of heartburn, reflux and indigestion, and associated symptoms differed between participants and often contrasted with clinical perspectives. Bodily changes attributed to personal and/or lifestyle factors were self-managed, with presentation to primary care prompted when symptoms persisted, worsened, or impacted daily life, or were notably severe or unusual. Participants rarely presented all symptoms at the initial consultation. Conclusion: The patient interval may be lengthened by misinterpretation of key terms, such as heartburn, or misattribution or non-recognition of important bodily changes. Clearly defined symptom awareness messages may encourage earlier help-seeking, while eliciting symptom experience and meanings in primary care consultations could prompt earlier referral and diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) globally. Our research team has developed a CRC risk prediction tool for use in primary care to increase targeted screening. This study, Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool - patient ('CRISP-P'), aimed to determine the following to inform a future trial design: (i) the feasibility of self-reporting; (ii) the feasibility of recruitment methods; and (iii) the prevalence of CRC risk.Methods: Participants aged between 40 and 75 years were recruited consecutively from three primary care waiting rooms. Participants input data into CRISP on a tablet without receiving clinical advice. Feasibility was evaluated using recruitment rate, timely completion, a self-reported 'ease-of-use', score and field notes. Prevalence of CRC risk was calculated using the CRISP model.Results: Five hundred sixty-one (90%) patients agreed to use the tool and 424 (84%) rated the tool easy to use. Despite this, 41% of people were unable to complete the questions without assistance. Patients who were older, without tertiary education or with English as their second language were more likely to require assistance (P < 0.001). Thirty-nine percent of patients were low risk, 58% at slightly increased and 2.4% were at moderately increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the next 5 years.Conclusions: The tool was perceived as easy to use, although older, less educated people, and patients with English as their second language needed help. The data support the recruitment methods but not the use of a self-completed tool for an efficacy trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New Australian guidelines recommend that GPs actively consider prescribing low-dose aspirin to patients aged 50–70 years to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients and GPs need to understand the relative benefits and harms to support informed decision making. Aim: To develop and examine different methods to communicate the benefits and harms of taking aspirin for CRC prevention. Design and setting: A cross-sectional, vignette study with patients aged 50–70 years consecutively recruited from general practices in Melbourne, Australia, between July and August 2018. Method: Summary estimates from meta-analyses of the effects of aspirin on the incidence of CRC, cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal bleeding, and incidence rates in the Australian population to estimate outcomes in a hypothetical population of 10 000 people aged 50–70 years. These estimates were presented using four different risk communication formats. Participants were shown these different formats and asked if they would take aspirin to prevent CRC. Results: A total of 313 participants were recruited (95.1% recruitment rate), of whom 304 completed the study. Most participants (71.7–75.3%) reported they would take aspirin irrespective of risk format presented. Bar charts (odds ratio [OR] 1.20, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 1.01 to 1.44) and expected frequency trees (OR 1.18, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.41) were more strongly associated with the intentions to take aspirin compared with icon arrays. Bar charts were most preferred for presenting risk information. Conclusion: A large proportion of participants in this study intended to take aspirin to reduce their CRC risk regardless of risk communication format. Bar charts and expected frequency trees were the preferred methods to present the benefits and harms of taking aspirin to prevent CRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Australia, evidence-based guidelines recommend that women consider taking selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) to reduce their risk of breast cancer. In practice, this requires effective methods for communicating the harms and benefits of taking SERMs so women can make an informed choice. Aim: To evaluate how different risk presentations influence women's decisions to consider taking SERMs. Design and setting: Cross-sectional, correlational study of Australian women in general practice. Method: Three risk communication formats were developed that included graphics, numbers, and text to explain the reduction in breast cancer risk and risk of side effects for women taking SERMs (raloxifene or tamoxifen). Women aged 40–74 years in two general practices were shown the risk formats using vignettes of hypothetical women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer and asked to choose 'If this was you, would you consider taking a SERM?' Descriptive statistics and predictors (risk format, level of risk, and type of SERM) of choosing SERMs were determined by logistic regression. Results: A total of 288 women were recruited (an 88% response rate) between March and May 2017. The risk formats that showed a government statement and an icon array were associated with a greater likelihood of considering SERMs relative to one that showed a novel expected frequency tree. Risk formats for raloxifene and for the high-risk vignettes were also more strongly associated with choosing to consider SERMs. No associations were found with any patient demographics. Conclusion: Specific risk formats may lead to more women considering taking SERMs to reduce breast cancer risk, especially if they are at high risk of the condition. Raloxifene may be a more acceptable SERM to patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis. Aim: To investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation. Design and setting: A systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018. Method: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper. Results: Of the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP's role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow. Conclusion: eCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tools have been developed to facilitate communication and support information exchange between people diagnosed with cancer and their physicians. Patient-reported outcome measures, question prompt lists, patient-held records, tape recordings of consultations, decision aids, and survivorship care plans have all been promoted as potential tools, and there is extensive literature exploring their impact on patient outcomes. Eleven systematic reviews of studies evaluating tools to facilitate patient-physician communication were reviewed and summarized in this overview of systematic reviews. Across the systematic reviews, 87 publications reported on 84 primary studies involving 15,381 participants. Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures and feedback of results to clinicians can improve pain management, physician-patient communication, and symptom detection and control; increase utilization of supportive care; and increase patient involvement in care. Question prompt lists can increase the number of questions asked by patients without increasing consultation length and may encourage them to reflect and plan questions before the consultation. There is limited benefit in audio recording consultations or using patient-held records during consultations. Physicians should be supported by adequately resourced health services to respond effectively to the range of clinical and broader patient needs identified through the routine use of tools to facilitate communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before SNP-based risk can be incorporated in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, the ability of these SNPs to estimate CRC risk for persons with and without a family history of CRC, and the screening implications need to be determined. We estimated the association with CRC of a 45 SNP-based risk using 1181 cases and 999 controls, and its correlation with CRC risk predicted from detailed family history. We estimated the predicted change in the distribution across predefined risk categories, and implications for recommended screening commencement age, from adding SNP-based risk to family history. The inter-quintile risk ratio for colorectal cancer risk of the SNP-based risk was 3.28 (95% CI 2.54–4.22). SNP-based and family history-based risks were not correlated (r = 0.02). For persons with no first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 4 years earlier for women (5 years for men) in the highest quintile of SNP-based risk. For persons with two first-degree relatives with CRC, screening could commence 16 years earlier for men and women in the highest quintile, and 7 years earlier for the lowest quintile. This 45 SNP panel in conjunction with family history, can identify people who could benefit from earlier screening. Risk reclassification by 45 SNPs could inform targeted screening for CRC prevention, particularly in clinical genetics settings when mutations in high-risk genes cannot be identified. Yet to be determined is cost-effectiveness, resources requirements, community, patient and clinician acceptance, and feasibility with potentially ethical, legal and insurance implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Australia, there is limited use of primary health care data for research and for data linkage between health care settings. This puts Australia behind many developed countries. In addition, without use of primary health care data for research, knowledge about patients' journeys through the health care system is limited. There is growing momentum to establish "big data" repositories of primary care clinical data to enable data linkage, primary care and population health research, and quality assurance activities. However, little research has been conducted on the general public's and practitioners' concerns about secondary use of electronic health records in Australia. International studies have identified barriers to use of general practice patient records for research. These include legal, technical, ethical, social and resource-related issues. Examples include concerns about privacy protection, data security, data custodians and the motives for collecting data, as well as a lack of incentives for general practitioners to share data. Addressing barriers may help define good practices for appropriate use of health data for research. Any model for general practice data sharing for research should be underpinned by transparency and a strong legal, ethical, governance and data security framework. Mechanisms to collect electronic medical records in ethical, secure and privacy-controlled ways are available. Before the potential benefits of health-related data research can be realised, Australians should be well informed of the risks and benefits so that the necessary social licence can be generated to support such endeavours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International research has focused on screening and mass media campaigns to promote earlier patient presentation and detect lung cancer earlier. This trial tested the effect of a behavioural intervention in people at increased risk of lung cancer on help-seeking for respiratory symptoms.Methods: Parallel, individually randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were long-term smokers with at least 20 pack-years, aged 55 and above. The CHEST intervention entailed a consultation to discuss and implement a self-help manual, followed by self-monitoring reminders to encourage help-seeking for respiratory symptoms. The control group received a brief discussion about lung health. Both groups had baseline spirometry. Telephone randomisation was conducted, 1:1, stratified Medical Research Council (MRC) dyspnoea score and general practice. Participants could not be blinded; data extraction and statistical analyses were performed blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome was respiratory consultation rates.Results: We randomised 551 participants (274 intervention, 277 control) from whom the primary outcome was determined for 542 (269 intervention, 273 control). There was a 40% relative increase in respiratory consultations in the intervention group: (adjusted rates (95% CI) intervention 0.57 (0.47 to 0.70), control 0.41 (0.32 to 0.52), relative rate 1.40 (1.08 to 1.82); p=0.0123). There were no significant differences in time to first respiratory consultation, total consultation rates or measures of psychological harm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $A1289 per additional respiratory consultation.Conclusions: A behavioural intervention can significantly increase consulting for respiratory symptoms in patients at increased risk of lung cancer. This intervention could have an important role in primary care as part of a broader approach to improve respiratory health in patients at higher risk.Trial Registration Number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (1261300039 3752). This was registered pre-results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Timely diagnosis of the serious skin cancer melanoma can improve patient outcomes. Clinical guidelines suggest that GPs use checklists, such as the 7-point checklist (7PCL), to assess pigmented lesions. In 2016, the 7PCL was disseminated by EMIS as an electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tool. Aim: To understand GP and patient perspectives on the implementation and usefulness of the eCDS. Design & setting: Semi-structured interviews with GPs and patients were undertaken. The interviews took place in four general practices in the south east of England following consultations using the eCDS for suspicious pigmented lesions. Method: Data were collected from semi-structured face-to-face interviews with GPs and from telephone interviews with patients. They were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the analysis using thematic approaches. Results: A total of 14 interviews with GPs and 14 interviews with patients were undertaken. Most GPs reported that, as the eCDS was embedded in the medical record, it was useful, easy to use, time-efficient, and could facilitate patient-GP communication. They were less clear that it could meet policy or patient needs to improve early diagnosis, and some felt that it could lead to unnecessary referrals. Few felt that it had been sufficiently implemented at practice level. More felt confident with their own management of moles, and that the eCDS could be most useful for borderline decision-making. No patients were aware that the eCDS had been used during their consultation. Conclusion: Successful implementation of a new tool, such as eCDS for melanoma, requires GPs to perceive its value and understand how it can best be integrated into clinical practice. Disseminating a tool without such explanations is unlikely to promote its adoption into routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Prevention of cancer in primary care has focused on modifying behaviours associated with increased risk of cancer (primary prevention) or increasing participation in national cancer screening programs (secondary prevention). On the basis of meta-analyses of large prevention trials, a new paradigm in primary prevention - chemoprevention - is beginning to enter the realms of primary care for specific populations. Objectives In this article, we discuss two examples of cancer chemoprevention relevant to general practice: low-dose aspirin for the prevention of colorectal cancer in people aged 50-70 years, and selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) for women at increased risk of breast cancer. We present new expected frequency trees that show the absolute benefits and harms of taking these medications in specific populations. Discussion These expected frequency trees can serve as risk-communication aids to support shared decision making and the implementation of new chemoprevention guidelines in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Screening is an effective means for colorectal cancer prevention and early detection. Family history is strongly associated with colorectal cancer risk. We describe the rationale, evidence and recommendations for colorectal cancer screening by family history for people without a genetic syndrome, as reported in the 2017 revised Australian guidelines. Main recommendations: Based on 10-year risks of colorectal cancer, people at near average risk due to no or weak family history (category 1) are recommended screening by immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years from age 50 to 74 years. Individuals with moderate risk due to their family history (category 2) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 40 to 49 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 50 to 74 years. People with a high risk due to their family history (category 3) are recommended biennial iFOBT from age 35 to 44 years, then colonoscopy every 5 years from age 45 to 74 years. Changes in management as a result of the guidelines: By 2019, the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will offer all Australians free biennial iFOBT screening from age 50 to 74 years, consistent with the recommendations in these guidelines for category 1. Compared with the 2005 guidelines, there are some minor changes in the family history inclusion criteria for categories 1 and 2; the genetic syndromes have been removed from category 3 and, as a consequence, colonoscopy screening is now every 5 years; and for categories 2 and 3, screening begins with iFOBT for people aged 40 and 35 years, respectively, before transitioning to colonoscopy after 10 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NBCSP) was introduced in 2006. When fully implemented, the programme will invite people aged 50 to 74 to complete an immunochemical faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) every 2 years.Methods and Findings: To investigate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening occurring outside of the NBCSP, we classified participants (n = 2,480) in the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry (ACCFR) into 3 risk categories (average, moderately increased, and potentially high) based on CRC family history and assessed their screening practices according to national guidelines. We developed a microsimulation to compare hypothetical screening scenarios (70% and 100% uptake) to current participation levels (baseline) and evaluated clinical outcomes and cost for each risk category. The 2 main limitations of this study are as follows: first, the fact that our cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective, which does not include indirect costs and results in overestimated cost-effectiveness ratios, and second, that our natural history model of CRC does not include polyp sojourn time, which determines the rate of cancerous transformation. Screening uptake was low across all family history risk categories (64%-56% reported no screening). For participants at average risk, 18% reported overscreening, while 37% of those in the highest risk categories screened according to guidelines. Higher screening levels would substantially reduce CRC mortality across all risk categories (95 to 305 fewer deaths per 100,000 persons in the 70% scenario versus baseline). For those at average risk, a fully implemented NBCSP represented the most cost-effective approach to prevent CRC deaths (AUS$13,000-16,000 per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]). For those at moderately increased risk, higher adherence to recommended screening was also highly cost-effective (AUS$19,000-24,000 per QALY).Conclusion: Investing in public health strategies to increase adherence to appropriate CRC screening will save lives and deliver high value for money. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis and treatment is a key factor in reducing mortality and improving patient outcomes. To achieve this, it is important to understand the diagnostic pathways of cancer patients. Patients from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) are a vulnerable group for lung cancer with higher mortality rates than Caucasian patients. The aim of this study is to explore differences in the lung cancer diagnostic pathways between CALD and Anglo-Australian patients and factors underlying these differences.Methods: This is a prospective, observational cohort study using a mixed-method approach. Quantitative data regarding time intervals in the lung cancer diagnostic pathways will be gathered via patient surveys, General practitioner (GP) review of general practice records, and case-note analysis of hospital records. Qualitative data will be gathered via structured interviews with lung cancer patients, GPs, and hospital specialists. The study will be conducted in five study sites across three states in Australia. Anglo-Australian patients and patients from five CALD groups (i.e., Arabic, Chinese, Greek, Italian and Vietnamese communities) will mainly be identified through the list of new cases presented at lung multidisciplinary team meetings. For the quantitative component, it is anticipated that 724 patients (362 Anglo-Australian and 362 CALD patients) will be recruited to obtain a final sample of 290 (145 per group) assuming a 50% patient survey completion rate and a 80% GP record review completion rate. For the qualitative component, 60 interviews with lung cancer patients (10 Anglo-Australian and 10 patients per CALD group), 20 interviews with GPs, and 20 interviews with specialists will be conducted.Discussion: This is the first Australian study to compare the time intervals along the lung cancer diagnostic pathway between CALD and Anglo-Australian patients. The study will also explore the underlying patient, healthcare provider, and health system factors that influence the time intervals in the two groups. This information will improve our understanding of the effect of ethnicity on health outcomes among lung cancer patients and will inform future interventions aimed at early diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer, particularly patients from CALD backgrounds.Trial Registration: The project was retrospectively registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: ACTRN12617000957392 , date registered: 4th July 2017). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll‐out 2‐yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost‐effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1‐Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10‐yearly, or once‐off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51–67(74–80)% in comparison with no screening; 2‐yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2‐yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost‐effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness‐to‐pay threshold of A$50,000/life‐year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS–A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled‐out NBCSP is highly cost‐effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives There is significant growth in demand for colonoscopies, with over 700,000 performed in Australia in 2012-13. For every one million Australians aged 50 years and older, 80,000 people at average risk of colorectal cancer are being over-screened with colonoscopy, and 29,000 people at increased risk are not having the colonoscopy they need. Methods Using monitoring data from the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and published data on colonoscopic screening, we have developed expected frequency trees (EFTs) to demonstrate projected outcomes of different colorectal cancer screening options for participants at different levels of colorectal cancer risk in Australia. Results The EFTs highlight the overall balance in favour of faecal occult blood screening for those at average risk in terms of fewer deaths and complications. Discussion This novel method of risk communication can be used to promote appropriate patient choice of colorectal cancer screening modality and potentially reduce the number of referrals for colonoscopy in patients who are not at increased risk of colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival outcomes of any cancer because over two-thirds of patients are diagnosed when curative treatment is no longer possible, partly due to later presentation with symptoms to a healthcare provider.Objective: To explore the theoretical underpinning of the Scottish CHEST intervention in participants randomized to the intervention group within the CHEST Australia trial.Methods: A purposive maximum variation sample of participants who received the intervention in the CHEST trial in Perth, Western Australia (N = 13) and Melbourne, Victoria, (N = 7) were interviewed. Patients were asked about their experience of the CHEST consultation, their recall of the main messages, their symptom appraisal and issues relating to help seeking when they develop symptoms. Thematic analysis was conducted to draw common themes between the participants.Results: We identified themes consistent with the theoretical basis of the CHEST intervention. Barriers to consultation identified in the CHEST Australia trial participants were smoker stigmatization, guilt, fatalism and symptom normalization. We identified a general perceived mistrust of GPs based on previous negative experiences of visiting their GP in relation to their smoking. The intervention tackled barriers around lecturing and feelings of guilt and stigma related to smoking. We identified expected effects on salience and personal relevance of symptoms. Participants reported a clearer understanding of what to look out for and when to take action after the CHEST intervention.Conclusions: These findings suggest that the CHEST Australia intervention is achieving the desired objectives at the qualitative level through the proposed theoretical mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Rural Australians have poorer survival for most common cancers, due partially to later diagnosis. Internationally, several initiatives to improve cancer outcomes have focused on earlier presentation to healthcare and timely diagnosis. We aimed to measure the effect of community-based symptom awareness and general practice-based educational interventions on the time to diagnosis in rural patients presenting with breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer in Western Australia.Methods: 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial. Community Intervention: cancer symptom awareness campaign tailored for rural Australians. GP intervention: resource card with symptom risk assessment charts and local cancer referral pathways implemented through multiple academic detailing visits. Trial Area A received the community symptom awareness and Trial Area B acted as the community campaign control region. Within both Trial Areas general practices were randomised to the GP intervention or control.Primary Outcome: total diagnostic interval (TDI).Results: 1358 people with incident breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer were recruited. There were no significant differences in the median or ln mean TDI at either intervention level (community intervention vs control: median TDI 107.5 vs 92 days; ln mean difference 0.08 95% CI -0.06-0.23 P=0.27; GP intervention vs control: median TDI 97 vs 96.5 days; ln mean difference 0.004 95% CI -0.18-0.19 P=0.99). There were no significant differences in the TDI when analysed by factorial design, tumour group or sub-intervals of the TDI.Conclusions: This is the largest trial to test the effect of community campaign or GP interventions on timeliness of cancer diagnosis. We found no effect of either intervention. This may reflect limited dose of the interventions, or the limited duration of follow-up. Alternatively, these interventions do not have a measurable effect on time to cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]