Search

Purpose The widespread use of abdominal imaging has affected the epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Despite this, over 25% of individuals with RCC have evidence of metastases at presentation. Screening for RCC has the potential to downstage the disease. Methods We performed a literature review on the epidemiology of RCC and evidence base regarding screening. Furthermore, contemporary RCC epidemiology data was obtained for the United Kingdom and trends in age-standardised rates of incidence and mortality were analysed by annual percentage change statistics and joinpoint regression. Results The incidence of RCC in the UK increased by 3.1% annually from 1993 through 2014. Urinary dipstick is an inadequate screening tool due to low sensitivity and specificity. It is unlikely that CT would be recommended for population screening due to cost, radiation dose and increased potential for other incidental findings. Screening ultrasound has a sensitivity and specificity of 82–83% and 98–99%, respectively; however, accuracy is dependent on tumour size. No clinically validated urinary nor serum biomarkers have been identified. Major barriers to population screening include the relatively low prevalence of the disease, the potential for false positives and over-diagnosis of slow-growing RCCs. Individual patient risk-stratification based on a combination of risk factors may improve screening efficiency and minimise harms by identifying a group at high risk of RCC. Conclusion The incidence of RCC is increasing. The optimal screening modality and target population remain to be elucidated. An analysis of the benefits and harms of screening for patients and society is warranted. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00345-018-2286-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death globally. Primary prevention of CVD requires cost-effective strategies to identify individuals at high risk in order to help target preventive interventions. An integral part of this approach is the use of CVD risk scores. Limitations in previous studies have prevented reliable inference about the potential advantages and the potential harms of using CVD risk scores as part of preventive strategies. We aim to evaluate short-term effects of providing different types of information about coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, alongside lifestyle advice, on health-related behaviours. Methods/Design In a parallel-group, open randomised trial, we are allocating 932 male and female blood donors with no previous history of CVD aged 40–84 years in England to either no intervention (control group) or to one of three active intervention groups: i) lifestyle advice only; ii) lifestyle advice plus information on estimated 10-year CHD risk based on phenotypic characteristics; and iii) lifestyle advice plus information on estimated 10-year CHD risk based on phenotypic and genetic characteristics. The primary outcome is change in objectively measured physical activity. Secondary outcomes include: objectively measured dietary behaviours; cardiovascular risk factors; current medication and healthcare usage; perceived risk; cognitive evaluation of provision of CHD risk scores; and psychological outcomes. The follow-up assessment takes place 12 weeks after randomisation. The experiences, attitudes and concerns of a subset of participants will be also studied using individual interviews and focus groups. Discussion The INFORM study has been designed to provide robust findings about the short-term effects of providing different types of information on estimated 10-year CHD risk and lifestyle advice on health-related behaviours. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Prevention is recognised by many, including the World Health Organization, to offer the most cost-effective long-term strategy for the control of cancer. One approach that focuses on individuals is the provision of personalised risk information. However, whether such information motivates behaviour change and whether the effect is different with varying formats of risk presentation is unclear. We aim to assess the short-term effect of providing information about personalised risk of cancer in three different formats alongside lifestyle advice on health-related behaviours, risk perception and risk conviction. METHODS: In a parallel group, randomised controlled trial 1000 participants will be recruited through the online platform Prolific. Participants will be allocated to either a control group receiving cancer-specific lifestyle advice alone or one of three intervention groups receiving the same lifestyle advice alongside their estimated 10-year risk of developing one of the five most common preventable cancers, calculated from self-reported modifiable behavioural risk factors, in one of three different formats (bar chart, pictograph or qualitative scale). The primary outcome is change from baseline in computed risk relative to an individual with a recommended lifestyle at three months. Secondary outcomes include: perceived risk of cancer; anxiety; cancer-related worry; intention to change behaviour; and awareness of cancer risk factors. DISCUSSION: This study will provide evidence on the short-term effect of providing online information about personalised risk of cancer alongside lifestyle advice on risk perception and health-related behaviours and inform the development of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17450583. Registered 30 January 2018.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) and fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) are two key modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Achieving change in these behaviours is challenging and affected by many variables including psychosocial factors. We aimed to investigate the association between social support, stress and mood, and change in PA and FVI following provision of CVD risk information and web-based lifestyle advice. METHODS: Seven hundred sixteen blood donors (56% male; mean age 57 years) from the intervention arms of the Information and Risk Modification (INFORM) trial, a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of providing CVD risk and web-based lifestyle information, were analysed as a prospective cohort. We used linear and logistic regression analyses to quantify the association between social support, stress and mood at baseline and behaviour change following the intervention. We modelled objective (average acceleration measured by Axivity AX3 wrist-worn accelerometers and plasma carotenoid levels) and subjective (self-reported recreational PA and FVI) outcomes as change between baseline and 12 weeks follow-up. RESULTS: There was no clear association between social support and change in objective or subjective PA. Higher levels of stress and, to a lesser extent, depression symptoms were associated with smaller improvement in self-reported PA (β -1.53 h/week vigorous PA, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.30 to -0.75, p < 0.001 for stress; β -1.64 h/week, 95% CI -3.50 to 0.21, p = 0.082 for little interest). Higher social support was associated with greater odds and higher stress was associated with lower odds of increasing self-reported FVI to five portions per day (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.69, p = 0.020 for social support; OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.76, p < 0.001 for stress). The associations between psychosocial factors and objective FVI were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: High stress and low mood may reduce the likelihood and extent of reported change in PA and FVI following CVD risk information and advice. Greater social support may be associated with increased FVI. The role of psychosocial factors should be considered when developing, tailoring and evaluating future interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17721237 . Registered 12 January 2015.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death in Europe and the United States. Detecting the disease at an early stage improves outcomes. Risk prediction models which combine multiple risk factors and symptoms have the potential to improve timely diagnosis. The aim of this review is to systematically identify and compare the performance of models that predict the risk of primary CRC among symptomatic individuals. METHODS: We searched Medline and EMBASE to identify primary research studies reporting, validating or assessing the impact of models. For inclusion, models needed to assess a combination of risk factors that included symptoms, present data on model performance, and be applicable to the general population. Screening of studies for inclusion and data extraction were completed independently by at least two researchers. RESULTS: Twelve thousand eight hundred eight papers were identified from the literature search and three through citation searching. 18 papers describing 15 risk models were included. Nine were developed in primary care populations and six in secondary care. Four had good discrimination (AUROC > 0.8) in external validation studies, and sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.25 and 0.99 to 0.99 and 0.46 depending on the cut-off chosen. CONCLUSIONS: Models with good discrimination have been developed in both primary and secondary care populations. Most contain variables that are easily obtainable in a single consultation, but further research is needed to assess clinical utility before they are incorporated into practice.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that nearly 600,000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past five years if people had healthier lifestyles. A number of theories of behaviour change suggest that before people will change health behaviours, they must accept that a risk applies to them. This study aimed to explore the views of the public on receiving personalised cancer risk information and the potential for that information to motivate behaviour change. METHODS: We conducted 27 interviews with members of the public (mean age 49 ± 23 years). Each participant completed a questionnaire to allow calculation of their risk of developing the most common cancers (10 for women, 8 for men). During the interviews we presented their risk using a web-based tool developed for the study and discussions covered their views on receiving that information. Each interview was audio-recorded and then analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants generally viewed the concept of personalised cancer risk positively. The first reaction of almost all when presented with their 10-year risk of an individual cancer without any further context was that it was low and not concerning. Views on what constituted a high risk ranged widely, from 0.5 to 60%. All felt seeing the impact of changes in lifestyle was helpful. For some this led to intentions to change behaviour, but reductions in risk were not always motivating as the risks were considered low and differences small. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of personalised cancer risk was well received and may be a useful addition to other cancer prevention initiatives. Further work is needed in particular to develop ways to present cancer risk that reflect the general perception of what constitutes a risk high enough to motivate behaviour change and help patients contextualise a less well known health risk by providing a frame of reference.

Background It is estimated that nearly 600,000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past five years if people had healthier lifestyles. A number of theories of behaviour change suggest that before people will change health behaviours, they must accept that a risk applies to them. This study aimed to explore the views of the public on receiving personalised cancer risk information and the potential for that information to motivate behaviour change. Methods We conducted 27 interviews with members of the public (mean age 49 ± 23 years). Each participant completed a questionnaire to allow calculation of their risk of developing the most common cancers (10 for women, 8 for men). During the interviews we presented their risk using a web-based tool developed for the study and discussions covered their views on receiving that information. Each interview was audio-recorded and then analysed using thematic analysis. Results Participants generally viewed the concept of personalised cancer risk positively. The first reaction of almost all when presented with their 10-year risk of an individual cancer without any further context was that it was low and not concerning. Views on what constituted a high risk ranged widely, from 0.5 to 60%. All felt seeing the impact of changes in lifestyle was helpful. For some this led to intentions to change behaviour, but reductions in risk were not always motivating as the risks were considered low and differences small. Conclusions Provision of personalised cancer risk was well received and may be a useful addition to other cancer prevention initiatives. Further work is needed in particular to develop ways to present cancer risk that reflect the general perception of what constitutes a risk high enough to motivate behaviour change and help patients contextualise a less well known health risk by providing a frame of reference. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4985-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) incidence is increasing worldwide. A high proportion of individuals are asymptomatic at diagnosis, but RCC has a high mortality rate. These facts suggest that RCC meets some of the criteria for screening, and a new analysis shows that screening for RCC could potentially be cost-effective. Targeted screening of high-risk individuals is likely to be the most cost-effective strategy to maximize the benefits and reduce the harms of screening. However, the size of the benefit of earlier initiation of treatment and the overall cost-effectiveness of screening remains uncertain. The optimal screening modality and target population is also unclear, and uncertainties exist regarding the specification and implementation of a screening programme. Before moving to a fully powered trial of screening, future work should focus on the following: developing and validating accurate risk prediction models; developing non-invasive methods of early RCC detection; establishing the feasibility, public acceptability and potential uptake of screening; establishing the prevalence of RCC and stage distribution of RCC detected by screening; and evaluating the potential harms of screening, including the impact on quality of life, overdiagnosis and over-treatment. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) incidence is increasing worldwide. Here, the authors consider the potential benefits and harms of screening for RCC and discuss whether enough evidence is available to begin a clinical trial of RCC screening.

Background Cancer is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Prevention is recognised by many, including the World Health Organization, to offer the most cost-effective long-term strategy for the control of cancer. One approach that focuses on individuals is the provision of personalised risk information. However, whether such information motivates behaviour change and whether the effect is different with varying formats of risk presentation is unclear. We aim to assess the short-term effect of providing information about personalised risk of cancer in three different formats alongside lifestyle advice on health-related behaviours, risk perception and risk conviction. Methods In a parallel group, randomised controlled trial 1000 participants will be recruited through the online platform Prolific. Participants will be allocated to either a control group receiving cancer-specific lifestyle advice alone or one of three intervention groups receiving the same lifestyle advice alongside their estimated 10-year risk of developing one of the five most common preventable cancers, calculated from self-reported modifiable behavioural risk factors, in one of three different formats (bar chart, pictograph or qualitative scale). The primary outcome is change from baseline in computed risk relative to an individual with a recommended lifestyle at three months. Secondary outcomes include: perceived risk of cancer; anxiety; cancer-related worry; intention to change behaviour; and awareness of cancer risk factors. Discussion This study will provide evidence on the short-term effect of providing online information about personalised risk of cancer alongside lifestyle advice on risk perception and health-related behaviours and inform the development of interventions. Trial registration ISRCTN17450583. Registered 30 January 2018.