Search

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

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

BACKGROUND: Previous mixed findings on the associations between whole blood (WB) donation and risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) may in part reflect inadequate adjustment for the "healthy donor effect" (HDE). METHODS: We used the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study linked with blood donation history and other health-related databases to examine the association between regular, high-frequency WB donation and the risk of CVD. To mitigate the impact of HDE, we used a "5-years qualification period," in which donors must donate at least 1 WB donation in the 1st and 5th year of "qualification period." We then compared the risk of CVD in the years following the "qualification period" between the regular high-frequency WB donors (≥2 WB donation in each qualification year) and others using Cox proportional-hazards models. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, such as sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health-related variables, and results are reported separately for male and female donors. RESULTS: A total of 2736 male and 2917 female donors were included in the analyses. The median years of follow-up per donor was 5.84 years (Q1-Q3, 5.47-6.23). The rate of CVD hospitalization was 11.20 and 4.50 per 1000 person-years for males and females, respectively. In fully adjusted models, the risk (hazard ratio) of CVD in regular high-frequency donors compared to other donors was 0.93 (95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.68-1.29) for males and 0.79 (95% CI, 0.49-1.28) for females. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a statistically significant reduction of CVD risk in regular, high-frequency WB donors when adjusted for potential confounders.

OBJECTIVE: Skin cancer is Australia's most common and costly cancer. We examined the frequency of Australian general practice consultations for skin cancer-related conditions, by patient and general practitioner (GP) characteristics and by time period. DESIGN: Nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of general practice clinical activity. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 15 years or older having a skin cancer-related condition managed by GPs in the Bettering the Evaluation And Care of Health study between April 2000 and March 2016. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions and rates per 1000 encounters. RESULTS: In this period, 15 678 GPs recorded 1 370 826 patient encounters, of which skin cancer-related conditions were managed 65 411 times (rate of 47.72 per 1000 encounters, 95% CI 46.41 to 49.02). Across the whole period, 'skin conditions' managed were solar keratosis (29.87%), keratinocyte cancer (24.85%), other skin lesion (12.93%), nevi (10.98%), skin check (10.37%), benign skin neoplasm (8.76%) and melanoma (2.42%). Over time, management rates increased for keratinocyte cancers, skin checks, skin lesions, benign skin neoplasms and melanoma; but remained stable for solar keratoses and nevi. Skin cancer-related encounter rates were higher for patients aged 65-89 years, male, living in Queensland or in regional or remote areas, with lower area-based socioeconomic status, of English-speaking background, Veteran card holders and non-healthcare card holders; and for GPs who were aged 35-44 years or male. CONCLUSION: These findings show the spectrum and burden of skin cancer-related conditions managed in general practice in Australia, which can guide GP education, policy and interventions to optimise skin cancer prevention and management.

BACKGROUND: Current clinician-led melanoma surveillance models require frequent routinely scheduled clinic visits, with associated travel, cost, and time burden for patients. Patient-led surveillance is a new model of follow-up care that could reduce health care use such as clinic visits and medical procedures and their associated costs, increase access to care, and promote early diagnosis of a subsequent new melanoma after treatment of a primary melanoma. Understanding patient experiences may allow improvements in implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore patients' experiences and perceptions of patient-led surveillance during the 6 months of participation in the MEL-SELF pilot randomized controlled trial. Patient-led surveillance comprised regular skin self-examination, use of a mobile dermatoscope to image lesions of concern, and a smartphone app to track and send images to a teledermatologist for review, in addition to usual care. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients previously treated for melanoma localized to the skin in New South Wales, Australia, who were randomized to the patient-led surveillance (intervention group) in the trial. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data with reference to the technology acceptance model. RESULTS: We interviewed 20 patients (n=8, 40% women and n=12, 60% men; median age 62 years). Patients who were more adherent experienced benefits such as increased awareness of their skin and improved skin self-examination practice, early detection of melanomas, and opportunities to be proactive in managing their clinical follow-up. Most participants experienced difficulty in obtaining clear images and technical problems with the app. These barriers were overcome or persevered by participants with previous experience with digital technology and with effective help from a skin check partner (such as a spouse, sibling, or friend). Having too many or too few moles decreased perceived usefulness. CON

Abstract Purpose We evaluated the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on sun-related behaviors and psychological outcomes. Methods In this parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial, 1,025 Australians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18–69 years were recruited via the Medicare database (3% consent). Participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 513; saliva sample for genetic testing, personalized melanoma risk booklet based on a 40-variant polygenic risk score, telephone-based genetic counseling, educational booklet) or control (n = 512; educational booklet). Wrist-worn ultraviolet (UV) radiation dosimeters (10-day wear) and questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 12 months postbaseline. Results At 12 months, 948 (92%) participants completed dosimetry and 973 (95%) the questionnaire. For the primary outcome, there was no effect of the genomic risk intervention on objectively measured UV exposure at 12 months, irrespective of traditional risk factors. For secondary outcomes at 12 months, the intervention reduced sunburns (risk ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.96), and increased skin examinations among women. Melanoma-related worry was reduced. There was no overall impact on general psychological distress. Conclusion Personalized genomic risk information did not influence sun exposure patterns but did improve some skin cancer prevention and early detection behaviors, suggesting it may be useful for precision prevention. There was no evidence of psychological harm.

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) are becoming increasingly available in clinical practice to evaluate cancer risk. However, little is known about health professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and expectations of PRS. An online questionnaire was distributed by relevant health professional organisations predominately in Australia, Canada and the US to evaluate health professionals' knowledge, views and expectations of PRS. Eligible participants were health professionals who provide cancer risk assessments. Results from the questionnaire were analysed descriptively and content analysis was undertaken of free-text responses. In total, 105 health professionals completed the questionnaire (genetic counsellors 84%; oncologists 6%; clinical geneticists 4%; other 7%). Although responses differed between countries, most participants (61%) had discussed PRS with patients, 20% had ordered a test and 14% had returned test results to a patient. Confidence and knowledge around interpreting PRS were low. Although 69% reported that polygenic testing will certainly or likely influence patient care in the future, most felt unprepared for this. If scaled up to the population, 49% expect that general practitioners would have a primary role in the provision of PRS, supported by genetic health professionals. These findings will inform the development of resources to support health professionals offering polygenic testing, currently and in the future.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and candidate pathway studies have identified low-penetrant genetic variants associated with cutaneous melanoma. We investigated the association of melanoma-risk variants with primary melanoma tumor prognostic characteristics and melanoma-specific survival. The Genes, Environment, and Melanoma Study enrolled 3285 European origin participants with incident invasive primary melanoma. For each of 47 melanoma-risk single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), we used linear and logistic regression modeling to estimate, respectively, the per allele mean changes in log of Breslow thickness and odds ratios for presence of ulceration, mitoses, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). We also used Cox proportional hazards regression modeling to estimate the per allele hazard ratios for melanoma-specific survival. Passing the false discovery threshold (p = 0.0026) were associations of IRF4 rs12203592 and CCND1 rs1485993 with log of Breslow thickness, and association of TERT rs2242652 with presence of mitoses. IRF4 rs12203592 also had nominal associations (p < 0.05) with presence of mitoses and melanoma-specific survival, as well as a borderline association (p = 0.07) with ulceration. CCND1 rs1485993 also had a borderline association with presence of mitoses (p = 0.06). MX2 rs45430 had nominal associations with log of Breslow thickness, presence of mitoses, and melanoma-specific survival. Our study indicates that further research investigating the associations of these genetic variants with underlying biologic pathways related to tumor progression is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Genome-wide association studies have reported that genetic variation at ANRIL (CDKN2B-AS1) is associated with risk of several chronic diseases including coronary artery disease, coronary artery calcification, myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. ANRIL is located at the CDKN2A/B locus, which encodes multiple melanoma tumor suppressors. We investigated the association of these variants with melanoma prognostic characteristics. METHODS: The Genes, Environment, and Melanoma Study enrolled 3,285 European origin participants with incident invasive primary melanoma. For each of ten disease-associated SNPs at or near ANRIL, we used linear and logistic regression modeling to estimate, respectively, the per allele mean changes in log of Breslow thickness and ORs for presence of ulceration and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TIL). We also assessed effect modification by tumor NRAS/BRAF mutational status. RESULTS: Rs518394, rs10965215, and rs564398 passed false discovery and were each associated (P ≤ 0.005) with TILs, although only rs564398 was independently associated (P = 0.0005) with TILs. Stratified by NRAS/BRAF mutational status, rs564398*A was significantly positively associated with TILs among NRAS/BRAF mutant, but not wild-type, cases. We did not find SNP associations with Breslow thickness or ulceration. CONCLUSIONS: ANRIL rs564398 was associated with TIL presence in primary melanomas, and this association may be limited to NRAS/BRAF-mutant cases. IMPACT: Pathways related to ANRIL variants warrant exploration in relationship to TILs in melanoma, especially given the impact of TILs on immunotherapy and survival.

BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk-stratified (risk-tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges. OBJECTIVES: To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset. RESULTS: Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high-risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low-risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently. CONCLUSIONS: Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk-stratified cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Most subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas might be self-detected if patients are trained to systematically self-examine their skin and have access to timely medical review (patient-led surveillance). Routinely scheduled clinic visits (clinician-led surveillance) is resource-intensive and has not been shown to improve health outcomes; fewer visits may be possible if patient-led surveillance is shown to be safe and effective. The MEL-SELF trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing patient-led surveillance with clinician-led surveillance in people who have been previously treated for localised melanoma. METHODS: Stage 0/I/II melanoma patients (n = 600) from dermatology, surgical, or general practice clinics in NSW Australia, will be randomised (1:1) to the intervention (patient-led surveillance, n = 300) or control (usual care, n = 300). Patients in the intervention will undergo a second randomisation 1:1 to polarised (n = 150) or non-polarised (n = 150) dermatoscope. Patient-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet, skin self-examination (SSE) instructional videos; 3-monthly email/SMS reminders to perform SSE; patient-performed dermoscopy with teledermatologist feedback; clinical review of positive teledermoscopy through fast-tracked unscheduled clinic visits; and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. Clinician-led surveillance comprises an educational booklet and routinely scheduled clinic visits following each clinician's usual practice. The primary outcome, measured at 12 months, is the proportion of participants diagnosed with a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma at an unscheduled clinic visit. Secondary outcomes include time from randomisation to diagnosis (of a subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and of a new keratinocyte cancer), clinicopathological characteristics of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanomas (including AJCC stage), psychological outcomes, and heal

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In melanoma management, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is used to stage patients and to indicate prognosis. More recently, it has been used to select patients for adjuvant therapy. This study aimed to report knowledge of and attitudes towards SLNB for patients with melanoma among Australian dermatologists. METHODS: Mixed methods study using cross-sectional questionnaires (n = 88) and semi-structured interviews (n = 13), May-September 2019. RESULTS: Of the dermatologists surveyed, 56% thought SLNB had an important role in melanoma management, 26% were unsure and 18% thought SLNB unimportant. Of the 92% who would discuss SLNB with their patients, the main stated value of SLNB was for assessing eligibility for adjuvant therapies (79%); only 60% indicated SLNB was of value for providing prognostic information, and just over half (53%) thought it could improve staging. Interview data indicated that attitudes towards SLNB are shifting among dermatologists, driven by data from landmark clinical trials and the influence of professional networks. Accordingly, interviewees adopted one of three positions in relation to SLNB: (a) believed in utility of SLNB and adhered to the guidelines; (b) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB but adhered to the guidelines; and (c) were unconvinced about utility of SLNB and did not adhere to the guidelines. CONCLUSION: Although most of the dermatologists surveyed were familiar with and follow the SLNB recommendations, some disagreement with and distrust of the recommendations was evident. Greater acceptance of the SLNB recommendations appeared to be driven by the improved outcomes demonstrated in stage III patients receiving adjuvant systemic therapy.

In an effort to understand the difference between melanomas diagnosed in Australia (New South Wales) and Canada, where the incidence in New South Wales is almost three times greater than in Canada, and mortality is twice as high although survival is slightly more favorable, we had one pathologist review 1,271 melanomas from British Columbia and Ontario, Canada, to compare these to melanomas in New South Wales, Australia. We hypothesized that histopathologic characteristics might provide insight into divergent pathways to melanoma development. We found a number of differences in risk factors and tumor characteristics between the two geographic areas. There were higher mole counts and darker phenotypes in the Canadian patients, while the Australian patients had greater solar elastosis, more lentigo maligna melanomas, and more tumor infiltrating lymphocytes. We hypothesize that the differences observed may illustrate different etiologies – the cumulative exposure pathway among Australian patients and the nevus pathway among Canadian patients. This is one of the largest studies investigating the divergent pathway hypothesis and is particularly robust due to the evaluation of all lesions by one dermatopathologist.

Background: The Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study is a randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the efficacy of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure, stratified by traditional risk group (low or high phenotypic risk) in the general population. The primary outcome is objectively measured total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include UV exposure at specific time periods, self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and ethical considerations surrounding offering genomic testing at a population level. A within-trial and modelled economic evaluation will be undertaken from an Australian health system perspective to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Objective: To publish the pre-determined statistical analysis plan (SAP) before database lock and the start of analysis. Methods: This SAP describes the data synthesis, analysis principles and statistical procedures for analysing the outcomes from this trial. The SAP was approved after closure of recruitment and before completion of patient follow-up. It outlines the planned primary analyses and a range of subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Health economic outcomes are not included in this plan but will be analysed separately. The SAP will be adhered to for the final data analysis of this trial to avoid potential analysis bias that may arise from knowledge of the outcome data. Results: This SAP is consistent with best practice and should enable transparent reporting. Conclusion: This SAP has been developed for the Melanoma Genomics Managing Your Risk Study and will be followed to ensure high-quality standards of internal validity and to minimise analysis bias. Trial registration: Prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTR N12617000691347. Registered on 15 May 2017.

INTRODUCTION: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is a diagnostic procedure developed in the 1990s. It is currently used to stage patients with primary cutaneous melanoma, provide prognostic information and guide management. The Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines state that SLNB should be considered for patients with cutaneous melanoma >1 mm in thickness (or >0.8 mm with high-risk pathology features). Until recently, sentinel lymph node (SLN) status was used to identify patients who might benefit from a completion lymph node dissection, a procedure that is no longer routinely recommended. SLN status is now also being used to identify patients who might benefit from systemic adjuvant therapies such as anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD1) checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy or BRAF-directed molecular targeted therapy, treatments that have significantly improved relapse-free survival for patients with resected stage III melanoma and improved overall survival of patients with unresectable stage III and stage IV melanoma. Australian and international data indicate that approximately half of eligible patients receive an SLNB. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods study seeks to understand the structural, contextual and cultural factors affecting implementation of the SLNB guidelines. Data collection will include: (1) cross-sectional questionnaires and semistructured interviews with general practitioners and dermatologists; (2) semistructured interviews with other healthcare professionals involved in the diagnosis and early definitive care of melanoma patients and key stakeholders including researchers, representatives of professional colleges, training organisations and consumer melanoma groups; and (3) documentary analysis of documents from government, health services and non-government organisations. Descriptive analyses and multivariable regression models will be used to examine factors related to SLNB practices and attitudes. Qualitative data will be analysed using

BACKGROUND: Genomic risk information, based on common genomic susceptibility variants associated with risk of complex diseases such as cancer, may be incorporated into personalised prevention and screening strategies. We aimed to engage with members of the public, who are important stakeholders in this process, to further inform program development and other implementation outcomes such as acceptability and appropriateness. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants (aged 24-69 years, 50% female) recruited from a pilot trial in which they received personalised genomic risk information for melanoma. We explored participants' views and attitudes towards offering general personal genomic risk information to the broader population. The data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Two overarching themes relevant to implementation considerations were identified. Firstly, participants' preferences for accepting an offer of genomic risk information were based on family history, disease incidence and the possibility of prevention. Secondly, participants felt that the processes for offering risk information should be based on individual preferences, triaged according to risk and be supported by a health professional trained in genomics. CONCLUSIONS: Participants felt that offering personal genomic risk information to the general population to inform prevention and early detection recommendations is acceptable, particularly for common, complex conditions such as cancer. Understanding participants' preferences for receiving genomic risk information will assist with communication strategies and health workforce planning. We anticipate that these findings will contribute to the development of implementation strategies for incorporating genomic risk information into routine clinical practice.

The original version of this Article contained errors in the spelling of the authors Fan Liu and M. Arfan Ikram, which were incorrectly given as Fan Lui and Arfan M. Ikram. In addition, the original version of this Article also contained errors in the author affiliations which are detailed in the associated Publisher Correction.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for greater understanding of the spectrum of emotional and behavioural reactions that individuals in the general population may experience in response to genomic testing for melanoma risk. OBJECTIVES: To explore how individuals in the general population respond to receiving personalized genomic risk of melanoma. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants (aged 24-69 years, 50% female, 12 low risk, eight average risk, 10 high risk) recruited from a pilot trial in which they received personalized melanoma genomic risk information. We explored participants' emotional and behavioural responses to receiving their melanoma genomic risk information. The qualitative data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Many participants reported a positive response to receiving their melanoma genomic risk, including feelings of happiness, reassurance and gaining new knowledge to help manage their melanoma risk. Some participants reported short-term negative emotional reactions that dissipated over time. Most individuals, particularly those who received average or high-risk results, reported making positive behaviour changes to reduce their melanoma risk. Emotional and behavioural responses were linked to participants' expectations for their risk result, their pre-existing perception of their own melanoma risk, their existing melanoma preventive behaviours and their genomic risk category. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized melanoma genomic risk information alongside education and lifestyle counselling is favourably received by people without a personal history and unselected for a family history of melanoma. Participants described increased knowledge and awareness around managing skin cancer risk and improved sun protection and skin examination behaviours. Any initial feelings of distress usually dissipated over time.

BACKGROUND: As part of a pilot randomised controlled trial examining the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on behavioural and psychosocial outcomes, GPs were sent a booklet containing their patient's genomic risk of melanoma. AIM: Using this booklet as an example of genomic risk information that might be offered on a population-level in the future, this study explored GP attitudes towards communicating genomic risk information and resources needed to support this process. DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 Australian GPs. METHOD: The interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: GPs in this sample believed that communicating genomic risk may become a responsibility within primary care and they recommended a shared decisionmaking approach to guide the testing process. Factors were identified that may influence how and when GPs communicate genomic risk information. GPs view genomics-based risk as one of many disease risk factors and feel that this type of information could be applied in practice in the context of overall risk assessment for diseases for which prevention and early detection strategies are available. They believe it is important to ensure that patients understand their genomic risk and do not experience long-term adverse psychological responses. GPs desire clinical practice guidelines that specify recommendations for genomic risk assessment and patient management, point-of-care resources, and risk prediction tools that include genomic and traditional risk factors. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform the development of resources for preparing GPs to manage and implement genomic risk information in practice.

Evidence on the relationship between the vitamin D pathway and outcomes in melanoma is growing, although it is not always clear. We investigated the impact of measured levels of sun exposure at diagnosis on associations of vitamin D receptor gene (VDR) polymorphisms and melanoma death in 3336 incident primary melanoma cases. Interactions between six SNPs and a common 3'-end haplotype were significant (p < .05). These SNPs, and a haplotype, had a statistically significant association with survival among subjects exposed to high UVB in multivariable regression models and exerted their effect in the opposite direction among those with low UVB. SNPs rs1544410/BsmI and rs731236/TaqI remained significant after adjustment for multiple testing. These results suggest that the association between VDR and melanoma-specific survival is modified by sun exposure around diagnosis, and require validation in an independent study. Whether the observed effects are dependent or independent of vitamin D activation remains to be determined.

Self-reported sun exposure is commonly measured using questionnaires or diaries, but there are limited data on their validity, particularly for population subgroups. This research aimed to compare self-reported sun exposure, measured as (1) habitual time outdoors over the past month on weekends and weekdays and (2) a 4-day diary measure, against objective measurement of personal ultraviolet radiation using polysulfone film dosimeters. From November 2015 to January 2016, 94 people (22-69 years and living in New South Wales, Australia) completed a questionnaire, 4-day diary and 4-day dosimeter measures of overall, weekday and weekend sun exposure. Spearman correlations and Bland-Altman plots were used to measure agreement. The overall weekly correlation was 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 0.68) between standard erythemal doses (SEDs) measured by dosimeter and time spent outdoors measured by questionnaire, 0.74 (95% CI 0.66-0.81) between dosimeter and diary, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.48-0.68) between questionnaire and diary measures. Validity was lower for younger people and weekend sun exposure. There was strong correlation between dosimeter and sun diary measures and moderate correlation between dosimeter and questionnaire measures. Daily measurement over a longer period may be required to accurately capture weeklong sun exposure in all population subgroups.

Communicating personalized genomic risk results for common diseases to the general population as a form of tailored prevention is novel and may require alternative genetic counseling service delivery models. We describe the development and evaluation of a communication protocol for disclosing melanoma genomic risk information to the asymptomatic general population and assess participants' satisfaction and acceptability. Participants (n = 117) were aged 22-69 years, living in New South Wales, Australia and unselected for family history. They provided a saliva sample and had genomic testing for melanoma for low to moderate penetrant melanoma susceptibility variants in 21 genes. Participants could choose to receive their results from a genetic counselor via telephone, followed by a mailed booklet or to receive their risk result via mailed booklet only with a follow-up call for those at high risk. A follow-up questionnaire was completed by 85% of participants 3-months later. Most participants (80%) elected to receive their result via telephone. Participants were highly satisfied with the delivery of results (mean 3.4 out of 4, standard deviation 0.5), and this did not differ by delivery mode, risk category, age or sex. On follow-up, 75% accurately recalled their risk category, 6% indicated a preference for a different delivery mode, either electronic or face-to-face. The process of disclosing genomic risk results to the general population over the telephone with accompanying written material was feasible and acceptable, and may be useful for communicating polygenic risk for common diseases in the context of increasing demands for genomic testing.

BACKGROUND: Communication of personalized melanoma genomic risk information may improve melanoma prevention behaviors. METHODS: We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of communicating personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public and its preliminary impact on behaviors and psychosocial outcomes. One hundred eighteen people aged 22 to 69 years provided a saliva sample and were randomized to the control (nonpersonalized educational materials) or intervention (personalized booklet presenting melanoma genomic risk as absolute and relative risks and a risk category based on variants in 21 genes, telephone-based genetic counseling, and nonpersonalized educational materials). Intention-to-treat analyses overall and by-risk category were conducted using ANCOVA adjusted for baseline values. RESULTS: Consent to participate was 41%, 99% were successfully genotyped, and 92% completed 3-month follow-up. Intervention participants reported high satisfaction with the personalized booklet (mean = 8.6, SD = 1.6; on a 0-10 scale) and genetic counseling (mean = 8.1, SD = 2.2). No significant behavioral effects at 3-month follow-up were identified between intervention and control groups overall: objectively measured standard erythemal doses per day [-16%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -43% to 24%] and sun protection index (0.05; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.18). There was increased confidence identifying melanoma at 3 months (0.40; 95% CI, 0.10-0.69). Stratified by risk category, effect sizes for intentional tanning and some individual sun protection items appeared stronger for the average-risk group. There were no appreciable group differences in skin cancer-related worry or psychologic distress. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate feasibility and acceptability of providing personalized genomic risk of melanoma to the public. IMPACT: Genomic risk information has potential as a melanoma prevention strategy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(2); 212-21. ©2016 AACR.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To describe the method of diagnosis, clinical management and adherence to clinical practice guidelines for melanoma patients at high risk of a subsequent primary melanoma, and compare this with melanoma patients at lower risk. METHODS: The Melanoma Patterns of Care study was a population-based, observational study based on doctors' reported clinical management of melanoma patients in New South Wales, Australia, diagnosed with in situ or invasive melanoma over a 12-month period from October 2006. Of 2605 patients with localised melanoma, 1019 (39%) were defined as at higher risk due to the presence of one or more of the following factors: a family history of melanoma (11%), multiple primary melanomas (17%), or many naevi (24%). RESULTS: Compared to patients at lower risk, high risk patients were more likely to receive their initial care from a primary care physician (56% vs 50%, P = 0.002), have their melanoma detected during a routine skin check (40% vs 33%, P < 0.001), have their lesion assessed with dermoscopy (63% vs 56%, P = 0.002), and be encouraged to have skin surveillance (84% vs 77%, P < 0.001) and skin self-examination (87% vs 83%, P = 0.03). Higher socioeconomic status and urban residence were associated with patients at higher risk receiving initial treatment from a specialist doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical management of higher risk patients was more likely to conform to clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and skin surveillance than to melanoma patients at lower risk.

BACKGROUND: Receiving information about genomic risk of melanoma might trigger conversations about skin cancer prevention and skin examinations. OBJECTIVES: To explore conversations prompted by receiving personalized genomic risk of melanoma with family, friends and health professionals. METHODS: We used a mixed-methods approach. Participants without a personal history and unselected for a family history of melanoma (n = 103, aged 21-69 years, 53% women) completed questionnaires 3 months after receiving a personalized melanoma genomic risk assessment. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants in high, average and low genomic risk categories, and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: From the questionnaires, 74% of participants communicated their genomic risk information with family, and 49% with friends. Communication with a health professional differed by risk level: 41%, 16% and 12% for high, average and low risk, respectively (P = 0·01). Qualitative analysis showed that perceived 'shared risk' and perceived interest of family and friends were motivations for discussing risk or prevention behaviours. The information prompted conversations with family and health professionals about sun protection and skin checks, and general conversations about melanoma risk with friends. Reasons for not discussing with family included existing personal or family health concerns, or existing high levels of sun protection behaviour among family members. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized melanoma genomic risk information can prompt risk-appropriate discussions about skin cancer prevention and skin examinations with family and health professionals. Sharing this information with others might increase its impact on melanoma prevention and skin examination behaviours, and this process could be used to encourage healthy behaviour change within families.