Search

Introduction: In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers. Methods: This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist. Results: Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging. Conclusion: Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective and importance of study: Risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening aim to provide tailored risk advice to individuals, rather than the mostly one-size-fits-all approach designed for the average person that is currently used in Australia. Stratified cancer screening has the potential to increase the benefits and reduce the harms of screening. Initial risk assessment is a crucial first step for screening programs that use risk stratification. We report findings from a qualitative study exploring the views of the Australian public on how to best deliver risk-stratified cancer screening in the population to help inform future implementation. Study type: Qualitative interview study. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants from a previous study, half of whom had received personal genomic risk information and half of whom had not. We asked how and where they would like to see risk-stratified screening delivered and how they felt about different health professionals assessing their cancer risk. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Forty interviews were conducted. The age range of participants was 21-68 years; 58% were female. Themes included: 1) Convenience is a priority; 2) General practice is a good fit for some; 3) Web-based technology is part of the process; and 4) "I would want to know why [I was being stratified]". Similar views were expressed by both groups. Our findings suggest that although health professionals were identified as having an important role, there were mixed preferences for delivery by general practitioners, medical specialists or nurses. Participants were less concerned about who undertook the risk assessment than whether the health professional had the appropriate skill set and availability. Clear communication and evidence of the need for change in screening eligibility and frequency were key factors in the successful delivery of risk-stratified screening. Conclusion: We identified that convenience and good communication, including clear explanations to the public with convincing evidence for change, will enable the successful delivery of risk-stratified cancer screening in the population, including organised and opportunistic screening approaches. Health professional education and upskilling across disciplines will be key facilitators. Engagement and further consultation with primary care and other key stakeholders will be central. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Personalized genomic risk information has the potential to motivate behaviour change and promote population health, but the success of this will depend upon effective risk communication strategies. Objective: To determine preferences for different graphical and written risk communication formats, and the delivery of genomic risk information including the mode of communication and the role of health professionals. Design: Focus groups, transcribed and analysed thematically. Participants: Thirty‐four participants from the public. Methods: Participants were provided with, and invited to discuss, a hypothetical scenario giving an individual's personalized genomic risk of melanoma displayed in several graphical formats. Results: Participants preferred risk formats that were familiar and easy to understand, such as a ‘double pie chart’ and ‘100 person diagram’ (pictograph). The 100 person diagram was considered persuasive because it humanized and personalized the risk information. People described the pie chart format as resembling bank data and food (such as cake and pizza). Participants thought that email, web‐based platforms and postal mail were viable options for communicating genomic risk information. However, they felt that it was important that a health professional (either a genetic counsellor or ‘informed’ general practitioner) be available for discussion at the time of receiving the risk information, to minimize potential negative emotional responses and misunderstanding. Face‐to‐face or telephone delivery was preferred for delivery of high‐risk results. Conclusions: These public preferences for communication strategies for genomic risk information will help to guide translation of genome‐based knowledge into improved population health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To improve melanoma early detection, tools to predict personal risk based on genetic information (polygenic risk scores, PRS) have been developed, but require external validation. Methods We analysed invasive melanoma incidence in UK Biobank (UKB; n = 395,647; 1,651 cases) and the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS, Australia; n = 4,765; 303 cases). Three PRS were evaluated: 68 genetic variants (SNPs) at 54 loci from a 2020 meta-analysis (PRS68); 50 SNPs significant in the 2020 meta-analysis excluding UKB (PRS50); 45 SNPs at 21 loci known pre-2020 (PRS45). 10-year melanoma risks were calculated from population-level cancer registry data by age group and sex, with and without PRS adjustment. Results All PRS were strongly associated with melanoma incidence, including after adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, and ease of tanning. Predicted absolute melanoma risks based on age and sex alone underestimated melanoma incidence in UKB (ratio expected/observed cases E/O=0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.68) and MCCS (E/O=0.65, 0.57-0.73). For UKB, this was reduced by PRS-adjustment, e.g. PRS50-adjusted risks E/O=0.91 (0.87-0.95). Discriminative ability for PRS68- and PRS50-adjusted absolute risks was higher than for risks based on age and sex alone (deltaAUC 0.07-0.1, p < 0.0001), and higher than for PRS45-adjusted risks (deltaAUC 0.02-0.04, p < 0.001). Conclusions A PRS derived from a larger, more diverse meta-analysis improves melanoma risk prediction compared to an earlier PRS. Re-calibration of absolute risks may be necessary for application to specific populations. Key messages A genetic score can improve prediction of melanoma risk and might help tailor melanoma prevention and early detection strategies to different risk levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Population-wide skin cancer screening is not currently recommended in most countries. Instead, most clinical guidelines incorporate risk-based recommendations for skin checks, despite limited evidence around implementation and adherence to recommendations in practice. We aimed to determine adherence to personal risk-tailored melanoma skin check schedules and explore reasons influencing adherence. Patients (with/without a previous melanoma) attending tertiary dermatology clinics at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia, were invited to complete a melanoma risk assessment questionnaire via iPad and provided with personal risk information alongside a risk-tailored skin check schedule. Data were collected from the risk tool, clinician-recorded data on schedule deviations, and appointment booking system. Post-consultation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and clinic staff. We used a convergent segregated mixed methods approach for analysis. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were analysed thematically. Participant data were analysed from clinic records (n = 247) and interviews (n = 29 patients, 11 staff). Overall, there was 62% adherence to risk-tailored skin check schedules. In cases of non-adherence, skin checks tended to occur more frequently than recommended. Decisions to deviate were similarly influenced by patients (44%) and clinicians (56%). Themes driving non-adherence among patients included anxiety and wanting autonomy around decision-making, and among clinicians included concerns around specific lesions and risk estimate accuracy. There was moderate adherence to a clinical service program of personal risk-tailored skin check recommendations. Further adherence may be gained by incorporating strategies to identify and assist patients with high levels of anxiety and supporting clinicians to communicate risk-based recommendations with patients., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Objectives: Skin cancer is highly preventable through primary prevention activities such as avoiding ultraviolet radiation exposure during peak times and regular use of sun protection. General practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses have key responsibilities in promoting sustained primary prevention behaviour. We aimed to review the evidence on skin cancer primary prevention activities in primary care settings, including evidence on feasibility, effectiveness, barriers and enablers., Study Type: Rapid review and narrative synthesis., Methods: We searched published literature from January 2011 to October 2022 in Embase, Medline, PsychInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central and CINAHL. The search was limited to skin cancer primary prevention activities within primary care settings, for studies or programs conducted in Australia or countries with comparable health systems. Analysis of barriers and enablers was informed by an implementation science framework., Results: A total of 31 peer-reviewed journal articles were included in the review. We identified four main primary prevention activities: education and training programs for GPs; behavioural counselling on prevention; the use of novel risk assessment tools and provision of risk-tailored prevention strategies; and new technologies to support early detection that have accompanying primary prevention advice. Enablers to delivering skin cancer primary prevention in primary care included pairing preventive activities with early detection activities, and access to patient resources and programs that fit with existing workflows and systems. Barriers included unclear requirements for skin cancer prevention counselling, competing demands within the consultation and limited access to primary care services, especially in regional and remote areas., Conclusions: These findings highlight potential opportunities for improving skin cancer prevention activities in primary care. Ensuring ease of program delivery, integration with early detection and availability of resources such as risk assessment tools are enablers to encourage and increase uptake of primary prevention behaviours in primary care, for both practitioners and patients., Competing Interests: None declared.

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., (© The Authors.)

Purpose: Evidence indicates that a melanoma prevention program using personalized genomic risk provision and genetic counseling can affect prevention behaviors, including reducing sunburns in adults with no melanoma history. This analysis evaluated its longer-term cost-effectiveness from an Australian health system perspective., Methods: The primary outcome was incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of genomic risk provision (intervention) compared with standard prevention advice. A decision-analytic Markov model was developed using randomized trial data to simulate lifetime cost-effectiveness. All costs were presented in 2018/19 Australian dollars (AUD). The intervention effect on reduced sunburns was stratified by sex and traditional risk, which was calculated through a validated prediction model. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken for robustness checks., Results: The per participant cost of intervention was AUD$189. Genomic risk provision targeting high-traditional risk individuals produced an ICER of AUD$35,254 (per quality-adjusted life year gained); sensitivity analyses indicated the intervention would be cost-effective in more than 50% of scenarios. When the intervention was extended to low-traditional risk groups, the ICER was AUD$43,746 with a 45% probability of being cost-effective., Conclusion: Genomic risk provision targeted to high-traditional melanoma risk individuals is likely a cost-effective strategy for reducing sunburns and will likely prevent future melanomas and keratinocyte carcinomas., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Alexander M. Menzies has served on advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pierre-Fabre, and QBiotics., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies suggest that polygenic risk scores (PRSs) may improve melanoma risk stratification. However, there has been limited independent validation of PRS-based risk prediction, particularly assessment of calibration (comparing predicted to observed risks)., Objectives: To evaluate PRS-based melanoma risk prediction in prospective UK and Australian cohorts with European ancestry., Methods: We analysed invasive melanoma incidence in the UK Biobank (UKB; n = 395 647, 1651 cases) and a case-cohort nested within the Melbourne Collaborative Cohort Study (MCCS, Australia; n = 4765, 303 cases). Three PRSs were evaluated: 68 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 54 loci from a 2020 meta-analysis (PRS68), 50 SNPs significant in the 2020 meta-analysis excluding UKB (PRS50) and 45 SNPs at 21 loci known in 2018 (PRS45). Ten-year melanoma risks were calculated from population-level cancer registry data by age group and sex, with and without PRS adjustment., Results: Predicted absolute melanoma risks based on age and sex alone underestimated melanoma incidence in the UKB [ratio of expected/observed cases: E/O = 0·65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·62-0·68] and MCCS (E/O = 0·63, 95% CI 0·56-0·72). For UKB, calibration was improved by PRS adjustment, with PRS50-adjusted risks E/O = 0·91, 95% CI 0·87-0·95. The discriminative ability for PRS68- and PRS50-adjusted absolute risks was higher than for risks based on age and sex alone (Δ area under the curve 0·07-0·10, P < 0·0001), and higher than for PRS45-adjusted risks (Δ area under the curve 0·02-0·04, P < 0·001)., Conclusions: A PRS derived from a larger, more diverse meta-analysis improves risk prediction compared with an earlier PRS, and might help tailor melanoma prevention and early detection strategies to different risk levels. Recalibration of absolute risks may be necessary for application to specific populations., (© 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

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., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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 healthcare use. A nested qualitative study will include interviews with patients and clinicians, and a costing study we will compare costs from a societal perspective. We will compare the technical performance of two different models of dermatoscope (polarised vs non-polarised)., Discussion: The findings from this study may inform guidance on evidence-based follow-up care, that maximises early detection of subsequent new primary or recurrent melanoma and patient wellbeing, while minimising costs to patients, health systems, and society., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000176864 . Registered on 18 February 2021.

While Australia now has well-established national screening programs for breast, bowel and cervical cancers, research continues into the feasibility of developing systematic screening programs for a number of other cancers. In this paper, experts in their fields provide perspectives on the current state of play and future directions for screening and surveillance for melanoma, Lynch syndrome, and liver, lung and prostate cancers in Australia. Although the evidence does not support population screening, there may be opportunities to prevent thousands of deaths through systematic approaches to the early detection of lung cancer and melanoma, testing for Lynch syndrome, and organised surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma among individuals at high risk - guided by targeted research. The paper also looks at what impact new prostate specific antigen testing guidelines are having on screening for prostate cancer., Competing Interests: FM has done paid consultancy work for Rhythm Biosciences and received payment for providing medicolegal opinions. BA’s then-employer, the Sax Institute, was reimbursed by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA) for remunerated time spent advising the systematic evidence review team for the PSA testing guideline and on writing parts of the guideline document. BA is a member of the PCFA’s Board and Chair of their Research Advisory Committee. He receives no remuneration for either of these positions, but all expenses for attending meetings are paid for by the PCFA.

Background: Reducing ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure and improving early detection may reduce melanoma incidence, mortality and health system costs. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of providing information on personal genomic risk of melanoma in reducing UV exposure at 12 months, according to low and high traditional risk., Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, participants (target sample = 892) will be recruited from the general population, and randomized (1:1 ratio, intervention versus control). Intervention arm participants provide a saliva sample, receive personalized melanoma genomic risk information, a genetic counselor phone call, and an educational booklet on melanoma prevention. Control arm participants receive only the educational booklet. Eligible participants are aged 18-69 years, have European ancestry and no personal history of melanoma. All participants will complete a questionnaire and wear a UV dosimeter to objectively measure their sun exposure at baseline, 1- and 12-month time-points, except 1-month UV dosimetry will be limited to ~250 participants. The primary outcome is total daily Standard Erythemal Doses at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include objectively measured UV exposure for specific time periods (e.g. midday hours), self-reported sun protection and skin-examination behaviors, psycho-social 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 intervention costs and outcomes., Discussion: This trial will inform the clinical and personal utility of introducing genomic testing into the health system for melanoma prevention and early detection at a population-level., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000691347., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)