Search

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]

Implementation of any new medical test, including germline genome sequencing (GS) to inform cancer risk, should take place only when a test is effective, ethically justifiable and acceptable to a population. Little empirical evidence exists on patient views regarding GS for cancer risk. The aim of this study was to elicit opinions on who should be offered GS and who should pay for it. Participants with a probable genetic basis for their cancer (n = 335) and blood relatives (n = 199) were recruited to undergo GS and invited to complete questionnaires at baseline. A subset (n = 40) also participated in qualitative interviews about their views regarding access to GS to detect cancer risk. Our response rate was 92% for questionnaires and 100% for interviews. Participants expressed high enthusiasm overall for access to GS for those with a family history of cancer and anyone who requested testing, but enthusiasm was lower for universal access, if opting out was possible and finances not an issue. Rationales for these views reflected maximising the sound use of resources. Challenges to introducing community screening via GS to limit cancer burden were raised, including the current limits of science and individual ability to cope with uncertain results. Participants undergoing GS supported cancer risk testing for those with a family history of cancer but were concerned about the challenges of designing and implementing a population‐based GS cancer‐screening program. [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]

Ultraviolet radiation (UV) is the main cause of skin cancer, and children are a priority group for reducing UV exposure. We evaluated whether an interactive educational activity using handheld dosimeters improved UV-related knowledge among primary (elementary) school students. We conducted an uncontrolled before-after study among 427 students in grades 3-6 (ages 8-12 years) at five schools in the Greater Sydney region, Australia. Students used UV dosimeters to measure UV exposure, using the UV index scale, at different locations on their school grounds with and without different forms of sun protection, followed by an indoor classroom presentation and discussion. A 10-point anonymous questionnaire was completed by each student before and after the entire session (60-90 min). Before-after responses were compared using a generalised linear mixed model, adjusted for school, grade and gender. Overall, the mean raw scores increased from 6.3 (out of 10) before the intervention to 8.9 after the intervention, and the adjusted difference in scores was 2.6 points (95% confidence interval 2.4-2.8; p < 0.0001). Knowledge improved for all questions, with the greatest improvement for questions related to the UV Index (p < 0.05). The effect of the intervention was similar across different school, grade and gender groups. School and grade had no significant effect on mean survey scores, but girls scored an average 0.2 points higher than boys (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.4; p = 0.01). In conclusion, Australian primary school students had moderate knowledge about UV and sun protection, and knowledge improved significantly after a short interactive educational activity using handheld UV dosimeters., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Author(s).)