Search

This scoping review aims to systematically gather evidence from personalized cancer-screening studies across various cancers, summarize key components and outcomes, and provide implications for a future personalized melanoma-screening strategy. Peer-reviewed articles and clinical trial databases were searched for, with restrictions on language and publication date. Sixteen distinct studies were identified and included in this review. The studies' results were synthesized according to key components, including risk assessment, risk thresholds, screening pathways, and primary outcomes of interest. Studies most frequently reported about breast cancers (n = 7), followed by colorectal (n = 5), prostate (n = 2), lung (n = 1), and ovarian cancers (n = 1). The identified screening programs were evaluated predominately in Europe (n = 6) and North America (n = 4). The studies employed multiple different risk assessment tools, screening schedules, and outcome measurements, with few consistent approaches identified across the studies. The benefit–harm assessment of each proposed personalized screening program indicated that the majority were feasible and effective. The establishment of a personalized screening program is complex, but results of the reviewed studies indicate that it is feasible, can improve participation rates, and screening outcomes. While the review primarily examines screening programs for cancers other than melanoma, the insights can be used to inform the development of a personalized melanoma screening strategy. [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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 demandswithin 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From the dosimeter data we derived: (i) time spent outdoors exposed to UV, defined as any 8-s measurements with UV values of >0; and (ii) total standard erythemal doses (SEDs) as a measure of UV dose. Table 1 Spearman rank correlations between weekend and weekday ultraviolet radiation (UV) exposure measured as standard erythemal doses (SEDs) using electronic UV dosimeters HT