Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation

A systems based qualitative analysis exploring the potential to implement risk stratified bowel cancer screening in England

BACKGROUND

Improving bowel cancer screening programmes through the introduction of risk stratification has been discussed, but not widely implemented in many countries. This study aimed to gain an understanding of system and programmatic aspects that need to be addressed to enable a move towards implementation.

METHODS

The Engineering Better Care Framework was used to support exploration and thematic analysis of the views of stakeholders involved in delivery of bowel cancer screening in England. Semi-structured interviews (n = 11) were conducted to gain a better understanding of the problem, and to identify elements that would contribute to a well-designed programme and anticipate barriers to delivery.

RESULTS

There is enthusiasm for introducing risk stratification and it is considered to be beneficial to improving the current screening programme. A major barrier impacting implementation is a lack of consensus on the best approach for risk stratified screening. Many interviewees recognised this as a bottle-neck and were in favour of processes that would enable more joined up decision-making to enable balanced consideration of the differing, and often nuanced potential of different strategies for risk stratification. Several key considerations and design elements were identified: evidence demonstrating benefit of a particular strategy, feasibility of programme delivery (data availability, workforce capacity, public and patient acceptability, impact on equity), as well as changes to design of patient communication materials, the bowel cancer screening system, consent and follow-up services.

CONCLUSIONS

System level issues and clarification of remaining uncertainties require resolution in order to move towards implementation. Moving this agenda forward requires consensus across different stakeholders in the first instance on the best use of risk. This will enable outlining key outstanding evidence gaps and establishing evidence thresholds for implementation. There are opportunities to design an optimal system based on harnessing existing infrastructure and learnings from other screening programmes.

Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Personalised risk-based screening (PRBS) can enhance the efficiency of cancer screening programnes, but little is known about support for its implementation among the general public and health-care professionals. We aimed to summarise the acceptability and perceptions of PRBS for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening among these groups.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of original research studies reporting on breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening; personalised risk assessments to guide PRBS; and the acceptability of and receptibility towards these approaches among the general public, health-care professionals, or both. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus for articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and April 30, 2024. Studies not reporting on the outcomes of interest and with insufficient data for analysis were excluded. Six reviewers independently screened articles, and risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Quantitative data were analysed with use of random-effects meta-analysis for outcomes that had at least two studies. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO, CRD42022354287.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 4491 unique records. After screening, 63 studies were included in our analysis, of which 36 (57%) included the general public, 21 (33%) included health-care professionals, and six (11%) included both. The majority of studies focused on breast cancer screening (43 [68%] studies), and were from North America (28 [44%]) and Europe (28 [44%]). Qualitative findings were analysed thematically, and the extracted quantitative findings were synthesised under the following topics: acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk assessments among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among health-care professionals; and barriers and facilitators to PRBS implementation among health-care professionals. The general public and health-care professionals generally found PRBS acceptable, but they needed more information about how risk was calculated and the accuracy of risk scores. Additionally, both groups were cautious about reducing screening frequencies for individuals at low risk and cited barriers such as the time and resources needed to implement an effective PRBS programme. The pooled estimate for acceptability of PRBS was 78% (95% CI 66-88) among the general public and 86% (64-99) among health-care professionals.

INTERPRETATION

The general public and health-care professionals both viewed personalised risk assessments as providing valuable information and PRBS as a logical next step to increase the quality of patient care and improve cancer mortality. However, implementation barriers at the public, health-care professional, and system level need to be addressed.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

Methods for data extraction and data transformation in convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this guidance paper is to describe data transformation involving qualitization, including when and how to undertake this process, and to clarify how it aligns with data extraction in order to expand on the current guidance for JBI convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs).

INTRODUCTION

The convergent integrated approach to MMSRs involves combining extracted data from both quantitative studies (including the quantitative components of mixed methods studies) and qualitative studies (including the qualitative components of mixed methods studies). This process requires data transformation, which can occur either by converting qualitative data into quantitative data (ie, quantitizing) or converting quantitative data into qualitative data (ie, qualitizing). Data transformation involving qualitization is poorly understood in the context of MMSRs, and there is confusion regarding how to undertake this process, with much of the literature specific to primary mixed methods studies. There is a need to expand current guidance and provide more practical advice to reviewers on how to undertake this process.

METHODS

The JBI MMSR Methodology Group took a multipronged approach to update its guidance. First, a structured search of the literature was conducted to determine what is known about data transformation, followed by analysis of a sample of systematic reviews that claimed to use the JBI convergent integrated approach to MMSRs. Approaches were summarized and used to inform the development of draft guidance. This guidance was iteratively revised following a series of online meetings, as well as presented to evidence synthesis experts at an international conference. Finally, the guidance was submitted to the JBI International Scientific Committee for discussion, feedback, and ratification.

RESULTS

There is uncertainty in the literature regarding the process of data transformation within the context of MMSRs, with ill-defined approaches provided and variation in practice. In JBI convergent integrated MMSRs, it is recommended that data extraction from quantitative studies (or mixed method studies reporting quantitative findings) stays as close as possible to the data reported in the primary studies. Where data are absent or insufficient to meet the needs of the MMSR, systematic reviewers may need to construct the narrative representation using relevant data from the primary studies. Following data extraction, the process of qualitization occurs where extracted data (both quantitative and qualitative) are assembled, and reviewers are required to conduct detailed examination across data to identify likenesses and create categories based on similarities in meaning.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive guidance currently available for data extraction and qualitization for MMSRs. However, it is important to acknowledge the inherent variability in MMSRs and our methodology may need tailoring for certain situations. Further work will focus on examining how certainty and confidence in findings can be assessed within the framework of MMSRs.

Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey

Objective

This study aimed to quantify public acceptability and anticipated uptake with risk stratification incorporated at three points on the bowel cancer screening pathway, compared with current screening in England.

Methods

We conducted an online population-based survey of 1,203 UK adults in 2024. The main outcome measures were overall acceptability of three strategies where risk stratification is introduced at 1) the point of eligibility, 2) the referral threshold and 3) the screening interval, compared with the current programme (screening as usual), and the acceptability of high- and low-risk screening practices at each point. Other outcomes included anticipated uptake of screening and the acceptability of data collection methods.

Results

Acceptability of risk-stratified eligibility and referral thresholds was significantly greater than for screening as usual (p < 0.001). There was no difference for stratified intervals. At all three points, more intense screening for those at high-risk was more acceptable and less intense screening for those at low-risk less acceptable when compared with screening as usual (p < 0.0001). The anticipated likelihood of taking up screening was also significantly higher if at high-risk and significantly lower if at low-risk, compared with screening as usual for all strategies (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Participants expressed strong acceptability for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening, particularly for risk-stratified eligibility and thresholds for referral. However, acceptability for less intense screening for those at low-risk was lower than for the current programme and may negatively impact uptake. This suggests that the design and framing of risk groups requires careful consideration and communication with the public.

Patient and public contribution

Three members of the public contributed through online correspondence to the development of the survey and participant-facing documents.

Adherence to melanoma screening and surveillance skin check schedules tailored to personal risk

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.

Multiomics biomarkers were not superior to clinical variables for pan-cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening tests are considered pivotal for early diagnosis and survival. However, the efficacy of these tests for improving survival has recently been questioned. This study aims to test if cancer screening could be improved by biomarkers in peripheral blood based on multi-omics data.

METHODS

We utilize multi-omics data from 500,000 participants in the UK Biobank. Machine learning is applied to search for proteins, metabolites, genetic variants, or clinical variables to diagnose cancers collectively and individually.

RESULTS

Here we show that the overall performance of the potential blood biomarkers do not outperform clinical variables for collective diagnosis. However, we observe promising results for individual cancers in close proximity to peripheral blood, with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) greater than 0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the identification of blood biomarkers for cancer might be complicated by variable overlap between molecular changes in tumor tissues and peripheral blood. This explanation is supported by local proteomics analyses of different tumors, which all show high AUCs, greater than 0.9. Thus, multi-omics biomarkers for the diagnosis of individual cancers may potentially be effective, but not for groups of cancers.

Development of a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway for women aged 30-39 years: Views of UK primary care providers on the role of primary care

BACKGROUND

Identifying women aged 30-39 years at increased risk of developing breast cancer would allow them to receive screening and prevention offers. For this to be feasible, the practicalities of organising risk assessment and primary prevention must be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would be responsible for delivery. It has been proposed that primary care providers are best placed to deliver a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway. The present study aimed to investigate a range of primary care provider's views on the development and implementation of a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway within primary care for women aged 30-39 years.

METHODS

Twenty-five primary care providers working at general practices in either Greater Manchester or Cambridgeshire and Peterborough participated in five focus groups (n = 18) and seven individual interviews. Data were analysed thematically and organised using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Three themes were developed. Challenges with delivering a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway within primary care highlights that primary care are willing to facilitate but not lead delivery of such a pathway given the challenges with existing workload pressures and concerns about ensuring effective clinical governance. Primary care's preferred level of involvement describes the aspects of the pathway participants thought primary care could be involved in, namely co-ordinating data collection for risk assessment and calculating and communicating risk. Requirements for primary care involvement captures the need to provide a training and education package to address deficits in knowledge prior to involvement. Additionally, the reservations primary care have about being involved in the management of women identified as being at increased risk are discussed and suggestions are provided for facilitating primary care to take on this role.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite optimism that primary care might lead a breast cancer risk assessment and primary prevention pathway, participants had a range of concerns that should be considered when developing such a pathway.

The Ethics of Cancer Screening Based on Race and Ethnicity

Racial and ethnic disparities in incidence and mortality are well documented for many types of cancer. As a result, there is understandable policy and clinical interest in race- and ethnicity-based clinical screening guidelines to address cancer health disparities. Despite the theoretical benefits, such proposals do not typically address associated ethical considerations. Using the examples of gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma, which have demonstrated disparities according to race and ethnicity, this article examines relevant ethical arguments in considering screening based on race and ethnicity.

Race- and ethnicity-based clinical preventive care services have the potential to improve the balance of harms and benefits of screening. As a result, programs focused on high-risk racial or ethnic groups could offer a practical alternative to screening the general population, in which the screening yield may be too low to demonstrate sufficient effectiveness. However, designing screening according to socially based categorizations such as race or ethnicity is controversial and has the potential for intersectional stigma related to social identity or other structurally mediated environmental factors. Other ethical considerations include miscategorization, unintended negative effects on health disparities, disregard for underlying risk factors, and the psychological costs of being assigned higher risk.

Given the ethical considerations, the practical application of race and ethnicity in cancer screening is most relevant in multicultural countries if and only if alternative proxies are not available. Even in those instances, policymakers and clinicians should carefully address the ethical considerations within the historical and cultural context of the intended population. Further research on alternative proxies, such as social determinants of health and culturally based characteristics, could provide more adequate factors for risk stratification.

The Public's Intended Uptake of Hypothetical Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Screening Scenarios: A Nationwide Survey

INTRODUCTION

Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) may potentially reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This study aimed to examine the Dutch population's intended uptake of 3 hypothetical EAC screening test scenarios and preferences for potential future organization.

METHODS

A total of 8,350 Dutch individuals aged 45-75 years were invited, of whom 2,258 completed a web-based survey. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 hypothetical screening test scenarios (i.e., transnasal endoscopy, ingestible cell collection device, or breath analysis). The primary outcome was intended uptake. Secondary outcomes included acceptance of screening eligibility criteria and preferences regarding invitation, counseling, and diagnostic follow-up. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which determinants were associated with EAC screening intent.

RESULTS

Intended uptake of screening was highest in the breath analysis scenario (95%), followed by conventional upper endoscopy (78%), an ingestible cell collection device (75%), and transnasal endoscopy (68%) ( P < 0.001). Anticipating discomfort was most strongly associated with decreased intention to undergo transnasal endoscopy (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.29) or swallow a cell collection device (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.32). Cancer worry and high acceptance of test sensitivity/specificity were consistently associated with a positive intention to participate in screening. Inviting persons for screening based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or the output of a risk prediction model was acceptable to 74%, 69%, and 66%, respectively. Inviting only men was acceptable for only 41% of women. The majority (58%) preferred to be invited by a public health organization, and 32% of the participants preferred to discuss their decision to participate with a healthcare professional.

DISCUSSION

Participants in this study self-selected through a web-based survey, potentially introducing selection bias. Participants generally intended to participate in EAC screening, although the level of intent depended on the discomfort and performance associated with the offered screening test. Determining eligibility based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or a risk calculator, but not sex, would be acceptable to most individuals.

Targeted Screening for Cancer: Learnings and Applicability to Melanoma: A Scoping Review

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.

Understanding the Preferences and Considerations of the Public Towards Risk-Stratified Screening for Colorectal Cancer: Insights From Think-Aloud Interviews Based on a Discrete Choice Experiment

CONTEXT

Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk-based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

STUDY DESIGN

Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint-analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty participants based in England aged 40-79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise.

RESULTS

When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age-alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non-personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision-making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out.

CONCLUSION

Risk-stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review

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.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study

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.

Implementing systematic melanoma risk assessment and risk-tailored surveillance in a skin cancer focussed dermatology clinic: A qualitative study of feasibility and acceptability to patients and clinic staff

BACKGROUND

International bodies recommend that melanoma risk assessment should be integrated into skin cancer care provision, but evidence to support implementation is lacking.

AIM

To explore the acceptability and feasibility of implementing personalised melanoma risk assessment and tailored patient education and skin surveillance within routine clinical care.

METHODS

This prospective qualitative implementation study was informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Personalised, systematic melanoma risk assessment was implemented in the dermatology clinic at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia February-May 2021. Pre- and post-implementation observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and staff were conducted (September 2020-March 2021). Observational notes and interview transcript data were analysed thematically using the TFA as a classifying framework.

RESULTS

A total of 37 h of observations were made, and 29 patients and 12 clinic staff were interviewed. We found that the delivery of personalised melanoma risk estimates did not impact on patient flow through the clinic. Dermatologists reported that the personalised risk information enhanced their confidence in assessing patient risk and recommending tailored surveillance schedules. Most patients reported that the risk assessment and tailored information were a beneficial addition to their care. Among patients whose risk deviated from their expectations, some reported feeling worried, confused or mistrust in the risk information, including those at lower risk who were recommended to decrease surveillance frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible and acceptable to patients and clinic staff to calculate and deliver personalised melanoma risk information and tailored surveillance as part of routine clinical care within dermatology clinics.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants

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.

Ethical and legal implications of implementing risk algorithms for early detection and screening for oesophageal cancer, now and in the future

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal cancer has significant morbidity and mortality but late diagnosis is common since early signs of disease are frequently misinterpreted. Project DELTA aims to enable earlier detection and treatment through targeted screening using a novel risk prediction algorithm for oesophageal cancer (incorporating risk factors of Barrett's oesophagus including prescriptions for acid-reducing medications (CanPredict)), together with a non-invasive, low-cost sampling device (CytospongeTM). However, there are many barriers to implementation, and this paper identifies key ethical and legal challenges to implementing these personalised prevention strategies for Barrett's oesophagus/oesophageal cancer.

METHODS

To identify ethical and legal issues relevant to the deployment of a risk prediction tool for oesophageal cancer into primary care, we adopted an interdisciplinary approach, incorporating targeted informal literature reviews, interviews with expert collaborators, a multidisciplinary workshop and ethical and legal analysis.

RESULTS

Successful implementation raises many issues including ensuring transparency and effective risk communication; addressing bias and inequity; managing resources appropriately and avoiding exceptionalism. Clinicians will need support and training to use cancer risk prediction algorithms, ensuring that they understand how risk algorithms supplement rather than replace medical decision-making. Workshop participants had concerns about liability for harms arising from risk algorithms, including from potential bias and inequitable implementation. Determining strategies for risk communication enabling transparency but avoiding exceptionalist approaches are a significant challenge. Future challenges include using artificial intelligence to bolster risk assessment, incorporating genomics into risk tools, and deployment by non-health professional users. However, these strategies could improve detection and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Novel pathways incorporating risk prediction algorithms hold considerable promise, especially when combined with low-cost sampling. However immediate priorities should be to develop risk communication strategies that take account of using validated risk algorithms, and to ensure equitable implementation. Resolving questions about liability for harms arising should be a longer-term objective.

The Action Potential Clamp Technique as a Tool for Risk Stratification of Sinus Bradycardia Due to Loss-of-Function Mutations in HCN4: An In Silico Exploration Based on In Vitro and In Vivo Data

These days, in vitro functional analysis of gene variants is becoming increasingly important for risk stratification of cardiac ion channelopathies. So far, such risk stratification has been applied to SCN5A, KCNQ1, and KCNH2 gene variants associated with Brugada syndrome and long QT syndrome types 1 and 2, respectively, but risk stratification of HCN4 gene variants related to sick sinus syndrome has not yet been performed. HCN4 is the gene responsible for the hyperpolarization-activated 'funny' current If, which is an important modulator of the spontaneous diastolic depolarization underlying the sinus node pacemaker activity. In the present study, we carried out a risk classification assay on those loss-of-function mutations in HCN4 for which in vivo as well as in vitro data have been published. We used the in vitro data to compute the charge carried by If (Qf) during the diastolic depolarization phase of a prerecorded human sinus node action potential waveform and assessed the extent to which this Qf predicts (1) the beating rate of the comprehensive Fabbri-Severi model of a human sinus node cell with mutation-induced changes in If and (2) the heart rate observed in patients carrying the associated mutation in HCN4. The beating rate of the model cell showed a very strong correlation with Qf from the simulated action potential clamp experiments (R2 = 0.95 under vagal tone). The clinically observed minimum or resting heart rates showed a strong correlation with Qf (R2 = 0.73 and R2 = 0.71, respectively). While a translational perspective remains to be seen, we conclude that action potential clamp on transfected cells, without the need for further voltage clamp experiments and data analysis to determine individual biophysical parameters of If, is a promising tool for risk stratification of sinus bradycardia due to loss-of-function mutations in HCN4. In combination with an If blocker, this tool may also prove useful when applied to human-induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiPSC-CMs) obtained from mutation carriers and non-carriers.