Integrating primary care, shared decision making, and community engagement to facilitate equitable access to multi-cancer early detection clinical trials

Optimal Pathways to Lung Cancer Screening in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and delayed detection contributes to poor outcomes. Primary care plays a crucial role in early diagnosis, but detecting lung cancer early remains challenging for general practitioners (GPs). Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to identify optimal strategies and pathways for lung cancer screening (LCS) in primary care settings globally. We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published in the past 10 years. Our keywords included "lung cancer", "primary care", "early detection", "screening", "best practices", and "pathways". We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies focused on lung cancer screening in primary care. We extracted data on study characteristics, screening pathways, and key findings. We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Important strategies for LCS included the use of shared decision-making tools, electronic health record (HER) prompts, risk prediction models, community outreach, and integration with smoking cessation programs. Barriers to implementation included the lack of provider familiarity with guidelines, time constraints, and patient factors. Healthcare professionals and policy makers in primary care settings can leverage this information to integrate the most effective screening strategies into their care, thus enhancing early detection rates and subsequently reducing global lung cancer morbidity and mortality.

Perceptions of multi-cancer early detection tests among communities facing barriers to health care

Marginalized racial and ethnic groups and rural and lower income communities experience significant cancer inequities. Blood-based multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) provide a simple and less invasive method to screen for multiple cancers at a single access point and may be an important strategy to reduce cancer inequities. In this qualitative study, we explored barriers and facilitators to MCED adoption among communities facing health care access barriers in Alaska, California, and Oregon. We used reflexive thematic analysis to analyze general barriers to cancer screening, MCED-specific barriers, facilitators of MCED adoption, and MCED communication strategies. We found barriers and facilitators to MCED adoption across 4 levels of the social-ecological model: (1) individual, (2) interpersonal, (3) health care system, and (4) societal. These included adverse psychological impacts, positive perceptions of MCEDs, information and knowledge about cancer screening, the quality of the patient-provider relationship, a lack of health care system trustworthiness, logistical accessibility, patient supports, and financial accessibility. Optimal MCED communication strategies included information spread through the medical environment and the community. These findings underscore the importance of understanding and addressing the multilevel factors that may influence MCED adoption among communities facing health care access barriers to advance health equity.

Real-time evaluation and adaptation to facilitate rapid recruitment in a large, prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recruiting large cohorts efficiently can speed the translation of findings into care across a range of scientific disciplines and medical specialties. Recruitment can be hampered by factors such as financial barriers, logistical concerns, and lack of resources for patients and clinicians. These and other challenges can lead to underrepresentation in groups such as rural residents and racial and ethnic minorities. Here we discuss the implementation of various recruitment strategies for enrolling participants into a large, prospective cohort study, assessing the need for adaptations and making them in real-time, while maintaining high adherence to the protocol and high participant satisfaction.

METHODS

While conducting a large, prospective trial of a multi-cancer early detection blood test at Geisinger, an integrated health system in central Pennsylvania, we monitored recruitment progress, adherence to the protocol, and participants' satisfaction. Tracking mechanisms such as paper records, electronic health records, research databases, dashboards, and electronic files were utilized to measure each outcome. We then reviewed study procedures and timelines to list the implementation strategies that were used to address barriers to recruitment, protocol adherence and participant satisfaction.

RESULTS

Adaptations to methods that contributed to achieving the enrollment goal included offering multiple recruitment options, adopting group consenting, improving visit convenience, increasing the use of electronic capture and the tracking of data and source documents, staffing optimization via leveraging resources external to the study team when appropriate, and integrating the disclosure of study results into routine clinical care without adding unfunded work for clinicians. We maintained high protocol adherence and positive participant experience as exhibited by a very low rate of protocol deviations and participant complaints.

CONCLUSION

Recruiting rapidly for large studies - and thereby facilitating clinical translation - requires a nimble, creative approach that marshals available resources and changes course according to data. Planning a rigorous assessment of a study's implementation outcomes prior to study recruitment can further ground study adaptations and facilitate translation into practice. This can be accomplished by proactively and continuously assessing and revising implementation strategies.

Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45-70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification.

RESULTS

Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve "cancer outcomes" by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%).

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.