Key factors in the success of DART implementation were the adoption of a programmatic approach, strong institutional commitment, and a primary focus on clinic-based response. We have demonstrated that large-scale routine screening for distress in a cancer center is achievable and has the potential to enhance the cancer care experience for both patients and staff.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is a common screening tool in cancer, although its validity for distress screening is unproven. Here, screening performance of the ESAS anxiety (ESAS-A) and depression (ESAS-D) items were validated against the anxiety [Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7)] and depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)] subscales of the PHQ. A total of 1215 cancer patients completed the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART), a computerised distress screening instrument. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were used to evaluate the ability of ESAS-A and ESAS-D to identify moderate distress (GAD-7/PHQ-9 ≥ 10). Spearman's rank correlation coefficients comparing ESAS-A and ESAS-D with GAD-7 and PHQ-9 were 0.74 and 0.72 respectively. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.89 and 0.88 for anxiety and depression respectively. A cut-off of ≥3 on ESAS-A demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.91, specificity of 0.68, positive predictive value of 0.34 and negative predictive value of 0.97. A cut-off of ≥2 on the ESAS-D demonstrated a sensitivity of 0.86, specificity of 0.72, positive predictive value of 0.46 and negative predictive value of 0.95. High sensitivities of ESAS-A and ESAS-D at certain cut-offs suggest they have use in ruling-out distress. However, their low specificities indicate secondary screening is needed to rule-in anxiety or depression for case-finding.

The genetic basis for nonmedullary forms of thyroid cancer (NMTC) is less well established than that of medullary thyroid cancer. However, epidemiological and family studies suggest that a proportion of NMTC may be due to inherited predisposition. To estimate the familial risk of thyroid cancer, we conducted a hospital-based case-control study at the Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and at 2 university hospitals in Montréal, Québec, Canada. We obtained pedigrees from 339 unselected patients diagnosed with NMTC and from 319 unaffected ethnically matched controls. Family histories of cancer were obtained from the cases and controls for 3292 first degree relatives of cases and controls. Seventeen cases (5.0%) and 2 controls (0.6%) reported at least one first degree relative with thyroid cancer. In relatives of patients with thyroid cancer, the incidence of any type of cancer (including NMTC) was 38% higher than in relatives of controls (incidence rate ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.7). The relative risk for thyroid cancer was 10-fold higher in relatives of cancer patients than in controls (incidence rate ratio, 10.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-47.6). Our findings suggest that hereditary or other familial factors are important in a small proportion of NMTC. Molecular studies are needed to determine the genetic basis of cancer susceptibility in these families.