Search

Objectives: To explore informal caregivers' perspectives on precision medicine in cancer care., Design: Semi-structured interviews with the informal caregivers of people living with cancer and receiving targeted/immunotherapies. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using a framework approach., Setting: Recruitment was facilitated by two hospitals and five Australian cancer community groups., Participants: Informal caregivers (n=28; 16 men, 12 women; aged 18-80) of people living with cancer and receiving targeted/immunotherapies., Results: Thematic analysis identified three findings, centred largely on the pervasive theme of hope in relation to precision therapies including: (1) precision as a key component of caregivers' hope; (2) hope as a collective practice between patients, caregivers, clinicians and others, which entailed work and obligation for caregivers; and (3) hope as linked to expectations of further scientific progress, even if there may be no personal, immediate benefit., Conclusions: Innovation and change in precision oncology are rapidly reconfiguring the parameters of hope for patients and caregivers, creating new and difficult relational moments and experiences in everyday life and in clinical encounters. In the context of a shifting therapeutic landscape, caregivers' experiences illustrate the need to understand hope as collectively produced, as emotional and moral labour, and as entangled in broader cultural expectations of medical advances. Such understandings may help clinicians as they guide patients and caregivers through the complexities of diagnosis, treatment, emerging evidence and possible futures in the precision era. Developing a better understanding of informal caregivers' experiences of caring for patients receiving precision therapies is important for improving support to patients and their caregivers., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary central nervous system cancer in adults. The objective of the Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA) trial is to test hypotheses in real world setting to improve survival of people with GBM. Initial experimental arms are evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM). This study will compare maximal surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for 6 months with the addition of (1) 'neoadjuvant' chemotherapy beginning as soon as possible after surgery and/or (2) adjuvant chemotherapy continued until progression within the same study platform., Methods and Analysis: MAGMA will establish a platform for open-label, multiarm, multicentre randomised controlled testing of treatments for GBM. The study began recruiting in September 2020 and recruitment to the initial two interventions in MAGMA is expected to continue until September 2023.Adults aged ≥18 years with ndGBM will be given the option of undergoing randomisation to each study intervention separately, thereby giving rise to a partial factorial design, with two separate randomisation time points, one for neoadjuvant therapy and one for extended therapy. Patients will have the option of being randomised at each time point or continuing on with standard treatment.The primary outcome for the study is overall survival from the date of initial surgery until death from any cause. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, time to first non-temozolomide treatment, overall survival from each treatment randomisation, clinically significant toxicity as measured by grade 3 or 4 adverse events and health-related quality-of-life measures. Tertiary outcomes are predictive/prognostic biomarkers and health utilities and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.The primary analysis of overall survival will be performed separately for each study intervention according to the intention to treat principle on all patients randomised to each study intervention., Ethics and Dissemination: The study (Protocol version 2.0 dated 23 November 2020) was approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Sydney Local Health District: 2019/ETH13297). The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000048987., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Clinical trials are the backbone of research. It is well recognised that patient participation in clinical trials can be influenced by a myriad of factors such as access to a clinical trial, restrictive trial eligibility criteria and perceptions held by patients or physicians about clinical trials. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the current literature describing factors that influence clinical trial participation of patients with cancer, in Australia., Methods and Analyses: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used to conduct this review. Four electronic databases will be systematically searched for relevant published literature on this topic, as a collaborative process involving the lead investigator and a health science librarian. We will hand search of citations and reference lists of the included papers, and a grey literature search through Google scholar, Grey Literature Report, Web of Science Conference Proceedings. All published papers pertaining to patients diagnosed with solid organ or haematological malignancies will be included. Studies which did not involve patients from Australia will also be excluded. A customised data extraction tool will be pilot tested and refined, and subsequently two independent reviewers will perform data screening and extraction. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Quantitative data will be presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analyses. This scoping review does not require ethical approval as the methodology focuses on analysing information from available published data., Ethics and Dissemination: Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders including consumers, clinicians, professional organisations and policy-makers through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Grades 2 and 3 gliomas (G2/3 gliomas), when combined, are the second largest group of malignant brain tumours in adults. The outcomes for G2/3 gliomas at progression approach the dismal outcomes for glioblastoma (GBM), yet there is a paucity of trials for Australian patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas compared with patients with GBM. LUMOS will be a pilot umbrella study for patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas that aims to match patients to targeted therapies based on molecular screening with contemporaneous tumour tissue. Participants in whom no actionable or no druggable mutation is found, or in whom the matching drug is not available, will form a comparator arm and receive standard of care chemotherapy. The objective of the LUMOS trial is to assess the feasibility of this approach in a multicentre study across five sites in Australia, with a view to establishing a national molecular screening platform for patient treatment guided by the mutational analysis of contemporaneous tissue biopsies METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a multicentre pilot study enrolling patients with recurrent grade 2/3 gliomas that have previously been treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy at diagnosis or at first relapse. Contemporaneous tumour tissue at the time of first relapse, defined as tissue obtained within 6 months of relapse and without subsequent intervening therapy, will be obtained from patients. Molecular screening will be performed by targeted next-generation sequencing at the reference laboratory (PathWest, Perth, Australia). RNA and DNA will be extracted from representative formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue scrolls or microdissected from sections on glass slides tissue sections following a review of the histology by pathologists. Extracted nucleic acid will be quantified by Qubit Fluorometric Quantitation (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Library preparation and targeted capture will be performed using the TruSight Tumor 170 (TST170) kit and samples sequenced on NextSeq 550 (Illumina) using NextSeq V.2.5 hi output reagents, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data analysis will be performed using the Illumina BaseSpace TST170 app v1.02 and a custom tertiary pipeline, implemented within the Clinical Genomics Workspace software platform from PierianDx (also refer to section 3.2). Primary outcomes for the study will be the number of patients enrolled and the number of patients who complete molecular screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of screened patients enrolled; proportion of patients who complete molecular screening; the turn-around time of molecular screening; and the value of a brain tumour specific multi-disciplinary tumour board, called the molecular tumour advisory panel as measured by the proportion of patients in whom the treatment recommendation was refined compared with the recommendations from the automated bioinformatics platform of the reference laboratory testing., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the lead Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Local Health District: Protocol No. X19-0383. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki 2013, guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007, updated 2018 and as amended periodically). Results will be disseminated using a range of media channels including newsletters, social media, scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000087954; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Sars-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 officially declared pandemic in March 2020. Health systems worldwide responded with swift changes to increase workflow capacity while protecting the vulnerable, including those with cancer. This led to unprecedented and rapid restructuring of health service provision. Published data from the 2003 SARS pandemic focuses on medical and nursing staff, overlooking other departmental employees such as administration officers or food service workers. Our protocol aims to document directives and adjustments communicated to staff in two cancer care departments and correlate this with measures of distress and perceived preparedness across the spectrum of all staff involved in cancer care., Methods and Analysis: We use a semiqualitative approach comprising weekly diarising of events and simultaneous staff surveys. Principal investigators will document changes at a metropolitan quaternary cancer centre and a regional cancer centre. Communications, directives and changes will be diarised in real time in four executional domains. Simultaneously, prospective voluntary self-administered online surveys will be conducted at regular intervals by staff. The survey assesses the perceived institutional preparedness and personal well-being, with a combination of Likert scaled and open response questions. A semiquantitative self-assessment of distress adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer is incorporated. Additionally, open-text personal reflections on themes including difficult decisions will be invited. Survey participants will be drawn from various work areas of the cancer care departments: administrative staff, health professionals, for example, allied health, ancillary workers, nursing and medical., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/2020/QRBW/62982). Published literature on domains of distress neglects categories of healthcare worker who form an essential part of the care delivery team. Our study hopes to gather insights about psychosocial impact and adjustment which could direct responses in future emergencies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Fractional (part-time) appointments are becoming more commonplace in many professions, including medicine. With respect to the contemporary oncological landscape, this highlights a critical moment in the optimisation of employment conditions to enable high-quality service provision given growing patient numbers and treatment volume intensification. Data are drawn from a broader study which aimed to better understand the workforce experiences of medical oncologists in Australia. This paper specifically aims to examine a group of clinicians' views on the consequences of fractional work in oncology., Design: Qualitative, one-on-one semistructured interviews. Interview transcripts were digitally audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were subject to thematic analysis supported by the framework approach and informed by sociological methods and theory., Setting: New South Wales, Australia., Participants: Medical oncologists (n=22), including 9 female and 13 male participants, at a range of career stages., Results: Four key themes were derived from the analysis: (1) increasing fractional employment relative to opportunities for full-time positions and uncertainty about future opportunities; (2) tightening in role diversity, including reducing time available for research, mentoring, professional development and administration; (3) emerging flexibility of medical oncology as a specialty and (4) impact of fractional-as-norm on workforce sustainability and quality of care., Conclusion: Fractional appointments are viewed as increasing in oncology and the broader consequences of this major shift in medical labour remain unexamined. Such appointments offer potential for flexible work to better suit the needs of contemporary oncologists; however, fractional work also presents challenges for personal and professional identity and vocational engagement. Fractional appointments are viewed as having a range of consequences related to job satisfaction, burnout and service delivery. Further research is needed to provide a critical examination of the multiple impacts of workforce trends within and beyond oncology., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To improve the experiences of people from diverse cultural backgrounds, there has been an increased emphasis on strengthening cultural awareness and competence in healthcare contexts. The aim of this focus-group based study was to explore how professionals in cancer care experience their encounters with migrant cancer patients with a focus on how they work with cultural diversity in their everyday practice, and the personal, interpersonal and institutional dimensions therein., Design: This paper draws on qualitative data from eight focus groups held in three local health districts in major metropolitan areas of Australia. Participants were health professionals (n=57) working with migrants in cancer care, including multicultural community workers, allied health workers, doctors and nurses. Focus group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed in full. Data were analysed using the framework approach and supported by NVivo V.11 qualitative data analysis software., Results: Four findings were derived from the analysis: (1) culture as merely one aspect of complex personhood; (2) managing culture at the intersection of institutional, professional and personal values; (3) balancing professional values with patient values and beliefs, and building trust and respect; and (4) the importance of time and everyday relations for generating understanding and intimacy, and for achieving culturally competent care., Conclusions: The findings reveal: how culture is often misconstrued as manageable in isolation; the importance of a renewed emphasis on culture as interpersonal and institutional in character; and the importance of prioritising the development of quality relationships requiring additional time and resource investments in migrant patients for enacting effective intercultural care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)