Search

Introduction: The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) sponsored an expert-led, consensus-driven, four-stage process, based on a modified Delphi methodology, to determine a set of clinical indicators as quality measures of cancer service provision in Australia. This was done in response to requests from institutional health care providers seeking accreditation, which were additional and complementary to the existing radiation oncology set. The steering group members comprised multidisciplinary key opinion leaders and a consumer representative. Five additional participants constituted the stakeholder group, who deliberated on the final indicator set. Methods and recommendations: An initial meeting of the steering group scoped the high level nature of the desired set. In stage 2, 65 candidate indicators were identified by a literature review and a search of international metrics. These were ranked by survey, based on ease of data accessibility and collectability and clinical relevance. The top 27 candidates were debated by the stakeholder group and culled to a final set of 16 indicators. A user manual was created with indicators mapped to clinical codes. The indicator set was ratified by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and is now available for use by health care organisations participating in the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. This inaugural cancer clinical indicator set covers high level assessment of various critical processes in cancer service provision in Australia. Regular reviews and updates will ensure usability. Changes in management as a result of this statement: This is the inaugural indicator set for cancer care for use across Australia and internationally under the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. Multidisciplinary involvement through a modified Delphi process selected indicators representing both generic and specific aspects of care across the cancer journey pathway and will provide a functional tool to compare health care delive

BACKGROUNDS: Total mesorectal excision (TME) has been established as the standard for oncologic resection of rectal cancer, and has a direct impact on local recurrence and overall survival. OBJECTIVE(S): Our meta-analysis aims to evaluate the oncological outcomes of the newer techniques of TME - robotic TME versus Transanal TME (TaTME). Primary outcome measures included CRM positivity, R0 resection status, distal resection margins and lymph node yield. Secondary outcome measures were overall complication rates, anastomotic leak and wound infection rates, post-operative ileus rates and mean operative time. METHOD(S): A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant studies through PubMEd and Embase from January 2000 to January 2021. Inclusion criteria included English language articles directly comparing TaTME and robotic TME. RESULT(S): Seven hundred and fourteen studies were identified, and only six studies were included for this meta-analysis. A total of 1065 participants, of which 632 (59.3%) underwent robotic TME, and 433 (40.7%) had TaTME. Robotic TME had a statistically significant higher lymph node yield (SMD -0.53, p =0.020). There were no significant differences in the overall complication rates, wound infection and anastomotic leak rates, post-operative ileus, mean operative time and CRM positivity. CONCLUSION(S): This is the first meta-analysis assessing the outcomes of robotic TME versus TaTME, and only lymph node yield was statistically higher in robotic TME group. These techniques are potentially complementary rather than competing, and we believe that these two approaches can be adopted after appropriate training.Copyright © 2021 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

BACKGROUNDS: Total mesorectal excision (TME) has been established as the standard for oncologic resection of rectal cancer, and has a direct impact on local recurrence and overall survival. OBJECTIVE(S): Our meta-analysis aims to evaluate the oncological outcomes of the newer techniques of TME - robotic TME versus Transanal TME (TaTME). Primary outcome measures included CRM positivity, R0 resection status, distal resection margins and lymph node yield. Secondary outcome measures were overall complication rates, anastomotic leak and wound infection rates, post-operative ileus rates and mean operative time. METHOD(S): A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant studies through PubMEd and Embase from January 2000 to January 2021. Inclusion criteria included English language articles directly comparing TaTME and robotic TME. RESULT(S): Seven hundred and fourteen studies were identified, and only six studies were included for this meta-analysis. A total of 1065 participants, of which 632 (59.3%) underwent robotic TME, and 433 (40.7%) had TaTME. Robotic TME had a statistically significant higher lymph node yield (SMD -0.53, p =0.020). There were no significant differences in the overall complication rates, wound infection and anastomotic leak rates, post-operative ileus, mean operative time and CRM positivity. CONCLUSION(S): This is the first meta-analysis assessing the outcomes of robotic TME versus TaTME, and only lymph node yield was statistically higher in robotic TME group. These techniques are potentially complementary rather than competing, and we believe that these two approaches can be adopted after appropriate training.Copyright © 2021 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Introduction: The Australian Council on Healthcare Standards (ACHS) sponsored an expert-led, consensus-driven, four-stage process, based on a modified Delphi methodology, to determine a set of clinical indicators as quality measures of cancer service provision in Australia. This was done in response to requests from institutional health care providers seeking accreditation, which were additional and complementary to the existing radiation oncology set. The steering group members comprised multidisciplinary key opinion leaders and a consumer representative. Five additional participants constituted the stakeholder group, who deliberated on the final indicator set. Methods and recommendations: An initial meeting of the steering group scoped the high level nature of the desired set. In stage 2, 65 candidate indicators were identified by a literature review and a search of international metrics. These were ranked by survey, based on ease of data accessibility and collectability and clinical relevance. The top 27 candidates were debated by the stakeholder group and culled to a final set of 16 indicators. A user manual was created with indicators mapped to clinical codes. The indicator set was ratified by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and is now available for use by health care organisations participating in the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. This inaugural cancer clinical indicator set covers high level assessment of various critical processes in cancer service provision in Australia. Regular reviews and updates will ensure usability. Changes in management as a result of this statement: This is the inaugural indicator set for cancer care for use across Australia and internationally under the ACHS Clinical Indicator Program. Multidisciplinary involvement through a modified Delphi process selected indicators representing both generic and specific aspects of care across the cancer journey pathway and will provide a functional tool to compare health care delive

We describe an approach for complete mesocolic excision and central vessel ligation utilizing a robotic platform. We describe the steps in detail focusing on a superior mesenteric vein-first approach.Copyright © 2020 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

We describe an approach for complete mesocolic excision and central vessel ligation utilizing a robotic platform. We describe the steps in detail focusing on a superior mesenteric vein-first approach.Copyright © 2020 Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.

Background: Standard neoadjuvant long course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) results in a complete pathological response rate of 10-30%: but 20-40% of patients (pts) are non-responders, 10-15% have local recurrence. Tumoural immune infiltrates are predictive of response. Preclinical studies show that radiotherapy (RT) via interferon signaling is immuno-stimulatory, enhancing local/distant tumour cell death. RT also stimulates PDL1 production and the immunosuppressive activity of myeloid derived suppressor cells. Hence PDL1 inhibition may be required to enhance the immuno-stimulatory effects of RT. Hypothesis: In pts with resectable LARC, the anti-PDL1 antibody Avelumab post LCCRT may enhance the pathological/imaging response rates whilst potentially reducing local/distant relapse rates. Method(s): (1) Trial Design: Phase II single arm trial, across 6 Australian sites (2) Endpoints: (a) Primary; Pathological response rate post-LCCRT, as documented by central pathologist, (b) Secondary; MRI/FDG PET imaging responses at 8 weeks post LCCRT (pre-surgery). Toxicity. (c) Exploratory; Tumoural immune cell subsets/checkpoint expression (by multiplex immunohistochemistry and in-vitro functional assays) and ctDNA analysis at baseline and during treatment. Distant relapse-free survival and the documentation of sites of relapse. (3) Sample size: An increase in the proportion of pathological complete responses by > 25% (from 10% to 35%) will be considered clinically important. Power = 90%, alpha = 0.05, 41 pts are required-an additional 4 pts to allow for drop-out. Total sample size = 45pts. Treatment: All pts to receive standard LCCRT (50.4Gy RT plus 5FU [225mg/m2/day/CI] or Capecitabine [825mg/m2BID on RT days] over 5.5 weeks). Post LCCRT (prior to surgery), pts receive 4 cycles Avelumab (10mg/kg, q2 weeks). Surgical resection 10-12 weeks post LCCRT. Fresh tumour biopsy and ctDNA sampling pre LCCRT, pre Cycle 1 Avelumab and at surgery. Respon

Background: Standard neoadjuvant long course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) results in a complete pathological response rate of 10-30%: but 20-40% of patients (pts) are non-responders, 10-15% have local recurrence. Tumoural immune infiltrates are predictive of response. Preclinical studies show that radiotherapy (RT) via interferon signaling is immuno-stimulatory, enhancing local/distant tumour cell death. RT also stimulates PDL1 production and the immunosuppressive activity of myeloid derived suppressor cells. Hence PDL1 inhibition may be required to enhance the immuno-stimulatory effects of RT. Hypothesis: In pts with resectable LARC, the anti-PDL1 antibody Avelumab post LCCRT may enhance the pathological/imaging response rates whilst potentially reducing local/distant relapse rates. Method(s): (1) Trial Design: Phase II single arm trial, across 6 Australian sites (2) Endpoints: (a) Primary; Pathological response rate post-LCCRT, as documented by central pathologist, (b) Secondary; MRI/FDG PET imaging responses at 8 weeks post LCCRT (pre-surgery). Toxicity. (c) Exploratory; Tumoural immune cell subsets/checkpoint expression (by multiplex immunohistochemistry and in-vitro functional assays) and ctDNA analysis at baseline and during treatment. Distant relapse-free survival and the documentation of sites of relapse. (3) Sample size: An increase in the proportion of pathological complete responses by > 25% (from 10% to 35%) will be considered clinically important. Power = 90%, alpha = 0.05, 41 pts are required-an additional 4 pts to allow for drop-out. Total sample size = 45pts. Treatment: All pts to receive standard LCCRT (50.4Gy RT plus 5FU [225mg/m2/day/CI] or Capecitabine [825mg/m2BID on RT days] over 5.5 weeks). Post LCCRT (prior to surgery), pts receive 4 cycles Avelumab (10mg/kg, q2 weeks). Surgical resection 10-12 weeks post LCCRT. Fresh tumour biopsy and ctDNA sampling pre LCCRT, pre Cycle 1 Avelumab and at surgery. Respon

Purpose: The Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), a patient-administered questionnaire, is used to quantify functional capacity in patients undergoing cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study assessed whether the DASI was accurate in predicting peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) that was objectively measured using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in 43 consecutive patients scheduled for elective major cancer surgery at a tertiary cancer centre. The primary outcome measured the limits of agreement between DASI-predicted pVO2 and actual measured pVO2. Results: The study population was elderly (median 63 years, interquartile range 18), 58% were male, with the majority having intraabdominal cancer surgery. Although the DASI scores were statistically related to the measured pVO2 (N = 43, adjusted R2 = 0.20, p = 0.002), both the bias (8 ml kg− 1 min− 1) and 95% limits of agreement (19.5 to − 3.4 ml kg− 1 min− 1) between the predicted and measured pVO2 were large. Using some of the individual components, recalibrating the intercept and regression coefficient of the total DASI score did not substantially improve its ability to predict the measured pVO2. Conclusion: In summary, both the limits of agreement and bias between the measured and DASI-predicted pVO2 were substantial. The DASI-predicted pVO2 based on patient’s assessment of their functional status could not be considered a reliable surrogate of measured pVO2 during CPET for the population of patients pending major cancer surgery and cannot, therefore, be used as a triage tool for referral to CPET centres for objective risk assessment.

Purpose: The Duke Activity Status Index (DASI), a patient-administered questionnaire, is used to quantify functional capacity in patients undergoing cancer surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study assessed whether the DASI was accurate in predicting peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) that was objectively measured using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) in 43 consecutive patients scheduled for elective major cancer surgery at a tertiary cancer centre. The primary outcome measured the limits of agreement between DASI-predicted pVO2 and actual measured pVO2. Results: The study population was elderly (median 63 years, interquartile range 18), 58% were male, with the majority having intraabdominal cancer surgery. Although the DASI scores were statistically related to the measured pVO2 (N = 43, adjusted R2 = 0.20, p = 0.002), both the bias (8 ml kg− 1 min− 1) and 95% limits of agreement (19.5 to − 3.4 ml kg− 1 min− 1) between the predicted and measured pVO2 were large. Using some of the individual components, recalibrating the intercept and regression coefficient of the total DASI score did not substantially improve its ability to predict the measured pVO2. Conclusion: In summary, both the limits of agreement and bias between the measured and DASI-predicted pVO2 were substantial. The DASI-predicted pVO2 based on patient’s assessment of their functional status could not be considered a reliable surrogate of measured pVO2 during CPET for the population of patients pending major cancer surgery and cannot, therefore, be used as a triage tool for referral to CPET centres for objective risk assessment.