Search

Aim: The Victorian Tumour Summits are an initiative of the Victorian Integrated Cancer Services to engage clinicians and consumers in identifying unwarranted variations in cancer care across the state. From the analysis presented at the Victorian Breast Tumour Summit in 2021, this study provides a state‐wide overview of epidemiology and surgical care of breast cancer in Victoria to outline any variations in care across the state, and limitations in data reporting, which impacts the understanding of breast cancer burden and service planning. Methods: A retrospective analysis of Victorian breast cancer patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2018 was performed using a linked data set provided by the Department of Health. The linked data sources include Victorian Cancer Registry, Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset and Victorian Radiotherapy Minimum Data Set, from which patient demographic details, tumor characteristics and treatment records were extracted. Pearson's chi‐squared test was used to determine the statistical significance of relationships between various categorical parameters. Variables including demographics, types of surgery (breast‐conserving vs. mastectomy), rates of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and time to surgery were examined. Results: One thousand nine hundred thirty‐seven patients with ductal carcinoma in situ and 13,375 patients with invasive breast cancer (IBC) were included. Of 11,351 patients with stages I‐III IBC (85%, N = 13,375) 66% underwent breast‐conserving surgery (BCS), and 31% underwent mastectomy. The ratio of mastectomy to BCS increased with increasing disease stage. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was utilized in 11% of early IBC patients who were surgically treated. Eighty‐three percent of patients undergoing upfront breast surgery were treated within 5 weeks of diagnosis, with a significant difference in the median time to surgery between public and private sectors. Breast reconstruction was performed in 37% of mastectomy patients, of whom 83% underwent immediate breast reconstruction, and 17% underwent delayed breast reconstruction. Conclusions: Victorian breast cancer data show a high quality of surgical care coordination. Significant gaps in our data warrant future improvements in the Victorian breast cancer notification system and access to pharmaceutical data for an enhanced understanding of the breast cancer treatment pathways and care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Optimal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone‐sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved, with many patients deriving benefit from the addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (D‐ADT). This study sought to define the therapy used and associated activity following D‐ADT. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with mHSPC treated with one or more cycles of D‐ADT who were identified from a prospectively maintained multisite prostate cancer database of patients treated in a community or academic center setting in Australia. The primary endpoint of this study was first‐line time to treatment failure (1L TTF) for subsequent treatment of metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), with secondary endpoints of prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) reduction >50% and time from 1L to second‐line (2L) treatment initiation. Results: A total of 93 patients received D‐ADT for mHSPC, 85 (91%) had subsequent treatment for mCRPC. Median time to mCRPC (biochemical, clinical or radiographic) had been 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9–16.5). 1L treatment was enzalutamide 47 patients (55%), abiraterone 23 (27%), cabazitaxel 7 (8%), docetaxel 4 (5%) and other therapies 4 (5%). Median 1L TTF was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.9–7.6), PSA > 50% reduction was achieved in 32 of 89 patients (36%), median time from 1L to second‐line treatment was 7.3 months (1.3–27.4), which did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Conclusions: Abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and docetaxel all demonstrate activity following progression on D‐ADT. No difference in efficacy was detected between treatment options for mCRPC. Prospective trials investigating the optimal treatment sequence for prostate cancer following progression on D‐ADT needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Optimal treatment for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved, with many patients deriving benefit from the addition of docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (D-ADT). This study sought to define the therapy used and associated activity following D-ADT., Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with mHSPC treated with one or more cycles of D-ADT who were identified from a prospectively maintained multisite prostate cancer database of patients treated in a community or academic center setting in Australia. The primary endpoint of this study was first-line time to treatment failure (1L TTF) for subsequent treatment of metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC), with secondary endpoints of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) reduction >50% and time from 1L to second-line (2L) treatment initiation., Results: A total of 93 patients received D-ADT for mHSPC, 85 (91%) had subsequent treatment for mCRPC. Median time to mCRPC (biochemical, clinical or radiographic) had been 14.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.9-16.5). 1L treatment was enzalutamide 47 patients (55%), abiraterone 23 (27%), cabazitaxel 7 (8%), docetaxel 4 (5%) and other therapies 4 (5%). Median 1L TTF was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.9-7.6), PSA > 50% reduction was achieved in 32 of 89 patients (36%), median time from 1L to second-line treatment was 7.3 months (1.3-27.4), which did not differ significantly between treatment groups., Conclusions: Abiraterone, enzalutamide, cabazitaxel and docetaxel all demonstrate activity following progression on D-ADT. No difference in efficacy was detected between treatment options for mCRPC. Prospective trials investigating the optimal treatment sequence for prostate cancer following progression on D-ADT needed., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)