Search

Introduction: Previous studies have observed low rates of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RP) for high-risk prostate cancer patients. However, it is not clear the extent to which these low rates are driven by urologists' referral and radiation oncologists' treatment patterns.Method: The Clinician-Led Improvement in Cancer Care (CLICC) implementation trial was conducted in nine public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Men who underwent RP for prostate cancer during 2013-2015 and had at least one high-risk pathological feature of extracapsular extension, seminal vesicle invasion and/or positive surgical margins were included in these analyses. Outcomes were as follows: (i) referral to a radiation oncologist within 4 months after RP ('referred'); (ii) commencement of radiotherapy within 6 months after RP among those who consulted a radiation oncologist ('radiotherapy after consultation').Results: Three hundred and twenty-five (30%) of 1071 patients were 'referred', and 74 (61%) of 121 patients received 'radiotherapy after consultation'. Overall, the probability of receiving radiotherapy within 6 months after RP was 15%. The probability of being 'referred' increased according to higher 5-year risk of cancer-recurrence (P < 0.001).Conclusion: Only 30% of patients with high-risk features are referred to a radiation oncologist with the likelihood of referral being influenced by the perceived risk of cancer-recurrence as well as the urologist's institutional/personal preference. When patients are seen by a radiation oncologist, 61% receive radiotherapy within 6 months after RP with the likelihood of receiving radiotherapy not being heavily influenced by increasing risk of recurrence. This suggests many suitable patients would receive radiotherapy if referred and seen by a radiation oncologist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to understand the extent, nature and variability of the current economic burden of prostate cancer among Australian men. An online cross-sectional survey was developed that combined pre-existing economic measures and new questions. With few exceptions, the online survey was viable and acceptable to participants. The main outcomes were self-reported out-of-pocket costs of prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment, changes in employment status and household finances. Men were recruited from prostate cancer support groups throughout Australia. Descriptive statistical analyses were undertaken. A total of 289 men responded to the survey during April and June 2013. Our study found that men recently diagnosed (within 16 months of the survey) ( n = 65) reported spending a median AU$8000 (interquartile range AU$14 000) for their cancer treatment while 75% of men spent up to AU$17 000 (2012). Twenty per cent of all men found the cost of treating their prostate cancer caused them 'a great deal' of distress. The findings suggest a large variability in medical costs for prostate cancer treatment with 5% of men spending $250 or less in out-of-pocket expenses and some men facing very high costs. On average, respondents in paid employment at diagnosis stated that they had retired 4-5 years earlier than planned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study examined whether there has been change among Australia-based urologists' knowledge, attitudes and beliefs relating to guideline-recommended adjuvant radiotherapy for men with adverse pathologic features following radical prostatectomy since a prior survey in 2012 and investigated associations between attitudes and treatment preferences.Methods: A nationwide survey of Australia-based urologist members of the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand.Results: Ninety-six respondents completed the 2015 survey (30% response rate) compared with 157 (45% response rate) in 2012. There was no significant change in awareness of national clinical practice guidelines for the management of prostate cancer. When considering adjuvant against salvage radiotherapy, urologists were significantly less favourable towards adjuvant radiotherapy in 2015 than in 2012 for two of three hypothetical clinical case scenarios with a high 10-year risk of biochemical relapse according to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center nomograms (P < 0.001 for both cases). In 2015, urologists were less positive overall towards the recommendation for post-operative adjuvant radiotherapy for men with locally advanced prostate cancer than in 2012 (P < 0.001), reflecting a significant change across a number of attitudes and beliefs. Of note, urologists felt other urologists would more likely be critical if they routinely referred the target patient group for radiotherapy in 2015 compared with 2012 (P = 0.007).Conclusion: In 2015 Australia-based urologists were less favourable towards adjuvant radiotherapy over watchful waiting for men with high-risk pathologic features post-prostatectomy than in 2012. We could find no new published research that precipitated this change in attitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We tested the ability of the Assessment of New Radiation Oncology Technology and Treatments framework to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) compared with 3-dimensional radiation therapy (3DCRT) for post-prostatectomy radiation therapy (PPRT) to support its timely health economic evaluation.Methods: Treatment plans produced using FROGG guidelines provided dosimetry parameters for both techniques at 64 Gy and 70 Gy and were also used to model early and late outcome probabilities. Clinical parameters were derived from early toxicity and quality of life patient data, systematic literature review and expert opinion. Dosimetry parameters were correlated with the measures of clinical efficacy and safety.Results: Data from two patient cohorts (29 and 27 respectively) were collected within the project timeframe, providing evidence for acute toxicity and quality of life, and dosimetric comparisons. Relative rates of tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue control probability (NTCP) modelling were readily derived from the planning exercise and demonstrated advantages in uncomplicated TCP for IMRT over 3DCRT, predominantly due to normal tissue sparing. The safety of IMRT delivery was demonstrated with TCP uncompromised by IMRT protocol violations, which achieved rectal sparing only by reducing minimum target dose and coverage.Conclusion: Sources of desk-top and patient-based evidence were successfully used to demonstrate potential improved clinical efficacy and safety of applying dose escalation using IMRT instead of 3DCRT in PPRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The most recent clinical practice guidelines released by Cancer Australia draw attention to unanswered questions concerning the health economic considerations associated with hypofractionated radiotherapy. This study aimed to quantify and compare the healthcare costs at a regional Australian radiotherapy institute with respect to conventionally fractionated post-mastectomy radiotherapy (Cf-PMRT) versus hypofractionated post-mastectomy radiotherapy (Hf-PMRT) administration.Methods: Medical records of 196 patients treated with post-mastectomy radiotherapy at the NSW North Coast Cancer Institute from February 2008 to June 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Australian Medicare item numbers billed for patients receiving either Cf-PMRT of 50 Gy in 25 daily fractions or Hf-PMRT of 40.05 Gy in 15 daily fractions were calculated. Decision tree analysis was used to model costs. Independent-samples t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare crude average costs for Cf-PMRT and Hf-PMRT and determine which treatment components accounted for any differences.Results: Hf-PMRT, with or without irradiation to the regional lymph nodes, was associated with significantly reduced Medicare costs ($5613 AUD per patient for Hf-PMRT vs $8272 AUD per patient for Cf-PMRT; P < 0.001). Savings associated with Hf-PMRT ranged from $1353 (22.1%) for patients receiving no regional irradiation to $2898 (32.0%) for patients receiving both axillary and supraclavicular therapy.Conclusions: Hf-PMRT results in a significant reduction in the financial costs associated with treating breast cancer patients in a regional Australian setting when compared with Cf-PMRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To assess the feasibility of introducing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy ( LRP) training during the primary surgeon's early learning curve in a regional Australian centre. Patients and methods From a prospective single surgeon database perioperative, oncological and functional outcome data was collected from the first 207 consecutive patients who underwent LRP immediately after a 12-month LRP Fellowship in a high-volume centre by the primary surgeon ( M. L. J.). A training case was defined as the successful completion of at least two of 10 steps by a training Fellow. Perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared in training and non-training cohorts and overall learning curve was assessed by comparing consecutive 50-patient cohorts. Results In all, 31% of cases were training cases with a median (range) of 7 (2-10) steps of 10 steps performed by the training Fellow. Operative times were significantly longer in training cases (mean 269 vs 209 min; P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in perioperative outcomes of length of stay (2.7 vs 2.6 days), transfusion rates (3.1% vs 2.1%), major complication (Clavien >3a) rates (1.6% vs 2.1%) or positive surgical margins ( PSMs: pT2 2.8% vs 15.3% and pT3 52.0% vs 45.1%) between training and non-training groups, respectively. Overall, there were two open conversions (1.0%). Conclusion Despite the challenging learning curve, LRP training can be commenced safely with a stepwise modular approach, even when the primary surgeon is in their early learning curve. Perioperative outcomes including PSMs and major complications were unaffected by trainee involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Comments on the productivity of a practicing urologist. Commitment of urologists to the principle of clinical governance; Aims of the Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical Analysis on the results of nonlaser techniques for prostatectomy; Significance of using a minimum dataset in urology.