Search

Background: Older adults should be supported to make informed decisions about cancer screening. However, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia communicate about cancer screening with older people., Aim: To investigate GPs' views and experiences of communicating about cancer screening (breast, cervical, prostate, and bowel) with older people (≥70 years)., Design and Setting: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, Australia., Method: Interviews were conducted with GPs practising in Australia (n = 28), recruited through practice-based research networks, primary health networks, social media, and email invitation. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis., Results: Findings across GPs were organized into 3 themes: (i) varied motivation to initiate cancer screening discussions; some GPs reported that they only initiated screening within recommended ages (<75 years), others described initiating discussions beyond recommended ages, and some experienced older patient-initiated discussions; (ii) GPs described the role they played in providing screening information, whereby detailed discussions about the benefits/risks of prostate screening were more likely than other nationally funded screening types (breast, cervical, and bowel); however, some GPs had limited knowledge of recommendations and found it challenging to explain why screening recommendations have upper ages; (iii) GPs reported providing tailored advice and discussion based on personal patient preferences, overall health/function, risk of cancer, and previous screening., Conclusions: Strategies to support conversations between GPs and older people about the potential benefits and harms of screening in older age and rationale for upper age limits to screening programmes may be helpful. Further research in this area is needed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Individuals diagnosed with cancer via emergency admission are likely to have poor outcomes. This study aims to identify cancer diagnosed through an emergency hospital admission and examine predictors associated with mortality within 12-months., Method: A population-based retrospective 1:1 propensity-matched case-comparison study of people who had an emergency versus a planned hospital admission with a principal diagnosis of cancer during 2013-2020 in New South Wales, Australia using linked hospital, cancer registry and mortality records. Conditional logistic regression examined predictors of mortality at 12-months., Results: There were 28,502 matched case-comparisons. Individuals who had an emergency admission were four times more likely to die within 12-months (Odds Ratio (OR) 3.93; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.75-4.13) compared to individuals who had a planned admission for cancer. Older individuals, diagnosed with lung (OR 1.89; 95 %CI 1.36-2.63) or digestive organ, excluding colorectal (OR1.78; 95 %CI 1.30-2.43) cancers, where the degree of spread was metastatic (OR 3.61; 95 %CI 2.62-4.50), who had a mental disorder diagnosis (OR 2.08; 95 %CI 1.89-2.30), lived in rural (OR 1.27; 95 %CI 1.17-1.37) or more disadvantaged neighbourhoods had a higher likelihood of death within 12-months following an unplanned admission compared to referent groups. Females (OR 0.87; 95 %CI 0.81-0.93) had an 13 % lower likelihood of mortality within 12-months compared to males., Conclusions: While some emergency cancer admissions are not avoidable, the importance of preventive screening and promotion of help-seeking for early cancer symptoms should not be overlooked as mechanisms to reduce emergency admissions related to cancer and to improve cancer survival., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no completing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Predictive modelling using pre-epidemic data have long been used to guide public health responses to communicable disease outbreaks and other health disruptions. In this study, cancer registry and related health data available 2-3 months from diagnosis were used to predict changes in cancer detection that otherwise would not have been identified until full registry processing was completed about 18-24 months later. A key question was whether these earlier data could be used to predict cancer incidence ahead of full processing by the cancer registry as a guide to more timely health responses. The setting was the Australian State of New South Wales, covering 31 % of the Australian population. The study year was 2020, the year of emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Cancer detection in 2020 was modelled using data available 2-3 months after diagnosis. This was compared with data from full registry processing available from 2022. Data from pre-pandemic 2018 were used for exploratory model building. Models were tested using pre-pandemic 2019 data. Candidate predictor variables included pathology, surgery and radiation therapy reports, numbers of breast screens, colonoscopies, PSA tests, and melanoma excisions recorded by the universal Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS). Data were analysed for all cancers collectively and 5 leading types., Results: Compared with full registry processing, modelled data for 2020 had a >95 % accuracy overall, indicating key points of inflexion of cancer detection over the COVID-disrupted 2020 period. These findings highlight the potential of predictive modelling of cancer-related data soon after diagnosis to reveal changes in cancer detection during epidemics and other health disruptions., Conclusions: Data available 2-3 months from diagnosis in the pandemic year indicated changes in cancer detection that were ultimately confirmed by fully-processed cancer registry data about 24 months later. This indicates the potential utility of using these early data in an early-warning system., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No conflicts of interest have been declared., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Striking the right balance between early cancer diagnosis and the risk of excessive testing for low-risk symptoms is of paramount importance. Patient-centred care must also consider patient preferences for testing., Aim: To investigate the diagnostic testing preferences of the Australian public for symptoms associated with oesophagogastric (OG), bowel, or lung cancer., Design and Setting: One of three discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) related to either OG, bowel, or lung cancer were administered to a nationally representative sample of Australians aged ≥40 years., Method: Each DCE comprised three scenarios with symptom positive predictive values (PPVs) for undiagnosed cancer ranging from 1% to 3%. The numerical risk was concealed from participants. DCE attributes encompassed the testing strategy, GP familiarity, test and result waiting times, travel duration, and test cost. Preferences were estimated using conditional and mixed logit models., Results: A total of 3013 individuals participated in one of three DCEs: OG ( n = 1004), bowel ( n = 1006), and lung ( n = 1003). Preferences were chiefly driven by waiting time and test cost, followed by the test type. There was a preference for more invasive tests. When confronted with symptoms carrying an extremely low risk (symptom PPV of ≤1%), participants were more inclined to abstain from testing., Conclusion: Access-related factors, particularly waiting times and testing costs, emerged as the most pivotal elements influencing preferences, underscoring the substantial impact of these systemic factors on patient choices regarding investigations., (© The Authors.)

Melioidosis is a life-threatening, emerging infectious disease caused by the environmental bacterium Burkholderia pseudomallei. Melioidosis is hyperendemic in tropical Australia and southeast Asia, however the disease is increasingly encountered beyond these regions. Early diagnosis is essential as the infection has a case-fatality rate of up to 50 %. Melioidosis most commonly involves the lungs, although almost any organ can be affected. Most patients present acutely but an insidious presentation over weeks to months is also well described. We present a case series of 7 patients from tropical Australia whom local clinicians initially believed to have cancer ‒ most commonly lung cancer ‒ only for further investigation to establish a diagnosis of melioidosis. All 7 patients had comorbidities that predisposed them to developing melioidosis and all survived, but their delayed diagnosis resulted in 3 receiving anti-cancer therapies that resulted in significant morbidity. The study emphasises the importance of thorough diagnostic evaluation and repeated collection of microbiological samples. It is hoped that our experience will encourage other clinicians ‒ in the appropriate clinical context ‒ to consider melioidosis as a potential explanation for a patient's presentation, expediting its diagnosis and the initiation of potentially life-saving therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

DNA sequencing of tumour tissue has become the standard care for many solid cancers because of the option to detect somatic variants that have significant therapeutic, diagnostic and prognostic implications. Variants found within the tumour may be either somatic or germline in origin. Somatic cancer gene panels are developed to detect acquired (somatic) variants that are relevant for therapeutic or molecular characterisation of the tumour, expanding gene panels now include genes which may also inform patient management such as cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) genes. Identifying germline cancer predisposition variants can alter cancer management, the risk of developing new primary cancers and risk for cancer in at-risk family members. This paper discusses the clinical, technical and ethical challenges related to identifying and reporting potential germline pathogenic variants that are detected on tumour sequencing. It also highlights the existence of the eviQ national guidelines for CPS with advice on germline confirmation of somatic findings to pathology laboratories in Australia., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Existing evidence often indicates higher cancer incidence and mortality rates, later diagnosis, lower screening uptake and poorer long-term survival for people living in rural compared to more urbanised areas. Despite wide inequities and variation in cancer care and outcomes across Europe, much of the scientific literature explicitly exploring the impact of rurality on cancer continues to come from Australia and North America. The European Code of Cancer Practice or "The Code" is a citizen and patient-centred statement of the most salient requirements for good clinical cancer practice and has been extensively co-produced by cancer patients, cancer professionals and patient advocates. It contains 10 key overarching Rights that a cancer patient should expect from their healthcare system, regardless of where they live and has been strongly endorsed by professional and patient cancer organisations as well as the European Commission. In this article, we use these 10 fundamental Rights as a framework to argue that (i) the issues and needs identified in The Code are generally more profound for rural people with cancer; (ii) addressing these issues is also more challenging in rural contexts; (iii) interventions and support must explicitly account for the unique needs of rural residents living with and affected by cancer and (iv) new innovative approaches are urgently required to successfully overcome the challenges faced by rural people with cancer and their caregivers. Despite equitable healthcare being a key European policy focus, the needs of rural people living with cancer have largely been neglected., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice., Aim: To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation., Design and Setting: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs., Method: Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework., Results: Participants ( n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important., Conclusion: GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice., (© The Authors.)

Background: The Optimal Care Pathways (OCP) are a framework to promote high-quality and integrated cancer care for all Australians, from prevention through to end-of-life-care. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience disproportionate cancer incidence and mortality, but little research has addressed whether cancer care for Aboriginal people meets the standards prescribed by the OCPs. This study aims to consider barriers and facilitators to quality cancer care for Aboriginal people., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 health professionals who deliver care to Aboriginal people with cancer in primary care and hospital settings in New South Wales, Australia. Health professionals included Aboriginal Health Workers, nurses, general practitioners, and community workers. Interviews were conducted in 2019-2020 and explored participant perspectives of barriers and facilitators of optimal cancer care, particularly related to prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and treatment for Aboriginal people. Data were qualitatively analysed using framework analysis., Results: In general, participants perceived Aboriginal patients to have good access to preventive care. In terms of early detection and diagnosis, access to primary care, pathology, radiology, and some specialists (e.g. respiratory physicians) was seen as optimal. However, access to hospital-based gastroenterologists for colonoscopy was perceived to be poor due to long wait times. Access to optimal care for cancer treatment was perceived to be hindered due to the lack of bulk-billing for bowel cancer, breast cancer, and cardiothoracic surgery. Other barriers to care identified by participants included unclear referral pathways, poor communication between patient and the treating team, and a lack of timely provision of discharge summaries., Conclusions: Facilitators of optimal care during treatment and survivorship included: the Integrated Team Care and Close the Gap programs, and presence of key health workers to help patients navigate the health system. The major barriers to quality cancer care for Aboriginal people appeared to be to specialist and procedural access, demonstrating that the 'Inverse Care' law applied in reducing access for populations at higher risk of cancer.

Background: Cancer is a significant health issue globally and it is well known that cancer risk varies geographically. However in many countries there are no small area-level data on cancer risk factors with high resolution and complete reach, which hinders the development of targeted prevention strategies., Methods: Using Australia as a case study, the 2017-2018 National Health Survey was used to generate prevalence estimates for 2221 small areas across Australia for eight cancer risk factor measures covering smoking, alcohol, physical activity, diet and weight. Utilising a recently developed Bayesian two-stage small area estimation methodology, the model incorporated survey-only covariates, spatial smoothing and hierarchical modelling techniques, along with a vast array of small area-level auxiliary data, including census, remoteness, and socioeconomic data. The models borrowed strength from previously published cancer risk estimates provided by the Social Health Atlases of Australia. Estimates were internally and externally validated., Results: We illustrated that in 2017-2018 health behaviours across Australia exhibited more spatial disparities than previously realised by improving the reach and resolution of formerly published cancer risk factors. The derived estimates revealed higher prevalence of unhealthy behaviours in more remote areas, and areas of lower socioeconomic status; a trend that aligned well with previous work., Conclusions: Our study addresses the gaps in small area level cancer risk factor estimates in Australia. The new estimates provide improved spatial resolution and reach and will enable more targeted cancer prevention strategies at the small area level. Furthermore, by including the results in the next release of the Australian Cancer Atlas, which currently provides small area level estimates of cancer incidence and relative survival, this work will help to provide a more comprehensive picture of cancer in Australia by supporting policy makers, researchers, and the general public in understanding the spatial distribution of cancer risk factors. The methodology applied in this work is generalisable to other small area estimation applications and has been shown to perform well when the survey data are sparse., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Internationally, screening programmes and clinical practice guidelines recommend when older adults should stop cancer screening using upper age limits, but it is unknown how older adults view these recommendations., Objective: To examine older adults' views and experiences about continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the recommended upper age limit for breast, cervical, prostate and bowel cancer., Design: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews., Setting: Australia, telephone., Subjects: A total of 29 community-dwelling older adults (≥70-years); recruited from organisation newsletters, mailing lists and Facebook advertisements., Methods: Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis., Results: Firstly, older adults were on a spectrum between trusting recommendations and actively deciding about cancer screening, with some who were uncertain. Secondly, participants reported limited in-depth discussions with health professionals about cancer screening. In primary care, discussions were focused on checking they were up to date with screening or going over results. Discussions mostly only occurred if older adults initiated themselves. Finally, participants had a socially- and self-constructed understanding of screening recommendations and potential outcomes. Perceived reasons for upper age limits were cost, reduced cancer risk or ageism. Risks of screening were understood in relation to their own social experiences (e.g. shared stories about friends with adverse outcomes of cancer treatment or conversations with friends/family about controversy around prostate screening)., Conclusions: Direct-to-patient information and clinician support may help improve communication about the changing benefit to harm ratio of cancer screening with increasing age and increase understanding about the rationale for an upper age limit for cancer screening programmes., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Older age, risks from pre-existing health conditions and socio-economic disadvantage are negatively related to the prospects of an early-stage cancer diagnosis. With older Aboriginal Australians having an elevated prevalence of these underlying factors, this study examines the potential for the mitigating effects of more frequent contact with general practitioners (GPs) in ensuring local-stage at diagnosis., Methods: We compared the odds of local vs. more advanced stage at diagnosis of solid tumours according to GP contact, using linked registry and administrative data. Results were compared between Aboriginal (n = 4,084) and non-Aboriginal (n = 249,037) people aged 50 + years in New South Wales with a first diagnosis of cancer in 2003-2016., Results: Younger age, male sex, having less area-based socio-economic disadvantage, and fewer comorbid conditions in the 12 months before diagnosis (0-2 vs. 3 +), were associated with local-stage in fully-adjusted structural models. The odds of local-stage with more frequent GP contact (14 + contacts per annum) also differed by Aboriginal status, with a higher adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of local-stage for frequent GP contact among Aboriginal people (aOR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.11-1.49) but not among non-Aboriginal people (aOR = 0.97; 95% CI 0.95-0.99)., Conclusion: Older Aboriginal Australians diagnosed with cancer experience more comorbid conditions and more socioeconomic disadvantage than other Australians, which are negatively related to diagnosis at a local-cancer stage. More frequent GP contact may act to partly offset this among the Aboriginal population of NSW., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Gaps and complexities exist in cancer referral and diagnosis in Australia, leading to delays in cancer treatments. Developing evidence-based referral pathways is important for promoting better and more timely cancer diagnosis and care. Type of program or service: This paper describes a toolkit endorsed by the Cancer Institute NSW as a guide for promoting best practice in localising cancer referral and diagnosis pathways in line with the national Optimal Care Pathways. Use of toolkit: Employing methods in the toolkit yielded an increased understanding of cancer care pathways, strengthened collaboration between tertiary and primary sector stakeholders, and enhanced the project skills of Cancer System Innovation Managers. The toolkit has become a valuable guide for consolidating referral pathways for various cancers in the NSW local health districts and could apply to cancer services in other jurisdictions., Lessons Learnt: The pilot project showed that the toolkit is useful in developing referral pathways and reflects best stakeholder engagement practices. Local evidence should be generated to support systematic change and should include the perspectives of cancer patients and clinicians. NSW local health districts continue to use the toolkit methods to optimise care to improve outcomes for people living with cancer., Competing Interests: None declared.

Background: Cancer control initiatives are informed by quantifying the capacity to reduce cancer burden through effective interventions. Burden measures using health administrative data are a sustainable way to support monitoring and evaluating of outcomes among patients and populations. The Fraction of Life Years Lost After Diagnosis (FLYLAD) is one such burden measure. We use data on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal South Australians from 1990 to 2010 to show how FLYLAD quantifies disparities in cancer burden: between populations; between sub-population cohorts where stage at diagnosis is available; and when follow-up is constrained to 24-months after diagnosis., Method: FLYLAD cancer is the fraction of years of life expectancy lost due to cancer (YLL cancer ) to life expectancy years at risk at time of cancer diagnosis (LYAR) for each person. The Global Burden of Disease standard life table provides referent life expectancies. FLYLAD cancer was estimated for the population of cancer cases diagnosed in South Australia from 1990 to 2010. Cancer stage at diagnosis was also available for cancers diagnosed in Aboriginal people and a cohort of non-Aboriginal people matched by sex, year of birth, primary cancer site and year of diagnosis., Results: Cancers diagnoses (N = 144,891) included 777 among Aboriginal people. Cancer burden described by FLYLAD cancer was higher among Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal (0.55, 95% CIs 0.52-0.59 versus 0.39, 95% CIs 0.39-0.40). Diagnoses at younger ages among Aboriginal people, 7 year higher LYAR (31.0, 95% CIs 30.0-32.0 versus 24.1, 95% CIs 24.1-24.2) and higher premature cancer mortality (YLL cancer  = 16.3, 95% CIs 15.1-17.5 versus YLL cancer  = 8.2, 95% CIs 8.2-8.3) influenced this. Disparities in cancer burden between the matched Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cohorts manifested 24-months after diagnosis with FLYLAD cancer 0.44, 95% CIs 0.40-0.47 and 0.28, 95% CIs 0.25-0.31 respectively., Conclusion: FLYLAD described disproportionately higher cancer burden among Aboriginal people in comparisons involving: all people diagnosed with cancer; the matched cohorts; and, within groups diagnosed with same staged disease. The extent of disparities were evident 24-months after diagnosis. This is evidence of Aboriginal peoples' substantial capacity to benefit from cancer control initiatives, particularly those leading to earlier detection and treatment of cancers. FLYLAD's use of readily available, person-level administrative records can help evaluate health care initiatives addressing this need., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Cancer stage at diagnosis is essential for understanding cancer outcomes, guiding cancer control activities and healthcare services, and enabling benchmarking nationally and internationally. Yet, most cancer registries in Australia do not routinely collect this data. This study explored key stakeholders' perceptions of implementing cancer staging utilising Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning algorithms within the Western Australian Cancer Registry., Methods: Perceptions of key breast and colorectal cancer stakeholders, including registry staff, clinicians, consumers, data scientists, biostatisticians, data management, healthcare staff, and health researchers, were collected. Prospective and retrospective qualitative proformas at two-time points of the Western Australian Cancer Staging Project were employed. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to guide data collection, analysis and interpretation embedded in a Participatory Action Research approach. Data analysis also incorporated Framework Analysis and an adapted version of grading qualitative data using a visual traffic light labelling system to highlight the levels of positivity, negativity, and implementation concern., Results: Twenty-nine pre-proformas and 18 post-proformas were completed online via REDCap. The grading and visual presentation of barriers and enablers aided interpretation and reviewing predicted intervention outcomes. Of the selected constructs, complexity (the perceived difficulty of the intervention) was the strongest barrier and tension for change (the situation needing change) was the strongest enabler. Implementing cancer staging into the Western Australian Cancer Registry was considered vital. Benefits included improved knowledge and understanding of various outcomes (e.g., treatment received as per Optimum Care Pathways) and benchmarking. Barriers included compatibility issues with current systems/workflows, departmental/higher managerial support, and future sustainment., Conclusions: The findings aid further review of data gaps, additional cancer streams, standardising cancer staging and future improvements. The study offers an adapted version of a rapid qualitative data collection and analytic approach for establishing barriers and enablers. The findings may also assist other population-based cancer registries considering collecting cancer stage at diagnosis., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective and importance of study: Risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening aim to provide tailored risk advice to individuals, rather than the mostly one-size-fits-all approach designed for the average person that is currently used in Australia. Stratified cancer screening has the potential to increase the benefits and reduce the harms of screening. Initial risk assessment is a crucial first step for screening programs that use risk stratification. We report findings from a qualitative study exploring the views of the Australian public on how to best deliver risk-stratified cancer screening in the population to help inform future implementation., Study Type: Qualitative interview study., Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants from a previous study, half of whom had received personal genomic risk information and half of whom had not. We asked how and where they would like to see risk-stratified screening delivered and how they felt about different health professionals assessing their cancer risk. Data were analysed thematically., Results: Forty interviews were conducted. The age range of participants was 21-68 years; 58% were female. Themes included: 1) Convenience is a priority; 2) General practice is a good fit for some; 3) Web-based technology is part of the process; and 4) "I would want to know why [I was being stratified]". Similar views were expressed by both groups. Our findings suggest that although health professionals were identified as having an important role, there were mixed preferences for delivery by general practitioners, medical specialists or nurses. Participants were less concerned about who undertook the risk assessment than whether the health professional had the appropriate skill set and availability. Clear communication and evidence of the need for change in screening eligibility and frequency were key factors in the successful delivery of risk-stratified screening., Conclusion: We identified that convenience and good communication, including clear explanations to the public with convincing evidence for change, will enable the successful delivery of risk-stratified cancer screening in the population, including organised and opportunistic screening approaches. Health professional education and upskilling across disciplines will be key facilitators. Engagement and further consultation with primary care and other key stakeholders will be central., Competing Interests: None declared.

Identification of somatic variants in cancer by high-throughput sequencing has become common clinical practice, largely because many of these variants may be predictive biomarkers for targeted therapies. However, there can be high sample quality control (QC) failure rates for some tests that prevent the return of results. Stem-loop inhibition mediated amplification (SLIMamp) is a patented technology that has been incorporated into commercially available cancer next-generation sequencing testing kits. The claimed advantage is that these kits can interrogate challenging formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples with low tumor purity, poor-quality DNA, and/or low-input DNA, resulting in a high sample QC pass rate. The study aimed to substantiate that claim using Pillar Biosciences oncoReveal Solid Tumor Panel. Forty-eight samples that had failed one or more preanalytical QC sample parameters for whole-exome sequencing from the Australian Translational Genomics Centre's ISO15189-accredited diagnostic genomics laboratory were acquired. XING Genomic Services performed an exploratory data analysis to characterize the samples and then tested the samples in their ISO15189-accredited laboratory. Clinical reports could be generated for 37 (77%) samples, of which 29 (60%) contained clinically actionable or significant variants that would not otherwise have been identified. Eleven samples were deemed unreportable, and the sequencing data were likely dominated by artifacts. A novel postsequencing QC metric was developed that can discriminate between clinically reportable and unreportable samples., (Copyright © 2023 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Medicare-subsidised Team Care Arrangements (TCAs) support Australian general practitioners to implement shared care between collaborating health professionals for patients with chronic medical conditions and complex needs. We assessed the prevalence of TCAs, factors associated with TCA uptake and visits to TCA-subsidised allied health practitioners, for adults newly diagnosed with cancer in New South Wales, Australia., Methods: We carried out a retrospective individual patient data linkage study with 13 951 45 and Up Study participants diagnosed with incident cancer during 2006-16. We used a proportional hazards model to estimate the factors associated with receipt of a TCA after cancer diagnosis., Results: In total, 6630 patients had a TCA plan initiated (47.5%). A TCA was more likely for patients aged ≥65years, those with higher service utilisation 4-15months prior to cancer diagnosis, a higher number of comorbidities, lower self-rated overall health status, living in areas of greater socio-economic disadvantage, lower educational attainment and those with no private health insurance. A total of 4084 (61.6%) patients with a TCA had at least one TCA-subsidised allied health visit within 24months of the TCA., Conclusions: TCAs appear to be well targeted at cancer patients with chronic health conditions and lower socioeconomic status. Nevertheless, not all patients with a TCA subsequently attended a TCA-subsidised allied healthcare professional. This suggests either a misunderstanding of the plan, the receipt of allied health via other public schemes, a low prioritisation of the plan compared to other health care, or suboptimal availability of these services.

Purpose: There is significant interest in the use of polygenic risk score (PRS) tests to improve cancer risk assessment and stratified prevention. Our current understanding of preferences regarding different aspects of this novel testing approach is limited. This study examined which attributes of a PRS test most influence the likelihood of testing., Methods: A discrete choice experiment was developed to elicit preferences for different aspects of a PRS test by surveying an online sample of the Australian population. Preferences were assessed using mixed logistic regression, latent class analysis, and marginal willingness to pay., Results: The 1002 surveyed respondents were more likely to choose a PRS test that was more accurate, tested for multiple cancer types, and enabled cancer risk reduction through lifestyle modification, screening, or medication. There was also a preference for testing through a primary care physician rather than online or through a genetic specialist. A test that did not impact life insurance eligibility or premiums was preferred over the one that did., Conclusion: This study found that the Australian population prefer a PRS test that is highly accurate, tests for multiple cancers, has noninvasive risk reduction measures, and is performed through primary care., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Leila Rose Foundation ("the Foundation") was established in April 2011, to address financial toxicity as well as the gaps in knowledge and support for families affected by a rare childhood cancer diagnosis in Australia., Aim: The aim of this brief report is to analyze the diagnostic trends surrounding the rare cancer diagnoses for patients referred to the Foundation over the past decade and to present case studies evaluating the role of the Foundation's Family Support Coordinator in providing tailored, individualized support for families., Methods: Eligibility for family support is restricted to children ≤ 14 years of age at diagnosis with a cancer that has an incidence less than 5% of all childhood cancers in Australia as reflected by national registry data. The analysis of diagnostic trends in this report, was based upon a systematic review of enrolment records. The role of the Family Support Coordinator is presented in four different case studies., Results: As at 1 November 2020, the Foundation has supported 197 families affected by rare childhood cancer. Financial support of $825,000 has been provided directly to these families. Enrollment records demonstrate that 35 patients representing 18% of all enrollments have had a unique diagnosis that has not been recorded for any other enrolled patient highlighting that these diagnoses are very rare. The most frequent diagnoses have included Medulloblastoma, Ewing's Sarcoma and Wilm's Tumor (20, 19, 19 patients respectively). The Family Support Coordinator role has provided individualized support for families which has been greatly appreciated based upon ad hoc family feedback., Conclusions: Challenges remain in terms of improving outcomes for families affected by rare childhood cancer. The Foundation is committed to leaving no stone unturned and delivering its unique support services to families in order to reduce the burden caused by a rare childhood cancer diagnosis both now and in the future., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: This study quantified differences in remaining life expectancy (RLE) among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other Australian patients with cancer. We assessed how much of this disparity was due to differences in cancer and noncancer mortality and calculated the population gain in life years for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders cancer diagnoses if the cancer survival disparities were removed., Methods: Flexible parametric relative survival models were used to estimate RLE by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status for a population-based cohort of 709,239 persons (12,830 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), 2005 to 2016., Results: For all cancers combined, the average disparity in RLE was 8.0 years between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (12.0 years) and other Australians (20.0 years). The magnitude of this disparity varied by cancer type, being >10 years for cervical cancer versus <2 years for lung and pancreatic cancers. For all cancers combined, around 26% of this disparity was due to differences in cancer mortality and 74% due to noncancer mortality. Among 1,342 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders diagnosed with cancer in 2015 an estimated 2,818 life years would be gained if cancer survival disparities were removed., Conclusions: A cancer diagnosis exacerbates the existing disparities in RLE among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Addressing them will require consideration of both cancer-related factors and those contributing to noncancer mortality., Impact: Reported survival-based measures provided additional insights into the overall impact of cancer over a lifetime horizon among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples., (©2022 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are an uncommon group of blood cancers that, if untreated, result in an increased risk of haemorrhagic event or thrombosis. Unlike other cancer types, diagnosis of MPNs requires a combination of microscopic, clinical and genetic evidence, which provide unique challenges given the typical notification processes of cancer registries. This, and the relatively recent advances in diagnosis and revision of the World Health Organization diagnostic criteria, may result in under-diagnosis or under-reporting of MPNs. We used population-based cancer registry data from the Australian Cancer Database and modelled the incidence and survival of MPNs between 2007 and 2016 using generalised linear models and Bayesian spatial Leroux models. Substantial evidence was found of spatial heterogeneity in the incidence of MPNs and significant differences in incidence and survival by state or territory. States with lower incidence tended to have poorer survival, suggesting that some less severe cases may not be diagnosed or notified to the registries in those states. Population rates of genetic testing and percentages of records diagnosed using bone marrow biopsies did not explain the differences in incidence by state and territory. It is important to determine the key drivers of these geographical patterns, including the need to standardise diagnosis and reporting of MPNs., (Copyright © 2021 Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: People diagnosed with cancer experience high distress levels throughout diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Untreated distress is associated with poor outcomes, including worsened quality of life and higher mortality rates. Distress screening facilitates need-based access to supportive care which can optimize patient outcomes. This qualitative interview study explored outpatients' perceptions of a distress screening process implemented in an Australian cancer center., Methods: Adult, English-speaking cancer outpatients were approached to participate in face-to-face or phone interviews after being screened by a clinic nurse using the distress thermometer (DT). The piloted semi-structured interview guide explored perceptions of the distress screening and management process, overall well-being, psychosocial support networks, and improvement opportunities for distress processes. Thematic analysis was used., Results: Four key themes were identified in the 19 interviews conducted. Distress screening was found to be generally acceptable to participants and could be conducted by a variety of health professionals at varied time points. However, some participants found "distress" to be an ambiguous term. Despite many participants experiencing clinical distress (i.e., DT ≥ 4), few actioned referrals; some noted a preference to manage and prevent distress through informal support and well-being activities. Participants' diverse coping styles, such as positivity, acceptance, and distancing, also factored into the perceived value of screening and referrals., Conclusion and Implications: Screening models only measuring severity of distress may not be sufficient to direct care referrals, as they do not consider patients' varying coping strategies, external support networks, understanding of distress terminology, and motivations for accessing supportive care services., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The strength of evidence supporting the validity of gene-disease relationships is variable. Hereditary cancer has the additional complexity of low or moderate penetrance for some confirmed disease-associated alleles., Methods: To promote national consistency in interpretation of hereditary cancer/tumour gene test results, we requested opinions of representatives from Australian Family Cancer Clinics regarding the clinical utility of 157 genes initially collated for a national research project. Viewpoints were sought by initial survey, face-to-face workshop and follow-up survey. Subsequent review was undertaken by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee, a national resource providing evidence-based and consensus-driven cancer treatment protocols., Results: Genes were categorised by clinical actionability as: relevant for testing on presentation of common cancer/tumour types (n=45); relevant for testing in the context of specific rare phenotypes (n=74); insufficient clinical utility (n=34) or contentious clinical utility (n=3). Opinions for several genes altered during the study time frame, due to new information., Conclusion: Through an iterative process, consensus was achieved on genes with clinical utility for hereditary cancer/tumour conditions in the Australian setting. This study highlighted need for regular review of gene-disease lists, a role assumed in Australia for hereditary cancer/tumour predisposition genes by the eviQ Cancer Genetics Reference Committee., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Comprehensive cancer services aim to provide support in all domains of care that impact distress: physical, emotional, family, practical and spiritual. The extent of provision, referral and utilisation of these services varies dramatically, suggesting a need to improve understanding of the importance of these services. The aim of this study was to assess Australian community views on the importance of supportive cancer care, the influence of individual difference variables and who is responsible for supportive care provision. An online survey of 369 members of the Australian general public measured demographic variables, experience of cancer, awareness of supportive care, attitude to psychological help seeking, health locus of control and self-efficacy for health. Supportive care importance in physical, emotional, family, practical and spiritual domains was measured on scales from 0 to 100. These were compared to perceived importance of treatment improvements. Perceptions of responsibility for the provision of care were also rated from 0 to 100. Only attitude to psychological help seeking reliably predicted perceived importance, which was uniformly lower for supportive care than treatment improvements. Survivors and their families were viewed as having a high level of responsibility for support, although those who attributed control of health to powerful others ascribed more responsibility to those within the healthcare system. Education of the general public is needed concerning what supportive care is, how it may be provided to patients and the benefits of these services., (© 2020. American Association for Cancer Education.)

Introduction: Driven by the need to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and optimise use of health system resources, while maximising patient outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented changes in cancer care. Some new or modified health care practices adopted during the pandemic will be of long term value in improving the quality and resilience of cancer care in Australia and internationally. The Cancer Australia consensus statement is intended to guide and enhance the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic and in a post-pandemic environment. This article summarises the full statement, which is available at https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/covid-19/covid-19-recovery-implications-cancer-care., Main Recommendations: The statement is informed by a desktop literature review and input from cancer experts and consumers at a virtual roundtable, held in July 2020, on key elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. It describes targeted strategies (at system, service, practitioner and patient levels) to retain, enhance and embed high value changes in practice. Principal strategies include: implementing innovative models of care that are digitally enabled and underpinned by clear governance, policies and procedures to guide best practice cancer care; enabling health professionals to deliver evidence-based best practice and coordinated, person-centred cancer care; and empowering patients to improve health literacy and enhancing their ability to engage in informed, shared decision making., Changes in Management as a Result of This Statement: Widespread adoption of high value health care practices across all levels of the cancer control sector will be of considerable benefit to the delivery of optimal cancer care into the future., (© 2021 AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

Purpose: Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander diagnosed with cancer are known to experience poorer survival, with these survival disparities mainly restricted to the first 2 years after diagnosis. With improved accuracy and completeness of identifying Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples over the whole study period, our goal was to examine whether the survival disparity among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples diagnosed with cancer in Queensland has changed over time., Methods: Population-based data from the Queensland Cancer Register between 1998 and 2017 for Queenslanders aged 15 years and over at diagnosis (n = 377,963; 1.6% Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander) were used to determine whether this disparity has reduced over time. Flexible parametric survival models incorporating time-varying coefficients were used to examine the association between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status and cancer-specific survival within 5 years of diagnosis., Results: The adjusted 5-year cancer-specific survival rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people diagnosed with cancer increased from 60.5% (95% CI 59.2-61.9%) in 1998-2007 to 65.5% (95% CI 64.3-66.6%) in 2008-2017, with the corresponding estimates for other Queenslanders being 66.6% (95% CI 66.4-66.8%) and 70.1% (95% CI 69.9-70.3%). The survival disparity was significant only for the first 3 years since diagnosis for 1998-2007; however, it was significantly (p ≤ 0.02) elevated for all five time intervals for 2008-2017, with similar average hazard ratios (95% CIs) over the 5-year interval after diagnosis of 1.45 (1.36-1.55) for 1998-2007 and 1.42 (1.34-1.50) for 2008-2017., Conclusion: Although survival has increased over time, the lack of improvement in the disparity in cancer survival experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer patients highlights the urgent need to better understand the multifaceted and completed factors that underlie this gap to guide targeted, evidence-based interventions and support their implementation across the health sector., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

At-home screening and risk stratification are strategies that can be employed at times of disruption to maintain adequate levels of cancer prevention and early detection.

Background: There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk-stratified (risk-tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges., Objectives: To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies., Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset., Results: Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high-risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low-risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently., Conclusions: Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk-stratified cancer screening., (© 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To develop a cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaire., Methods: We derived a descriptive system based on a subset of the 27-item FACT-G. Item selection was informed by psychometric analyses of existing FACT-G data (n = 6912) and by patient input (n = 82). We then conducted an online valuation survey, with participants recruited via an Australian general population online panel. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used, with attributes being the HRQL dimensions of the descriptive system and survival duration, and 16 choice-pairs per participant. Utility decrements were estimated with conditional logit and mixed logit modeling., Results: Eight HRQL dimensions were included in the descriptive system: pain, fatigue, nausea, sleep, work, social support, sadness, and future health worry; each with 5 levels. Of 1737 panel members who accessed the valuation survey, 1644 (95%) completed 1 or more DCE choice-pairs and were included in analyses. Utility decrements were generally monotonic; within each dimension, poorer HRQL levels generally had larger utility decrements. The largest utility decrements were for the highest levels of pain (-0.40) and nausea (-0.28). The worst health state had a utility of -0.54, considerably worse than dead., Conclusions: A descriptive system and preference-based scoring approach were developed for the FACT-8D, a new cancer-specific multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the FACT-G. The Australian value set is the first of a series of country-specific value sets planned that can facilitate cost-utility analyses based on items from the FACT-G and related FACIT questionnaires containing FACT-G items., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate causes of death of people with cancer alive five years after diagnosis, and to compare mortality rates for this group with those of the general population., Design, Setting, Participants: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of South Australian Cancer Registry data for all people diagnosed with cancer during 1990-1999 and alive five years after diagnosis, with follow-up to 31 December 2016., Main Outcome Measures: All-cause and cancer cause-specific mortality, by cancer diagnosis; standardised mortality ratios (study group v SA general population) by sex, age at diagnosis, follow-up period, and index cancer., Results: Of 32 646 people with cancer alive five years after diagnosis, 30 309 were of European background (93%) and 16 400 were males (50%); the mean age at diagnosis was 60.3 years (SD, 15.7 years). The median follow-up time was 17 years (IQR, 11-21 years); 17 268 deaths were recorded (53% of patients; mean age, 80.6 years; SD, 11.4 years): 7845 attributed to cancer (45% of deaths) and 9423 attributed to non-cancer causes (55%). Ischaemic heart disease was the leading cause of death (2393 deaths), followed by prostate cancer (1424), cerebrovascular disease (1175), and breast cancer (1118). The overall standardised mortality ratio (adjusted for age, sex, and year of diagnosis) was 1.24 (95% CI, 1.22-1.25). The cumulative number of cardiovascular deaths exceeded that of cancer cause-specific deaths from 13 years after cancer diagnosis., Conclusions: Mortality among people with cancer who are alive at least five years after diagnosis was higher than for the general population, particularly cardiovascular disease-related mortality. Survivorship care should include early recognition and management of risk factors for cardiovascular disease., (© 2020 AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

Maximizing participation in cancer research is important to improve the validity and generalizability of research findings. We conducted a four-arm randomized controlled trial to test the impact of a novel video invitation on participant response. We invited childhood cancer survivors and parents of survivors <16 years to complete questionnaires. We compared response rates to an invitation letter (control) vs receiving the letter plus a video invitation on a flash drive presented by a childhood cancer survivor, a pediatric oncologist or a researcher. We explored factors associated with viewing the video and examined the impact of enclosing the USB on study costs. Overall 54% (634/1176) of questionnaires were returned. Participants who received a video invitation on a USB were more likely to return the questionnaire than those who did not (58% vs 47%, P < .001). Participation rate did not significantly differ by video presenter. Forty-seven percent of participants who received a USB reported watching the video, of whom 48% reported that the video influenced their decision to participate. Participants with a lower income (OR = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.25-0.74, P = .002) were more likely to report watching the video. Participants who received a video invitation required significantly fewer reminder calls than those who only received a written invitation (mean = 1.6 vs 1.1 calls, P < .001), resulting in a 25% recruitment cost-saving for the study. Adding a USB with a video study invitation to recruitment packages is a cost-effective way of improving study participation. This is important in an era of declining study participation and underrepresentation of vulnerable populations in research., (© 2020 Union for International Cancer Control.)

This multi-site, double blind, parallel arm, fixed dose, randomised placebo controlled phase III study compared megestrol acetate 480 mg/day with dexamethasone 4 mg/day for their net effects on appetite in people with cancer anorexia. Patients with advanced cancer and anorexia for ≥ 2 weeks with a score ≤ 4 (0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) 0 = no appetite, 10 = best possible appetite) were recruited. Participants received megestrol 480 mg or dexamethasone 4 mg or placebo daily for up to 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were at day 7. Responders were defined as having a ≥ 25% improvement in NRS over baseline. There were 190 people randomised (megestrol acetate n = 61; dexamethasone n = 67, placebo n = 62). At week 1 (primary endpoint), 79·3% in the megestrol group, 65·5% in the dexamethasone group and 58·5% in the placebo group (p = 0.067) were responders. No differences in performance status or quality of life were reported. Treatment emergent adverse events were frequent (90·4% of participants), and included altered mood and insomnia. Hyperglycemia and deep vein thromboses were more frequent when on dexamethasone than the other two arms. There was no difference in groups between the three arms, with no benefit seen over placebo with anorexia improving in all arms.Trail registration: The trial was registered on 19/08/2008 with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000405314).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to many aspects of life in Australia and globally. This includes actual and potential future impacts on Australia's three national screening programs for breast, bowel and cervical cancer. These programs aim to improve cancer outcomes through an organised approach to the early detection of cancer and precancer in asymptomatic populations. The design of each program varies according to biological differences in the three cancers, the available screening technology, the target population, and variations in their administration of Australia's federal, state and territory jurisdictions. The observed and potential impacts of COVID-19 on these programs, and on related activities such as the current national enquiry into lung cancer screening feasibility, therefore vary significantly. This article focuses on observed short-term impacts, adaptations and the longer-term outlook for cancer screening in relation to COVID-19. It summarises potential responses to minimise the harms of disruptions caused by COVID-19, and highlights research and policy opportunities in the pandemic response and recovery which could inform and accelerate optimisation of cancer screening in the long term., Competing Interests: KC is co-principal investigator of an unrelated investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening in Australia (Compass; ACTRN12613001207707 and NCT02328872), which is conducted and funded by the VCS Foundation (VCS), a government-funded health promotion charity. The VCS Foundation received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Systems USA. However, neither KC nor her institution on her behalf (Cancer Council NSW) receives direct funding from industry for this trial or any other project.

Individuals with a previous cancer diagnosis are at risk of cancer recurrence. However, many cancer survivors do not adhere to lifestyle recommendations to reduce cancer risk. Little is known about the extent to which cancer patients are asked about lifestyle risk factors by healthcare providers following diagnosis. The aim of this study is to determine among Australian cancer survivors the (1) proportion asked about smoking, alcohol consumption, nutrition and physical activity; (2) total number of lifestyle risk factors asked about; and (3) factors associated with being asked about fewer risk factors. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with cancer patients attending outpatient clinics. Eligible patients completed a baseline survey and a second survey 4 weeks later. Data about demographic and disease characteristics, and whether participants had been asked about smoking, alcohol, physical activity and diet since being diagnosed with cancer, was collected. A total of 144 patients were included in the analyses. Following diagnosis, most had been asked about smoking (86%), alcohol consumption (85%), physical activity (80%) and diet (69%) by a healthcare provider. Sixty-one percent of participants reported being asked about all four risk factors; only 6% recalled being asked about none. After controlling for age, participants with a high school or lower education were more likely to be asked about fewer risk factors (OR 2.16; 95%CI 1.0 to 4.6; p = 0.04) compared with those with a trade, vocational or university-level education. Just over one-third of a sample of Australian cancer patients were not asked about all assessed lifestyle risk factors following their diagnosis of cancer. These findings suggest there is scope to improve identification of lifestyle risk factors among cancer survivors.

Purpose: Patients with cancer are at increased risk for infection, but the relative morbidity and mortality of all infections is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence, incidence, time-trends and risk of mortality of infections associated with hospital admissions in patients with haematological- and solid-tumour malignancies over 11 years., Methods: A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of inpatient admissions between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2017 at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre was conducted using administratively coded and patient demographics data. Descriptive analyses, autoregressive integrated moving average, Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression modelling were applied., Results: Of 45,116 inpatient hospitalisations consisting of 3033 haematological malignancy (HM), 18,372 solid tumour neoplasm (STN) patients and 953 autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients, 67%, 29% and 88% were coded with ≥ 1 infection, respectively. Gastrointestinal tract and bloodstream infections were observed with the highest incidence, and bloodstream infection rates increased significantly over time in both HM- and STN-cohorts. Inpatient length of stay was significantly higher in exposed patients with coded infection compared to unexposed in HM- and STN-cohorts (22 versus 4 days [p < 0.001] and 15 versus 4 days [p < 0.001], respectively). Risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in exposed than unexposed patients in the STN-cohort (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.61 [95% CI 1.41-1.83]; p < 0.001)) and HM-cohort (aHR 1.30 [95% CI 0.90-1.90]; p = 0.166)., Conclusion: Infection burden among cancer patients is substantial and findings reflect the need for targeted surveillance in high-risk patient groups (e.g. haematological malignancy), in whom enhanced monitoring may be required to support infection prevention strategies.

Background: People with incurable cancer require information about their prognosis to make informed decisions about their future., Aims: To determine the frequency, form and documentation of prognostic discussions between oncologists and their patients with incurable cancer., Methods: We surveyed medical oncologists in Australia and New Zealand about their practices communicating prognosis., Results: A total of 206 medical oncologists completed the survey. Respondent characteristics were: median age 40 years (range 27-75), female 51%, trainee 22%; and 71% had completed specific training on communicating prognosis. Respondents reported discussing prognosis with a patient a median of 10 times per month (interquartile range 4-15); 88% reported explaining that 'the cancer is incurable' to all their patients with incurable cancer and 84% reported always or usually providing a quantitative estimate of survival time. The preferred method for explaining expected survival time (EST) was providing 'multiple ranges of time with probabilities, for example best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios' (52% of respondents). The most frequently reported barriers to discussing EST were: 'family members requesting that prognostic information not be discussed' (57% of respondents), and 'not knowing the EST' (46% of respondents). Twenty percent reported always documenting prognostic discussions and the EST in the patient's medical record, and 11% reported always documenting this information in their letters to other doctors., Conclusions: Most oncologists reported providing quantitative estimates of EST to their patients with incurable cancer, but very few reported documenting this information. Methods to help oncologists estimate, explain and document survival time are needed to improve communication of prognosis., (© 2020 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Background: Clinical whole exome sequencing was introduced in an Australian centre in 2017, as an alternative to Sanger sequencing. We aimed to identify predictors of cancer physicians' somatic mutation test ordering behaviour., Methods: A validated instrument assessed somatic mutation test ordering, genomic confidence, perceived utility of tumour molecular profiling, and percent of patients eligible for targeted therapy. A cash incentive was included in 189/244 questionnaires which were mailed to all Queensland cancer specialists in November 2018., Results: 110 participated (response rate 45%); 54.7% oncologists, and the remainder were surgeons, haematologists and pulmonologists. Oncologists were more likely to respond (p = 0.008), and cash incentive improved the response rate (p < 0.001). 67/102 (65.7%) of physicians ordered ≥ 5 somatic mutation tests annually. Oncologists saw 86.75 unique patients monthly and ordered 2.33 somatic mutation tests (2.2%). An average of 51/110 (46.1%) reported having little/no genomic confidence. Logistic regression identified two significant predictors of somatic mutation test ordering: being an oncologist (OR 3.557, CI 1.338-9.456; p = 0.011) and having greater confidence in interpreting somatic results (OR 5.926, CI 2.230-15.74; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Consistent with previous studies, the majority of cancer physicians ordered somatic mutation tests. However, the percentage of patients on whom tests were ordered was low. Almost half respondents reported low genomic confidence. Somatic mutation test ordering was higher amongst oncologists and those with increased confidence in interpreting somatic variants. It is unclear whether genomically confident individuals ordered more tests or whether ordering more tests increased genomic confidence. Educational interventions could improve confidence and enhance test ordering behaviour.

Background: Cancer atlases often provide estimates of cancer incidence, mortality or survival across small areas of a region or country. A recent example of a cancer atlas is the Australian cancer atlas (ACA), that provides interactive maps to visualise spatially smoothed estimates of cancer incidence and survival for 20 different cancer types over 2148 small areas across Australia., Methods: The present study proposes a multivariate Bayesian meta-analysis model, which can model multiple cancers jointly using summary measures without requiring access to the unit record data. This new approach is illustrated by modelling the publicly available spatially smoothed standardised incidence ratios for multiple cancers in the ACA divided into three groups: common, rare/less common and smoking-related. The multivariate Bayesian meta-analysis models are fitted to each group in order to explore any possible association between the cancers in three remoteness regions: major cities, regional and remote areas across Australia. The correlation between the pairs of cancers included in each multivariate model for a group was examined by computing the posterior correlation matrix for each cancer group in each region. The posterior correlation matrices in different remoteness regions were compared using Jennrich's test of equality of correlation matrices (Jennrich in J Am Stat Assoc. 1970;65(330):904-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481133 )., Results: Substantive correlation was observed among some cancer types. There was evidence that the magnitude of this correlation varied according to remoteness of a region. For example, there has been significant negative correlation between prostate and lung cancer in major cities, but zero correlation found in regional and remote areas for the same pair of cancer types. High risk areas for specific combinations of cancer types were identified and visualised from the proposed model., Conclusions: Publicly available spatially smoothed disease estimates can be used to explore additional research questions by modelling multiple cancer types jointly. These proposed multivariate meta-analysis models could be useful when unit record data are unavailable because of privacy and confidentiality requirements.

Background: Determining the validity of self-reported data is important. The aim of this study was to assess the validity of self-reported cancer and investigate factors associated with accurate reporting in men and women., Methods: Study participants (n = 1727) from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study, located in south-eastern Australia, were utilised. Self-reported cancer data were compared to Victorian Cancer Registry records. Age, socioeconomic status (SES), education and time between cancer diagnosis and study appointment were investigated as factors associated with accuracy of self-report., Results: There were 142 participants who self-reported a cancer and 135 with a VCR record. Comparing self-report to any registry record, sensitivity was 63.7 %, specificity 96.5 %, PPV 60.6 %, NPV 96.9 %, and overall agreement ĸ0.588. Comparing exact-match records, sensitivity was 58.8 %, specificity 95.5 %, PPV 49.3 %, NPV 96.9 % and overall agreement ĸ0.499. In logistic regression models, post-secondary education was independently associated with accuracy of any (OR 1.72, 95 % CI 1.10-2.70) and exact-match (OR 1.59, 95 % CI 1.05-2.42) self-report, compared to cancer registry record. For any cancer, being aged >70 years was inversely associated with accuracy (OR 0.24, 95 % CI 0.15-0.38). Likewise, for matched cancer reporting, those aged 60-70 years (OR 0.51, 95 %CI 0.30-0.88) and >70 years (OR 0.23, 95 % CI 0.15-0.35) were less accurate. No other significant associations were detected., Conclusion: Results suggest moderate agreement between self-report and registry data for any cancer among men and women. However, when comparing self-report to registry data for exact-match cancer type, level of overall agreement deteriorated. Self-report cancer data may be acceptable for determining a history of cancer, although, is less accurate in identifying history of specific cancer types documented in registry-based data., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Exosomes are small vesicles produced by almost all cells in the body and found in all biofluids. Cancer cell-derived exosomes are known to have distinct, measurable signatures, applicable for early cancer diagnosis. Despite the present bibliometric studies on "Cancer detection" and "Nanoparticles", no single study exists to deal with "Exosome" bibliometric study., Methods: This bibliometric work investigated the publication trends of "Exosomes" nanoparticles and its application in cancer detection, for the literature from 2008 to July 2019. The data were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection. There were variant visual maps generated to show annual publication, most- relevant authors, sources, countries, topics and keywords. The network analysis of these studies was investigated to evaluate the research trends in the field of exosomes. In addition, the data were qualitatively analyzed according to 22 top-cited articles, illustrating the frequently used subjects and methods in exosomes research area., Results: The results showed that the documents in this field have improved the citation rate. The top-relevant papers are mostly published in Scientific Reports journal which has lost its popularity after 2017, while today, Analytical Chemistry is leading in publishing the most articles related to exosomes. The documents containing keywords of plasma, cells, cancer, biomarkers, and vesicles as keywords plus, are more likely to be published in PLoS One journal. The clustering of the keywords network showed that the keyword theme of "extracellular vesicles" has the highest centrality rate. In global research, USA is the most corresponding country, followed by China, Korea and Australia. Based on the qualitative analysis, the published documents with at least 50 citations have used exosome release, cargo, detection, purification and secretion, as their targets and applied cell culture or isolation as their methods., Conclusion: The bibliometric study on exosomes nanoparticles for cancer detection provides a clear vision of the future research direction and identifies the potential opportunities and challenges. This may lead new researchers to select the proper subfields in exosome-related research fields., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2020 Ale Ebrahim et al.)

Background: The routes to diagnosis and the time intervals along the diagnostic pathway affect cancer outcomes. Some data on routes to diagnosis and milestone dates can be extracted from registries or databases. When this data is incomplete, inaccurate or non-existing, other data sources are needed. This study investigates the agreement between multiple data sources on routes to diagnosis and milestone dates of cancer pathway., Methods: Information on routes to diagnosis and milestone dates were compared across four data sources (cancer patients, general practitioners, cancer specialists and registries) for breast, colorectal, lung and ovarian cancers across the UK, Scandinavia, Canada and Australia. Agreement on routes to diagnosis and milestone dates was assessed by Kappa and AC1 coefficients and Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC)., Results: 4502 patients were included in the analysis of routes to diagnosis. The agreement was almost perfect (kappa = 0.15-0.88, AC1 = 0.86-0.91) for breast cancer, substantial to almost perfect (kappa = 0.07-0.86, AC1 = 0.74-0.93) for colorectal and ovarian cancers, and substantial (kappa = 0.09-0.11, AC1 = 0.65-0.74) for lung cancer. 2287 patients were included in the analysis of milestone dates. The agreement was adequate for all cancer types (CCC = 0.88-0.99); highest agreement was seen for date of diagnosis (CCC = 0.94-0.99)., Conclusion: We found a reasonable agreement between patient/physician questionnaires and registry data for routes to diagnosis and milestone dates. The agreement on routes to diagnosis was generally higher for breast cancer than for colorectal, ovarian and lung cancers. Lower agreement was seen on date of first presentation to primary care and date of treatment initiation compared to date of diagnosis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: With the improvements in cancer diagnosis and treatment, more patients with cancer are surviving for longer periods than before. This study aims to quantify the proportion cured and median survival time for those who are not cured for major cancers in Australia., Methods: Australian population-based cohort of 2,164,172 cases, ages 15 to 89 years, whose first cancer diagnosis between 1982 and 2014 was one of 22 leading cancers, were followed up to December 2014. Flexible parametric cure models were used to estimate the proportion cured and median survival time for those uncured by age, sex, and spread of disease, and temporal trends in these measures., Results: Cure estimates could be generated for 19 of the 22 cancer types. The unadjusted proportion cured ranged from 5.0% for pancreatic cancer to 90.0% for melanoma. Median survival time for those uncured ranged from 0.35 years for pancreatic cancer to 6.05 years for prostate cancer. Cancers were divided into four groups according to their proportion cured in the 1980s and the degree of improvement over 28 years. Esophageal, stomach, pancreatic, liver, gallbladder, lung, and brain cancer had lower proportion cured and smaller improvements over time., Conclusions: For cancers with poor survival in which little has changed over time either in prolonging life or achieving statistical cure, efforts should be focused on reducing the prevalence of known risk factors and earlier detection, thereby enabling more effective treatment., Impact: Cure models provide unique insights into whether survival improvements are due to prolonging life or through curing the disease., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: Sun-exposure can cause health problems, including melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer, especially in Australia where the incidence of skin cancer is particularly high. Childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) have an augmented risk due to previous cancer history and treatment. Despite recommendations advising sun protection, CCSs may be placing themselves at risk. We considered daily summer sun-exposure in an Australian cohort of CCSs and in community reference groups, and identified factors associated with sun-exposure in these populations., Methods: Summer sun-exposure data were collected on 471 CCSs (119 parents of survivors aged <16, and 352 survivors aged ≥16) and a reference group of 470 participants from the community (155 parents of children aged <16, and 355 adults aged ≥16). Survivors completed paper questionnaires and the reference groups completed an online survey. Medical records confirmed survivors' clinical information. Ordinal logistic regressions identified factors associated with daily summer sun-exposure., Results: More daily summer sun-exposure was reported by both parents reporting for the young survivors (U = 5,522.5, P < .001; U = 31,412, P < .001) and by older survivors (U = 5,039.5, P < .001; U = 29,913, P < .001). Among younger participants greater sun-exposure was associated with being a CCS, while in older participants, greater sun-exposure was associated with being a CCS, a male, smoker/ex-smoker and was also increased in those with more sensitive skin reaction to sunlight. Focusing only on the CCSs, when treatments were considered, none statistically predicted sun-exposure in young CCSs while older CCSs who received radiotherapy were less likely to spend excess time in the sun., Conclusion: CCSs have sun-exposure at times of day when sun-related skin damage is highest, despite advice to avoid highest risk times. This data can inform sun-protection programs and lifestyle advice aimed at ameliorating the potential increased risk of skin cancer in CCSs., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest No author has any conflicts of interest to disclose in relation to this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)