Search

Purpose: International data demonstrate association between clinical trial participation and reduced cancer mortality. Adolescents and young adults (AYA) have low clinical trial enrollment rates. We established a program to understand local barriers and develop targeted solutions that lead to greater AYA clinical trial participation. Methods: A steering committee (SC) with expertise in adult and pediatric oncology, research ethics, and consumer representation was formed. The SC mapped barriers related to AYA trial access and established working groups (WGs) around three themes. Results: The Regulatory Awareness WG identified a lack of understanding of processes that support protocol approval for clinical trials across the AYA age range. A guideline to raise awareness was developed. The Access WG identified challenges for young adults (18-25 years) to access a pediatric hospital to enroll in a pediatric trial. A procedure was developed to streamline applications for access. The first six applications using this procedure have been successful. The Availability WG identified lack of pediatric-adult oncology reciprocal relationships as a barrier to awareness of open trials, and future collaboration. An AYA Craft Group Framework was established to grow relationships within tumor streams across institutions; two craft groups are now operating locally. An additional achievement was a successful request to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for Australian adoption of the Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Considerations for the Inclusion of Adolescent Patients in Adult Oncology Clinical Trials. Conclusion: This multipronged approach to improving AYA clinical trial access has relevance for other health environments. Our knowledge products are available as an online toolkit.

Objective To determine the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP), or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) compared with open radical prostatectomy (ORP) in men with localized prostate cancer. Materials and Methods We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We included all randomized or pseudo-randomized controlled trials that directly compared LRP and RARP with ORP. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. Results We included two unique studies in a total of 446 randomized participants with clinically localized prostate cancer. All available outcome data were short-term (up to 3 months). We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on one trial, RARP probably results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (mean difference [MD] −1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] −4.65 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI: −1.84 to 9.64; moderate quality of evidence). No study addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% CI: 0.16−1.04; low quality of evidence) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.02–1.32; low quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at 1 day (MD −1.05, 95% CI: −1.42 to −0.68; low quality of evidence) and up to 1 week (MD −0.78, 95% CI: −1.40 to −0.17; low quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI: −0.32 to 0.34; moderate quality of evidence). Based on one study, RARP probably reduces the length of hospital stay (MD −1.72, 95% CI: −2.19 to −1.25; moderate quality of evidence). Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.12–0.46; low quality of evidence). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1,000 men (95% CI: 78–48 fewer). Conclusions There is no evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared with ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions.

Background Prostate cancer is commonly diagnosed in men worldwide. Surgery, in the form of radical prostatectomy, is one of the main forms of treatment for men with localised prostate cancer. Prostatectomy has traditionally been performed as open surgery, typically via a retropubic approach. The advent of laparoscopic approaches, including robotic-assisted, provides a minimally invasive alternative to open radical prostatectomy (ORP). Objectives To assess the effects of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy or robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy compared to open radical prostatectomy in men with localised prostate cancer. Search methods We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE) and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until 9 June 2017. We also searched bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings. Selection criteria We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a direct comparison of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) to ORP, including pseudo-RCTs. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data. The primary outcomes were prostate cancer-specific survival, urinary quality of life and sexual quality of life. Secondary outcomes were biochemical recurrence-free survival, overall survival, overall surgical complications, serious postoperative surgical complications, postoperative pain, hospital stay and blood transfusions. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE. Main results We included two unique studies with 446 randomised participants with clinically localised prostate cancer. The mean age, prostate volume, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of the participants were 61.3 years, 49.78 mL, and 7.09 ng/mL, respectively. Primary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcome of prostate cancer-specific survival. Based on data from one trial, RARP likely results in little to no difference in urinary quality of life (MD -1.30, 95% CI -4.65 to 2.05) and sexual quality of life (MD 3.90, 95% CI -1.84 to 9.64). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate for both quality of life outcomes, downgrading for study limitations. Secondary outcomes We found no study that addressed the outcomes of biochemical recurrence-free survival or overall survival. Based on one trial, RARP may result in little to no difference in overall surgical complications (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.04) or serious postoperative complications (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.32). We rated the quality of evidence as low for both surgical complications, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on two studies, LRP or RARP may result in a small, possibly unimportant improvement in postoperative pain at one day (MD -1.05, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.68 ) and up to one week (MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.17). We rated the quality of evidence for both time-points as low, downgrading for study limitations and imprecision. Based on one study, RARP likely results in little to no difference in postoperative pain at 12 weeks (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.34). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations. Based on one study, RARP likely reduces the length of hospital stay (MD -1.72, 95% CI -2.19 to -1.25). We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, downgrading for study limitations. Based on two study, LRP or RARP may reduce the frequency of blood transfusions (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.46). Assuming a baseline risk for a blood transfusion to be 8.9%, LRP or RARP would result in 68 fewer blood transfusions per 1000 men (95% CI 78 fewer to 48 fewer). We rated the quality of evidence as low, downgrading for study limitations and indirectness. We were unable to perform any of the prespecified secondary analyses based on the available evidence. All available outcome data were short-term and we were unable to account for surgeon volume or experience. Authors' conclusions There is no high-quality evidence to inform the comparative effectiveness of LRP or RARP compared to ORP for oncological outcomes. Urinary and sexual quality of life-related outcomes appear similar. Overall and serious postoperative complication rates appear similar. The difference in postoperative pain may be minimal. Men undergoing LRP or RARP may have a shorter hospital stay and receive fewer blood transfusions. All available outcome data were short-term, and this study was unable to account for surgeon volume or experience.

Background: Clinical trial registries were established to improve the transparency and completeness of clinical trial reporting and a number of policies have been introduced to encourage or mandate their use. While prospective trial registration has been endorsed in Australia, there is currently no legal requirement for researchers to register or communicate findings from clinical trials. There has also been, to the best of our knowledge, no analysis previously undertaken on publication rates for clinical trials performed in Australia. Aim: We aimed to determine the proportion of clinical trials that remain 'unpublished' in Victoria, Australia´s second most populous state, between 2009 and 2013. Methods: We used data reported to Cancer Council Victoria's Cancer Trials Management Scheme (CTMS) between 2009 and 2013, to identify trials that had recruited a new patient or recorded any follow-up patient activity in the specified time period. Using this data, we conducted a systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov , the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), PubMed and Google for records of the trial. Trial registration numbers, acronyms and scientific titles were used as primary search terms. Results were characterized by type of publication (i.e., whether it was an accredited scientific paper or other) and source location. Results: Of the trials reported to the CTMS between 2009 and 2013, 777 trials were included in this investigation; the majority (58.8%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Compared with previously published findings, communication of trial results in this study was high; 70% of trials published results in an accredited scientific journal and a further 10% in alternate form, such as a conference abstract or media release. Publication rates were higher for trials with a commercial sponsor (85%) compared with trials sponsored by a cooperative group (77%). Nearly 8% of trials in this study had not been registered on an international clinical trials register. Only 39% of unregistered trials had published results. Of the registered trials, those registered on ClinicalTrials.gov were more likely to be published (86%) compared with trials listed on ANZCTR (68%). Between 2009 and 2013 , 8% of trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , in our data set, were terminated; 70% of these trials published results. Conclusion: Although the rate at which clinical trial findings were published in Victoria was higher in this investigation compared with equivalent overseas data, trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov were more likely to publish results than unregistered trials or trials registered on ANZCTR. This suggests a potential need for trial registration and publication guidelines in Australia, similar to that of the United States where the requirements and procedures for submitting registration and summary result information for clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov have been compulsory for the last decade.

Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the attributes that students and educators believe are important to being a good health educator in a non-clinical setting. Methods A cross-sectional survey of first-year health science students and educators involved with a Health Science course in Melbourne, Australia was performed. A convenience sampling approach was implemented, with participants were required to rate the importance of teaching attributes on a previously developed 15-item written questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were generated, with Pearson's chi-square statistics used to examine differences between groups. In total 94/147 (63.9%) of students and 15/15 (100%) of educators participated in the study. Results Of the 15 attributes, only 'scholarly activity' was not deemed to be not as an important attribute to define a good educator. Knowledge base (50% vs. 13.3%) and feedback skills (22.3% vs. 0%) were rated as important attributes by students in comparison to educators. Professionalism (20% vs. 5.3%), scholarly activity (20% vs. 3.2%) and role modelling (26.7% vs. 3.2%) were rated as the most important attributes by educators in comparison to students. Conclusions No single attribute makes a good health educator; rather health educators are required to have a rounded approach to teaching. Students have greater focus on the educator providing a transfer of knowledge. Educators are additionally focused on professionalism attributes, which may not be valued by students. Students and educators must enter into a clearer understanding of expectations, from both parties, to obtain optimal education outcomes.

Background: Prostate cancer is a prominent form of cancer diagnosed in men living in developed countries, for which radical prostatectomy is a common frontline treatment. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) is more effective in the treatment of localised prostate cancer, compared to laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). Methods: An electronic search of Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) was performed up until December 2014. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that offered a direct comparison of laparoscopic and robotic techniques were eligible for inclusion in this review. Results: A total of 93 articles were identified through the literature search, of which 2 were included in this review. Meta-analysis of 2 studies identified a significantly higher rate of return of erectile function in the RALP group (relative risk (RR) 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19, 1.92). A similar effect was observed with return to continence function (RR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04, 1.24). Conclusions: This systematic review offers the first evaluation of evidence from RCTs with respect to the effectiveness of RALP and LRP in the treatment of localised prostate cancer. Preliminary results suggest that RALP was more efficient at preserving the erectile function and continence in comparison to LRP.

Agriculture in Niger is a complex and challenging operation. Farmers are faced with low-fertility sandy soils, variable rainfall, changing social and political situations and an unfavourable economic environment. Concerns about sustaining soil fertility have been voiced by agricultural scientists, who view agriculture as the maintenance of soil nutrient capital. Many of the biological and economic attributes of these farming systems have been documented, and are becoming better understood through the growing body of agroecological literature. Although agroecology recognises social, political and cultural interactions, much less is known about the specific details of farmers' physical and biological knowledge and how this knowledge is used to make management decisions. Research in Fandou Beri village identified a local ethnopedological framework that had fundamental differences from scientific systems. Farmers' defined soils according to location, potential for production and interaction with the wider ecological framework. They drew on varied ecological knowledge and experiences to make complex and dynamic farm decisions, as at other Sahelian villages. Local soil fertility management depends on individuals' capabilities, perceptions of constraints and opportunities, and their ability to mediate access to different types of resources. This research suggests that there is a need to maximise the benefits of indigenous knowledge by integrating social and natural science, for example to help ‘precision farming’, and to use it to understand diversity.