Search

Aims: The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care. Methods : Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority. Results : Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with Round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in Round 2. In Round 1, the highest agreement items (> 90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in Round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes. Conclusions : This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include: clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities. Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care. METHODS: Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority. RESULTS: Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities. IMPLICATION FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Symptoms of raised intracranial pressure (ICP) in recurrent or progressive high-grade glioma (HGG) generally require corticosteroid treatment, often causing toxicity with variable effects on reversing ICP symptoms. Acetazolamide reduces ICP in other clinical settings including case series in glioma. AIM To explore whether addition of oral acetazolamide enables safe dexamethasone dose reduction in management of raised ICP in recurrent and/or progressive HGG. METHODS Participants had recurrent, progressive and/or persistent residual HGG requiring recommencement of dexamethasone, dose increase or dexamethasone dependency; prior/current bevacizumab was an exclusion. Eligible participants were randomised 1:1 to acetazolamide 250mg twice daily or placebo for 8 weeks. Standardised protocols were used for dexamethasone dose changes in both arms, with planned dose decrease from day 5 once ICP symptoms were stable. The primary endpoint was a composite of dexamethasone dose reduction and stability of performance status. Secondary endpoints included toxicity and feasibility (accrual and compliance). RESULTS Thirty participants of a planned sample of 84 were enrolled (mean age 58 y (32-89)) from 7 Australian sites. The mean baseline dexamethasone dose was 6.2mg (4-16mg). Mean duration on treatment was 38 days (4-57) in placebo group and 31 days (3-60) in acetazolamide group, with 9 participants (30%) completing all study treatment (6 placebo, 3 acetazolamide). Study withdrawal was due to adverse events (n=6 (1 placebo, 5 acetazolamide)) and disease progression (n=6 (3 per arm)). Four participants (13%) (2 per arm) were stable responders meeting the primary endpoint criteria (≥50% corticosteroid dos

For women, gynaecological or obstetrical disorders are second to disc prolapse as the most common cause of sciatica. As not many effective conventional treatments can be found for sciatica following uterine cancer, patients may seek assistance from complementary and alternative medicine. Here, we present a case of a woman with severe and chronic sciatica secondary to uterine cancer who experienced temporary relief from acupuncture.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a hospital-based sample of first-generation immigrants and Australian-born Anglo patients in the first year following diagnosis. It was restricted to Chinese, Arabic, or Greek speakers. Eligible participants, recruited via 16 oncology clinics, were over 18, with cancer (any type or stage), and having commenced treatment at least 1 month previously. Five hundred and seventy-one CALD patients (comprising 145 Arabic, 248 Chinese, and 178 Greek) and a control group of 274 Anglo-Australian patients participated. RESULTS: Immigrants had difficulty communicating with the doctor (73% versus 29%) and understanding the health system (38% versus 10%). Differences were found in 'difficulty knowing who to see' (P = 0.0002), 'length of time to confirm diagnosis' (P = 0.04), wanting more choice about a specialist and hospital (P < 0.0001); being offered the opportunity to see a counselor (P < 0.0001); and actually seeing one (P < 0.0001). There were no significant self-reported differences regarding how cancer was detected, time to see a health professional, or type first seen; however, immigrants reported difficulty knowing who to see. Previous studies showed differences in patterns of care according to socioeconomic status (SES) and educational level. Despite adjusting for age, sex, education, marital status, SES, time since diagnosis, and type of cancer, we did not find significant differences. Instead, we found that understanding of the health system and confidence understanding English were important factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that immigrants with cancer perceive an inferior quality of cancer care. We highlight potentially modifiable factors including assistance in navigating the health system, translated information, and cultural competency training for health professionals. BACKGROUND: Recent data show a falling cancer mortality in the general population without a similar shift in immigrant outcomes, leading to a greater cancer

BACKGROUND: Brain metastases are a common cause of death in patients with melanoma. The role of adjuvant whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) following local treatment of intracranial melanoma metastases is controversial. The Australian and New Zealand Melanoma Trials Group (ANZMTG) and the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) are leading the first ever single histology randomised trial investigating this question. The primary endpoint is distant intracranial failure on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) within twelve months of randomisation. The first planned interim analysis was performed twelve months after randomisation of the 100(th) patient. The analysis was an opportunity to review completeness of the trial data to date. METHODS: All data received up to the end of twelve months after randomisation of the 100th patient was reviewed. RESULTS: Review of pathology reports confirmed that all 100 patients had stage IV melanoma and were appropriately entered into the study. Of the 47 distant intracranial events, 34 occurred in isolation (i.e. only distant failure was identified), whilst 13 were accompanied by local failure. Data review showed compliance with the protocol mandated MRI schedule and accuracy of intracranial failure reporting was very high. The Quality of Life (QoL) component of the study achieved a 91% completion rate. For the neurocognitive function (NCF) assessments, a high completion rate was maintained throughout the 12 month period. Where assessments were not performed at expected time points, valid reasons were noted. Radiotherapy quality was high. Of 50 patients who received WBRT, 32 were reviewed as per protocol design and there was only one major variation out of 308 data points reviewed (0.3%). There were minimal trial related adverse events (AEs) and no serious adverse events (SAEs). Pre-specified protocol stopping rules were not met. CONCLUSIONS: The Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) recommended the trial continue recruitment after r

Background: Recent data show a falling cancer mortality in the general population without a similar shift in immigrant outcomes, leading to a greater cancer burden and mortality for immigrants. Our aims were to compare perceived patterns of care in immigrants and native-born cancer patients. Patients and Methods: This was a hospital-based sample of first-generation immigrants and Australian-born Anglo patients in the first year following diagnosis. It was restricted to Chinese, Arabic, or Greek speakers. Eligible participants, recruited via 16 oncology clinics, were over 18, with cancer (any type or stage), and having commenced treatment at least 1 month previously. Five hundred and seventy-one CALD patients (comprising 145 Arabic, 248 Chinese, and 178 Greek) and a control group of 274 Anglo-Australian patients participated. Result(s): Immigrants had difficulty communicating with the doctor (73% versus 29%) and understanding the health system (38% versus 10%). Differences were found in 'difficulty knowing who to see' (P = 0.0002), 'length of time to confirm diagnosis' (P = 0.04), wanting more choice about a specialist and hospital (P < 0.0001); being offered the opportunity to see a counselor (P < 0.0001); and actually seeing one (P < 0.0001). There were no significant self-reported differences regarding how cancer was detected, time to see a health professional, or type first seen; however, immigrants reported difficulty knowing who to see. Previous studies showed differences in patterns of care according to socioeconomic status (SES) and educational level. Despite adjusting for age, sex, education, marital status, SES, time since diagnosis, and type of cancer, we did not find significant differences. Instead, we found that understanding of the health system and confidence understanding English were important factors. Conclusion(s): This study confirmed that immigrants with cancer perceive an inferior quality of cancer care. We highlight potentially modifiable fact

Background: Recent data show a falling cancer mortality in the general population without a similar shift in immigrant outcomes, leading to a greater cancer burden and mortality for immigrants. Our aims were to compare perceived patterns of care in immigrants and native-born cancer patients. Patients and methods: This was a hospital-based sample of first-generation immigrants and Australian-born Anglo patients in the first year following diagnosis. It was restricted to Chinese, Arabic, or Greek speakers. Eligible participants, recruited via 16 oncology clinics, were over 18, with cancer (any type or stage), and having commenced treatment at least 1 month previously. Five hundred and seventy-one CALD patients (comprising 145 Arabic, 248 Chinese, and 178 Greek) and a control group of 274 Anglo-Australian patients participated. Results: Immigrants had difficulty communicating with the doctor (73% versus 29%) and understanding the health system (38% versus 10%). Differences were found in 'difficulty knowing who to see' (P = 0.0002), 'length of time to confirm diagnosis' (P = 0.04), wanting more choice about a specialist and hospital (P < 0.0001); being offered the opportunity to see a counselor (P < 0.0001); and actually seeing one (P < 0.0001). There were no significant self-reported differences regarding how cancer was detected, time to see a health professional, or type first seen; however, immigrants reported difficulty knowing who to see. Previous studies showed differences in patterns of care according to socioeconomic status (SES) and educational level. Despite adjusting for age, sex, education, marital status, SES, time since diagnosis, and type of cancer, we did not find significant differences. Instead, we found that understanding of the health system and confidence understanding English were important factors. Conclusions: This study confirmed that immigrants with cancer perceive an inferior quality of cancer care. We highlight potentially modifiable factors

The WHO analgesic ladder for the treatment of cancer pain provides a three-step sequential approach for analgesic administration based on pain severity that has global applicability. Nonopioids were recommended for mild pain, with the addition of mild opioids for moderate pain and strong opioids for severe pain. Here, we review the evidence for the use of nonopioid analgesic agents in patients with cancer and describe the mode of action of the main drug classes. Evidence supports the use of anti-inflammatory drugs such as acetaminophen/paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for mild cancer pain. Adding an NSAID to an opioid for stronger cancer pain is efficacious, but the risk of long-term adverse effects has not been quantified. There is limited evidence to support using acetaminophen with stronger opioids. Corticosteroids have a specific role in spinal cord compression and brain metastases, where improved analgesia is a secondary benefit. There is limited evidence for adding corticosteroids to stronger opioids when pain control is the primary objective. Systematic reviews suggest a role for antidepressant and anticonvulsant medications for neuropathic pain, but there are methodologic issues with the available studies. Bisphosphonates improve pain in patients with bony metastases in some tumor types. Denosumab may delay worsening of pain compared with bisphosphonates. Larger studies of longer duration are required to address outstanding questions concerning the use of nonopioid analgesia for stronger cancer pain. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.