Chemotherapy in patients with unresected pancreatic cancer in Australia: A population-based study of uptake and survival

1 Aim Palliative chemotherapy improves symptom control and prolongs survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer, but there is a paucity of data describing its use and effectiveness in everyday practice. We explored patterns of chemotherapy use in patients with unresected pancreatic cancer in Australia and the impact of use on survival. 2 Methods We reviewed the medical records of residents of New South Wales or Queensland, Australia, diagnosed with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between July 2009 and June 2011. Associations between receipt of chemotherapy and sociodemographic, clinical and health service factors were evaluated using logistic regression. We used Cox proportional hazards models to analyze associations between chemotherapy use and survival. 3 Results Data were collected for 1173 eligible patients. Chemotherapy was received by 44% (n = 184/414) of patients with localized pancreatic cancer and 53% (n = 406/759) of patients with metastases. Chemotherapy receipt depended on clinical factors, such as performance status and comorbidity burden, and nonclinical factors, such as age, place of residence, multidisciplinary team review and the type of specialist first encountered. Consultation with an oncologist mitigated most of the sociodemographic and service‐related disparities in chemotherapy use. The receipt of chemotherapy was associated with prolonged survival in patients with inoperable pancreatic cancer, including after adjusting for common prognostic factors. 4 Conclusions These findings highlight the need to establish referral pathways to ensure that all patients have the opportunity to discuss treatment options with a medical oncologist. This is particularly relevant for health care systems covering areas with a geographically dispersed population

Non-affirmative Theory of Education as a Foundation for Curriculum Studies, Didaktik and Educational Leadership

This chapter presents non-affirmative theory of education as the foundation for a new research program in education, allowing us to bridge educational leadership, curriculum studies and Didaktik. We demonstrate the strengths of this framework by analyzing literature from educational leadership and curriculum theory/didaktik. In contrast to both socialization-oriented explanations locating curriculum and leadership within existing society, and transformation-oriented models viewing education as revolutionary or super-ordinate to society, non-affirmative theory explains the relation between education and politics, economy and culture, respectively, as non-hierarchical. Here critical deliberation and discursive practices mediate between politics, culture, economy and education, driven by individual agency in historically developed cultural and societal institutions. While transformative and socialization models typically result in instrumental notions of leadership and teaching, non-affirmative education theory, previously developed within German and Nordic education, instead views leadership and teaching as relational and hermeneutic, drawing on ontological core concepts of modern education: recognition; summoning to self-activity and Bildsamkeit. Understanding educational leadership, school development and teaching then requires a comparative multi-level approach informed by discursive institutionalism and organization theory, in addition to theorizing leadership and teaching as cultural-historical and critical-hermeneutic activity. Globalisation and contemporary challenges to deliberative democracy also call for rethinking modern nation-state based theorizing of education in a cosmopolitan light. Non-affirmative education theory allows us to understand and promote recognition based democratic citizenship (political, economical and cultural) that respects cultural, ethical and epistemological variations in a globopolitan era. We hope an American-European-Asian comparative dialogue is enhanced by theorizing education with a non-affirmative approach

Factors associated with quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer in Australia

OBJECTIVES: To develop a composite score for the quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer in Australia; to determine whether it was affected by patient and health service-related factors; to assess whether the score and survival were correlated. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: We reviewed medical records of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer during July 2009 - June 2011 and notified to the Queensland and New South Wales cancer registries. DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants were allocated proportional quality of care scores based on indicators derived from a Delphi process, ranging from 0 (lowest) to 1 (highest quality care). Associations between patient and health service-related factors and the score were tested by linear regression, and associations between the score and survival with Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Proportional quality of care scores were assigned to 1571 patients. Scores for patients living in rural areas were significantly lower than for those in major cities (adjusted difference, 11%; 95% CI, 8-13%); they were higher for patients in the least socio-economically disadvantaged areas (v most disadvantaged areas: 8% higher; 95% CI, 6-11%), who were younger, had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, or who first presented to a hospital with a high pancreatic case volume. Higher scores were associated with improved survival; after adjusting for patient-related factors, each 10 percentage point increase in the score reduced the risk of dying by 6% (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.97). CONCLUSION: Geographic category of residence may influence the quality of care received by patients with pancreatic cancer, and survival could be improved if they received optimal care

Using a Delphi process to determine optimal care for patients with pancreatic cancer.

AIM: Overall 5-year survival for pancreatic cancer is ∼5%. Optimizing the care that pancreatic cancer patients receive may be one way of improving outcomes. The objective of this study was to establish components of care which Australian health professionals believe important to optimally manage patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 250 health professionals were invited to provide a list of factors they considered important for optimal care of pancreatic cancer patients. They were then asked to score and then rescore (from one [no importance/disagree] to 10 [very important/agree]) the factors. The mean and coefficient of variation scores were calculated and categorized into three levels of importance. RESULTS: Overall, 63 (66% of those sent the final questionnaire; 25% of those initially invited) health professionals from nine disciplines completed the final scoring of 55 statements/factors encompassing themes of presentation/staging, surgery and biliary obstruction, multidisciplinary team details and oncology. Mean scores ranged from 3.7 to 9.7 with the highest related to communication and patient assessment. There was substantial intra- and interdisciplinary variation in views about MDT membership and roles. CONCLUSION: Overall, the opinions of Australian health professionals reflect international guideline recommended care; however, they identified a number of additional factors focusing on where patients should be treated, the importance of clear communication and the need for multidisciplinary care which were not included in current clinical practice guidelines. Differences in priorities between specialty groups were also identified