Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (TOPCAT-G): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility trial

Background: Gynaecological cancers are diagnosed in over 1000 women in Wales every year. We estimate that this is costing the National Health Service (NHS) in excess of £1 million per annum for routine follow-up appointments alone. Follow-up care is not evidence-based, and there are no definitive guidelines from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the type of follow-up that should be delivered. Standard care is to provide a regular medical review of the patient in a hospital-based outpatient clinic for a minimum of 5 years. This study is to evaluate the feasibility of a proposed alternative where the patients are delivered a specialist nurse-led telephone intervention known as Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (OPCAT-G), which comprised of a protocol-based patient education, patient empowerment and structured needs assessment. Methods: The study will recruit female patients who have completed treatment for cervical, endometrial, epithelial ovarian or vulval cancer within the previous 3 months in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) in North Wales. Following recruitment, participants will be randomised to one of two arms in the trial (standard care or OPCAT-G intervention). The primary outcomes for the trial are patient recruitment and attrition rates, and the secondary outcomes are quality of life, health status and capability, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, EQ- 5D-3L and ICECAP-A measures. Additionally, a client service receipt inventory (CSRI) will be collected in order to pilot an economic evaluation. Discussion: The results from this feasibility study will be used to inform a fully powered randomised controlled trial to evaluate the difference between standard care and the OPCAT-G intervention. Trial registration: ISRCTN45565436

Variations in clinical decision-making between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons; a case for management by multidisciplinary teams?

OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in decisions to revascularise patients with coronary heart disease between general cardiologists, interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons DESIGN: Six cases of coronary heart disease were presented at an open meeting in a standard format including clinical details which might influence the decision to revascularise. Clinicians (n = 53) were then asked to vote using an anonymous electronic system for one of 5 treatment options: medical, surgical (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or initially medical proceeding to revascularisation if symptoms dictated. Each case was then discussed in an open forum following which clinicians were asked to revote. Differences in treatment preference were compared by chi squared test and agreement between groups and between voting rounds compared using Kappa. RESULTS: Surgeons were more likely to choose surgery as a form of treatment (p = 0.034) while interventional cardiologists were more likely to choose PCI (p = 0.056). There were no significant differences between non-interventional and interventional cardiologists (p = 0.13) in their choice of treatment. There was poor agreement between all clinicians in the first round of voting (Kappa 0.26) but this improved to a moderate level of agreement after open discussion for the second vote (Kappa 0.44). The level of agreement among surgeons (0.15) was less than that for cardiologists (0.34) in Round 1, but was similar in Round 2 (0.45 and 0.45 respectively) CONCLUSION: In this case series, there was poor agreement between cardiac clinical specialists in the choice of treatment offered to patients. Open discussion appeared to improve agreement. These results would support the need for decisions to revascularise to be made by a multidisciplinary panel

Feasibility study of multidisciplinary oncology rounds by videoconference for surgeons in remote locales

BACKGROUND: This study was undertaken to assess the feasibility of using videoconferencing to involve community-based surgeons in interactive, multidisciplinary oncology rounds so they may benefit from the type of community of practice that is usually only available in academic cancer centres. METHODS: An existing videoconference service provider with sites across Ontario was chosen and the series was accredited. Indirect needs assessment involved examining responses to a previously conducted survey of provincial surgeons; interviewing three cancer surgeons from different regions of Ontario; and by analyzing an online portfolio of self-directed learning projects. Direct needs assessment involved a survey of surgeons at videoconference-enabled sites. A surgical, medical and radiation oncologist plus a facilitator were scheduled to guide discussion for each session. A patient scenario developed by the discussants was distributed to participants one week prior to each session. RESULTS: Direct and indirect needs assessment confirmed that breast cancer and colorectal cancer topics were of greatest importance to community surgeons. Six one-hour sessions were offered (two breast, two colorectal, one gynecologic and one lung cancer). A median of 22 physicians and a median of eight sites participated in each session. The majority of respondents were satisfied with the videoconference format, presenters and content. Many noted that discussion prompted reflection on practice and that current practice would change. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that it is possible to engage remote surgeons in multidisciplinary oncology rounds by videoconference. Continued assessment of videoconferencing is warranted but further research is required to develop frameworks by which to evaluate the benefits of telehealth initiatives

Stage and treatment variation with age in postmenopausal women with breast cancer: compliance with guidelines

Breast cancer-specific mortality is static in older women despite having fallen in younger age groups, possibly due to lack of screening and differences in treatment. This study compared stage and treatment between two cohorts of postmenopausal women (55–69 vs 470 years) in a single cancer network over 6 months. A total of 378 patients were studied (470: N ¼ 167, 55–69 years: N ¼ 210). Older women presented with more advanced disease (470: metastatic/locally advanced 12%, 55–69 years: 3%, Po0.01). Those with operable cancer had a worse prognosis (Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) 470: median NPI 4.4, 55–69 years: 4.25, Po0.03). These stage differences were partially explained by higher screening rates in the younger cohort. Primary endocrine therapy was used in 42% of older patients compared with 3% in the younger group (Po0.001). Older women with cancers suitable for breast conservation were more likely to choose mastectomy (470: 57.5% mastectomy rate vs 55–69 years: 20.6%, Po0.01). Nodal surgery was less frequent in older patients (470: 6.7% no nodal surgery, 55–69 years: 0.5%, Po0.01) and was more likely to be inadequate (470: 10.7% o4 nodes excised, 55–69 years: 3.4%, Po0.02). In summary, older women presented with more advanced breast cancer, than younger postmenopausal women and were treated less comprehensively

Critical research gaps and translational priorities for the successful prevention and treatment of breast cancer

INTRODUCTION Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. METHODS More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer 'stem' cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. RESULTS The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. CONCLUSIONS With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years

Younger age as a prognostic indicator in breast cancer: A cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The debate continues as to whether younger women who present with breast cancer have a more aggressive form of disease and a worse prognosis. The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence of breast cancer in women under 40 years old and to analyse the clinicopathological characteristics and outcome compared to an older patient cohort.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Data was acquired from a review of charts and the prospectively reviewed GUH Department of Surgery database. Included in the study were 276 women diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of forty and 2869 women over forty. For survival analysis each women less than 40 was matched with two women over forty for both disease stage and grade.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of forty in our cohort was 8.8%. In comparison to their older counterparts, those under forty had a higher tumour grade (p = 0.044) and stage (p = 0.046), a lower incidence of lobular tumours (p < 0.001), higher estrogen receptor negativity (p < 0.001) and higher <it>HER2 </it>over-expression (p = 0.002); there was no statistical difference as regards tumour size (p = 0.477). There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) for both groups; and factors like tumour size (p = 0.026), invasion (p = 0.026) and histological type (p = 0.027), PR (p = 0.031) and <it>HER2 </it>(p = 0.002) status and treatment received were independent predictors of OS</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Breast cancer in younger women has distinct histopathological characteristics; however, this does not result in a reduced survival in this population.</p

A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication

Background: Telehealth is the delivery of health care at a distance, using information and communication technology. The major rationales for its introduction have been to decrease costs, improve efficiency and increase access in health care delivery. This systematic review assesses the economic value of one type of telehealth delivery - synchronous or real time video communication - rather than examining a heterogeneous range of delivery modes as has been the case with previous reviews in this area. Methods A systematic search was undertaken for economic analyses of the clinical use of telehealth, ending in June 2009. Studies with patient outcome data and a non-telehealth comparator were included. Cost analyses, non-comparative studies and those where patient satisfaction was the only health outcome were excluded. Results 36 articles met the inclusion criteria. 22(61%) of the studies found telehealth to be less costly than the non-telehealth alternative, 11(31%) found greater costs and 3 (9%) gave the same or mixed results. 23 of the studies took the perspective of the health services, 12 were societal, and one was from the patient perspective. In three studies of telehealth to rural areas, the health services paid more for telehealth, but due to savings in patient travel, the societal perspective demonstrated cost savings. In regard to health outcomes, 12 (33%) of studies found improved health outcomes, 21 (58%) found outcomes were not significantly different, 2(6%) found that telehealth was less effective, and 1 (3%) found outcomes differed according to patient group. The organisational model of care was more important in determining the value of the service than the clinical discipline, the type of technology, or the date of the study. Conclusion Delivery of health services by real time video communication was cost-effective for home care and access to on-call hospital specialists, showed mixed results for rural service delivery, and was not cost-effective for local delivery of services between hospitals and primary care