Challenges and solutions to cancer-related financial toxicity according to Australian health professionals: qualitative results from a national survey

Purpose: To qualitatively explore Australian healthcare professionals’ perspectives on how to improve the care and management of cancer-related financial toxicity, including relevant practices, services, and unmet needs. Methods: We invited healthcare professionals (HCP) who currently provide care to people with cancer within their role to complete an online survey, which was distributed via the networks of Australian clinical oncology professional associations/organisations. The survey was developed by the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia’s Financial Toxicity Working Group and contained 12 open-ended items which we analysed using descriptive content analysis and NVivo software. Results: HCPs (n = 277) believed that identifying and addressing financial concerns within routine cancer care was important and most believed this to be the responsibility of all HCP involved in the patient’s care. However, financial toxicity was viewed as a “blind spot” within a medical model of healthcare, with a lack of services, resources, and training identified as barriers to care. Social workers reported assessment and advocacy were part of their role, but many reported lacking formal training and understanding of financial complexities/laws. HCPs reported positive attitudes towards transparent discussions of costs and actioning cost-reduction strategies within their control, but feelings of helplessness when they perceived no solution was available. Conclusion: Identifying financial needs and providing transparent information about cancer-related costs was viewed as a cross-disciplinary responsibility, however, a lack of training and services limited the provision of support. Increased cancer-specific financial counselling and advocacy, via dedicated roles or developing HCPs’ skills, is urgently needed within the healthcare system

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer service delivery: results from an international survey of oncology clinicians.

To report clinician-perceived changes to cancer service delivery in response to COVID-19. Multidisciplinary Australasian cancer clinician survey in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology. Between May and June 2020 clinicians from 70 countries were surveyed; majority from Europe (n=196; 39%) with 1846 COVID-19 cases per million people, Australia (AUS)/New Zealand (NZ) (n=188; 38%) with 267/236 per million and Asia (n=75; 15%) with 121 per million at time of survey distribution. Medical oncologists (n=372; 74%), radiation oncologists (n=91; 18%) and surgical oncologists (n=38; 8%). Eighty-nine per cent of clinicians reported altering clinical practices; more commonly among those with versus without patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=142; 93% vs n=225; 86%, p=0.03) but regardless of community transmission levels (p=0.26). More European clinicians (n=111; 66.1%) had treated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with Asia (n=20; 27.8%) and AUS/NZ (n=8; 4.8%), p<0.001. Many clinicians (n=307; 71.4%) reported concerns that reduced access to standard treatments during the pandemic would negatively impact patient survival. The reported proportion of consultations using telehealth increased by 7.7-fold, with 25.1% (n=108) of clinicians concerned that patient survival would be worse due to this increase. Clinicians reviewed a median of 10 fewer outpatients/week (including non-face to face) compared with prior to the pandemic, translating to 5010 fewer specialist oncology visits per week among the surveyed group. Mental health was negatively impacted for 52.6% (n=190) of clinicians. Clinicians reported widespread changes to oncology services, in regions of both high and low COVID-19 case numbers. Clinician concerns of potential negative impacts on patient outcomes warrant objective assessment, with system and policy implications for healthcare delivery at large

Discussing and prescribing expensive unfunded anticancer drugs in Australia

OBJECTIVE: Australia has a publicly funded universal healthcare system which heavily subsidises the cost of most registered anticancer drugs. The use of anticancer drugs that are unfunded, that is, not subsidised by the government, entails substantial out-of-pocket costs for patients. We sought to determine how frequently Australian medical oncologists discuss and prescribe unfunded anticancer drugs, and their attitudes and beliefs about their use. METHODS: Members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA) completed an online survey about their clinical practices over a recent 3-month period. A negative binomial regression model was used to examine the influence of respondent characteristics on the rate of discussions about, and prescription of, unfunded anticancer drugs. RESULTS: Of the 154 respondents (27% of 575 MOGA members), 92% had discussed and 68% had prescribed at least one unfunded anticancer drug in the last 3 months. Respondents reported discussing unfunded anticancer drugs with an average of 2.5 patients per month (95% CI 2.1 to 2.9), and prescribed them to an average of 0.9 patients per month (95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). The rate of discussing unfunded anticancer drugs was associated with being fully qualified (p=0.01), and being in a metropolitan practice (p=0.009), the rate of prescription was associated only with being in metropolitan practice (p=0.006). The concerns about discussing and prescribing unfunded anticancer drugs rated most important were as follows: 'potential to cause financial hardship' and 'difficulty for patients to evaluate the benefits versus the costs'. CONCLUSIONS: Australian medical oncologists frequently discuss and prescribe unfunded anticancer drugs, and are concerned about their patients having to face difficult decisions and financial hardship. Further research is needed to better understand the factors that affect how oncologists and patients value expensive, unfunded anticancer drugs

The Australian Medical Oncologist Workforce Survey: The profile and challenges of medical oncology

© 2018 Background: The aim of this study was to understand the current and future challenges for the Australian medical oncologist workforce. Methods: Utilising an on-line self-administered questionnaire, this cross-sectional study collected data from members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia on workforce-related issues. Participants consisted of medical oncology specialist advanced trainees, early-career oncologists (ECOs), and medical oncology consultants. Findings: Of the 633 members, 354 completed the questionnaire, representing a 55.9% response rate. Based on Medical Oncology Group of Australia membership, the number of medical oncologists has increased since the previous workforce study in 2009, with an uncertainty among junior medical oncologists regarding their future career prospects. The majority of participants worked in capital cities and metropolitan areas within the three most populous Australian states. Almost half (45%) of ECOs and consultants are undertaking or have completed a higher degree. A large number of advanced trainees (93%) and half of ECOs in this study were concerned about their future career prospects. For these participants, most were satisfied with the supervision they received (60% trainees and 69% ECOs) but only half of these participants (47% trainees and 52% ECOs) received any mentoring in their current or previous role. Compared to trainees and ECOs, consultants reported spending significantly more hours on administration per week; trainees 5.3 hours, ECOs 5.8 hours, consultants 7.5 hours (P <.031) and see a significantly greater number of patients per week; trainees 34 patients, ECOs 34 patients and consultants 49 patients (P <.001). Interpretation: Workforce challenges were unique across different career stages in oncology; trainees, ECOs and consultants. Work intensity, mentorship and career prospects were amongst the emergent issues highlighted in this study

Metabolic information on staging FDG-PET-CT as a prognostic tool in the evaluation of 97 patients with gastric cancer

Background and objective: Gastric cancer remains a leading cause of malignancy-related mortality. Many patients with locally advanced disease succumb despite peri-operative chemotherapy and the survival benefit of chemotherapy for advanced disease is modest, suggesting that current staging is imperfect. The role of fluorine-18-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in the staging of gastric cancer remains to be determined. This study aimed to determine, and compare with computerized tomography (CT), the association between FDG-PET uptake in the primary tumour and regional lymph nodes, and overall survival in patients with all stage gastric cancer. Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed gastric cancer (any stage) who, at diagnosis, had received a staging FDG-PET-CT at our institution between 2006 and 2011 were included. Records were retrospectively analysed. Patients with >50 % of tumour above the gastro-oesophageal junction or an active second malignancy were excluded. Results: 97 patients were included in the analysis. Surgery with curative intent was performed in 68 patients. In univariate analysis, an association with overall survival was seen in patients who had FDG-PET-positive primary tumours (hazard ratio (HR) for death 3.33, 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) 1.63-6.80, p = 0.001). FDG-PET lymph node positive (vs node negativity) was associated with inferior overall survival (HR 8.66, 95 % CI 4.59-16.37, p < 0.0001), and remained an independent predictor in the multivariate analysis. In contrast, positive lymphadenopathy identified on CT was not associated with overall survival (HR 1.34, 95 % CI 0.79-2.29, p = 0.82). Conclusion: FDG-PET-positive tumours are associated with an inferior overall survival. In contrast to CT, FDG-PET-positive lymphadenopathy is associated with a decreased overall survival

A mixed methods analysis of experiences and expectations among early-career medical oncologists in Australia

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd Aim: A viable and sustainable medical oncology profession is integral for meeting the increasing demand for quality cancer care. The aim of this study was to explore the workforce-related experiences, perceptions and career expectations of early-career medical oncologists in Australia. Methods: A mixed-methods design, including a survey (n = 170) and nested qualitative semistructured interviews (n = 14) with early-career medical oncologists. Recruitment was through the Medical Oncology Group of Australia. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed and for the survey results, logistic regression modeling was conducted. Results: Early-career medical oncologists experienced uncertainty regarding their future employment opportunities. The competitive job market has made them cautious about securing a preferred job leading to a perceived need to improve their qualifications through higher degree training and research activities. The following themes and trends were identified from the qualitative and quantitative analyses: age, career stage and associated early-career uncertainty; locale, professional competition and training preferences; participation in research and evolving professional expectations; and workload and career development opportunities as linked to career uncertainty. Conclusion: Perceived diminished employment opportunities in the medical oncology profession, and shifting expectations to be “more qualified,” have increased uncertainty among junior medical oncologists in terms of their future career prospects. Structural factors relating to adequate funding of medical oncology positions may facilitate or inhibit progressive change in the workforce and its sustainability. Workforce planning and strategies informed by findings from this study will be necessary in ensuring that both the needs of cancer patients and of medical oncologists are met

Haematological and nutritional prognostic biomarkers for patients receiving CROSS or FLOT

Background: Neoadjuvant carboplatin and paclitaxel with radiotherapy (CROSS) and perioperative docetaxel, oxaliplatin, calcium folinate and fluorouracil (FLOT) are widely used for gastric (GC), gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) and oesophageal cancers (OC). Prognostic and predictive markers for response and survival outcomes are lacking. This study evaluates dynamic neutrophil-lymphocyte ratios (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratios (PLR), albumin and body mass index (BMI) as predictors of survival, response and toxicity. Methods: This multi-centre retrospective observational study across 5 Sydney hospitals included patients receiving CROSS or FLOT from 2015 to 2021. Haematological results and BMI were recorded at baseline and pre-operatively, and after adjuvant treatment for FLOT. Toxicities were also recorded. An NLR ≥2 and PLR ≥200 was used to stratify patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine predictors of overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), rates of pathological complete response (pCR) and toxicity. Results: One hundred sixty-eight patients were included (95 FLOT, 73 FLOT). A baseline NLR ≥2 was predictive for worse DFS (HR 2.78, 95% CI: 1.41–5.50, P<0.01) and OS (HR 2.90, 95% CI: 1.48–5.67, P<0.01). Sustained elevation in NLR was predictive for DFS (HR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.08–2.17, P=0.01) and OS (HR 1.65, 95% CI: 1.17–2.33, P<0.01). An NLR ≥2 correlated with worse pCR rates (16% for NLR ≥2, 48% for NLR <2, P=0.04). A baseline serum albumin <33 was predictive of worse DFS and OS with a HR of 6.17 (P=0.01) and 4.66 (P=0.01) respectively. Baseline PLR, BMI, and dynamic changes in these markers were not associated with DFS, OS or pCR rates. There was no association of the aforementioned variables with toxicity. Conclusions: This demonstrates that a high inflammatory state represented by an NLR ≥2, both at baseline and sustained, is prognostic and predictive of response in patients receiving FLOT or CROSS. Baseline hypoalbuminaemia is predictive of poorer outcomes

SDH-deficient renal cell carcinoma associated with biallelic mutation in succinate dehydrogenase A: comprehensive genetic profiling and its relation to therapy response

Succinate dehydrogenase (SDH)-deficient renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a rare RCC subtype that is caused by biallelic mutation of one of the four subunits of the SDH complex (SDHA, B, C, and D) and results in inactivation of the SDH enzyme. Here we describe a case of genetically characterized SDH-deficient RCC caused by biallelic (germline plus somatic) SDHA mutations. SDHA pathogenic variants were detected using comprehensive genomic profiling and SDH absence was subsequently confirmed by immunohistochemistry. Very little is known regarding the genomic context of SDH-deficient RCC. Interestingly we found genomic amplifications commonly observed in RCC but there was an absence of additional variants in common cancer driver genes. Prior to genetic testing a PD-1 inhibitor treatment was administered. However, following the genetic results a succession of tyrosine kinase inhibitors were administered as targeted treatment options and we highlight how the genetic results provide a rationale for their effectiveness. We also describe how the genetic results benefited the patient by empowering him to adopt dietary and lifestyle changes in accordance with knowledge of the mechanisms of SDH-related tumorigenesis

Evaluating prognostic factors for sex differences in lung cancer survival : findings from a large Australian cohort

Introduction: Women tend to survive a lung cancer diagnosis longer than men; however potential drivers of this sex-related disparity remain largely elusive. We quantified factors related to sex differences in lung cancer survival in a large prospective cohort in Australia. Methods: Participants in the 45 and Up Study (recruited 2006–2009) diagnosed with incident lung cancer were followed up to December 2015. Prognostic factors were identified from questionnaire data linked with cancer registrations, hospital inpatient records, emergency department records, and reimbursement records for government-subsidized medical services and prescription medicines. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for lung cancer death for men versus women were estimated using Cox proportional hazard regression in relation to key prognostic factors alone and jointly. Results: A total of 488 women and 642 men were diagnosed with having lung cancer. Women survived significantly longer (median 1.28 versus 0.77 y; HR for men = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.25–1.64, p < 0.0001). The survival disparity remained when each subgroup of major prognostic factors was evaluated separately, including histologic subtype, stage at diagnosis, treatment received, and smoking status. Multivariable analyses revealed that treatment-related factors explained half of the survival difference, followed by lifestyle and tumor characteristics (explaining 28%, 26%, respectively). After adjusting for all major known prognostic factors, the excess risk for men was reduced by more than 80% (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.96–1.18, p = 0.26). Conclusions: The sex-related lung cancer survival disparity in this Australian cohort was largely accounted for by known prognostic factors, indicating an opportunity to explore sex differences in treatment preferences, options, and access

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer service delivery: a follow-up international survey of oncology clinicians.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a vast impact on cancer service delivery around the world. Previously reported results from our international survey of oncology clinicians, conducted through March-April 2020, found that clinicians reported altering management in both the curative and palliative settings and not in proportion to the COVID-19 case burden in their region of practice. This follow-up survey, conducted from 27 &lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; September to 7 &lt;sup&gt;th&lt;/sup&gt; November 2020, aimed to explore how attitudes and practices evolved over the 2020 pandemic period. Participants were medical, radiation and surgical oncologist and trainees. Surveys were distributed electronically via ESMO and other collaborating professional societies. Participants were asked to compare their practice prior to the pandemic to both the period of March-April 2020, referred to as the 'early' period, and the current survey period, referred to as the 'later' period. One hundred and seventy-two oncology clinicians completed the survey. The majority of respondents were medical oncologists (n = 136, 79%) and many were from Europe (n = 82, 48%). In the 'early' period, 88% (n = 133) of clinicians reported altering their practice compared to 63% (n = 96) in the 'later' period. Compared to prior to the pandemic, clinicians reported fewer new patient presentations in the 'early' period and a trend towards more patients presenting with advanced disease in the 'later' period. Results indicate a swing back towards pre-COVID-19 practices despite an increase in the rate of cumulative COVID-19 cases across 2020. The impact of these changes on cancer associated morbidity and mortality remains to be measured over the months and years to come