Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for unilateral breast cancer in women at average risk: Systematic review of patient reported outcomes

Objective: The rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) in women with early, unilateral cancer is relatively high and is increasing around the world a previous study. Women choose this option for many reasons other than reducing their risk of future cancer, including symmetry, reasons related to breast reconstruction and attempting to manage fear of recurrence. This systematic review evaluated patient‐reported quality of life outcomes following CPM. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE, PubMed and PsycINFO was performed to February 2019. Abstracts and full‐text articles were assessed for eligibility according to pre‐determined criteria. Data were extracted into evidence tables for analysis. Results: A total of 19 articles met eligibility criteria and were included in analysis. These included patient‐reported data from 6088 women undergoing CPM. They reported high levels of satisfaction with the decision for surgery, low levels of decisional regret and high satisfaction with cosmesis and reconstruction. Breast‐specific and general quality of life was high overall but was even better in women choosing breast reconstruction after surgery. Fear of cancer recurrence was high after CPM. Depression, distress and a negative impact on body image were evident; however, levels were high in both CPM and non‐CPM groups. Conclusions: This study provides information that can be used by surgeons and psychologists when counselling women about the potential benefits and harms of CPM. This process must include discussion about the trade‐offs such as body image issues and ongoing fear of recurrence in addition to the positive aspect of cancer risk reduction. Women are unlikely to regret their decision for CPM

Half a Century of Wilson & Jungner: Reflections on the Governance of Population Screening.

Background: In their landmark report on the "Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease" (1968), Wilson and Jungner noted that the practice of screening is just as important for securing beneficial outcomes and avoiding harms as the formulation of principles. Many jurisdictions have since established various kinds of "screening governance organizations" to provide oversight of screening practice. Yet to date there has been relatively little reflection on the nature and organization of screening governance itself, or on how different governance arrangements affect the way screening is implemented and perceived and the balance of benefits and harms it delivers. Methods: An international expert policy workshop convened by Sturdy, Miller and Hogarth. Results: While effective governance is essential to promote beneficial screening practices and avoid attendant harms, screening governance organizations face enduring challenges. These challenges are social and ethical as much as technical. Evidence-based adjudication of the benefits and harms of population screening must take account of factors that inform the production and interpretation of evidence, including the divergent professional, financial and personal commitments of stakeholders. Similarly, when planning and overseeing organized screening programs, screening governance organizations must persuade or compel multiple stakeholders to work together to a common end. Screening governance organizations in different jurisdictions vary widely in how they are constituted, how they relate to other interested organizations and actors, and what powers and authority they wield. Yet we know little about how these differences affect the way screening is implemented, and with what consequences. Conclusions: Systematic research into how screening governance is organized in different jurisdictions would facilitate policy learning to address enduring challenges. Even without such research, informal exchange and sharing of experiences between screening governance organizations can deliver invaluable insights into the social as well as the technical aspects of governance

From little things, big things grow: a local approach to system-wide maternity services reform in the absence of definitive evidence

For nearly two decades calls have been made to expand the role of midwives within maternity services in Australia. Although some progress has been made, it has been slow and, at system-wide level, limited. There are many barriers that prevent the expansion of midwifery-led services in Australia including funding arrangements for midwifery care, a lack of political will and resistance from powerful medical interest groups. The ongoing debate that exists about the evidence for the safety of midwifery-led care, particularly for the intrapartum phase, is likely to be an important reason why policy-makers are reluctant to implement system-wide reforms of maternity services

General practitioners are key to increasing Australia’s low rate of breast reconstruction

In Australia, the rate of breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer has unacceptable variation between socioeconomically and geographically similar areas. While some centres offer a full range of options and contemporary best practice, others do not give women information about options that should be available for all. General practitioners (GPs) have a key role to play by ensuring their patients have the opportunity for an informed discussion with multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) that offer choice

Fifteen years of bowel cancer screening policy in Australia: putting evidence into practice?

Bowel cancer kills over 4000 Australians each year. From the late 1980s to October 2005, research evidence guided the development of bowel cancer screening policy proposals, but political, financial and institutional constraints restricted implementation options. Since 2006, the Australian Government has provided a limited bowel cancer screening program, based on what the government deems it can afford, rather than on evidence of what is required to implement a successful population-based screening program. Even a partial program can be implemented in an evidence-based way, and failure to do so threatens to undermine the potential public health gains of a national bowel cancer screening program. To realise the expected public health gains from a national bowel cancer screening program, bowel cancer screening policy should return to its evidence-based beginnings, starting with an analysis of Australian age-specific cost-effectiveness data

A comparative case study of bowel cancer screening in the UK and Australia: Evidence lost in translation?

Objectives (i) To document the current state of the English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and Australian bowel cancer screening programmes, according to seven key characteristics, and (ii) to explore the policy trade-offs resulting from inadequate funding. Setting United Kingdom and Australia. Methods A comparative case study design using document and key informant interview analysis. Data were collated for each national jurisdiction on seven key programme characteristics: screening frequency, population coverage, quality of test, programme model, quality of follow-up, quality of colonoscopy and quality of data collection. A list of optimal features for each of the seven characteristics was compiled, based on the FOBT screening literature and our detailed examination of each programme. Results Each country made different implementation choices or trade-offs intended to conserve costs and/or manage limited and expensive resources. The overall outcome of these trade-offs was probable lower programme effectiveness as a result of compromises such as reduced screening frequency, restricted target age range, the use of less accurate tests, the deliberate setting of low programme positivity rates or increased inconvenience to participants from re-testing. Conclusions Insufficient funding has forced programme administrators to make trade-offs that may undermine the potential net population benefits achieved in randomized controlled trials. Such policy compromise contravenes the principle of evidence-based practice which is dependent on adequate funding being made available