Development of South Australian-Victorian Prostate Cancer Health Outcomes Research Dataset

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed and prevalent malignancy reported to Australian cancer registries, with numerous studies from single institutions summarizing patient outcomes at individual hospitals or States. In order to provide an overview of patterns of care of men with prostate cancer across multiple institutions in Australia, a specialized dataset was developed. This dataset, containing amalgamated data from South Australian and Victorian prostate cancer registries, is called the South Australian-Victorian Prostate Cancer Health Outcomes Research Dataset (SA-VIC PCHORD). RESULTS: A total of 13,598 de-identified records of men with prostate cancer diagnosed and consented between 2008 and 2013 in South Australia and Victoria were merged into the SA-VIC PCHORD. SA-VIC PCHORD contains detailed information about socio-demographic, diagnostic and treatment characteristics of patients with prostate cancer in South Australia and Victoria. Data from individual registries are available to researchers and can be accessed under individual data access policies in each State. CONCLUSIONS: The SA-VIC PCHORD will be used for numerous studies summarizing trends in diagnostic characteristics, survival and patterns of care in men with prostate cancer in Victoria and South Australia. It is expected that in the future the SA-VIC PCHORD will become a principal component of the recently developed bi-national Australian and New Zealand Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry to collect and report patterns of care and standardised patient reported outcome measures of men nation-wide in Australia and New Zealand

The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab when added to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin-C, in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Australasian phase III MAX study

Background: Based on the clinical data, bevacizumab has been approved in Australia and globally for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. However, limited evidence exists for its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, using data from the prospective economic evaluation conducted alongside the MAX trial. Methods: Individual patient level data on resource use and progression free survival were prospectively collected in the phase III MAX trial. Resource use data were collected for the period between randomisation and disease progression, and unit costs were assigned from the perspective of the Australian health care funder. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted progression free survival years, with utility scores obtained from both the community valued EQ-5D questionnaire and the patient valued UBQ-C questionnaire. Progression free survival was used as a secondary effectiveness measure. Results: The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy cost approximately $192,156 (95$135,619 to $326,894) per quality adjusted progression free survival year gained when using publicly listed pharmaceutical prices and utility values from the EQ-5D questionnaire. This decreased to$149,455 (95% CI, $100,356 to$245,910) when values from the UBQ-C questionnaire were applied. The incremental cost per progression free survival year was $145,059 (95$106,703 to $233,225). Conclusions: Bevacizumab was not found to be cost effective at its listed price, based on results from the MAX trial.Roche Products Pty Lt

The cost effectiveness of bevacizumab when added to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin-C, in first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Australasian phase III MAX study

Background: Based on the clinical data, bevacizumab has been approved in Australia and globally for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. However, limited evidence exists for its cost-effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of adding bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, using data from the prospective economic evaluation conducted alongside the MAX trial. Methods: Individual patient level data on resource use and progression free survival were prospectively collected in the phase III MAX trial. Resource use data were collected for the period between randomisation and disease progression, and unit costs were assigned from the perspective of the Australian health care funder. Effectiveness was measured in quality adjusted progression free survival years, with utility scores obtained from both the community valued EQ-5D questionnaire and the patient valued UBQ-C questionnaire. Progression free survival was used as a secondary effectiveness measure. Results: The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine monotherapy cost approximately $192,156 (95$135,619 to $326,894) per quality adjusted progression free survival year gained when using publicly listed pharmaceutical prices and utility values from the EQ-5D questionnaire. This decreased to$149,455 (95% CI, $100,356 to$245,910) when values from the UBQ-C questionnaire were applied. The incremental cost per progression free survival year was $145,059 (95$106,703 to $233,225). Conclusions: Bevacizumab was not found to be cost effective at its listed price, based on results from the MAX trial.Roche Products Pty Lt

Irinotecan or FOLFIRI for 2nd line colorectal

Background Second-line treatment with irinotecan for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs survival. It is uncertain whether irinotecan is better administered with 5- fluorouracil or alone in patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine. We compared toxicity (particularly diarrhoea), quality of life, and efficacy of combination chemotherapy and irinotecan in these patients. Methods In DaVINCI, a randomised phase II trial, patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly allocated to: combination therapy (FOLFIRI), irinotecan (180 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, day 1), 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2 IV bolus and 2400 mg/m2 by 46-hour infusion from day 1) and folinic acid (20 mg/m2 IV bolus, day 1), 2-weekly; or single-agent, irinotecan (350 mg/m2 IV over 90 min), 3-weekly. Toxicity was evaluated every treatment cycle; QOL and response 6 weekly. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results were also combined with those of other trials. Findings We randomised 44 patients to combination and 45 to single-agent. The most common toxicity was complete alopecia (single-agent 37%, combination 14%, P<0.02). Eight patients in the irinotecan arm and 4 in the combination arm had grade 3–4 diarrhoea (P=0.24). The treatment groups did not differ significantly in overall QOL changes, response rate, or progression free or overall survival. In a systematic review of 29 trials of second-line irinotecan-based treatment, single-agent irinotecan was associated with more diarrhoea and alopecia than the combination, but efficacy was similar. Interpretation Combination treatment compared with single-agent irinotecan appears to reduce the rateof complete alopecia and diarrhoea without compromising efficacy on clinical outcomes.Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Grou

Determination of "borderline resectable" pancreatic cancer - A global assessment of 30 shades of grey.

BackgroundPancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis. Accurate preoperative assessment using computed tomography (CT) to determine resectability is crucial in ensuring patients are offered the most appropriate therapeutic strategy. Despite the use of classification guidelines, any interobserver variability between reviewing surgeons and radiologists may confound decisions influencing patient treatment pathways.MethodsIn this multicentre observational study, an international group of 96 clinicians (42 hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons and 54 radiologists) were surveyed and asked to report 30 pancreatic CT scans of pancreatic cancer deemed borderline at respective multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). The degree of interobserver agreement in resectability among radiologists and surgeons was assessed and subgroup regression analysis was performed.ResultsInterobserver variability between reviewers was high with no unanimous agreement. Overall interobserver agreement was fair with a kappa value of 0.32 with a higher rate of agreement among radiologists over surgeons.ConclusionInterobserver variability among radiologists and surgeons globally is high, calling into question the consistency of clinical decision making for patients with PDAC and suggesting that central review may be required for studies of neoadjuvant or adjuvant approaches in future as well as ongoing quality control initiatives, even amongst experts in the field

Effect of aspirin on cancer incidence and mortality in older adults.

BACKGROUND: ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE), a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) in older adults, showed an increase in all-cause mortality, primarily due to cancer. In contrast prior RCTs, mainly involving younger individuals, demonstrated a delayed cancer benefit with aspirin. We now report a detailed analysis of cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: 19,114 Australian and U.S. community-dwelling participants aged 70+ years (U.S. minorities 65+ years) without cardiovascular disease, dementia or physical disability were randomized and followed for a median of 4.7 years. Fatal and non-fatal cancer events, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were adjudicated based on clinical records. RESULTS: 981 cancer events occurred in the aspirin and 952 in the placebo groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for all incident cancers (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.14), hematological cancer (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.73 to 1.30), or all solid cancers (HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.95 to 1.15), including by specific tumor type. However, aspirin was associated with an increased risk of incident cancer that had metastasized (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.43) or was stage 4 at diagnosis (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.45), and with higher risk of death for cancers that presented at stages 3 (HR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.03 to 4.33) or 4 (HR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: In older adults, aspirin treatment had an adverse effect on later stages of cancer evolution. These findings suggest that in older persons, aspirin may accelerate the progression of cancer and thus, suggest caution with its use in this age group

Monitoring quality of care in hepatocellular carcinoma: A modified delphi consensus

Although there are several established international guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), there is limited information detailing specific indicators of good quality care. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of quality indicators (QIs) to underpin the management of HCC. We undertook a modified, two-round, Delphi consensus study comprising a working group and experts involved in the management of HCC as well as consumer representatives. QIs were derived from an extensive review of the literature. The role of the participants was to identify the most important and measurable QIs for inclusion in an HCC clinical quality registry. From an initial 94 QIs, 40 were proposed to the participants. Of these, 23 QIs ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final set. This included (a) nine related to the initial diagnosis and staging, including timing to diagnosis, required baseline clinical and laboratory assessments, prior surveillance for HCC, diagnostic imaging and pathology, tumor staging, and multidisciplinary care; (b) thirteen related to treatment and management, including role of antiviral therapy, timing to treatment, localized ablation and locoregional therapy, surgery, transplantation, systemic therapy, method of response assessment, and supportive care; and (c) one outcome assessment related to surgical mortality. Conclusion: We identified a core set of nationally agreed measurable QIs for the diagnosis, staging, and management of HCC. The adherence to these best practice QIs may lead to system-level improvement in quality of care and, ultimately, improvement in patient outcomes, including survival

Clinical issues in euthanasia. by John R. Zalcberg and John D. Buchanan

We consider the euthanasia debate from the perspective of the clinical interface between doctors, patients and their families - a perspective that is lacking in much public discussion of euthanasia

Current and emerging strategies for the management of imatinib-refractory advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Since its approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in February 2002, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor, imatinib, has become the standard of care for patients with metastatic or unresectable KIT-positive gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Imatinib functions by blocking the adenosine triphosphate binding site of the constitutively activated mutant KIT or platelet-derived growth factor receptor α, effectively shutting down the oncogenic signal that drives up to 90% of these tumors. In doing so, it has transformed the management of a condition previously refractory to systemic treatments and established GIST as a model for the use of targeted therapies and oncogene addiction in solid tumors. However, while more than 80% of patients will receive clinical benefit from imatinib monotherapy, more than half will develop progressive disease by 2 years. In this article we review the mechanism and patterns of imatinib resistance in GIST; attempt to offer a practical schema for managing imatinib-refractory patients; and lastly, offer some insight as to future directions and emerging therapeutics for the management of this highly interesting and challenging disease