An empirical study of tissue banking in Australia: Navigating regulatory and ethical challenges

Collections of tumour samples can be an invaluable resource for medical research. There are, however, numerous ethical and legal challenges associated with tumour banking. While there has been extensive discussion of these issues in the legal and ethical literature, there are few available empirical data in relation to the activities of tumour banks in Australia, their practices around ethically charged issues, and their success in implementing complex regulatory guidelines. The aim of this study was to gain more information about the activities of tumour banks in New South Wales, Australia, with a particular focus on their management of, and attitudes towards, ethical and regulatory issues. A survey of 27 tumour collection and research facilities was conducted using a 55-item questionnaire. There is significant heterogeneity of research methodologies as well as of methods for gaining consent and ensuring donor privacy, and there is general concern among the research community about ethical and regulatory issues related to tumour banking. Heterogeneity of practice and uncertainty about ethical and regulatory requirements is problematic in its potential to hinder research and its potential to generate the space for unethical practice, whether intentional or unintentional. There is a pressing need to address these issues so that tumour banks can be used in the most ethical and efficient way possible

A self administered reliable questionnaire to assess lower bowel symptoms

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bowel symptoms are considered indicators of the presence of colorectal cancer and other bowel diseases. Self administered questionnaires that elicit information about lower bowel symptoms have not been assessed for reliability, although this has been done for upper bowel symptoms. Our aim was to develop a self administered questionnaire for eliciting the presence, nature and severity of lower bowel symptoms potentially related to colorectal cancer, and assess its reliability.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Immediately before consulting a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon, 263 patients likely to have a colonoscopy completed the questionnaire. Reliability was assessed in two ways: by assessing agreement between patient responses and (a) responses given by the doctor at the consultation; and (b) responses given by patients two weeks later.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was more than 75% agreement for 78% of the questions for the patient-doctor comparison and for 92% of the questions for the patient-patient comparison. Agreement for the length of time a symptom was present, its severity, duration, frequency of occurrence and whether or not medical consultation had been sought, all had agreement of greater than 70%. Over all questions, the chance corrected agreement for the patient-doctor comparison had a median kappa of 65% (which represents substantial agreement), interquartile range 57–72%. The patient-patient comparison also showed substantial agreement with a median kappa of 75%, interquartile range 68–81%.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This self administered questionnaire about lower bowel symptoms is a useful way of eliciting details of bowel symptoms. It is a reliable instrument that is acceptable to patients and easily completed. Its use could guide the clinical consultation, allowing a more efficient, comprehensive and useful interaction, ensuring that all symptoms are assessed. It will also be a useful tool in research studies on bowel symptoms and their predictive value for colorectal cancer and other diseases. Studies assessing whether bowel symptoms predict the presence of colorectal cancer should provide estimates of the reliability of the symptom elicitation.</p

Surgical outcomes for colon and rectal cancer over a decade: results from a consecutive monocentric experience in 902 unselected patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study evaluates the surgical morbidity and long-term outcome of colorectal cancer surgery in an unselected group of patients treated over the period 1994–2003.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A consecutive series of 902 primary colorectal cancer patients (489 M, 413 F; mean age: 63 years ± 11 years, range: 24–88 years) was evaluated and prospectively followed in a university hospital (mean follow-up 36 ± 24 months; range: 3–108 months). Perioperative mortality, morbidity, overall survival, curative resection rates, recurrence rates were analysed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the total, 476 colorectal cancers were localized to the colon (CC, 53%), 406 to the rectum (RC, 45%), 12 (1%) were multicentric, and 8 were identified as part of HNPCC (1%). Combining all tumours, there were 186 cancers (20.6%) defined as UICC stage I, 235 (26.1%) stage II, 270 (29.9%) stage III and 187 (20.6%) stage IV cases. Twenty-four (2.7%) cases were of undetermined stage. Postoperative complications occurred in 38% of the total group (37.8% of CC cases, 37.2% of the RC group, 66.7% of the synchronous cancer patients and 50% of those with HNPCC, p = 0.19) Mortality rate was 0.8%, (1.3% for colon cancer, 0% for rectal cancer; p = 0.023). Multivisceral resection was performed in 14.3% of cases. Disease-free survival in cases resected for cure was 73% at 5-years and 72% at 8 years. The 5- and 8-year overall survival rates were 71% and 61% respectively (total cases). At 5-year analysis, overall survival rates are 97% for stage I disease, 87% for stage II, 73% for stage III and 22% for stage IV respectively (p < 0.0001). The 5-year overall survival rates showed a marked difference in R0, R1+R2 and non resected patients (82%, 35% and 0% respectively, p < 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, resection for cure and stage at presentation but not tumour site (colon vs. rectum) were independent variables for overall survival (p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A prospective, uniform follow-up policy used in a single institution over the last decade provides evidence of quality assurance in colorectal cancer surgery with high rates of resection for cure where only stage at presentation functions as an independent variable for cancer-related outcome.</p

Trans-anal total mesorectal excision : reflections on the introduction of a new procedure

Introduction: The introduction of novel surgical techniques in the hope of improving overall patient care is currently under increasing scrutiny, for whilst such techniques may appear to lead towards greater efficacy they may also introduce a range of complications not normally associated with standard care. In Australia, there are clear guidelines to ensure that new operations or technologies are introduced safely into surgical practice. These are embodied in the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons ASERNIP-S programme and follow the UK IDEAL Collaboration recommendations. The guidelines are applicable to the procedure of transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) which was introduced in 2010 as a means of facilitating laparoscopic dissection of low rectal cancers