Adaptation of international guidelines on assessment and management of cancer pain for the Australian context

Aim: To develop clinical practice guidelines for screening, assessing and managing cancer pain in Australian adults. Methods: This three phase project utilised the ADAPTE approach to adapt international cancer pain guidelines for the Australian setting. A Working Party was established to define scope, screen guidelines for adaptation, and develop recommendations to support better cancer pain control through screening, assessment, pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, and patient education. Recommendations with limited evidence were referred to Expert Panels for advice before the draft guidelines were opened for public consultation via the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guidelines Wiki platform in late 2012. All comments were reviewed by the Working Party and the guidelines revised accordingly. Results: Screening resulted in six international guidelines being included for adaptation - those developed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (2008), National Health Service Quality Improvement Scotland (2009), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2012), European Society of Medical Oncology (2011), European Association for Palliative Care (2011, 2012) and National Institute of Clinical Excellence (2012). Guideline adaptation resulted in 55 final recommendations. The guidelines were officially launched in November 2013. Conclusion: International guidelines can be efficiently reconfigured for local contexts using the ADAPTE approach. Availability of the guidelines via the Cancer Council Australia Wiki is intended to promote uptake and enable recommendations to be kept up to date. Resources to support implementation will also be made available via the Wiki if found to be effective by a randomised controlled trial commencing in 2015

Protocol for the RT Prepare Trial: a multiple-baseline study of radiation therapists delivering education and support to women with breast cancer who are referred for radiotherapy

Introduction: There is limited evidence to guide the preparation of patients for radiotherapy. This paper describes the protocol for an evaluation of a radiation therapist led education intervention delivered to patients with breast cancer in order to reduce psychological distress. Methods: A multiple-baseline study is being used. Usual care data is being collected prior to the start of the intervention at each of three sites. The intervention is delivered by radiation therapists consulting with patients prior to their treatment planning and on the first day of treatment. The intervention focuses on providing sensory and procedural information to patients and reducing pretreatment anxiety. Recruitment is occurring in three states in Australia. Eligible participants are patients who have been referred for radiotherapy to treat breast cancer. 200 patients will be recruited during a usual care phase and, thereafter, 200 patients in the intervention phase. Measures will be collected on four occasions—after meeting with their radiation oncologist, prior to treatment planning, on the first day of treatment and after treatment completion. The primary hypothesis is that patients who receive the radiotherapy preparatory intervention will report a significantly greater decrease in psychological distress from baseline to prior to radiotherapy treatment planning in comparison with the usual care group. Secondary outcome measures include concerns about radiotherapy, patient knowledge of radiotherapy, patient preparedness and quality of life. Patient health system usage and costs will also be measured. Multilevel mixed effects regression models will be applied to test for intervention effects. Ethics Ethics approval has been gained from Curtin University and the three recruiting sites. Dissemination Results will be reported in international peer reviewed journals. Trial registration number Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registration: ACTRN12611001000998

Women's beliefs about breast cancer causation in a breast cancer case-control study

Objective: Our study sought to ascertain women's beliefs about breast cancer risk factors and whether these beliefs differed by demographic factors and personal and family history of breast cancer. Methods: Participants in a case-control study of breast cancer rated the effect of 37 exposures on the risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer. Chi-square tests were undertaken to measure differences in responses between cases and controls for each exposure. Logistic regression was undertaken to ascertain whether demographic factors and personal and family history of breast cancer affected participants' ability to correctly identify known breast cancer risk factors. Results: A total of 2742 participants completed the questionnaire, comprising 1109 cases and 1633 controls. Significant differences (p<0.05) between cases and controls were found for 16 of the 37 exposures. Younger women and university-educated women were more likely to correctly identify known breast cancer risk factors. Women's perceptions about the effect of alcohol consumption on breast cancer risk, particularly regarding red wine, differed from that reported in the literature. Conclusions: Beliefs about risk factors for breast cancer may differ between cases and controls. Public health initiatives aimed at increasing awareness of breast cancer risk factors should consider that women's beliefs may differ by demographic factors and family history of breast cancer

Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy. Methods Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3). Results Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care. Conclusion Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice

The Improving Rural Cancer Outcomes (IRCO) Trial: A factorial clusterrandomised controlled trial of a complex intervention to reduce time to diagnosis in rural patients with cancer in Western Australia: A study protocol

Introduction: While overall survival for most common cancers in Australia is improving, the rural-urban differential has been widening, with significant excess deaths due to lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancer in regional Australia. Internationally a major focus on understanding variations in cancer outcomes has been later presentation to healthcare and later diagnosis. Approaches to reducing time to diagnosis of symptomatic cancer include public symptom awareness campaigns and interventions in primary care to improve early cancer detection. This paper reports the protocol of a factorial cluster-randomised trial of community and general practice (GP) level interventions to reduce the time to diagnosis of cancer in rural Western Australia (WA). Methods and analysis: The community intervention is a symptom awareness campaign tailored for rural Australians delivered through a community engagement model. The GP intervention includes a resource card with symptom risk assessment charts and local referral pathways implemented through multiple academic detailing visits and case studies. Participants are eligible if recently diagnosed with breast, colorectal, lung or prostate cancer who reside in specific regions of rural WA with a planned sample size of 1350. The primary outcome is the Total Diagnostic Interval, defined as the duration from first symptom (or date of cancer screening test) to cancer diagnosis. Secondary outcomes include cancer stage, healthcare utilisation, disease-free status, survival at 2 and 5 years and cost-effectiveness. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval has been granted by the University of Western Australia and from all relevant hospital recruitment sites in WA. Results: Results of this trial will be reported in peerreviewed publications and in conference presentations. Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12610000872033

Multidisciplinary cancer care in Spain, or when the function creates the organ: qualitative interview study

Background The Spanish National Health System recognised multidisciplinary care as a health priority in 2006, when a national strategy for promoting quality in cancer care was first published. This institutional effort is being implemented on a co-operative basis within the context of Spain's decentralised health care system, so a high degree of variability is to be expected. This study was aimed to explore the views of professionals working with multidisciplinary cancer teams and identify which barriers to effective team work should be considered to ensure implementation of health policy. Methods Qualitative interview study with semi-structured, one-to-one interviews. Data were examined inductively, using content analysis to generate categories and an explanatory framework. 39 professionals performing their tasks, wholly or in part, in different multidisciplinary cancer teams were interviewed. The breakdown of participants' medical specialisations was as follows: medical oncologists (n = 10); radiation oncologists (n = 8); surgeons (n = 7); pathologists or radiologists (n = 6); oncology nurses (n = 5); and others (n = 3). Results Teams could be classified into three models of professional co-operation in multidisciplinary cancer care, namely, advisory committee, formal co-adaptation and integrated care process. The following barriers to implementation were posed: existence of different gateways for the same patient profile; variability in development and use of clinical protocols and guidelines; role of the hospital executive board; outcomes assessment; and the recording and documenting of clinical decisions in a multidisciplinary team setting. All these play a key role in the development of cancer teams and their ability to improve quality of care. Conclusion Cancer team development results from an specific adaptation to the hospital environment. Nevertheless, health policy plays an important role in promoting an organisational approach that changes the way in which professionals develop their clinical practice

Breast cancer screening-opportunistic use of registry and linked screening data for local evaluation

Rationale: Screening has been found to reduce breast cancer mortality at a population level in Australia, but these studies did not address local settings where numbers of deaths would generally have been too low for evaluation. Clinicians, administrators, and consumer groups are also interested in local service outcomes. We therefore use more common prognostic and treatment measures and survivals to gain evidence of screening effects among patients attending 4 local hospitals for treatment. Aims and objectives: To compare prognostic, treatment, and survival measures by screening history to determine whether expected screening effects are occurring. Methods: Employing routine clinical registry and linked screening data to investigate associations of screening history with these measures, using unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Results: Screened women had a 10‐year survival from breast cancer of 92%, compared with 78% for unscreened women; and 79% of screened surgical cases had breast conserving surgery compared with 64% in unscreened women. Unadjusted analyses indicated that recently screened cases had earlier tumor node metastasis stages, smaller diameters, less nodal involvement, better tumor differentiation, more oestrogen and progesterone receptor positive lesions, more hormone therapy, and less chemotherapy. Radiotherapy tended to be more common in screening participants. More frequent use of adjunctive radiotherapy applied when breast conserving surgery was used. Conclusions: Results confirm the screening effects expected from the scientific literature and demonstrate the value of opportunistic use of available registry and linked screening data for indicating to local health administrations, practitioners, and consumers whether local screening services are having the effects expected.David Roder, Gelareh Farshid, Grantley Gill, Jim Kollias, Bogda Koczwara, Chris Karapetis, Jacqui Adams, Rohit Joshi, Dorothy Keefe, Kate Powell, Kellie Fusco, Marion Eckert, Elizabeth Buckley, Kerri Beckman

A multilevel investigation of inequalities in clinical and psychosocial outcomes for women after breast cancer

Background In Australia, breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting Australian women. Inequalities in clinical and psychosocial outcomes have existed for some time, affecting particularly women from rural areas and from areas of disadvantage. We have a limited understanding of how individual and area-level factors are related to each other, and their associations with survival and other clinical and psychosocial outcomes. Methods/Design This study will examine associations between breast cancer recurrence, survival and psychosocial outcomes (e.g. distress, unmet supportive care needs, quality of life). The study will use an innovative multilevel approach using area-level factors simultaneously with detailed individual-level factors to assess the relative importance of remoteness, socioeconomic and demographic factors, diagnostic and treatment pathways and processes, and supportive care utilization to clinical and psychosocial outcomes. The study will use telephone and self-administered questionnaires to collect individual-level data from approximately 3, 300 women ascertained from the Queensland Cancer Registry diagnosed with invasive breast cancer residing in 478 Statistical Local Areas Queensland in 2011 and 2012. Area-level data will be sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics census data. Geo-coding and spatial technology will be used to calculate road travel distances from patients' residence to diagnostic and treatment centres. Data analysis will include a combination of standard empirical procedures and multilevel modelling. Discussion The study will address the critical question of: what are the individual- or area-level factors associated with inequalities in outcomes from breast cancer? The findings will provide health care providers and policy makers with targeted information to improve the management of women with breast cancer, and inform the development of strategies to improve psychosocial care for women with breast cancer