Impact of diabetes on surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer.

PURPOSES: This study aims to examine whether diabetes has an impact on the use of surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy in treating women with localised breast cancer. METHODS: Women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer between 2005 and 2020 were identified from Te Rehita Mate Utaetae-Breast Cancer Foundation New Zealand National Register, with diabetes status determined using New Zealand's Virtual Diabetes Register. The cancer treatments examined included breast conserving surgery (BCS), mastectomy, breast reconstruction after mastectomy, and adjuvant radiotherapy after BCS. Logistic regression modelling was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of having cancer treatment and treatment delay (> 31 days) for patients with diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis compared to patients without diabetes. RESULTS: We identified 25,557 women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in 2005-2020, including 2906 (11.4%) with diabetes. After adjustment for other factors, there was no significant difference overall in risk of women with diabetes having no surgery (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.94-1.33), although for patients with stage I disease not having surgery was more likely (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05-2.00) in the diabetes group. Patients with diabetes were more likely to have their surgery delayed (adjusted OR of 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.27) and less likely to have reconstruction after mastectomy compared to the non-diabetes group-adjusted OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.35-0.84) for stage I cancer, 0.50 (95% CI 0.34-0.75) for stage II and 0.48 (95% CI 0.24-1.00) for stage III cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is associated with a lower likelihood of receiving surgery and a greater delay to surgery. Women with diabetes are also less likely to have breast reconstruction after mastectomy. These differences need to be taken in to account when considering factors that may impact on the outcomes of women with diabetes especially for Maori, Pacific and Asian women.

Disparities in post-operative mortality between Maori and non-Indigenous ethnic groups in New Zealand.

AIM: To describe disparities in post-operative mortality experienced by Indigenous Maori compared to non-Indigenous New Zealanders. METHODS: We completed a national study of all those undergoing a surgical procedure between 2005 and 2017 in New Zealand. We examined 30-day and 90-day post-operative mortality for all surgical specialties and by common procedures. We compared age-standardised rates between ethnic groups (Maori, Pacific, Asian, European, MELAA/Other) and calculated hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox proportional hazards regression modelling adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, rurality, comorbidity, ASA score, anaesthetic type, procedure risk and procedure specialty. RESULTS: From nearly 3.9 million surgical procedures (876,976 acute, 2,990,726 elective/waiting list), we observed ethnic disparities in post-operative mortality across procedures, with the largest disparities occurring between Maori and Europeans. Maori had higher rates of 30- and 90-day post-operative mortality across most broad procedure categories, with the disparity between Maori and Europeans strongest for elective/waiting list procedures (eg, elective/waiting list musculoskeletal procedures, 30-day mortality: adj. HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.56-2.39). CONCLUSIONS: The disparities we observed are likely driven by a combination of healthcare system, process and clinical team factors, and we have presented the key mechanisms within these factors.

Pill for this and a pill for that: A cross-sectional survey of use and understanding of medication among adults with multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the challenges managing medication use and knowledge of people living with multimorbidity. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 234 adults with multimorbidity, identified using retrospective hospital discharge data. Participants were recruited from two primary health organisations in New Zealand. RESULTS: Three quarters of participants (75%) were prescribed four or more medications, and one in four (27%) were prescribed eight or more medications. Participants reported knowing what their medications were for (88%, 95% CI 81.4-93.8) and when to take them (99%, 95% CI 97.5-99.9). However, over a fifth (22%, 95% CI 13.7-30.4) reported some problems managing multiple medications, and 40% (95% CI 30.2-50.2) reported a problem with side effects. CONCLUSION: The results highlight the need to consider how prescribing can be adapted for people with multimorbidity and move beyond the application of multiple disease-specific guidelines.

Dissonant roles: The experience of Maori in cancer care.

Indigenous peoples have poorer health outcomes than their non-indigenous counterparts and this applies to cancer outcomes for Maori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Differential access to and quality of healthcare contributes to poorer survival rates for Maori. This research provides insight into some of the mechanisms that hinder and facilitate care access. Thirty four people who had undergone cancer treatment (19 Maori and 15 non-Maori) were interviewed by two Maori researchers. The analysis of the interview transcripts was informed by membership categorization analysis. This form of analysis attends to the categories that are used and the activities and characteristics associated with those categories. From this analysis it is argued that the classical patient role, or sick role, inadequately captures the kind of role that some Maori take in relation to their healthcare. Maori can also have culturally specific family (whanau) influences and a greater draw towards alternative approaches to healthcare. Dissonant roles contribute to a different experience for Maori. A better understanding of the categories and roles that are relevant to those who have cancer provides opportunities to attenuate the monocultural impacts of healthcare.

Cancer care decision making in multidisciplinary meetings.

Little research has been undertaken on the actual decision-making processes in cancer care multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs). This article was based on a qualitative observational study of two regional cancer treatment centers in New Zealand. We audiorecorded 10 meetings in which 106 patient cases were discussed. Members of the meetings categorized cases in varying ways, drew on a range of sources of authority, expressed different value positions, and utilized a variety of strategies to justify their actions. An important dimension of authority was encountered authority-the authority a clinician has because of meeting the patient. The MDM chairperson can play an important role in making explicit the sources of authority being drawn on and the value positions of members to provide more clarity to the decision-making process. Attending to issues of process, authority, and values in MDMs has the potential to improve cancer care decision making and ultimately, health outcomes.