Cancer Australia consensus statement on COVID-19 and cancer care: embedding high value changes in practice.

INTRODUCTION: Driven by the need to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and optimise use of health system resources, while maximising patient outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented changes in cancer care. Some new or modified health care practices adopted during the pandemic will be of long term value in improving the quality and resilience of cancer care in Australia and internationally. The Cancer Australia consensus statement is intended to guide and enhance the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic and in a post-pandemic environment. This article summarises the full statement, which is available at https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/covid-19/covid-19-recovery-implications-cancer-care. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The statement is informed by a desktop literature review and input from cancer experts and consumers at a virtual roundtable, held in July 2020, on key elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. It describes targeted strategies (at system, service, practitioner and patient levels) to retain, enhance and embed high value changes in practice. Principal strategies include: implementing innovative models of care that are digitally enabled and underpinned by clear governance, policies and procedures to guide best practice cancer care; enabling health professionals to deliver evidence-based best practice and coordinated, person-centred cancer care; and empowering patients to improve health literacy and enhancing their ability to engage in informed, shared decision making. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Widespread adoption of high value health care practices across all levels of the cancer control sector will be of considerable benefit to the delivery of optimal cancer care into the future.

Quality of online self-management resources for adults living with primary brain cancer, and their carers: a systematic environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: A primary brain cancer diagnosis is a distressing, life changing event. It adversely affects the quality of life for the person living with brain cancer and their families ('carers'). Timely access to evidence-based information is critical to enabling people living with brain cancer, and their carers, to self-manage the devastating impacts of this disease. METHOD: A systematic environmental scan of web-based resources. A depersonalised search for online English-language resources published from 2009 to December 2019 and designed for adults (> 25 years of age), living with primary brain cancer, was undertaken using the Google search engine. The online information was classified according to: 1) the step on the cancer care continuum; 2) self-management domains (PRISMS taxonomy); 3) basic information disclosure (Silberg criteria); 4) independent quality verification (HonCode); 5) reliability of disease and treatment information (DISCERN Sections 1 and 2); and readability (Flesch-Kincaid reading grade). RESULTS: A total of 119 online resources were identified, most originating in England (n = 49); Australia (n = 27); or the USA (n = 27). The majority of resources related to active treatment (n = 76), without addressing recurrence (n = 3), survivorship (n = 1) or palliative care needs (n = 13). Few online resources directly provided self-management advice for adults living with brain cancer or their carers. Just over a fifth (n = 26, 22%) were underpinned by verifiable evidence. Only one quarter of organisations producing resources were HonCode certified (n = 9, 24%). The median resource reliability as measured by Section 1, DISCERN tool, was 56%. A median of 8.8 years of education was required to understand these online resources. CONCLUSIONS: More targeted online information is needed to provide people affected by brain cancer with practical self-management advice. Resources need to better address patient and carer needs related to: rehabilitation, managing behavioural changes, survivorship and living with uncertainty; recurrence; and transition to palliative care. Developing online resources that don't require a high level of literacy and/or cognition are also required.

Patients' experience of lung cancer care coordination: a quantitative exploration.

PURPOSE: Improving the coordination of care for people with lung cancer is a health priority. This study aimed to tailor an existing care coordination survey for a lung cancer population, investigate coordination experiences for patients who had received hospital-based treatment and identify any factors that may be associated with poor care coordination. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of lung patients within two tertiary hospitals in Sydney, Australia. The Cancer Care Coordination Questionnaire for Patients (CCCQ-P) is a psychometrically valid and reliable survey originally developed for colorectal cancer. We pilot tested a survey adaptation with lung cancer patients, support group members and medical specialists (n = 49). A revised survey was mailed to eligible patients via their medical specialist. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 118 eligible participants (45%) completed the CCCQ-P; most had early-stage disease and were about 70 years old. Overall, participants reported positive experiences of care coordination (mean total score 78.1), with high scores on communication and navigation subscales. The most problematic areas related to administrative aspects of care coordination and communication and information provision. Two patient groups (those residing in regional and rural areas, or no experience with the health system prior to diagnosis) reported significantly lower scores on the navigation subscale. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that lung cancer patients' experience of care coordination was positive, but highlighted the need for strategies to assist patients living in rural areas, and those with no experience of the health care system. The CCCQ-P survey instrument can be used in future lung cancer studies.

Conceptual Framework for Cancer Care During a Pandemic Incorporating Evidence From the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: With successive infection waves and the spread of more infectious variants, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have major impacts on health care. To achieve best outcomes for patients with cancer during a pandemic, efforts to minimize the increased risk of severe pandemic infection must be carefully balanced against unintended adverse impacts of the pandemic on cancer care, with consideration to available health system capacity. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework for cancer care during a pandemic provides a planning resource for health services and policy-makers that can be broadly applied globally and to similar pandemics. METHODS: Evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care and health system capacity to June 2021 was reviewed, and the conceptual framework was developed and updated. RESULTS: Components of health system capacity vary during a pandemic, and capacity relative to pandemic numbers and severity affects resources available for cancer care delivery. The challenges of successive pandemic waves and high numbers of pandemic cases necessitate consideration of changing health system capacity in decision making about cancer care. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework provides guidance on continuation of care across the cancer pathway, in the face of challenges to health systems, while minimizing infection risk for patients with cancer and unintended consequences of delays in screening, diagnosis, and cancer treatment and backlogs because of service interruption. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic supports continuation of cancer care wherever possible during similar pandemics. Cancer Australia's conceptual framework, underpinned by principles for optimal cancer care, informs decision making across the cancer care continuum. It incorporates consideration of changes in health system capacity and capacity for cancer care, in relation to pandemic progression, enabling broad applicability to different global settings.

Implementation of a lung cancer multidisciplinary team standardised template for reporting to general practitioners: a mixed-method study.

OBJECTIVES: Few interventions have been designed that provide standardised information to primary care clinicians about the diagnostic and treatment recommendations resulting from cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) (tumour board) meetings. This study aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a standardised template for lung cancer MDTs to provide clinical information and treatment recommendations to general practitioners (GPs). Specific objectives were to (1) evaluate template feasibility (acceptability, appropriateness and timeliness) with GPs and (2) document processes of preimplementation, implementation and evaluation within the MDT setting. DESIGN: A mixed-method study design using structured interviews with GPs and qualitative documentation of project logs about implementation processes. SETTING: Two hospitals in Central Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 61 GPs evaluated the template. Two lung cancer MDTs, consisting of 33 clinicians, and eight researchers participated in template development and implementation strategy. RESULTS: The MDT-reporting template appears to be a feasible way of providing clinical information to GPs following patient presentation at a lung cancer MDT meeting. Ninety-five per cent of GPs strongly agreed or agreed that the standardised template provided useful and relevant information, that it was received in a timely manner (90%) and that the information was easy to interpret and communicate to the patient (84%). Implementation process data show that the investment made in the preimplementation stage to integrate the template into standard work practices was a critical factor in successful implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that it is feasible to provide lung cancer MDT treatment recommendations to GPs through implementation of a standardised template. A simple intervention, such as a standardised template, can help to address quality gaps and ensure that timely information is communicated between tertiary and primary care healthcare providers.

Cancer control policy in Australia.

Australia has an evolving national cancer control agenda. In this paper, we review the history and development of cancer control policies in Australia up to the end of 2005, and discuss the principal publications produced by both government and non-government groups which have given rise to cancer control recommendations, goals and targets. These cancer control plans have arisen in response to the impact of cancer on the Australian community and in recognition of the health gains that can be made through effective cancer control. They have been developed either in the context of a broader framework of health policy or as specific endeavours in regard to cancer. The specific recommendations and strategies proposed have focused on reducing the impact of cancer in the Australian population. Most commonly, recommendations, goals, and targets within the cancer control plans have addressed points along the continuum of care, specific cancers, and frameworks and processes. The strength of these reports is their comprehensive approach in identifying priority cancers and areas where specific developments should impact on morbidity and mortality. In the future, cancer control plans should be better supported by economic evaluations, and greater financial support for implementation and regular assessment is needed to identify progress on cancer outcomes. The more recent national and State cancer control plans include the development of frameworks to foster a coordinated and cohesive approach to the delivery of cancer care. These plans represent important reforms in cancer care in Australia, and have the potential to reduce the impact of cancer on the community and improve health outcomes.

Screening for ovarian cancer.

Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynaecological malignancies. No precancerous lesions have been identified. Bimanual examination has not been proven to be of value as a screening test. Transvaginal ultrasound examination, with or without measurement of CA 125 levels, is currently being evaluated for population screening. Women at high risk of ovarian cancer should be screened annually - with measurement of CA 125 level and transvaginal ultrasound examination.

Whole-body computed tomography screening: looking for trouble?

The benefits of whole-body CT screening need to be carefully weighed against the risks.