Australia and New Zealand's responsibilities in improving oncology services in the Asia-Pacific: A call to action.

AIM: To review the expected increasing demand for cancer services among low and middle-income countries (LMICs) in the Asia-Pacific (APAC), and to describe ways in which Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) can provide support to improve cancer outcomes in our region. METHODS: We first review the current and projected incidence of cancer within the APAC between 2018 and 2040, and the estimated demand for chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. We then explore potential ways in which ANZ can increase regional collaborations to improve cancer outcomes. RESULTS: We identify 6 ways that ANZ can collaborate with LMICs to improve cancer care in the APAC through the ANZ Regional Oncology Collaboration Strategy: Increasing education and institutional collaborations in the APAC region through in-country training, twinning partnerships, observerships and formalised training programs in order to increase cancer care quality and capacity. Promoting and assisting in the establishment and maintenance of population-based cancer registries in LMICs. Increasing research capacity in LMICs through collaboration and promoting high quality global oncology research within ANZ. Engaging and training Australian and New Zealand clinicians in global oncology, increasing awareness of this important career path, and increasing health policy engagement. Increasing web-based endeavours through virtual tumour boards, web-based advocacy platforms and web-based teaching programs. Continuing to leverage for funding through professional bodies, government, industry, not-for-profit organisations and local hospital funds. CONCLUSION: We propose the creation of an Australian and New Zealand Interest Group to provide formalised and sustained collaboration between researchers, clinicians and stakeholders.

Palliative chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for dysphagia in advanced oesophageal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (TROG 03.01).

BACKGROUND: A short course of radiotherapy is commonly prescribed for palliative relief of malignant dysphagia in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer. We compared chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for dysphagia relief in the palliative setting. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer who were randomly assigned (1:1) through a computer-generated adaptive biased coin design to either palliative chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for treatment of malignant dysphagia at 22 hospitals in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven oesophageal cancer that was unsuitable for curative treatment, symptomatic dysphagia, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate haematological and renal function. Patients were stratified by hospital, dysphagia score (Mellow scale 1-4), and presence of metastases. The radiotherapy dose was 35 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for patients in Australia and New Zealand and 30 Gy in ten fractions over 2 weeks for patients in Canada and the UK. Chemotherapy consisted of one cycle of intravenous cisplatin (either 80 mg/m2 on day 1 or 20 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy at clinician's discretion) and intravenous fluorouracil 800 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy in week 1. Patients were assessed weekly during treatment. The primary endpoint was dysphagia relief (defined as ≥1 point reduction on the Mellow scale at 9 weeks and maintained 4 weeks later), and key secondary endpoints were dysphagia progression-free survival (defined as a worsening of at least 1 point on the Mellow scale from baseline or best response) and overall survival. These endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193882. This trial is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2003, and March 21, 2012, 111 patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 109 patients to radiotherapy. One patient in the chemoradiotherapy group was omitted from analysis because of ineligibility. 50 (45%, 95% CI 36-55) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and 38 (35%, 26-44) in the radiotherapy group obtained dysphagia relief (difference 10·6%, 95% CI -2 to 23; p=0·13). Median dysphagia progression-free survival was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·5-4·8) versus 3·4 months (3·1-4·3) in the chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy groups, respectively (p=0·58), and median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·1-8·3) versus 6·7 months (4·9-8·0), respectively (p=0·88). Of the 211 patients who commenced radiotherapy, grade 3-4 acute toxicity occurred in 38 (36%) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 17 (16%) patients in the radiotherapy group (p=0·0017). Anaemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, oesophagitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis were significantly worse in patients who had chemoradiotherapy than in patients who had radiotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Palliative chemoradiotherapy showed a modest, but not statistically significant, increase in dysphagia relief compared with radiotherapy alone, with minimal improvement in dysphagia progression-free survival and overall survival with chemoradiotherapy but at a cost of increased toxicity. A short course of radiotherapy alone should be considered a safe and well tolerated treatment for malignant dysphagia in the palliative setting. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and Cancer Australia.

Preoperative radiation with concurrent chemotherapy for resectable rectal cancer: effect of dose escalation on pathologic complete response, local recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and overall survival.

PURPOSE: Three Phase II studies of preoperative radiotherapy and concurrent 5FU chemotherapy were undertaken. The primary endpoints were acute toxicity and pathologic complete response rate (pCR). Secondary endpoints were local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 134 patients with adenocarcinoma of the rectum (clinical T3/T4 or N1/N2) were treated. The initial cohort received 40 Gy in 20 fractions, the second 46 Gy in 23 fractions, and the third 50 Gy in 25 fractions. 5FU (225 mg/m2/day) was given continuously throughout radiotherapy. A total of 121 patients underwent surgical resection. RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated. Grade 3/4 acute toxicity was observed in 13%, 4%, and 14% of patients in the 40 Gy, 46 Gy, and 50 Gy cohorts, respectively (p = 0.20). pCR was documented in 15%, 23%, and 33% of patients, respectively (p = 0.07). The 2-year actuarial LRFS was 72%, 90%, and 89% (p = 0.02); DFS was 62%, 84%, and 78% (p = 0.02); and OS was 72%, 94%, and 92%, respectively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: All treatment schedules were well tolerated. There was a trend toward increased pCR with higher doses. A statistically significant increase in LRFS, DFS, and OS was seen with radiation doses of 46 Gy and greater, but there was no difference between 46 Gy and 50 Gy.