Determinants of survival and attempted resection in patients with non-metastatic pancreatic cancer: An Australian population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are indications that pancreatic cancer survival may differ according to sociodemographic factors, such as residential location. This may be due to differential access to curative resection. Understanding factors associated with the decision to offer a resection might enable strategies to increase the proportion of patients undergoing potentially curative surgery. METHODS: Data were extracted from medical records and cancer registries for patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer between July 2009 and June 2011, living in one of two Australian states. Among patients clinically staged with non-metastatic disease we examined factors associated with survival using Cox proportional hazards models. To investigate survival differences we examined determinants of: 1) attempted surgical resection overall; 2) whether patients with locally advanced disease were classified as having resectable disease; and 3) attempted resection among those considered resectable. RESULTS: Data were collected for 786 eligible patients. Disease was considered locally advanced for 561 (71%) patients, 510 (65%) were classified as having potentially resectable disease and 365 (72%) of these had an attempted resection. Along with age, comorbidities and tumour stage, increasing remoteness of residence was associated with poorer survival. Remoteness of residence and review by a hepatobiliary surgeon were factors influencing the decision to offer surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated disparity in survival dependent on patients' residential location and access to a specialist hepatobiliary surgeon. Accurate clinical staging is a critical element in assessing surgical resectability and it is therefore crucial that all patients have access to specialised clinical services.

Prevalence and correlates of unmet supportive care needs in patients with resected invasive cutaneous melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about supportive care needs in patients with cutaneous invasive melanoma is scarce. We examined the unmet needs of melanoma patients treated with surgery and factors associated with these needs to assist health professionals identify areas needing clinical attention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional multisite survey of UK patients ascertained 3 months to 5 years after complete resection of stage I-III cutaneous melanoma. Participants completed the following validated questionnaires: Supportive Care Needs Survey (SCNS-SF34 with melanoma module), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and 51-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma quality-of-life scale. RESULTS: A total of 472 participants were recruited [319 (67%) clinical stage I-II). Mean age was 60 years (standard deviation = 14) and 255 (54%) were female. One hundred and twenty-three (27%) participants reported at least one unmet need (mostly 'low' level). The most frequently reported unmet needs were fears of cancer returning (n = 138, 29%), uncertainty about the future (n = 119, 25%), lack of information about risk of recurrence (n = 112, 24%) and about possible outcomes if melanoma were to spread (n = 91, 20%). One hundred and thirty-eight (29%) participants reported anxiety and 51 (11%) depression at clinical or subclinical levels. Patients with nodal disease had a significantly higher level of unmet supportive care needs (P < 0.001) as did patients with anxiety or depression (P < 0.001). Key correlates of the total SCNS-SF34 score for unmet supportive care needs were younger age (odds ratio, OR = 2.23, P < 0.001) and leaving school early (OR = 4.85, P < 0.001), while better emotional (OR = 0.89, P < 0.001) and social well-being (OR = 0.91, P < 0.001) were linked with fewer unmet needs. Neither patients' sex nor tumour thickness was associated with unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: Around a quarter of melanoma patients may have unmet support needs in the mid to long term after primary treatment. In particular, patients who are younger, less educated, distressed or socially isolated could benefit from more support.