Differences in treatment choices for localised prostate cancer diagnosed in private and public health services.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatments for localised prostate cancer for men diagnosed in private and public health services in Victoria. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Victorian Cancer Registry data linked to population-based administrative health datasets. SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: 29 325 Victorian men diagnosed with prostate cancer during 2011-2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of men in private and public health services receiving radical prostatectomy (with or without curative radiation therapy) or curative external beam radiation therapy alone within 12 months of diagnosis. RESULTS: After adjusting for age, tumour classification and comorbidity, men diagnosed in private health services received radical treatment more frequently than men diagnosed in public health services (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-1.49). The proportion of private patients who underwent radical prostatectomy was larger than that for public patients (44% v 28%; OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.13-2.44) and the proportion of private patients who received curative external beam radiation therapy alone (excluding brachytherapy) was smaller (9% v 19%; OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49). These differences were apparent for all International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) tumour grades. The magnitude of the difference for prostatectomy was greater for men aged 70 years or more; for radiation therapy alone, it was larger for those diagnosed before age 70. The differences between private and public services narrowed during 2011-2017 for men with ISUP grade 1 disease, but not ISUP grade 2-5 tumours. CONCLUSION: Prostate cancer treatment choices differ substantially between men diagnosed in private and public health services in Victoria. These differences are not explained by disease severity or comorbidity.

Do medical procedures in the arm increase the risk of lymphoedema after axillary surgery? A review.

Lymphoedema of the arm is a potentially serious consequence of any axillary procedure performed during the management of breast cancer. In an attempt to reduce its incidence and severity, patients are instructed to avoid venepunctures and blood pressure measurements on the treated arm. These precautions are not possible in some patients and attempts to adhere to them can cause discomfort, anxiety and stress for both patients and their health-care workers. The strength with which these recommendations are made is in contrast to the level of evidence underpinning them. This paper reviews this evidence regarding the safety, or lack thereof, of blood pressure monitoring and intravenous puncture in women who have had axillary surgery. With this evidence generally being anecdotal in nature, there appears to be no rigorous evidence-based support for the risk-reduction behaviours of avoiding blood pressure monitoring and venepuncture in the affected arm in the prevention of lymphoedema after axillary procedure. A clinical trial was proposed to investigate whether such avoidance measures were valuable, but failed during its inception. There remains a need for research from prospective trials on this controversial topic to determine the most appropriate patient recommendations that should be provided after axillary procedure regarding the risks for development of lymphoedema.

Prostate-specific antigen screening trials and prostate cancer deaths: the androgen deprivation connection.

Major clinical trials using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as the screening test to detect localized early-stage prostate cancer and to attempt to change its natural history with early intervention have yielded conflicting interpretations. The US Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (US PLCO) cancer screening trial concluded that PSA-based screening conferred no meaningful survival benefit, whereas the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the GOTEBORG clinical trial (GOTEBORG) trials claimed statistically significant life-saving benefits. These divergent outcomes have not provided physicians with clarity on the best evidence-based treatment. To determine the extent to which these divergent outcomes are clinically meaningful, we evaluated these data and those of a long-term prospective cohort study in the context of the clinically documented harms of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). We noted the unheralded fact that in both European trials far more patients received hormonal treatment in the control than the prostatectomy arm, whereas hormonal therapy in the US trial was balanced between arms. We examined this imbalance in ADT treatment and prostate cancer-related deaths in the contexts of contamination, stage migration, and attribution of cause of death, all of which impinge on data interpretation. The ERSPC and GOTEBORG data are compatible with the hypothesis that ADT treatment contributes differentially to an increase in prostate cancer deaths in control patients. If so, the claim of a reduction in prostate cancer deaths in the screened cohort requires reappraisal. The conventional interpretation that PSA screening and radical treatment intervention are the major contributors to the results of these two studies needs more rigorous scientific scrutiny, as does the role of ADT treatment of nonmetastatic disease.

Managing patients with advanced cancer: the benefits of early referral for palliative care.

Palliative care is becoming fundamental in the starting line-up of care choices.

What changes are needed to the current direction and interpretation of clinical cancer research to meet the needs of the 21st century?

In this 21st century, we will need to better analyse the outcomes of our spending on newer and more expensive anticancer drugs, particularly through postmarketing assessment, to ensure that these investments are justified. Evidence-based medicine is only as good as the evidence available, and we advocate for more independently designed and funded trials that concentrate on the minimum effective dose and duration of therapies to reduce toxicity to patients and to control costs. There is a place for governments to provide funding for these studies in the public good. Although improving survival over standard care is the gold standard for proving the efficacy of a new therapy, surrogate endpoints such as early biological marker changes, functional imaging changes or earlier measures such as progression-free survival must be investigated to enable drug therapies to be discontinued earlier if they are ineffective. Studies searching for the presence of biological targets must be funded to exploit the potential advantage of targeted therapies. Treatment guidelines are best written by experts who are independent of the pharmaceutical industry. Existing databases should be linked to better monitor the outcomes of new therapies. Privacy safeguards are important, but privacy legislation may need to be modified to serve the greater public good from the information gained from linking databases.