Increased variability in Apc(Min)/+ intestinal tissue can be measured with microultrasound.

Altered tissue structure is a feature of many disease states and is usually measured by microscopic methods, limiting analysis to small areas. Means to rapidly and quantitatively measure the structure and organisation of large tissue areas would represent a major advance not just for research but also in the clinic. Here, changes in tissue organisation that result from heterozygosity in Apc, a precancerous situation, are comprehensively measured using microultrasound and three-dimensional high-resolution microscopy. Despite its normal appearance in conventionally examined cross-sections, both approaches revealed a significant increase in the variability of tissue organisation in Apc heterozygous tissue. These changes preceded the formation of aberrant crypt foci or adenoma. Measuring these premalignant changes using microultrasound provides a potential means to detect microscopically abnormal regions in large tissue samples, independent of visual examination or biopsies. Not only does this provide a powerful tool for studying tissue structure in experimental settings, the ability to detect and monitor tissue changes by microultrasound could be developed into a powerful adjunct to screening endoscopy in the clinic.

Delay in the clinical diagnosis of breast cancer: estimating its effect on prognosis, with particular reference to medical litigation.

Medical malpractice litigation is increasing. Delay in diagnosis is the commonest basis for litigation involving the treatment of breast cancer. When delay in diagnosis has occurred, any losses for which a plaintiff seeks compensation require estimates to be made of any change in prognosis over the period of the delay relative to the extent of disease found when treatment is finally undertaken. We have examined the natural history of breast cancer and have attempted to provide evidence-based quantitative guidelines for the evaluation of the losses which may be claimed in malpractice cases.

Early stage breast cancer: costs and quality of life one year after treatment by mastectomy or conservative surgery and radiation therapy.

This paper reports a descriptive study of the costs and quality of life (QoL) outcome of treatments for early stage breast cancer in a cohort of Australian women, one year after initial surgical treatment. Mastectomy without breast reconstruction is compared to breast conserving surgery and radiotherapy (breast conservation). Of the 397 women eligible for the study, costing data were collected for 81% and quality of life data for 73%. The cost differences between treatment groups were mainly accounted for by adjuvant therapies, the more expensive being radiotherapy. When compared to women treated by mastectomy, those treated by breast conservation reported better body image but worse physical function. The negative impact of breast cancer and its treatment was greater for younger women, across a number of dimensions of quality of life (regardless of treatment type). While this study shows that breast conservation is more expensive than mastectomy, the QoL results reinforce the importance of patient participation in treatment decisions.

Management of high-risk node-positive breast cancer by standard-dose chemotherapy and loco-regional radiotherapy.

One-hundred, thirty-six women, aged up to 76 years, with high-risk breast cancer were treated with postoperative radiotherapy and 9 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy in standard doses. Treatment-related toxicity was mild. At a median follow-up of 7.3 years, 39.6% are disease-free. At 5 and 10 years overall survival was 55% and 34% respectively; disease-free survival was 39% and 33% respectively. Eighteen patients (13.2%) developed loco-regional recurrence, which was uncontrolled in four. When compared to series treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, but without radiotherapy, there are apparent survival gains of 10-15% at 5 and 10 years. These results in both pre- and post-menopausal patients compare favourably with results of high-dose chemotherapy and stem-cell rescue in much more highly selected patients.

Symptoms 2 weeks, 3 months and 12 months after treatment of early breast cancer: the patients' perspectives.

The physical symptoms and side-effects reported by patients treated for early breast cancer with surgery (S), (breast conservation or mastectomy), radiotherapy (R) and chemotherapy (C) are reported. As part of a large quality-of-life study, eligible patients were invited to complete a questionnaire at three and 12 months after treatment for early breast cancer. Symptoms 2 weeks after surgery were retrospectively collected at the 3-month questionnaire. Comparing the commonly used different therapy combinations (S, S+R, S+C and S+R+C) we found the only loco-regional symptom to show a significant difference between these groups was chest tightness (P<0.001). Both anxiety about attending for and discomfort during C were significantly higher than during R (P<0.00005 and 0.00001 respectively). We found that the addition of R and, or, C to S resulted in surprisingly little variation in physical side-effects.

WART revisited: the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer by whole abdominal radiotherapy.

The present study investigated outcomes for 78 women with epithelial ovarian carcinoma treated by whole abdominal radiotherapy (WART) after cyto-reductive surgery at Westmead Hospital between 1980 and 1993. These patients had 5-year relapse-free and overall survival rates of 52 and 55%, respectively. The median follow-up was 7.5 years. Fifty-eight of the 78 women fulfilled the criteria as defined by the Princess Margaret Hospital's intermediate risk' category. These patients had both a relapse-free and overall survival rate of 62% at 5 years (P = 0.001 as compared with the remaining 20 women). Mild gastrointestinal upset was common during radiotherapy. Five women did not complete treatment. Late toxicity (grade 3 or more, using the Radiotherapy Oncology Group (RTOG) system) occurred in eight women, and five women required surgery for intestinal complications (6.4%). There were no deaths due to late side effects. In conclusion the results are consistent with those of other series in the treatment of epithelial ovarian cancer by adjuvant WART. When compared to a similar-stage disease treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy, there is no evidence to support the exclusive use of chemotherapy.

Breast conservation: long-term results from Westmead Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Breast conservation has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy in early-stage breast cancer. The present study reviews the long-term outcome and toxicity after treatment of early breast cancer by conservative surgery and radiation. METHODS: Between November 1979 and December 1989, 438 patients with Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC) stage I or II breast cancer were treated with conservative surgery and radiation therapy (CS+RT) at Westmead Hospital. Surgery to the breast varied from a local excision to a quadrantectomy, depending on the preference of the referring surgeon. The axilla was surgically dissected in 299 patients (68%). All patients received postoperative breast irradiation. The whole breast was irradiated to 46-54 Gy (median dose, 50 Gy) using 6 Mev photons for 5-6.5 weeks. Boosts were given at the primary tumour site in 336 patients (78%), by electron therapy (88 patients), iridium-192 (247 patients) or photons (one patient). A total of 44 patients (10%) received adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: The median follow-up period for surviving patients was 84 months (range: 56-172 months). The 5-year actuarial rate of local recurrence was 6% (312 patients at risk), and the 10-year rate was 10% (52 patients at risk). Very young patients (aged 34 years at diagnosis) had a 5-year actuarial rate of local recurrence of 13% compared to 5% for older patients (P = 0.04). Neither the total dose to the primary site nor the boost technique influenced local recurrence. The 5-year freedom from distant relapse was 83%. The side effects included rib fractures (2%), symptomatic pneumonitis (3%), fatty necrosis or fibrosis requiring surgery (4%), and moderate-severe oedema of the arm (7%). CONCLUSIONS: The long-term data show that CS+RT for UICC stage I or II breast cancer results in low rates of local recurrence which are influenced by age at diagnosis, but not by radiation dose or boost technique. These results confirm those of other international series that CS+RT is a safe alternative to mastectomy for most women with operable breast cancer.

Basic Treatment Equivalent (BTE): a new measure of linear accelerator workload.

The measurement of linear accelerator workload in radiation oncology departments is usually based on the number of fields treated per unit time. However, this approach ignores variations in treatment complexity. This prospective study, was designed to measure treatment workload directly, taking into account the variations in complexity of different treatment techniques. From this, a model was to be developed, which would be simple to apply and reproducible, both within and between radiation oncology departments in Australasia. It would provide a realistic basis for assessing treatment costs and enable the comparison of patient throughput between departments. This paper describes the derivation of the model. Over a 4-week period in the Radiation Oncology Department of Westmead Hospital, all fractions of radiotherapy were timed. The data collected included: tumour site; treatment intent; number of fields; number of wedges, compensators and shielding blocks; fraction number; patient age; performance status; and need for general anaesthesia. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors that significantly affected fraction duration, so that these could be used to develop a model of resource utilization. The durations of 2371 fractions were measured in 219 patients. Seventy-five per cent of fractions were given with radical intent. The factors found to influence fraction duration on multivariate modelling were: number of fields; number of shielding blocks; first treatment fraction; need for anaesthesia; and performance status. The number of wedges and compensators were also found to be significant but were not included in the model in order to maintain simplicity. This was felt to be necessary if the model is to be applied to the widest possible variety of machines. A model of resources utilization called 'Basic Treatment Equivalent' (BTE) was derived, which incorporated these factors. When tested at Westmead Hospital, this model accurately reflected the predicted BTE value over a further 1-week study period. This model of linear accelerator use, which incorporates complexity has been derived and evaluated in one radiation oncology department. This requires further prospective testing before its widespread use. The model appears to reflect linear accelerator workload better than previous measures. An Australasian study to validate the model further will be undertaken. If adopted, this model has implications for comparative workload reports, diagnostic-related groups, waiting list calculations, and patient scheduling.

An assessment of the Basic Treatment Equivalent (BTE) model as measure of radiotherapy workload.

Current methods of linear accelerator workload analysis in radiation oncology use patients per hour or fields per hour as the basic unit of measurement but fail to take account of the variations in complexity of different treatment techniques. The Basic Treatment Equivalent (BTE) model of productivity assessment has been derived as a potentially better measure of workload because it includes a complexity factor. This model has now been tested prospectively in ten radiation oncology departments in New South Wales and compared with the numbers of fields and patients per hour. Over a 4-week period there were 50,115 fields administrated in 18,466 fractions in 441 hours of machine time in ten radiation oncology departments. The average productivity results for all departments were 4.18 patients, 11.25 fields and 5.66 BTE per hour. When compared with patients per hour and fields per hour, there was less variability of BTE per patient per hour in all departments, suggesting that most departments deliver radiation therapy in a consistent way, which is not appropriately reflected in the numbers of fields or patients per hour. Departments that were able to treat a high number of patients or fields per hour were able to do so because they used less complicated techniques or had a less complicated casemix of patients. The BTE model allows for variations in the complexity of treatment techniques, is simple to apply, and is reproducible under different conditions in different departments. Following revision of the model, an Australasian study is now proposed. The confirmation of our findings will have significant implications for resource utilization comparisons, patient time allocations, waiting list estimates and cost-benefit analysis.

The equivalent simple treatment visit (ESTV) model does not measure radiation oncology productivity under Australian conditions.

The measurement of workload in radiation oncology departments has been based on the number of patients treated per linear accelerator per unit time, or on the number of fields treated per linear accelerator per unit time. The Equivalent Simple Treatment Visit (ESTV) model was proposed to allow for the incorporation of a factor for complexity of treatment techniques, to permit more detailed comparisons than those offered by previous measures. This prospective study was designed to assess the suitability of the ESTV model as a measure of radiation oncology productivity within an Australian radiation oncology department. A calculated ESTV value was assigned to all treatment fractions delivered in our department over a 4-week period. Treatment fractions were then timed using a stopwatch, and average treatment times for simple, intermediate and complex techniques were calculated and analysed by multiple t-tests for statistical significance. Average treatment times were 8.1 minutes (standard deviation (SD) = 4.2) for 'simple' techniques, 14.1 minutes (SD = 4.4) for 'intermediate' techniques, and 11.8 minutes (SD = 5.6) for 'complex' techniques. These times were significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). Although ESTV attempts to allow for the incorporation of a complexity factor into productivity reporting, a revision of the model is necessary, given the inconsistency by which a 'complex' technique takes significantly less time than an 'intermediate' technique.