A case-control study of the androgen receptor gene CAG repeat polymorphism in Australian prostate carcinoma subjects.

BACKGROUND: The development of prostate carcinoma is androgen-dependent. The coding sequence of the androgen receptor (AR) gene contains a CAG repeat polymorphism that has been shown to influence AR activity in vitro. Studies of this polymorphism as a prostate carcinoma risk factor have been conflicting. METHODS: A matched case-control design was used in a clinic-based multicenter study of Australian prostate carcinoma subjects. Cancer subjects were matched by age and locality with controls, all of whom had a serum prostate specific antigen (PSA) level of less than 4 mg/L. Conditional logistic regression was used to determine the relative risk of prostate carcinoma dependent on AR gene CAG number. The association of disease characteristics at diagnosis with the polymorphism also was assessed. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-five cases of prostate carcinoma and 456 matched case-control pairs were recruited. Association studies of disease characteristics at diagnosis showed age at diagnosis to be associated with AR CAG number by univariate (P = 0.004) and multivariate (adjusting for PSA, stage, and grade) linear regression (P = 0.018). No association was observed between the polymorphism and disease stage (TNM-based categories; P = 0.277), histologic grade (P = 0.41), or PSA level at diagnosis (P = 0.48). In the pairwise case-control analysis, the odds ratio of prostate carcinoma for a change of 5 CAG repeats gave an odds ratio of 0.9821 (95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: In this Australian study population, the AR CAG repeat polymorphism was not a risk factor for prostate carcinoma, but a shorter repeat sequence was associated with earlier age at diagnosis.

Colorectal cancer screening in general practice. A survey of current practice and attitudes in Victoria.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the views and practices of Victorian general practitioners (GPs) on the early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: A 1995/1996 quantitative mail survey was used to determine GP knowledge and practice in relation to CRC screening and diagnosis in asymptomatic and symptomatic patients. This includes the amount of investigation, the type and process of diagnostic testing and attitudes to CRC screening. RESULTS: GPs are investigating symptomatic patients but few asymptomatic patients. In general, only patients in the increased risk groups are being investigated. Colonoscopy is the most common method of examination. Most GPs prefer faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) to be interpreted via laboratory and endoscope procedures to be performed by a specialist. CONCLUSION: GPs were unlikely to screen asymptomatic patients unless there is a family or personal history of CRC or adenomatous polyps. Colonoscopy is the preferred practice for examining such patients. The use of FOBTs for screening standard risk asymptomatic patients was lower than recent research recommends. If population screening for CRC is endorsed, professional and public education in CRC tests, particularly for asymptomatic standard risk patients would be required. Patient initiated screening was highly favoured, supporting the need for public awareness programs.

The GP-hospital interface: attitudes of general practitioners to tertiary teaching hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess general practitioner (GP) perceptions of liaison with two local tertiary teaching hospitals. DESIGN: Questionnaire-based survey of GP attitudes. SETTING: Melbourne and North West Melbourne Divisions of General Practice, in July and September 1994. PARTICIPANTS: All GPs (587) practising in the Divisions (identified from Health Insurance Commission lists of consultations charged at GP rates). OUTCOME MEASURES: Degree of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale to statements about GP-hospital liaison, and relevant open comments. RESULTS: 350 GPs (60%) responded, including 84% of vocationally registered GPs; 68% of the 350 were in full-time practice and 70% had been in practice for over 10 years. GPs had no clear strategy for obtaining admission of semi-urgent patients to public hospitals. For patients needing urgent admission, almost a third of GPs sometimes resorted to sending them to the emergency department without first telephoning. Most GPs agreed that hospitals did not notify them of patient admission (84%), major changes in patient condition, including death (87%), and patient discharge (75%). Most would interrupt a consultation to discuss a patient with hospital staff (92%). About half agreed they had poor access to outstanding results, and 65% were concerned that proposed early-discharge practices would be detrimental to patient care. CONCLUSIONS: The survey identified considerable GP dissatisfaction with hospital-GP communication and GP willingness to be more involved in liaison and communication with hospitals about patient care. Changes in hospital organisation and hospital staff attitudes are needed to allow this.

Integrating general practice and hospital services.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a model of negotiations between six Divisions of General Practice and four teaching hospitals, aimed at creating formal agreements to improve the GP-hospital interface. METHOD: The evaluation examined the model's outcomes and participants' experiences. Outcomes were investigated via unstructured interviews with key informants, and analysis of relevant documentation. Participants' experiences were elicited via structured interviews with 11 Divisional members and 14 hospital representatives. RESULTS: Progress towards agreements was made in all cases, with a full agreement being reached at one hospital. Negotiations are continuing in the remaining hospitals. Additional outcomes were achieved during the process, and included resources and structural arrangements involving GPs. Participants were satisfied with the model, but certain key issues were identified. CONCLUSION: This evaluation suggests that for negotiations between GPs and hospitals to be successful, Divisions must be involved and be representative, hospitals must see value in formal agreements, their structure must be considered and the process must be collaborative. In the current policy context, which emphasises primary care, hospitals and GPs are increasingly likely to start working more cooperatively. This model has significant potential to improve the interface between the two parties, through its formal negotiation process, and could easily be adapted to other settings.