iCare - a self-directed, interactive online program to improve health and wellbeing for people living with upper gastrointestinal or hepato-pancreato-biliary cancers, and their informal carers: the study protocol for a Phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 70% of people diagnosed with upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract or hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) cancers experience substantial reductions in quality of life (QoL), including high distress levels, pain, fatigue, sleep disturbances, weight loss and difficulty swallowing. With few advocacy groups and support systems for adults with upper GI or HPB cancers (i.e. pancreas, liver, stomach, bile duct and oesophageal) and their carers, online supportive care programs may represent an alternate cost-effective mechanism to support this patient group and carers. iCare is a self-directed, interactive, online program that provides information, resources, and psychological packages to patients and their carers from the treatment phase of their condition. The inception and development of iCare has been driven by consumers, advocacy groups, government and health professionals. The aims of this study are to determine the feasibility and acceptability of iCare, examine preliminary efficacy on health-related QoL and carer burden at 3- and 6-months post enrolment, and the potential cost-effectiveness of iCare, from health and societal perspectives, for both patients and carers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A Phase II randomised controlled trial. Overall, 162 people with newly diagnosed upper GI or HPB cancers and 162 carers will be recruited via the Upper GI Cancer Registry, online advertisements, or hospital clinics. Patients and carers will be randomly allocated (1:1) to the iCare program or usual care. Participant assessments will be at enrolment, 3- and 6-months later. The primary outcomes are i) feasibility, measured by eligibility, recruitment, response and attrition rates, and ii) acceptability, measured by engagement with iCare (frequency of logins, time spent using iCare, and use of features over the intervention period). Secondary outcomes are patient changes in QoL and unmet needs, and carer burden, unmet needs and QoL. Linear mixed models will be fitted to obtain preliminary estimates of efficacy and variability for secondary outcomes. The economic analysis will include a cost-consequences analysis where all outcomes will be compared with costs. DISCUSSION: iCare provides a potential model of supportive care to improve QoL, unmet needs and burden of disease among people living with upper GI or HPB cancers and their carers. AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: ACTRN12623001185651. This protocol reflects Version #1 26 April 2023.

A cost comparison of pembrolizumab: Fixed and weight-based dosing.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, indicated to treat multiple cancers, was initially approved in Australia as weight-based dosing at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W). Subsequent approvals used 'fixed' dosages of 200 mg Q3W or 400 mg every 6 weeks (Q6W). Pharmacokinetic equivalence was demonstrated between dosing strategies, with no significant differences in efficacy or toxicity. Fixed dosing regimens are routinely used in Australia. AIM: To model and compare the cost of weight-based dosing of pembrolizumab to standard fixed dosing regimens. METHOD: A single centre, retrospective review was conducted. Patients, identified from dispensing software, who commenced on pembrolizumab between January and December 2022 were included. Patient demographic and treatment data was extracted from electronic medical records. Costs of weight-based doses were calculated and compared to the cost of fixed dosing. Variables such as acquisition cost, funding mechanisms and 'vial sharing' were considered. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were included (63% male, median age 68 years). Of the 211 doses of pembrolizumab administered (average 4.1 doses/patient), 161 were Q3W doses, and 50 were Q6W doses. The acquisition cost for a fixed 200 mg and 400 mg dose was $7646, and $15,292, respectively. The average patient weight was 77.6 kg (SD 19 kg), which equated to $5933 for a weight-based Q3W dose, and $11,867 for the Q6W dose; a potential cost avoidance of $1965 and $3930 per dose, respectively. This represented a possible 23.5% avoidance in medication acquisition cost. Over the study period of 1 year, using weight-based dosing for pembrolizumab had the potential to reduce medication expenditure by $467,996. DISCUSSION: Significant cost avoidance could be achieved via weight-based pembrolizumab dosing. Given the substantial total cost of pembrolizumab, the growing number of indications and the expected equivalent treatment outcomes with weight-based pembrolizumab, the potential cost reductions of weight-based pembrolizumab at both institution and government level should be further explored.

Incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into a clinical quality registry (CQR) for ovarian cancer: considerations and challenges.

As medical treatment increasingly focuses on improving health-related quality of life, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an essential component of clinical research. The National Gynae-Oncology Registry (NGOR) is an Australian clinical quality registry. A suitable PROM was required for the NGOR ovarian cancer module to complement clinical outcomes and provide insights into outcomes important to patients. Our narrative review aimed to identify existing ovarian cancer-specific PROMs and ascertain which tool would be most appropriate for implementation into the NGOR ovarian cancer module.A literature review of Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE and PubMed databases was performed to identify existing ovarian cancer-specific PROM tools. A steering committee was convened to (1) determine the purpose of, and criteria for our required PROM; and (2) to review the available tools against the criteria and recommend the most appropriate one for implementation within the NGOR.The literature review yielded five tools: MOST, EORTC QLQ-OV28, FACIT-O, NFOSI-18 and QOL-OVCA. All were developed and validated for use in clinical trials, but none had been validated for use in clinical quality registry. Our expert steering committee pre-determined purpose of a PROM tool for use within the NGOR was to enable cross-service comparison and benchmarking to drive quality improvements. They identified that while there was no ideal, pre-existing, ovarian cancer-specific PROM tool for implementation into the NGOR, on the basis of its psychometric properties, its available translations, its length and its ability to be adapted, the EORTC tool is most fit-for-purpose for integration into the NGOR.This process enabled identification of the tool most appropriate to provide insights into how ovarian cancer treatments impact patients' quality of life and permit benchmarking across health services.

Medication reuse programs: a narrative review of the literature.

A proportion of returned medications may potentially meet quality standards to be reused safely. In Australia, there is no regulatory guidance available to facilitate such medication reuse. This narrative review aimed to identify and review international literature describing medication reuse programs to provide insight into their implementation and potential barriers. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) -based guidelines, a literature search was conducted in Medline, Scopus, and Embase using key words such as 'medication' and 'reuse' to identify relevant articles. Two reviewers ascertained eligibility for inclusion. Inclusion criteria included English language and publication after 2010. From the articles selected, identified international medication reuse programs and relevant regulatory aspects were summarized. Details, both regulatory and operational, for the specific medication reuse programs, described in the selected articles was further explored via a grey literature search. Of the 1973 identified articles, 84 were assessed for eligibility and 17 were included in this review. Of these, 14 described scenarios where medication reuse is prohibited, 2 studies described programs allowing the reuse of medication and 1 study did not discuss whether reuse was prohibited or not. From these primary articles, secondary citations were identified, with eight from gray literature. Barriers to medication reuse included exposure to environmental extremes during storage, physical appearance, evidence of tampering, safety, and efficacy concerns for the returned medication. Programs that exist globally have overcome these barriers. Several programs that provide safe and effective reuse of medications were i© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site-for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.dentified and described. The findings described in this review should be used to inform frameworks for legislative, regulatory, and professional practice change for medication reuse. Measures implemented in the UK's pandemic response to safely reuse medications in the nursing home and hospice settings and European medication donation programs should be further investigated. The concept of medication reuse is not novel and should be considered for the Australian setting.

Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of lung cancer screening for Australia, capturing differences in the health economic impact of NELSON and NLST outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A national, lung cancer screening programme is under consideration in Australia, and we assessed cost-effectiveness using updated data and assumptions. METHODS: We estimated the cost-effectiveness of lung screening by applying screening parameters and outcomes from either the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) or the NEderlands-Leuvens Longkanker Screenings ONderzoek (NELSON) to Australian data on lung cancer risk, mortality, health-system costs, and smoking trends using a deterministic, multi-cohort model. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for a lifetime horizon. RESULTS: The ICER for lung screening compared to usual care in the NELSON-based scenario was AU$39,250 (95% CI $18,150-108,300) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY); lower than the NLST-based estimate (ICER = $76,300, 95% CI $41,750-236,500). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, lung screening was cost-effective in 15%/60% of NELSON-like simulations, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,000/$50,000 per QALY, respectively, compared to 0.5%/6.7% for the NLST. ICERs were most sensitive to assumptions regarding the screening-related lung cancer mortality benefit and duration of benefit over time. The cost of screening had a larger impact on ICERs than the cost of treatment, even after quadrupling the 2006-2016 healthcare costs of stage IV lung cancer. DISCUSSION: Lung screening could be cost-effective in Australia, contingent on translating trial-like lung cancer mortality benefits to the clinic.

Colon and rectal cancer treatment patterns and their associations with clinical, sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics: analysis of the Australian 45 and Up Study cohort.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer globally and the second leading cause of cancer death. We examined colon and rectal cancer treatment patterns in Australia. METHODS: From cancer registry records, we identified 1,236 and 542 people with incident colon and rectal cancer, respectively, diagnosed during 2006-2013 in the 45 and Up Study cohort (267,357 participants). Cancer treatment and deaths were determined via linkage to routinely collected data, including hospital and medical services records. For colon cancer, we examined treatment categories of "surgery only", "surgery plus chemotherapy", "other treatment" (i.e. other combinations of surgery/chemotherapy/radiotherapy), "no record of cancer-related treatment, died"; and, for rectal cancer, "surgery only", "surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy", "other treatment", and "no record of cancer-related treatment, died". We analysed survival, time to first treatment, and characteristics associated with treatment receipt using competing risks regression. RESULTS: 86.4% and 86.5% of people with colon and rectal cancer, respectively, had a record of receiving any treatment ≤2 years post-diagnosis. Of those treated, 93.2% and 90.8% started treatment ≤2 months post-diagnosis, respectively. Characteristics significantly associated with treatment receipt were similar for colon and rectal cancer, with strongest associations for spread of disease and age at diagnosis (p<0.003). For colon cancer, the rate of "no record of cancer-related treatment, died" was higher for people with distant spread of disease (versus localised, subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR)=13.6, 95% confidence interval (CI):5.5-33.9), age ≥75 years (versus age 45-74, SHR=3.6, 95%CI:1.8-7.1), and visiting an emergency department ≤1 month pre-diagnosis (SHR=2.9, 95%CI:1.6-5.2). For rectal cancer, the rate of "surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy" was higher for people with regional spread of disease (versus localised, SHR=5.2, 95%CI:3.6-7.7) and lower for people with poorer physical functioning (SHR=0.5, 95%CI:0.3-0.8) or no private health insurance (SHR=0.7, 95%CI:0.5-0.9). CONCLUSION: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, most people with colon or rectal cancer received treatment ≤2 months post-diagnosis, however, treatment patterns varied by spread of disease and age. This work can be used to inform future healthcare requirements, to estimate the impact of cancer control interventions to improve prevention and early diagnosis, and serve as a benchmark to assess treatment delays/disruptions during the pandemic. Future work should examine associations with clinical factors (e.g. performance status at diagnosis) and interdependencies between characteristics such as age, comorbidities, and emergency department visits.

INTEGRATE II: randomised phase III controlled trials of regorafenib containing regimens versus standard of care in refractory Advanced Gastro-Oesophageal Cancer (AGOC): a study by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG).

BACKGROUND: Advanced gastro-oesophageal cancer (AGOC) carries a poor prognosis. No standard of care treatment options are available after first and second-line therapies. Regorafenib is an oral multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting angiogenic, stromal, and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases. Regorafenib 160 mg daily prolonged progression free survival compared to placebo (INTEGRATE, phase 2). Regorafenib 80 mg daily in combination with nivolumab 3 mg/kg showed promising objective response rates (REGONIVO). METHODS/DESIGN: INTEGRATE II (INTEGRATE IIa and IIb) platform comprises two international phase III randomised controlled trials (RCT) with 2:1 randomisation in favor of experimental intervention. INTEGRATE IIa (double-blind) compares regorafenib 160 mg daily on days 1 to 21 of each 28-day cycle to placebo. INTEGRATE IIb (open label) compares REGONIVO, regorafenib 90 mg days 1 to 21 in combination with intravenous nivolumab 240 mg days 1 and 15 each 28-day cycle with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (control). Treatment continues until disease progression or intolerable adverse events as per protocol. Eligible participants include adults with AGOC who have failed two or more lines of treatment. Stratification is by location of tumour (INTEGRATE IIa only), geographic region, prior VEGF inhibitor and prior immunotherapy use (INTEGRATE IIb only). Primary endpoint is overall survival. Secondary endpoints are progression free survival, objective response rate, quality of life, and safety. Tertiary/correlative objectives include biomarker and pharmacokinetic evaluation. DISCUSSION: INTEGRATE II provides a platform to evaluate the clinical utility of regorafenib alone, as well as regorafenib in combination with nivolumab in treatment of participants with refractory AGOC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: INTEGRATE IIa prospectively registered 1 April 2016 Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12616000420448 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02773524). INTEGRATE IIb prospectively registered 10 May 2021 ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04879368.

Patterns of care for people with small cell lung cancer in Victoria, 2011-19: a retrospective, population-based registry data study.

OBJECTIVES: To report stage-specific patterns of treatment and the influence of management and treatment type on survival rates for people newly diagnosed with small cell lung cancer (SCLC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional patterns of care study; analysis of data prospectively collected for the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry (VLCR). SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: All people diagnosed with SCLC in Victoria during 1 April 2011 - 18 December 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stage-specific management and treatment of people with SCLC; median survival time. RESULTS: During 2011-19, 1006 people were diagnosed with SCLC (10.5% of all lung cancer diagnoses in Victoria); their median age was 69 years (interquartile range [IQR], 62-77 years), 429 were women (43%), and 921 were current or former smokers (92%). Clinical stage was defined for 896 people (89%; TNM stages I-III, 268 [30%]; TNM stage IV, 628 [70%]) and ECOG performance status at diagnosis for 663 (66%; 0 or 1, 489 [49%]; 2-4, 174 [17%]). The cases of 552 patients had been discussed at multidisciplinary meetings (55%), 377 people had received supportive care screening (37%), and 388 had been referred for palliative care (39%). Active treatment was received by 891 people (89%): chemotherapy, 843 (84%); radiotherapy, 460 (46%); chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 419 (42%); surgery, 23 (2%). Treatment had commenced within fourteen days of diagnosis for 632 of 875 patients (72%). Overall median survival time from diagnosis was 8.9 months (IQR, 4.2-16 months; stage I-III: 16.3 [IQR, 9.3-30] months; stage IV: 7.2 [IQR, 3.3-12] months). Multidisciplinary meeting presentation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.58-0.77), multimodality treatment (HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.36-0.49), and chemotherapy within fourteen days of diagnosis (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.94) were each associated with lower mortality during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Rates of supportive care screening, multidisciplinary meeting evaluation, and palliative care referral for people with SCLC could be improved. A national registry of SCLC-specific management and outcomes data could improve the quality and safety of care.

Characteristics of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who access palliative care: An observational study.

PURPOSE: Despite the benefits of palliative care (PC) in pancreatic cancer, little is known about patients who access PC. This observational study examines the characteristics of patients with pancreatic cancer at their first episode of PC. METHODS: First-time, specialist PC episodes captured through the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC), in Victoria, Australia between 2014 and 2020, for pancreatic cancer, were identified. Multivariable logistic regression analyses examined the impact of patient- and service-level characteristics on symptom burden (measured through patient-reported outcome measures and clinician-rated scores) at first PC episode. RESULTS: Of 2890 eligible episodes, 45% began when the patient was deteriorating and 32% ended in death. High fatigue and appetite-related distress were most common. Generally, increasing age, higher performance status and more recent year of diagnosis predicted lower symptom burden. No significant differences were noted between symptom burden of regional/remote versus major city dwellers; however, only 11% of episodes recorded the patient as a regional/remote resident. A greater proportion of first episodes for non-English-speaking patients began when the patient was unstable, deteriorating or terminal, ended in death and were more likely to be associated with high family/carer problems. Community PC setting predicted high symptom burden, with the exception of pain. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of first-time specialist PC episodes in pancreatic cancer begin at a deteriorating phase and end in death, suggesting late access to PC. Timely referrals to community-based specialist PC, access in regional/remote areas, as well as development of culturally diverse support systems require further investigation.

How therapeutic advances have transformed the medical landscape: a primer for clinicians.

Novel medicines are entering the market rapidly and are increasingly being used alone or in combination to treat illnesses of every sort. While transforming the lives of many patients, these new therapies have also forced us to reconsider the way we evaluate, use and fund medicines. This article offers a primer to help practitioners understand how the therapeutic landscape is changing and how this might impact the evidence generation, access to interventions, patient experience and quality of care.

Mapping the clinical care pathways for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients in Victoria: A retrospective cohort study of supportive and palliative care.

The lung cancer Optimal Care Pathway recommends supportive care and palliative care integration throughout its various steps, with early referral to appropriate services improving the quality of life in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Using Victorian Lung Cancer Registry data and linked administrative datasets, this retrospective cohort study mapped clinical care pathways of 525 Stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer patients in Victoria to 11 recommendations in the Optimal Care Pathway, identifying unwarranted variations in clinical care. Supportive care and palliative care delivery were further examined to understand the involvement and timing of specialist care teams. Our findings showed that palliative care utilization is highest at the time of treatment, despite recommendations that it should be provided early after diagnosis to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Early supportive care screening was observed in half the cohort and almost three-quarters of the patients had been presented at a multidisciplinary meeting. Multidisciplinary meeting presentations and supportive care provide an opportunity to improve communication about palliative care needs and integration into routine clinical practice, such as at the time of treatment planning.

Determination of "borderline resectable" pancreatic cancer - A global assessment of 30 shades of grey.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an aggressive cancer with a poor prognosis. Accurate preoperative assessment using computed tomography (CT) to determine resectability is crucial in ensuring patients are offered the most appropriate therapeutic strategy. Despite the use of classification guidelines, any interobserver variability between reviewing surgeons and radiologists may confound decisions influencing patient treatment pathways. METHODS: In this multicentre observational study, an international group of 96 clinicians (42 hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons and 54 radiologists) were surveyed and asked to report 30 pancreatic CT scans of pancreatic cancer deemed borderline at respective multidisciplinary meetings (MDM). The degree of interobserver agreement in resectability among radiologists and surgeons was assessed and subgroup regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Interobserver variability between reviewers was high with no unanimous agreement. Overall interobserver agreement was fair with a kappa value of 0.32 with a higher rate of agreement among radiologists over surgeons. CONCLUSION: Interobserver variability among radiologists and surgeons globally is high, calling into question the consistency of clinical decision making for patients with PDAC and suggesting that central review may be required for studies of neoadjuvant or adjuvant approaches in future as well as ongoing quality control initiatives, even amongst experts in the field.

International variation in oesophageal and gastric cancer survival 2012-2014: differences by histological subtype and stage at diagnosis (an ICBP SURVMARK-2 population-based study).

OBJECTIVE: To provide the first international comparison of oesophageal and gastric cancer survival by stage at diagnosis and histological subtype across high-income countries with similar access to healthcare. METHODS: As part of the ICBP SURVMARK-2 project, data from 28 923 patients with oesophageal cancer and 25 946 patients with gastric cancer diagnosed during 2012-2014 from 14 cancer registries in seven countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK) were included. 1-year and 3-year age-standardised net survival were estimated by stage at diagnosis, histological subtype (oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC)) and country. RESULTS: Oesophageal cancer survival was highest in Ireland and lowest in Canada at 1 (50.3% vs 41.3%, respectively) and 3 years (27.0% vs 19.2%) postdiagnosis. Survival from gastric cancer was highest in Australia and lowest in the UK, for both 1-year (55.2% vs 44.8%, respectively) and 3-year survival (33.7% vs 22.3%). Most patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer had regional or distant disease, with proportions ranging between 56% and 90% across countries. Stage-specific analyses showed that variation between countries was greatest for localised disease, where survival ranged between 66.6% in Australia and 83.2% in the UK for oesophageal cancer and between 75.5% in Australia and 94.3% in New Zealand for gastric cancer at 1-year postdiagnosis. While survival for OAC was generally higher than that for OSCC, disparities across countries were similar for both histological subtypes. CONCLUSION: Survival from oesophageal and gastric cancer varies across high-income countries including within stage groups, particularly for localised disease. Disparities can partly be explained by earlier diagnosis resulting in more favourable stage distributions, and distributions of histological subtypes of oesophageal cancer across countries. Yet, differences in treatment, and also in cancer registration practice and the use of different staging methods and systems, across countries may have impacted the comparisons. While primary prevention remains key, advancements in early detection research are promising and will likely allow for additional risk stratification and survival improvements in the future.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in kidney transplant recipients: a multicentre, single-arm, phase 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Most kidney transplant recipients with cancer stop or reduce immunosuppressive therapy before starting treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor, and approximately 40% of such patients will develop allograft rejection. Isolated immunosuppression reduction might be associated with organ rejection. Whether immunosuppression manipulation, immune checkpoint inhibition, or both, induce organ rejection is difficult to ascertain. The aim of this study was to examine the risk of allograft rejection with immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure when baseline immunosuppression was left unchanged. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, single-arm, phase 1 study in three hospitals in Australia. Kidney transplant recipients aged 18 years or older with incurable, locally advanced cancer or defined metastatic solid tumours were eligible if they had a creatinine concentration of less than 180 mmol/L, no or low concentrations of donor-specific HLA antibodies, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0-2. Patients received standard doses of nivolumab (3 mg/kg intravenously every 14 days for five cycles, then 480 mg every 28 days for up to 2 years). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with irretrievable allograft rejection and no evidence of tumour response. Primary outcome analyses and safety analyses were done in the modified intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, ANZCTR12617000741381, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 31, 2017, and Aug 6, 2021, 22 kidney transplant recipients with various solid tumours were screened and enrolled, four of whom chose not to proceed in the study and one of whom had unexpected disease progression. 17 patients (six [35%] women and 11 [65%] men; median age 67 years [IQR 59-71]) were allocated treatment with nivolumab and were included in the analyses. The trial was then stopped due to ongoing difficulties with running clinical trials during COVID-19 health restrictions. Patients were treated with a median of three infusions (IQR 2-10) and median follow-up was 28 months (IQR 16-34). No patients had irretrievable allograft rejection without evidence of tumour response. There were no treatment-related deaths or treatment-related serious adverse events. The most common grade 3 or grade 4 adverse events were decreased lymphocyte count in four (24%) patients, fever or infection in four (24%) patients, decreased haemoglobin in three (18%) patients, and increased creatinine in three (18%) patients. INTERPRETATION: Maintaining baseline immunosuppression before treatment with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in kidney transplant recipients might not affect expected efficacy and might reduce the risk of allograft rejection mediated by immune checkpoint inhibitors. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb.

Non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in colorectal cancer: a review of clinical studies.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) chemoprevention is an area of interest. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are anti-inflammatory agents which have been identified as cancer chemoprevention agents given that inflammation is thought to contribute to tumorigenesis. Most studies have demonstrated that the NSAID, aspirin, plays a beneficial role in the prevention of CRC and colonic adenomas. Non-aspirin NSAIDs (NA-NSAIDs) have also been studied in CRC chemoprevention. There is increasing literature around their role in pre-cancerous polyp prevention and in decreasing CRC incidence and CRC-related outcomes in certain high-risk subgroups. However, the use of NA-NSAIDs may be accompanied by increased risks of toxicity. Further studies are required to establish the associations between concurrent aspirin and NA-NSAID use, and CRC-related outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes in individuals with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated with ripretinib in the fourth-line setting: analysis from the phase 3 INVICTUS trial.

BACKGROUND: Ripretinib is a novel switch-control kinase inhibitor that inhibits KIT and PDGFRA signaling. In the INVICTUS phase 3 trial, ripretinib increased median progression-free survival and prolonged overall survival vs. placebo in ≥ fourth-line advanced GIST. Here, we report prespecified analysis of quality of life (QoL) as assessed by patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and an exploratory analysis evaluating the impact of alopecia on QoL. METHODS: In the INVICTUS trial (NCT03353753), QoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30; physical function, role function, overall health, and overall QoL) and the EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-Level (EQ-5D-5 L; visual analogue scale). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models compared changes in scores from baseline to treatment cycle 2, day 1 within and between ripretinib and placebo. Within the ripretinib arm, repeated measures models assessed the impact of alopecia on QoL. RESULTS: Patients receiving ripretinib maintained QoL (as assessed by the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-5 L PRO measures) from baseline to cycle 2, day 1 whereas QoL declined with placebo, resulting in clinically significant differences between treatments (nominal P < 0.01). The most common treatment-emergent adverse event with ripretinib was alopecia; however, QoL was similarly maintained out to treatment cycle 10, day 1 in patients receiving ripretinib who developed alopecia and those who did not. CONCLUSION: PRO assessments in the INVICTUS trial suggest that patients on ripretinib maintain their QoL out to C2D1, unlike patients receiving placebo. Longitudinal QoL was maintained for patients receiving ripretinib out to cycle 10, day 1 (approximately 8 months; past the point of median progression-free survival with ripretinib [6.3 months]), even if the patients developed alopecia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03353753 ; first posted: November 27, 2017.

Cardiovascular Disease in Adult Cancer Survivors: a Review of Current Evidence, Strategies for Prevention and Management, and Future Directions for Cardio-oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cardiovascular disease is long-term complication of both cancer and anti-cancer treatment and can have significant ramifications for health-related quality of life and mortality. This narrative review explores the current evidence linking cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as exploring strategies for the prevention and management of cardiovascular disease, and outlines future opportunities in the field of cardio-oncology. RECENT FINDINGS: Cancer confers risk for various cardiovascular diseases including heart failure, cardiomyopathy, arrhythmia, coronary heart disease, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and valvular heart disease. Cancer treatment, in particular agents such as platinum-based chemotherapy, anthracyclines, hormonal treatments, and thoracic radiotherapy, further increases risk. While cardiovascular disease can be identified early and effectively managed in cancer survivors, cardiovascular screening and management does not typically feature in routine long-term cancer care of adult cancer survivors. Cancer and cancer treatment can accelerate the development of cardiovascular disease. Further research into screening and management strategies for cardiovascular disease, along with evidence-based guidelines, is required to ensure adult cancer survivors receive appropriate long-term care.

The SYMPTOM-upper gastrointestinal study: A mixed methods study exploring symptom appraisal and help-seeking in Australian upper gastrointestinal cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: There is limited evidence on the development of pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer, how patients decide to seek help and the factors impacting help-seeking. Our study, the first in Australia, aimed to explore symptom appraisal and diagnostic pathways in these patients. A secondary aim was to examine the potential to recruit cancer patients through a cancer quality registry. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with pancreatic or oesophagogastric cancer were recruited through Monash University's Upper-Gastrointestinal Cancer Registry. Data collected through general practitioners (GP) and patient questionnaires included symptoms and their onset, whereas patient interviews focused on the patient's decision-making in seeking help from healthcare pracitioners. Data collection and analysis was informed by the Aarhus statement. Coding was inductive, and themes were mapped onto the Model of Pathways to Treatment. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and March 2020, 27 patient questionnaires and 13 phone interviews were completed. Prior to diagnosis, patients lacked awareness of pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer symptoms, leading to the normalisation, dismissal and misattribution of the symptoms. Patients initially self-managed symptoms, but worsening of symptoms and jaundice triggered help-seeking. Competing priorities, beliefs about illnesses and difficulties accessing healthcare delayed help-seeking. CONCLUSION: Increased awareness of insidious pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer symptoms in patients and general practitioners may prompt more urgent investigations and lead to earlier diagnosis.

A qualitative investigation of the supportive care experiences of people living with pancreatic and oesophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic and oesophagogastric (OG) cancers have a dismal prognosis and high symptom burden, with supportive care forming an integral component of the care provided to patients. This study aimed to explore the supportive care experiences of patients and caregivers living with pancreatic and OG cancers in order to identify perceived opportunities for improvement. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with people living with pancreatic and OG cancers, and their caregivers, across Victoria, Australia during 2020. Interviews were thematically analysed to identify common themes. RESULTS: Forty-one participants were interviewed, including 30 patients and 11 caregivers. Three overarching themes, each with multiple sub-themes, were identified: (i) inadequate support for symptoms and issues across the cancer journey (ii) caregiver's desire for greater support, and (iii) a multidisciplinary care team is the hallmark of a positive supportive care experience. Generally, those who had access to a cancer care coordinator and/or a palliative care team recounted more positive supportive care experiences. CONCLUSION: Unmet needs are prevalent across the pancreatic and OG cancer journey, with supportive care provided to varying levels of satisfaction. Greater awareness of and access to high-quality multidisciplinary support services is greatly desired by both patients with pancreatic and OG cancer and their caregivers.

Development of melanoma clinical quality indicators for the Australian melanoma clinical outcomes registry (MelCOR): A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries aim to identify significant variations in care and provide anonymised feedback to institutions to improve patient outcomes. Thirty-six Australian organisations with an interest in melanoma, raised funds through three consecutive Melanoma Marches, organised by Melanoma Institute Australia, to create a national Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR). This study aimed to formally develop valid clinical quality indicators for the diagnosis and early management of cutaneous melanoma as an important step in creating the registry. METHODS: Potential clinical quality indicators were identified by examining the literature, including Australian and international melanoma guidelines, and by consulting with key melanoma and registry opinion leaders. A modified two-round Delphi survey method was used, with participants invited from relevant health professions routinely managing melanoma as well as relevant consumer organisations. RESULTS: Nineteen participants completed at least one round of the Delphi process. 12 of 13 proposed clinical quality indictors met the validity criteria. The clinical quality indicators included acceptable biopsy method, appropriate excision margins, standardised pathology reporting, indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy, and involvement of multidisciplinary care and referrals. CONCLUSION: This study provides a multi-stakeholder consensus for important clinical quality indicators that define optimal practice that will now be used in the Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR).