Evaluation of survivorship care plans in patients attending the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre.

PURPOSE: The transitioning of cancer survivors from active treatment to surveillance care has been described as uncoordinated, with lack of communication between healthcare professionals. Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended to bridge this transitioning period and help improve coordination of care. SCP contain individualized information about a survivor's cancer diagnosis, treatment, and recommendations for managing treatment-related side effects and improving lifestyle risk factors for cancer recurrence and chronic disease. The aims of the study were to assess the delivery, usefulness, and compliance with SCP of survivors attending a multidisciplinary survivorship clinic and to determine patient suggestions regarding how to improve SCP. METHODS: A total of 110 survivors were interviewed in-person or by phone regarding their SCP following a script with formalized questions. Data were analyzed quantitatively using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of participants (72/110) acknowledged having received a SCP and 86% found them useful. Only 11% of survivors (8/72) showed their SCP to other health professionals and about half (33/72) showed it to family/friends. Ninety percent of survivors (65/72) reported following at least one recommendation in their SCP. CONCLUSION: Survivors found SCP helpful but did not share them with other healthcare providers, which questions their usefulness in coordinating care. There were challenges with SCP delivery. Survivors reported they were compliant with SCP lifestyle recommendations. Further research is required to address the utility of SCP to other stakeholders, such as general practitioners, to determine whether they receive the SCP, if they find them helpful, and their expectations regarding SCP.

Country of birth and non-small cell lung cancer incidence, treatment, and outcomes in New South Wales, Australia: a population-based linkage study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment within 12 months of diagnosis, and survival by country of birth for people diagnosed with invasive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND SETTING: A population-based cohort study of NSW residents diagnosed with NSCLC in 2003-2016 using de-identified linked data from the NSW Cancer Registry, NSW Admitted Patient Data collection, Emergency Departments, Medicare Benefits and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and National Death Index. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odds of receiving any treatment, surgery, systemic therapy, or radiotherapy respectively, in the 12 months following diagnosis were calculated using multivariable logistic regression. The hazard of death (all-cause) at one- and five-years following diagnosis was calculated using multivariable proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: 27,114 People were recorded with NSCLC in the 14-year study period. Higher percentages of older males from European countries applied in the earlier years, with a shift to younger people from South East Asia, New Zealand, and the Middle East. Adjusted analyses indicated that, compared with the Australian born, people from European countries were more likely to receive treatment, and, specifically surgery. Also, people from Asian countries were more likely to receive systemic therapy but less likely to receive radiotherapy. Survival at one- and five-years following diagnosis was higher for people born in countries other than Australia, New Zealand the United Kingdom and Germany. CONCLUSIONS: Variations exist in treatment and survival by country of birth in NSW. This may be affected by differences in factors not recorded in the NSW Registry, including use of general health services, family histories, underlying health conditions, other intrinsic factors, and cultural, social, and behavioural influences.

Is a 10-minute surgical scrub necessary in urologic prosthetic surgery? A randomized study of the effect of a 5- vs 10-minute surgical scrub on bacterial colony counts in the genital skin.

AIMS: To determine the antiseptic efficacy on bacterial colony counts of a 5- vs 10-minute surgical site scrub in urologic surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in 101 patients presenting for elective urological procedures. Patients were randomized to a 5- or 10-minute groin scrub with Betadine (povidone-iodine). Skin swabs were taken immediately after skin clipping and following routine painting with Betadine. A third swab was taken after the betadine skin scrub. Bacterial colony counts were reported as a number of colony-forming units (CFUs). The primary outcome measure was a quantitative comparison of CFUs in the two arms. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were randomized to a 5-minute scrub and 48 to a 10-minute scrub. After Betadine painting, CFUs were present in 38% of patients in the 5-minute group (mean, 33.5 CFU) and in 27% of the 10-minute group (mean, 45.4 CFU). Following the surgical scrub, only 7.5% of the 5-minute group and 8.3% of the 10-minute group had a measurable CFU count of greater than or equal to 1, and colony counts were low in both groups (5- minute group: mean, 1.5 CFU; 10-minute group: mean, 2.0 CFU). There was no significant difference in CFUs following a 5- or 10-minute scrub (P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a surgical skin scrub leads to a fourfold reduction in the skin CFU count compared with Betadine painting. However, there is no difference between the antibacterial effects of a 5- and 10-minute scrub. A 5-minute scrub may be sufficient in urologic prosthetic surgery.

Delays to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer in Australia: healthcare professional perceptions of actual versus acceptable timeframes.

BACKGROUND: Streamlined referral to specialist care impacts lung cancer outcomes. AIM: To examine Australian healthcare professionals' (HCP) perceptions of the timeliness of pathways to diagnosis and treatment for people with lung cancer, compared against timeframe guidelines. METHODS: A 21-item survey of HCP evaluating patient waiting times to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer was distributed through two Australian conferences, a national Multidisciplinary Team directory and email. Main outcome measures were HCP estimates of actual and acceptable waiting times in their practice and factors contributing to perceived delays. RESULTS: A total of 135 responses was obtained from HCP working in secondary healthcare who had recent clinical experience treating lung cancer patients. While 79% believed a diagnosis of lung cancer should be obtained within 14 days of first clinical suspicion, only 56% estimated that this occurred in their practice due mainly to delays in primary care. Most HCP (81%) estimated that patients receive treatment within 28 days of seeing a specialist, but 28% believed a wait of >14 days to treatment was a 'delay', generally due to resource limitations. In general, most HCP estimates of time spent in primary care were longer than those in the literature, while estimates for secondary care were shorter. CONCLUSIONS: Australian HCP treating lung cancer patients perceive a mismatch between acceptable and estimated waiting times to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer due to patient, provider and system factors. If perceived delays are justified, it is unclear whether HCP overestimate times spent by patients in primary care or underestimate delays in secondary care. Variations in HCP expectations need to be addressed.

Utility of survivorship care plans: A mixed-method study exploring general practitioners' and cancer specialists' views.

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended as integral to survivorship care but are not routinely provided in many centers. We explore whether SCP from the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre (SCSC) clinic was received by general practitioners (GP) and cancer specialists, and their views on SCP. METHODS: A mixed-method study comprising a quality assurance audit, a questionnaire of GP practices and GP, and semi-structured interviews of cancer specialists who referred patients to the SCSC clinic between 2019-2020. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: The audit found 153/190 (80.5%) SCSC attendees had SCP uploaded to hospital medical records. The response rate from GP practices was 41%; among the 55 responding practices, 38 (69%) did not receive the SCP. The response rate from GP was 19%; among the 29 responding GP, 25 (86%) indicated the SCP was worthwhile, especially follow-up plans and multidisciplinary team recommendations. Analysis of 14 cancer specialist interviews identified themes of 1) awareness of SCP; 2) access: SCP difficult to locate; 3) process: access and distribution require improvement; 4) systemic issues; 5) content and layout: more concise and better readability required; 6) value: mainly for GP and survivors; 7) use of SCP: limited; 8) recommendations: improve delivery process, enhance layout/content, more stakeholder input, more tailored information. CONCLUSION: Although response rates from GP were low, those responding perceived SCP to be useful. Cancer specialists believed SCP were more valuable for GP and survivors. Process issues, especially SCP delivery, need to be improved.

Feasibility study of a multimodal prehabilitation programme in women receiving neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in a major cancer hospital: a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant therapy has become a standard treatment for patients with stage II/III HER2 positive and triple negative breast cancer, and in well-selected patients with locally advanced and borderline resectable high risk, luminal B breast cancer. Side effects of neoadjuvant therapy, such as fatigue, cardiotoxicity, neurotoxicity, anxiety, insomnia, vasomotor symptoms, gastrointestinal disturbance as well as a raft of immune-related adverse events, may impact treatment tolerance, long-term outcomes, and quality of life. Providing early supportive care prior to surgery (typically termed 'prehabilitation') may mitigate these side effects and improve quality of life.During our codesign of the intervention, consumers and healthcare professionals expressed desire for a programme that 'packaged' care, was easy to access, and was embedded in their care pathway. We hypothesise that a multimodal supportive care programme including exercise and complementary therapies, underpinned by behavioural change theory will improve self-efficacy, quality of life, readiness for surgery and any additional treatment for women with breast cancer. We seek to explore cardiometabolic, residual cancer burden and surgical outcomes, along with chemotherapy completion (relative dose intensity). This article describes the protocol for a feasibility study of a multimodal prehabilitation programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective, mixed-method, feasibility study of a multi-modal programme in a hospital setting for 20-30 women with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Primary outcomes are recruitment rate, retention rate, adherence and acceptability. Secondary outcomes include patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), surgical outcomes, length of stay, satisfaction with surgery, chemotherapy completion rates, changes in metabolic markers and adverse events. Interviews and focus groups to understand the experience with prehabilitation and different factors that may affect feasibility of the intervention . The output of this study will be a codesigned, evidence-informed intervention assessed for feasibility and acceptability by women with breast cancer and the healthcare professionals that care for them. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethics approval from the St Vincents Hospital HREC (HREC/2021/ETH12198). Trial results will be communicated to participants, healthcare professionals, and the public via publication and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000584730.

The utility of surveillance CT scans in a cohort of survivors of colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide. After curative intent treatment, international guidelines recommend surveillance protocols which include annual CT chest, abdomen and pelvis (CAP) and serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring which aim to improve overall survival by early detection of recurrence. Despite the widespread recommendations, robust evidence of an overall survival benefit is lacking. Our study aimed to quantify the utility of annual CT CAP as a surveillance modality in comparison to the rate of potentially harmful false-positive and incidental findings. METHODS: High-risk stage II and stage III CRC patients were retrospectively identified from the Sydney Cancer Survivorship Centre database. Findings on surveillance CT were classified into confirmed recurrence or the potentially harmful findings of (a) false-positive or (b) clinically significant incidental finding. RESULTS: A total of 376 surveillance CT CAPs were performed in 174 survivors between 12 September 2013 and 30 June 2020. The recurrence rate during the study period was 23/174 (13.2%) with the majority of recurrences detected by abnormal CEA (14/23, 60.9%) versus surveillance CT (4/23, 17.4%), with the remainder identified on non-surveillance CT (5/23, 21.7%). Curative intent surgery was performed in 12/23 people with CRC recurrence. Surveillance CT was shown to result in high levels of false-positive (31/174, 17.8% of patients) or clinically significant incidental findings (30/174, 17.2% of patients). The risk of identifying these potentially harmful findings was ongoing with each year of surveillance CT. CONCLUSION: Surveillance CT was associated with low detection rates and high rates of potentially harmful findings bringing this surveillance modality under further scrutiny. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: An increased emphasis should be placed on educating survivors on the benefits of surveillance CT weighed against the risk of potentially harmful findings.

Cancer survivorship programs for patients from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: People of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) backgrounds face disparities in cancer care. This scoping review aims to identify the breadth of international literature focused on cancer survivorship programs/interventions specific to CALD populations, and barriers and facilitators to program participation. METHODS: Scoping review included studies focused on interventions for CALD cancer survivors after curative-intent treatment. Electronic databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Scopus were searched, for original research articles from database inception to April 2022. RESULTS: 710 references were screened with 26 included: 14 randomized (54%), 6 mixed-method (23%), 4 non-randomized experimental (15%), 2 qualitative studies (8%). Most were United States-based (85%), in breast cancer survivors (88%; Table 1), of Hispanic/Latinx (54%) and Chinese (27%) backgrounds. Patient-reported outcome measures were frequently incorporated as primary endpoints (65%), or secondary endpoints (15%). 81% used multi-modal interventions with most encompassing domains of managing psychosocial (85%) or physical (77%) effects from cancer, and most were developed through community-based participatory methods (46%) or informed by earlier work by the same research groups (35%). Interventions were usually delivered by bilingual staff (88%). 17 studies (77%) met their primary endpoints, such as meeting feasibility targets or improvements in quality of life or psychological outcomes. Barriers and facilitators included cultural sensitivity, health literacy, socioeconomic status, acculturation, and access. CONCLUSIONS: Positive outcomes were associated with cancer survivorship programs/interventions for CALD populations. As we identified only 26 studies over the last 14 years in this field, gaps surrounding provision of cancer survivorship care in CALD populations remain. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Ensuring culturally sensitive and specific delivery of cancer survivorship programs and interventions is paramount in providing optimal care for survivors from CALD backgrounds.

Why do delays to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer occur? A mixed methods study of insights from Australian clinicians.

AIMS: Delays in lung cancer diagnosis and treatment can impact survival. We explored reasons for delays experienced by patients with lung cancer to identify themes and strategies for improvement. METHODS: We used national timeframe recommendations and standardized definitions to identify General Practitioners and specialists caring for 34 patients who experienced delays in our previous Medicare data linkage study. Clinicians participated in a survey and interview, including qualitative (exploratory, open-ended questions) and quantitative (rating scales) components. Exploratory content analysis, cross-case triangulation, and descriptive statistics were performed. Krippendorff's coefficient was used to assess level of agreement between clinicians and patients, and among clinicians, on perceived delays. RESULTS: Overall, 27 out of 50 (54%) eligible clinicians participated (including 11 respiratory physicians and seven medical oncologists). Dominant themes for perceived causes of delay included referral barriers, limited General Practitioner (GP) awareness of subtle clinical presentations, insufficient radiology interpretation, and lack of cancer coordinators. "Unavoidable" delays may occur due to clinical circumstances. Awareness and uptake of referral and timeframe guidelines were low, with clinicians using professional networks over guidelines. There was no consistent agreement on perceived delays between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians (Krippendorff's coefficient .03 [P = .8]). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies for minimizing avoidable delays include efficient GP to specialist referral and more lung cancer coordinators to assist with patient expectations and waitlist management. Clinicians' reliance on experience, rather than guidelines, indicates need to review guideline utility. Raising awareness of benchmarks and unavoidable barriers may recalibrate perceptions of "delays" to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer.

How long is too long? A scoping review of health system delays in lung cancer.

Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival, highlighting the need for streamlined patient referral. International guidelines recommend 14-day maximum time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS appointment ("GP-LCS interval"), and diagnosis to treatment ("treatment interval"). We compared time intervals in lung cancer care against timeframe benchmarks, and explored barriers and facilitators to timely care.We conducted a scoping review of literature from MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and hand searches. Primary end-points were GP-LCS and treatment intervals. Performance against guidelines and factors responsible for delays were explored. We used descriptive statistics and nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum tests to compare intervals in studies reporting fast-track interventions.Of 1343 identified studies, 128 full-text articles were eligible. Only 33 (26%) studies reported GP-LCS intervals, with an overall median of 7 days and distributions largely meeting guidelines. Overall, 52 (41%) studies reported treatment intervals, with a median of 27 days, and distributions of times falling short of guidelines. There was no effect of fast-track interventions on reducing time intervals. Lack of symptoms and multiple procedures or specialist visits were suggested causes for delay.Although most patients with lung cancer see a specialist within a reasonable timeframe, treatment commencement is often delayed. There is regional variation in establishing timeliness of care.

Times to Diagnosis and Treatment of Lung Cancer in New South Wales, Australia: A Multicenter, Medicare Data Linkage Study.

INTRODUCTION: Earlier access to lung cancer specialist (LCS) care improves survival. We examined times to diagnosis and treatment of patients with lung cancer in rural and metropolitan New South Wales (NSW) Australia, benchmarked against recent timeframe recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semistructured interviews of recently diagnosed patients with lung cancer from five NSW cancer centers were used to determine standardized time intervals to diagnosis and treatment, triangulated with Medicare data linkage and medical records. We used descriptive statistics to evaluate the primary end points of median time intervals from general practitioner (GP) referral to first LCS visit (GP-LCS interval) and to treatment start (Secondary Care interval). Univariable and multivariable analyses were used to study associations with delays in end points. Post hoc survival analyses were performed. RESULTS: Data linkage was performed for 125 patients (68% stage IV; 69% metropolitan), with 108 interviewed. The median GP-LCS interval was 4 days, with 83% of patients seeing an LCS within the recommended 14 days. The median Secondary Care interval was 42 days (52% within 42 days). There were no significant differences between time intervals faced by rural and metropolitan patients overall, although metropolitan patients took 18 days less than rural counterparts to commence radiation/chemoradiation (95% CI, -33.2 to -2.54; P = .02). One third of patients perceived delays. Delays did not affect survival. CONCLUSION: Rural and metropolitan NSW patients face comparable time lines to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Most patients are seen by an LCS within recommended timeframes, but transition through Secondary Care and addressing patient expectations could be improved.