Academic literature on the topic 'Cancer Treatment Victoria'

Background: The aim of this presentation is to provide an update on the economic evaluation of the Australian SunSmart program as well as outline the cost of skin cancer treatment to the Victorian public hospital system. This follows the publication of two recently released published economic evaluations that discusses the potential effects of skin cancer prevention inventions. Aim: 1. To highlight the cost effectiveness of skin cancer prevention in Australia 2. To highlight the costs of skin cancer treatment in the Victorian public hospital system 3. To provide strong evidence to inform governments of the value of skin cancer prevention to reduce the costs of treatment in future years. Methods: Program cost was compared with cost savings to determine the investment return of the program. In a separate study, a prevalence-based cost approach was undertaken in public hospitals in Victoria. Costs were estimated for inpatient admissions, using state service statistics, and outpatient services based on attendance at three hospitals in 2012-13. Cost-effectiveness for prevention was estimated from 'observed vs expected' analysis, together with program expenditure data. Results: With additional $AUD 0.16 ($USD 0.12) per capita investment into skin cancer prevention across Australia from 2011 to 2030, an upgraded SunSmart Program would prevent 45,000 melanoma and 95,000 NMSC cases. Potential savings in future healthcare costs were estimated at $200 million, while productivity gains were significant. A future upgraded SunSmart Program was predicted to be cost-saving from the funder perspective, with an investment return of $3.20 for every additional dollar the Australian governments/funding bodies invested into the program. In relation to the costs to the Victorian public hospital system, total annual costs were $48 million to $56 million. Skin cancer treatment in public hospitals ($9.20∼$10.39 per head/year) was 30-times current public funding in skin cancer prevention ($0.37 per head/year). Conclusion: The study demonstrates the strong economic credentials of the SunSmart Program, with a strong economic rationale for increased investment. Increased funding for skin cancer prevention must be kept high on the public health agenda. This would also have the dual benefit of enabling hospitals to redirect resources to nonpreventable conditions.

ObjectivesA growing body of evidence suggests longer time between symptom onset and start of treatment affects breast cancer prognosis. To explore this association, the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Module 4 examined differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways in 10 jurisdictions across Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.SettingPrimary care in 10 jurisdictions.ParticipantData were collated from 3471 women aged >40 diagnosed for the first time with breast cancer and surveyed between 2013 and 2015. Data were supplemented by feedback from their primary care physicians (PCPs), cancer treatment specialists and available registry data.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPatient, primary care, diagnostic and treatment intervals.ResultsOverall, 56% of women reported symptoms to primary care, with 66% first noticing lumps or breast changes. PCPs reported 77% presented with symptoms, of whom 81% were urgently referred with suspicion of cancer (ranging from 62% to 92%; Norway and Victoria). Ranges for median patient, primary care and diagnostic intervals (days) for symptomatic patients were 3–29 (Denmark and Sweden), 0–20 (seven jurisdictions and Ontario) and 8–29 (Denmark and Wales). Ranges for median treatment and total intervals (days) for all patients were 15–39 (Norway, Victoria and Manitoba) and 4–78 days (Sweden, Victoria and Ontario). The 10% longest waits ranged between 101 and 209 days (Sweden and Ontario).ConclusionsLarge international differences in breast cancer diagnostic pathways exist, suggesting some jurisdictions develop more effective strategies to optimise pathways and reduce time intervals. Targeted awareness interventions could also facilitate more timely diagnosis of breast cancer.

Background: Rural-urban disparities in cancer outcomes are found in many countries, though these vary by cancer type. In Victoria, Australia, survival is poorer for rural patients with colorectal cancer, but not breast cancer. Delayed diagnosis and treatment may contribute to disparities, but previous studies have not compared the timeliness of rural and urban pathways to treatment of these common cancers. Aim: We investigated whether time to diagnosis and treatment differed for rural and urban patients with colorectal or breast cancer in Victoria, Australia. Methods: Population-based, cross-sectional surveys examining events and dates on the pathway to treatment completed by patients aged ≥ 40 and approached within six months of diagnosis, their general practitioner (GP) and specialist. Data were collected from 2013 to 2014 as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, Module 4. Six intervals were explored: patient (symptom to presentation), primary care (presentation to referral), diagnostic (presentation/screening to diagnosis), treatment (diagnosis to treatment), health system (presentation to treatment) and total intervals (symptom/screening to treatment). Rural-urban differences were examined for each cancer using quantile regression (50th, 75th and 90th percentiles) models including age, gender, health insurance and socioeconomic status. Results: 433 colorectal (48% rural) and 489 breast (42% rural) patients, 621 GPs and 370 specialists completed surveys. Compared with urban patients, symptomatic colorectal cancer patients from rural areas had a significantly longer total interval at all percentiles: 50th (18 days longer, 95% confidence interval (CI): 9-27), 75th (53, 95% CI: 47-59) 90th (44, 95% CI: 40-48). These patients also had longer health system intervals, ranging 7-85 days longer. This appeared mostly due to longer diagnostic intervals (range: 6-54 days longer). Results were similar when including screen-detected cases. In contrast, breast cancer intervals were similar for rural and urban patients, except the patient interval, which was shorter for rural patients. Conclusion: Consistent with variation in survival, we found longer total and diagnostic intervals for rural compared with urban patients with colorectal cancer, but not breast cancer. The lack of rural-urban differences observed for breast cancer suggest that inequities in the timeliness of colorectal cancer pathways can be ameliorated, and may improve clinical outcomes. Indeed, based on previous research, delays observed in this study could result in stage progression and hence reduced survival. From our results, interventions targeting the time from presentation to colorectal cancer diagnosis in rural populations should be pursued. Countries seeking to understand cancer disparities in their local context may also consider using a pathways approach to identify possible targets for policy intervention.

Background and context: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is a major public health issue in Australia, affecting an estimated 238,000 people. If not appropriately managed, chronic hepatitis B infection can cause cirrhosis and liver cancer. Liver cancer has the fastest increasing incidence rate of all cancers in Australia, and its survival is among the lowest. To reduce the burden of liver cancer, more people with CHB need to be diagnosed and treated. The majority of people living in Australia with CHB (61%) were born overseas, and research indicates people have low levels of understanding about hepatitis B, and its link to liver cancer. Cancer Council Victoria developed several communication campaigns to increase testing and diagnosis for hepatitis B in the Vietnamese and south Sudanese communities living in Victoria. Aim: •To raise awareness about hepatitis B and the link to liver cancer in the Vietnamese and south Sudanese community •To increase understanding about diagnosis, vaccination and management •To mobilize the community to talk to their trusted GP about hepatitis and to be tested. Strategy/Tactics: The campaign strategy was designed to address the knowledge barriers to testing for these two communities. To inform the strategy, qualitative focus groups and community interviews were used to identify perceptions of hepatitis B and liver cancer, as well as the barriers and motivators to testing. Both communities identified their local doctor as a trusted source of health information. Two media campaigns were developed featuring a known doctor from each community. An additional campaign was tailored specifically for young south Sudanese people using hip hop music as method of disseminating key messages about liver cancer prevention. Program/Policy process: The campaigns were designed by the Screening, Early Detection and Immunization Team at Cancer in Council Victoria, Australia. Outcomes: Digital metrics and face to face interviews with community members, nurses and doctors were used to assess the impact of the campaigns. Evaluation results also indicated people did visit their doctor to talk about hepatitis B. The success in motivating people to see their doctor was attributed to the campaigns featuring a message about liver cancer being caused by hepatitis B, and it being led by a known and respected doctor from their own community. What was learned: Cancer organizations can target liver cancer prevention efforts to · increase awareness about liver cancer and hepatitis B in at risk communities; · motivate at risk people to visit their doctor for hepatitis B testing, vaccination and treatment by linking the prevention of liver cancer to hepatitis treatment; · tailor communications to the specific needs of different culturally diverse communities; · collaborate closely with communities from culturally diverse backgrounds to ensure campaign messages and calls to action are culturally appropriate.

Abstract Victor Sloski learned that he had lung cancer when he was 57. The news was hard to take. He had lived happily with Shirley, his live-in companion, for 20 years. Still, when experimental treatments failed, he was prepared to die, hoping the end would come soon. It didn’t. His cancer metastasized from his lungs to his stomach, spleen, colon, and finally, to his brain, causing him to go blind. The palliative care team offered to arrange an admission to the inpatient unit, but Mr. Sloski insisted that he wanted home care. He wanted to die at home regardless of how ill he became. Victor Sloski did die at home. Afterward, Shirley said, “Caring for a dying husband was the biggest challenge of my life. But if I had to do it all over again, I would do it.” Getting to that point had been very hard. At times Shirley felt that she was too exhausted, emotionally and physically, to go on.

Overview Skin cancer prevention is a component of the new Cancer Plan 2022–27, which guides the work of the Cancer Institute NSW. To lessen the impact of skin cancer on the community, the Cancer Institute NSW works closely with the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Advisory Committee, comprising governmental and non-governmental organisation representatives, to develop and implement the NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy. Primary Health Networks and primary care providers are seen as important stakeholders in this work. To guide improvements in skin cancer prevention and inform the development of the next NSW Skin Cancer Prevention Strategy, an up-to-date review of the evidence on the effectiveness and feasibility of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care is required. A research team led by the Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between the University of Sydney and Cancer Council NSW, was contracted to undertake an Evidence Check review to address the questions below. Evidence Check questions This Evidence Check aimed to address the following questions: Question 1: What skin cancer primary prevention activities can be effectively administered in primary care settings? As part of this, identify the key components of such messages, strategies, programs or initiatives that have been effectively implemented and their feasibility in the NSW/Australian context. Question 2: What are the main barriers and enablers for primary care providers in delivering skin cancer primary prevention activities within their setting? Summary of methods The research team conducted a detailed analysis of the published and grey literature, based on a comprehensive search. We developed the search strategy in consultation with a medical librarian at the University of Sydney and the Cancer Institute NSW team, and implemented it across the databases Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Scopus, Cochrane Central and CINAHL. Results were exported and uploaded to Covidence for screening and further selection. The search strategy was designed according to the SPIDER tool for Qualitative and Mixed-Methods Evidence Synthesis, which is a systematic strategy for searching qualitative and mixed-methods research studies. The SPIDER tool facilitates rigour in research by defining key elements of non-quantitative research questions. We included peer-reviewed and grey literature that included skin cancer primary prevention strategies/ interventions/ techniques/ programs within primary care settings, e.g. involving general practitioners and primary care nurses. The literature was limited to publications since 2014, and for studies or programs conducted in Australia, the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Ireland, Western Europe and Scandinavia. We also included relevant systematic reviews and evidence syntheses based on a range of international evidence where also relevant to the Australian context. To address Question 1, about the effectiveness of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings from the Evidence Check according to different skin cancer prevention activities. To address Question 2, about the barriers and enablers of skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings, we summarised findings according to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR is a framework for identifying important implementation considerations for novel interventions in healthcare settings and provides a practical guide for systematically assessing potential barriers and facilitators in preparation for implementing a new activity or program. We assessed study quality using the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) levels of evidence. Key findings We identified 25 peer-reviewed journal articles that met the eligibility criteria and we included these in the Evidence Check. Eight of the studies were conducted in Australia, six in the UK, and the others elsewhere (mainly other European countries). In addition, the grey literature search identified four relevant guidelines, 12 education/training resources, two Cancer Care pathways, two position statements, three reports and five other resources that we included in the Evidence Check. Question 1 (related to effectiveness) We categorised the studies into different types of skin cancer prevention activities: behavioural counselling (n=3); risk assessment and delivering risk-tailored information (n=10); new technologies for early detection and accompanying prevention advice (n=4); and education and training programs for general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses regarding skin cancer prevention (n=3). There was good evidence that behavioural counselling interventions can result in a small improvement in sun protection behaviours among adults with fair skin types (defined as ivory or pale skin, light hair and eye colour, freckles, or those who sunburn easily), which would include the majority of Australians. It was found that clinicians play an important role in counselling patients about sun-protective behaviours, and recommended tailoring messages to the age and demographics of target groups (e.g. high-risk groups) to have maximal influence on behaviours. Several web-based melanoma risk prediction tools are now available in Australia, mainly designed for health professionals to identify patients’ risk of a new or subsequent primary melanoma and guide discussions with patients about primary prevention and early detection. Intervention studies have demonstrated that use of these melanoma risk prediction tools is feasible and acceptable to participants in primary care settings, and there is some evidence, including from Australian studies, that using these risk prediction tools to tailor primary prevention and early detection messages can improve sun-related behaviours. Some studies examined novel technologies, such as apps, to support early detection through skin examinations, including a very limited focus on the provision of preventive advice. These novel technologies are still largely in the research domain rather than recommended for routine use but provide a potential future opportunity to incorporate more primary prevention tailored advice. There are a number of online short courses available for primary healthcare professionals specifically focusing on skin cancer prevention. Most education and training programs for GPs and primary care nurses in the field of skin cancer focus on treatment and early detection, though some programs have specifically incorporated primary prevention education and training. A notable example is the Dermoscopy for Victorian General Practice Program, in which 93% of participating GPs reported that they had increased preventive information provided to high-risk patients and during skin examinations. Question 2 (related to barriers and enablers) Key enablers of performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Easy access and availability of guidelines and point-of-care tools and resources • A fit with existing workflows and systems, so there is minimal disruption to flow of care • Easy-to-understand patient information • Using the waiting room for collection of risk assessment information on an electronic device such as an iPad/tablet where possible • Pairing with early detection activities • Sharing of successful programs across jurisdictions. Key barriers to performing skin cancer prevention activities in primary care settings included: • Unclear requirements and lack of confidence (self-efficacy) about prevention counselling • Limited availability of GP services especially in regional and remote areas • Competing demands, low priority, lack of time • Lack of incentives.