Medical Education - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9
-
Item
-
ItemHealthcare Costs Before and After Diagnosis of Cancer of Unknown Primary Versus Ovarian Cancer in Australia(SPRINGER INT PUBL AG, 2023-01)BACKGROUND: Little is known about the healthcare resource usage and costs for patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe and quantify healthcare resource use and costs in Australia, 6 months prior to and after a diagnosis of CUP, and compare to those of women with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Individual-level data combining baseline surveys, clinical records and Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) claim records were analysed for 149 patients with CUP and 480 patients with ovarian cancer from two prospective cohort studies. MBS data were aggregated for the period 6 months prior to diagnosis date and 6 months after diagnosis. Data included doctor consultations, pathology, diagnostics, therapeutic procedures, imaging, allied health and medicines. Generalised linear models were used to evaluate the cost differences between CUP and ovarian cancer using gamma family and log link functions. Models were adjusted for age, employment, marital status, surgery, chemotherapy and number of comorbidities. RESULTS: The mean healthcare costs in the 6 months prior to diagnosis of CUP were Australian (AU) $3903 versus AU$1327 for ovarian cancer (adjusted cost ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-4.15). Mean healthcare costs 6 months post-diagnosis were higher for patients with CUP versus ovarian cancer (AU$20,339 vs AU$13,819, adjusted cost ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.13-1.92). Higher costs for patients with CUP were driven by imaging (AU$1937 vs AU$1387), procedures (AU$5403 vs AU$2702) and prescribed medicines for all conditions (AU$10,111 vs AU$6717). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-diagnosis costs for patients with CUP are nearly triple those for ovarian cancer. Six months after diagnosis, healthcare costs for CUP remained higher than for ovarian cancer due to imaging, procedures and medicines.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableWomen with gynaecological cancer awaiting radiotherapy: Self-reported wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function, and supportive care needs(ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE, 2022-10)OBJECTIVE: To better serve women with gynaecological cancers, we need a sound understanding of their health, wellbeing and needs. This study sought to explore these issues in a sample of Australian women before commencing curative radiotherapy. METHODS: We undertook a secondary analysis of baseline data from a supportive care trial (n = 311). Descriptive statistics were used to summarise responses to measures of wellbeing, general psychological distress, symptom distress, sexual function and vaginal changes, and supportive care needs. Pre-specified regression models were used to examine sources of variation in wellbeing and sexual function. RESULTS: Women reported lower emotional, functional and physical wellbeing than population norms (all p < 0.001). The prevalence of general psychological distress was 31% (95% CI 26-36%). Distress caused by physical symptoms was typically low. Health system and information needs comprised eight of the top ten moderate-to-high supportive care needs. Most women reported no change in interest for physical contact or sex compared to pre-diagnosis, but some sexually active women (16-24%) reported smaller vaginal size, increased dryness, and more pain on intercourse. General psychological distress was a robust marker of poorer wellbeing and sexual function. CONCLUSIONS: Before radiotherapy, a substantial minority of women with gynaecological cancers experience general psychological distress, reduced wellbeing and moderate-to-high health system and information needs. A model of comprehensive care incorporating assessment of unmet needs, general psychological distress, and sexual issues is recommended. Healthcare providers may require training to elicit and respond to a constellation of interrelated issues and access relevant services for women requiring additional support.
-
ItemImmune and genomic biomarkers of immunotherapy response in cancer of unknown primary(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2023-01)BACKGROUND: Cancer of unknown primary (CUP) is a heterogeneous group of metastatic cancers where a primary tissue of origin (TOO) is uncertain. Most patients with CUP have limited treatment options and poor survival outcomes. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can be efficacious in some patients with CUP, but the optimal predictive biomarkers are unknown. We therefore assessed immune and genomic biomarkers as well as predicted TOO in patients with CUP, including a subset treated with ICIs. METHODS: Patients with CUP were subject to gene-expression profiling (GEP) and DNA panel sequencing. Immune and stromal-related gene expression was explored by NanoString, including genes associated with immunotherapy response (IR) in other solid malignancies. ICI responsive cancer types were assigned based on Food and Drug Administration-approved indications, and either detection of a latent primary tumor or the TOO was suspected based on genomics informed pathology review. Tumor mutation burden (TMB) and gene mutations were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients with CUP were included, 215 assessed for TOO in a previous study, with the majority (163) receiving both RNA and DNA tests. Of GEP profiled cases, 33% (59/175) had a high IR gene-expression score. Of the DNA sequenced cases, 16% (32/203) had high TMB (>10 mutations/Mb), including two with mismatch repair deficiency. Low correlation was observed between TMB and an IR score (R=0.26, p<0.001). Among 110 CUPs with a latent primary or suspected TOO, 47% (52/110) belonged to ICI-responsive cancer types. More than half of the CUPs had at least one feature that may predict ICI response (high IR score, high TMB, ICI-responsive cancer type). Among patients with CUP treated with ICIs, 8/28 (29%) responded (2 complete responses and 6 partial responses). Among non-responders, 9 had stable and 11 had progressive disease. All responders had a high IR score (7/8) and/or high TMB (3/8), while most (5/8) belonged to ICI-responsive cancer types. These features were detected at a lower frequency in non-responders and mostly in patients with stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: A significant fraction of CUP tumors had genomic features previously associated with ICI response. High IR score was the most sensitive predictive feature of ICI response, warranting evaluation in a larger patient series.
-
ItemUncertainty and the unmet informational needs of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP): a cross-sectional multi-site study(SPRINGER, 2022-10)OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the healthcare experiences, quality of life, and psychosocial needs of patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) early after diagnosis; comparing their experiences to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary (non-CUP control patients) and published general population reference data where available. METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional, multi-site study comparing CUP patients (n = 139) compared to non-CUP controls (n = 45). Demographic, clinical information and patient-reported outcome questionnaire data were collected at baseline. RESULTS: Differences in healthcare experienced were found between CUP and non-CUP controls with CUP patients reporting higher scores for unmet medical communication/information needs compared with non-CUP control patients (p = 0.013) as well as greater uncertainty in illness (p = 0.042). Whilst no differences were found between CUP and non-CUP controls on the EORTC and PROMIS measures, of those that 'received written information about your cancer…' and asked '…how useful was it?' fewer CUP patients reported finding the information useful 40% vs 61%, and more were likely to not have received written information at all 59% vs 32%; (p = 0.002). Additionally, of those that found information about their cancer online, fewer patients with CUP reported finding it useful 32% vs 48% control patients (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: CUP patients have unmet medical communication/information needs and greater uncertainty in illness but do not differ in health-related quality of life domains compared to patients with advanced cancer of a known primary.
-
ItemPsychological distress, understanding of cancer and illness uncertainty in patients with Cancer of Unknown Primary(WILEY, 2022-11)OBJECTIVE: Patients diagnosed with Cancer of Unknown Primary (CUP) experience high levels of psychological distress and report poor understanding of their cancer. We aimed to investigate: (1) if CUP patients with poorer understanding of their cancer diagnosis and testing experience more symptoms of psychological distress than those with better understanding; (2) if the relationship between patients' understanding of their cancer and psychological distress is mediated by illness uncertainty; and (3) explore whether patients' degree of understanding of their cancer can be predicted by clinical and socio-demographic factors. METHODS: 209 CUP patients completed a questionnaire measuring anxiety, depression, illness uncertainty, fatigue, pain, sleep and understanding of their cancer. Using an apriori theoretical framework, we employed structural equation modelling to investigate predictors of patient's understanding of their cancer and psychological distress and the relationships between understanding, illness uncertainty and distress. RESULTS: The structural equation model displayed good fit indices and supported the hypothesised relationship of patient's understanding of their cancer and the extent of psychological distress, which was mediated via illness uncertainty. Physical symptoms were positively associated with psychological distress and illness uncertainty. Younger age was predictive of lower patient's understanding of their cancer and higher levels of psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CUP, particularly those who are younger and experiencing more physical symptoms, report higher levels of psychological distress and may require additional mental health support. Our findings highlight a need to improve CUP patient's understanding about their illness, which could help reduce their illness uncertainty and alleviate psychological distress.
-
ItemPerceptions of cancer of unknown primary site: a national survey of Australian medical oncologists(WILEY, 2017-04)BACKGROUND: Despite being the sixth most common cause of cancer death in Australia, cancer of unknown primary (CUP) site remains poorly understood. AIMS: To describe practices relating to the diagnosis, investigation, classification, communication and management of CUP among medical oncologists. METHODS: We invited all members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia to participate in a national, anonymous online survey about CUP. The survey collected data regarding diagnosis acceptance, diagnostic tests, treatment protocols and communication practices around the diagnosis of CUP. RESULTS: Three hundred and two oncologists were invited and 86 (28%) completed the survey. Eighty (93%) respondents were directly involved in the assessment of patients with CUP. Eighty-five (99%) respondents were prepared to make a diagnosis of CUP if, after appropriate diagnostic tests, the primary location could not be ascertained. Eighty-three percent would assign a primary site to obtain Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule funding of medical therapy. Sixty-two percent did not have a specific treatment protocol designed for CUP. The majority of oncologists used serum tumour markers and computed tomography scans in the initial work-up, while 43% indicated they would use a positron emission tomography scan in the majority of cases. The majority would arrange mammography in female patients. Thematic analysis of responses to open-ended questions about how CUP is described identified little consistency in the language being used. CONCLUSION: The approach to diagnosis, investigation and management of CUP by medical oncologists in Australia is variable. Many preferred to estimate the primary site and treat accordingly. Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule restrictions may encourage the practice of 'best guessing'.
-
ItemUnderstanding and information needs of cancer patients regarding treatment-focused genomic testing: A systematic review(WILEY, 2020-04)OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature exploring experiences of cancer patients regarding their understanding of treatment-focused genomic testing as well as their information needs and related themes. METHODS: Six databases were searched for the original studies published in English language that explored patients' understanding of the information related to the genomic testing and its implications for treatment of cancer. The Mixed-Method Assessement Tool was used to examine the methodological quality of selected articles. RESULTS: There were 14 studies (5 qualitative and 9 quantitative) that met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority of studies revealed that a considerable proportion of cancer patients lacked good undertstanding of treatment-focused genomic testing and wanted to be better informed. Some of the factors associated with poor knowledge about genomic testing were low education, older age, low income, and unemployment. The majority of people with cancer preferred face-to-face communication with their oncologists to discuss and ask questions about genomic testing and treatment. Most also wanted to receive simple, easy to understand written information about treatment-focused genomic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic testing and its implications for treatment emerge as an important aspect of health care across different types of cancer. The evidence indicates that cancer patients want to understand and be well informed about treatment-focused genomic testing in order to be part of decision-making process. Further studies addressing ways to improve cancer patients' understanding and knowledge of genomic testing are needed.
-
ItemDifferences in experiences of care between patients diagnosed with metastatic cancer of known and unknown primaries: mixed-method findings from the 2013 cancer patient experience survey in England(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2017-09)OBJECTIVES: To explore differences in experiences of care reported in the Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) between patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP) and those with metastatic disease of known primary (non-CUP); to determine insights pertaining to the experiences of care for CUP respondents from free-text comments. DESIGN: Two separate, but related, studies, involving secondary analysis of existing data. Using frequency matching of CUP and non-CUP patients, statistical comparisons of responses to CPES questions were conducted. Free-text comments from CUP respondents were analysed thematically. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The CPES questionnaire comprises 63 closed questions measuring 8 areas that relate to experience of care and 3 free-text questions. Questionnaires were mailed to all adult patients (aged ≥16 years) in England with cancer admitted to hospital between 1 September 2013 and 30 November 2013. RESULTS: Matched analysis of closed response items from 2992 patients found significant differences between CUP (n=1496) and non-CUP patients (n=1496): CUP patients were more likely to want more written information about their type of cancer and tests received, to receive their diagnosis from a general practitioner (GP) and have seen allied health professionals, but less likely to have understood explanations of their condition or had surgery. Freetext responses (n=3055) were coded into 17 categories and provided deeper insight regarding patient information and interactions with GPs. CPES data may include a preponderance of patients with favourable CUP subtypes and patients initially identified as CUP but whose primary was subsequently identified. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first large-scale studies to explore the experiences of care of CUP patients. The significant differences identified between the experiences of CUP and non-CUP patients suggest CUP patients require more psychosocial support and specific interventions to manage diagnostic uncertainty and the multiple investigations many CUP patients face. Substantial limitations were identified with the CPES data, emphasising the need for prospective studies.