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.

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).

Development of an Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Clinical Quality Registry: a protocol paper.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, comprising the largest national cancer disease burden in Australia and New Zealand. Regional reports identify substantial evidence-practice gaps, unwarranted variation from best practice, and variation in processes and outcomes of care between treating centres. The Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Registry (ANZLCR) will be developed as a Clinical Quality Registry to monitor the safety, quality and effectiveness of lung cancer care in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patient participants will include all adults >18 years of age with a new diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, thymoma or mesothelioma. The ANZLCR will register confirmed diagnoses using opt-out consent. Data will address key patient, disease, management processes and outcomes reported as clinical quality indicators. Electronic data collection facilitated by local data collectors and local, state and federal data linkage will enhance completeness and accuracy. Data will be stored and maintained in a secure web-based data platform overseen by registry management. Central governance with binational representation from consumers, patients and carers, governance, administration, health department, health policy bodies, university research and healthcare workers will provide project oversight. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ANZLCR has received national ethics approval under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme. Data will be routinely reported to participating sites describing performance against measures of agreed best practice and nationally to stakeholders including federal, state and territory departments of health. Local, regional and (bi)national benchmarks, augmented with online dashboard indicator reporting will enable local targeting of quality improvement efforts.

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.

Making the move to a learning healthcare system: has the pandemic brought us one step closer?

The notion of a learning healthcare system (LHS) is gaining traction to advance the objectives of high-quality patient-centred care. Within such a system, real-world data analysis, clinical research and health service research are core activities of the health system. To support the transition to an LHS, the Australian Government is implementing the National Clinical Trials Governance Framework, which extends health service accreditation standards to the conduct of clinical trials. This initiative encourages the integration of clinical trials into clinical care and the fostering of a culture of continuous improvement. However, implementing this initiative may prove challenging if health system leaders, clinicians and patients fail to recognise the value of clinical trials as a core health system activity. In this article we describe the enduring value of clinical trials and how the COVID-19 pandemic has enhanced their value by addressing longstanding deficiencies in the way trials are conducted. We also summarise best-practice advice on the embedding of trials into routine health care to enable their integration into health system operations.What is known about this topic?Many healthcare organisations seek to transition to a learning health system. In Australia, National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards, which support the embedding of clinical trials as a core health system activity, have been implemented to catalyse the move.What does this paper add?Because there is little practical advice on how to embed clinical trials into health system operations, this paper summarises best practice. It also provides a rationale for embedding trials as a core health system activity, because the creation of a strong research culture is an important determinant of success.What are the implications for practitioners?The successful transition to an LHS would significantly advance the goals of value-based care.