Platinum chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer associated with shorter survival and a higher likelihood of recurrence. In early TNBC, platinum chemotherapy has been shown to improve pathological complete response (pCR); however, its effect on long-term survival outcomes has not been fully elucidated. METHODS: Randomised controlled trials examining neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum chemotherapy for early TNBC were included. Primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were pCR, treatment adherence, grade III or IV toxicity related to chemotherapy, and quality of life. RESULTS: From 3972 records, we included 20 published studies. All studies reporting DFS and OS used carboplatin. Inclusion of platinum chemotherapy improved DFS (neoadjuvant: hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.75; adjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88) and OS (neoadjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; adjuvant: 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96). Our analysis confirmed platinum chemotherapy increased pCR rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.59). There were no differences seen in examined subgroups. Platinum chemotherapy was associated with reduced dose intensity and increased haematological toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Platinum-based chemotherapy using carboplatin in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting improves long-term outcomes of DFS and OS in early TNBC, with no evidence of differences by subgroup. This was at the cost of more frequent chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and greater haematological toxicity. These findings support the use of platinum-based chemotherapy for people with early TNBC.

Tobacco sales through vending machines: Insights from owners and managers of Australian alcohol-licenced premises with different licencing schemes.

OBJECTIVE: Tobacco sales in alcohol-licenced premises present a very problematic trigger for tobacco sales-a trigger that is particularly problematic for attempting quitters and people who smoke occasionally. This study reports on the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of owners or managers of alcohol-licenced venues that sell tobacco exclusively through vending machines. METHODS: The study involved a telephone survey of alcohol-licenced venue owners or managers in New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australia. Associations between outlet characteristics and current selling of tobacco exclusively via vending machines were examined, and responses to the open-ended question asking why the venue was likely or unlikely to stop selling cigarettes were manually coded. RESULTS: For most alcohol-licenced venues that sold tobacco exclusively through a vending machine, the profit from these sales was not considered important for the business. However, only a small minority (4%) of these venues reported that they were likely to stop selling tobacco. The most commonly cited concerns about stopping were customer dissatisfaction and potential loss of customers. CONCLUSION: The study provides the first evidence on the attitudes of owners/managers to the importance of tobacco sales, revealing that the vast majority of those owners/managers do not believe that tobacco sales are important for their venue. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: The presence of tobacco vending machines implicitly promotes tobacco products and therefore contravenes Australia's obligations under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The results provide powerful evidence that restrictions on tobacco sales can be implemented without major financial damage to those vendors.

Prostate Cancer Survivorship Essentials for men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a tele-based nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials Hormone Therapy Study).

INTRODUCTION: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Men receiving ADT experience numerous side effects and frequently report unmet supportive care needs. An essential part of quality cancer care is survivorship care. To date, an optimal effective approach to survivorship care for men with prostate cancer on ADT has not been described. This protocol describes a randomised trial of tele-based nurse-led survivorship that addresses this knowledge gap: (1) determine the effectiveness of a nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials), relative to usual care, for improving health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT and (2) evaluate PCEssentials implementation strategies and outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 1) trial with participants randomised to one of two arms: (1) minimally enhanced usual care and (2) nurse-led prostate cancer survivorship essentials (PCEssentials) delivered over four tele-based sessions, with a booster session 5 months after session 1. Eligible participants are Australian men with prostate cancer commencing ADT and expected to be on ADT for a minimum of 12 months. Participants are followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months postrecruitment. Primary outcomes are HR-QoL and self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes are psychological distress, insomnia, fatigue and physical activity. A concurrent process evaluation with participants and study stakeholders will be undertaken to determine effectiveness of delivery of PCEssentials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Metro South Health HREC (HREC/2021/QMS/79429). All participants are required to provide written informed consent. Outcomes of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will be presented at conferences and meetings, local hospital departments, participating organisations/clinical services, and university seminars, and communicated at community and consumer-led forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000025730.

Participation in the national cervical screening programme among women from New South Wales, Australia, by place of birth and time since immigration: A data linkage analysis using the 45 and up study.

OBJECTIVE: Equitable elimination of cervical cancer in Australia within the next decade will require high National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) participation by all subgroups of women. The aim of this study was to examine the participation of immigrants compared to Australian-born women. METHODS: Participation in the NCSP (≥1cytology test) over a 3-year (2010-2012) and 5-year (2008-2012) period, by place of birth and time since immigration was examined using individually linked data of 67,350 New South Wales (NSW) women aged ≥45 enrolled in the 45 and Up Study. RESULTS: Three-year cervical screening participation was 77.0% overall. Compared to Australian-born women (77.8%), 3-year participation was lower for women born in New Zealand (adjusted odds ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.87), Oceania (0.67, 0.51-0.89), Middle East/North Africa (0.76, 0.60-0.97), South-East Asia (0.72, 0.60-0.87), Chinese Asia (0.82, 0.69-0.97), Japan/South Korea (0.68, 0.50-0.94), and Southern/Central Asia (0.54, 0.43-0.67), but higher for women from Malta (2.85, 1.77-4.58) and South America (1.33, 1.01-1.75). Non-English-speaking-at-home women were less likely to be screened than English-speaking-at-home women (0.85, 0.78-0.93). Participation increased with years lived in Australia but remained lower in immigrant groups compared to Australian-born women, even after ≥20 years living in Australia. Similar results were observed for 5-year participation. CONCLUSIONS: Women born in New Zealand, Oceania, and parts of Asia and the Middle East had lower NCSP participation, which persisted for ≥20 years post-immigration. The NCSP transition to primary HPV screening, and the introduction of the universal self-collection option in 2022, will offer new opportunities for increasing screening participation for these groups.

Parent's awareness of, and influence on, their 14-17-year-old child's vaping and smoking behaviours; an analysis of 3242 parent-child pairs in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Vaping by young people in Australia is a rapidly emerging public health issue. Evidence shows that parental behaviours and attitudes can play a key role in influencing adolescent behaviours. Considering the health harms of vaping and evidence that it can be a gateway to tobacco smoking for never-smokers, it is important to understand whether parents' smoking and vaping behaviours influence their teenage children's smoking and vaping behaviours. METHODS: Online cross-sectional surveys as part of the Generation Vape study, conducted in Australia in 2021/2022, were used to assess parents' influence on, and awareness of, one of their 14-17-year-old child's vaping and smoking behaviours. Participants were 3242 parents and 3242 14-17-year-old teenage children. RESULTS: The risk of vaping and smoking uptake among 14-17-year-old teenagers was 42% (p = 0.003) and 97% (p < 0.001) higher, respectively, if their parent was an ever-vaper. The risk of vaping and smoking uptake among teenagers was 81% (p < 0.001) and 159% (p < 0.001) higher, respectively, if their parent was an ever-smoker. Parents of teenagers who have not vaped were considerably better at correctly predicting this (97% correct) than parents of teenagers who have vaped (70% correct). Compared to parents, teenagers tended to have less agreement with statements suggesting vaping is unsafe or harmful, and more agreement with statements suggesting vaping is relatively safe. CONCLUSIONS: Parental smoking and vaping behaviours are associated with those of their children. Hence, it is important that both tobacco and vaping control policies and interventions are designed to influence behaviours of all demographics, consistent with the evidence.

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Platinum-based chemotherapy for early triple-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer associated with shorter survival and a higher likelihood of the cancer returning. In early TNBC, platinum-based chemotherapy has been shown to improve pathological complete response (pCR); however, its effect on long-term survival outcomes has not been fully elucidated and recommendations to include platinum chemotherapy are not consistent in international guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of platinum-based chemotherapy as adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment in people with early triple-negative breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 4 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials examining neoadjuvant or adjuvant platinum chemotherapy for early TNBC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Our secondary outcomes were pCR, treatment adherence, grade III or IV toxicity related to chemotherapy, and quality of life. Prespecified subgroups included BRCA mutation status, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status, frequency of chemotherapy, type of platinum agent used, and the presence or absence of anthracycline chemotherapy. We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's RoB 1 tool and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: From 3972 records, we included 20 published studies involving 21 treatment comparisons, and 25 ongoing studies. For most domains, risk of bias was low across studies. There were 16 neoadjuvant chemotherapy studies (one of which combined neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy) and four adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Most studies used carboplatin (17 studies) followed by cisplatin (two), and lobaplatin (one). Eight studies had an anthracycline-free intervention arm, five of which had a carboplatin-taxane intervention compared to an anthracycline-taxane control. All studies reporting DFS and OS used carboplatin. Inclusion of platinum chemotherapy improved DFS in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings (neoadjuvant: hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.75; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 1966 participants; high-certainty evidence; adjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.88; 4 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence). Platinum chemotherapy in the regimen improved OS (neoadjuvant: HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 1973 participants; high-certainty evidence; adjuvant: 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.96; 4 studies, 1256 participants; high-certainty evidence). Median follow-up for survival outcomes ranged from 36 to 97.6 months. Our analysis confirmed platinum chemotherapy increased pCR rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.59; 15 studies, 16 treatment comparisons, 3083 participants; high-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of differences in DFS according to BRCA mutation status, HRD status, lymph node status, or whether the intervention arm contained anthracycline chemotherapy or not. Platinum chemotherapy was associated with reduced dose intensity, with participants more likely to require chemotherapy delays (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.94; 4 studies, 5 treatment comparisons, 1053 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), dose reductions (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.02; 7 studies, 8 treatment comparisons, 2055 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and early cessation of treatment (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.38; 16 studies, 17 treatment comparisons, 4178 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Increased haematological toxicity occurred in the platinum group who were more likely to experience grade III/IV neutropenia (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.63; 19 studies, 20 treatment comparisons, 4849 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), anaemia (RR 8.20, 95% CI 5.66 to 11.89; 18 studies, 19 treatment comparisons, 4757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and thrombocytopenia (RR 7.59, 95% CI 5.10 to 11.29; 18 studies, 19 treatment comparisons, 4731 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between chemotherapy groups in febrile neutropenia (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49; 11 studies, 3771 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Renal impairment was very rare (0.4%, 2 events in 463 participants; note 3 studies reported 0 events in both arms; 4 studies; high-certainty evidence). Treatment-related death was very rare (0.2%, 7 events in 3176 participants and similar across treatment groups; RR 0.58, 95% 0.14 to 2.33; 10 studies, 11 treatment comparisons; note 8 studies reported treatment-related deaths but recorded 0 events in both groups. Thus, the RR and CIs were calculated from 3 studies rather than 11; 3176 participants; high-certainty evidence). Five studies collected quality of life data but did not report them. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Platinum-based chemotherapy using carboplatin in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting improves long-term outcomes of DFS and OS in early TNBC, with no evidence of differences by subgroup. This was at the cost of more frequent chemotherapy delays and dose reductions, and greater haematological toxicity, though serious adverse events including neuropathy, febrile neutropenia or treatment-related death were not increased. These findings support the use of platinum-based chemotherapy for people with early TNBC. The optimal dose and regimen are not defined by this analysis, but there is a suggestion that similar relative benefits result from the addition of carboplatin to either anthracycline-free regimens or those containing anthracycline agents.

Prehabilitation Before Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: Protocol for an Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgery remains the standard curative treatment for early-stage colorectal and upper gastrointestinal cancer. Reduced preoperative functional capacity, nutritional status, and psychological well-being are associated with poor postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation aims to improve preoperative functional reserves through physical, nutritional, and psychological interventions. Yet, how it transitions from a trial setting to being integrated into a real-world health setting is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim is to evaluate the implementation of a multimodal (supervised exercise, nutrition, and nursing support) prehabilitation program into standard care for patients with gastrointestinal cancer (colorectal and upper gastrointestinal cancer) scheduled for curative intent surgery. The secondary aim is to determine the impact of a multimodal prehabilitation program on functional capacity, nutritional and psychological status, and surgical outcomes. METHODS: This is an implementation study that will investigate a multimodal prehabilitation intervention, in a nonblinded, nonrandomized, single-group, pre-post design. Patients diagnosed with colorectal and upper gastrointestinal cancer scheduled for potentially curative intent surgery at Concord Repatriation General Hospital, with ≥14 intervention days prior to surgery and are medically cleared to exercise will be eligible. The study will be evaluated using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Evaluation Framework. RESULTS: The protocol was approved in December 2019 by the Concord Repatriation General Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (reference number 2019/PID13679). Recruitment commenced in January 2020. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, recruitment was paused in March 2020 and reopened in August 2020 with remote or telehealth intervention adaptations. Recruitment ended on December 31, 2021. Over the 16-month recruitment period, a total of 77 participants were recruited. CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation represents an opportunity to maximize functional capacity and improve surgical outcomes. The study will provide guidance and contribute to the evidence on the integration of prehabilitation into standard care using adaptive models of health care delivery including telehealth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTR 12620000409976; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378974&isReview=true. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/41101.

Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and harms of breast screening may be better balanced through a risk-stratified approach. We conducted a systematic review assessing the accuracy of questionnaire-based risk assessment tools for this purpose. METHODS: Population: asymptomatic women aged ≥40 years; Intervention: questionnaire-based risk assessment tool (incorporating breast density and polygenic risk where available); Comparison: different tool applied to the same population; Primary outcome: breast cancer incidence; Scope: external validation studies identified from databases including Medline and Embase (period 1 January 2008-20 July 2021). We assessed calibration (goodness-of-fit) between expected and observed cancers and compared observed cancer rates by risk group. Risk of bias was assessed with PROBAST. RESULTS: Of 5124 records, 13 were included examining 11 tools across 15 cohorts. The Gail tool was most represented (n = 11), followed by Tyrer-Cuzick (n = 5), BRCAPRO and iCARE-Lit (n = 3). No tool was consistently well-calibrated across multiple studies and breast density or polygenic risk scores did not improve calibration. Most tools identified a risk group with higher rates of observed cancers, but few tools identified lower-risk groups across different settings. All tools demonstrated a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Some risk tools can identify groups of women at higher or lower breast cancer risk, but this is highly dependent on the setting and population.

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.

Cutaneous melanoma, prostate-specific antigen testing and the subsequent risk of prostate cancer diagnosis: a prospective analysis of the 45 and Up Study.

BACKGROUND: The association between cutaneous melanoma and subsequent risk of prostate cancer (PC) was examined in a large population-based cohort study. METHODS: Male participants in the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study (Australia) were recruited between 2006 and 2009. Questionnaire data and linked administrative health data from the Centre for Health Record Linkage and Services Australia identified melanomas diagnosed between 1/1/1994 and 12 months before Study recruitment (i.e., between 2005 and 2008), incident PCs, primary healthcare utilisation and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests. Men were excluded from the current analyses if they had a recorded PC or other cancer diagnosis other than melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer prior to recruitment. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) adjusting for PSA-testing frequency before PC diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 96,548 eligible men, 1899 were diagnosed with melanoma during the melanoma diagnosis period and 3677 incident PC diagnosed during follow-up (latest date 31/12/2013). Men with melanoma diagnosis had increased risk of a subsequent PC diagnoses (vs. no melanoma; fully adjusted HR = 1.32; 95% CI: 1.09-1.60). There was weak evidence of higher risks of a subsequent PC diagnosis for men diagnosed with more than one melanoma compared to men diagnosed with only one melanoma (p = 0.077), and if first melanoma diagnosis was 10 to 15 years before Study recruitment (fully adjusted HR = 2.05; 95% CI [1.35, 3.12]). CONCLUSION: Melanoma diagnosis was associated with increased risk of subsequent PC diagnosis, after adjusting for PSA testing and primary healthcare utilisation. While our ability to adjust for PC screening reduced risk of detection bias, we acknowledge that residual confounding from increased medical surveillance after melanoma diagnoses cannot be entirely ruled out.

Evaluating laser photobiomodulation for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: a randomised phase II trial.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of laser photobiomodulation (PBM) for treatment of established chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in cancer survivors. METHODS: We conducted a randomised phase II, non-comparative, sham-controlled, single-blinded clinical trial in 44 cancer survivors reporting CIPN symptoms at least 3 months following completion of neurotoxic chemotherapy. Participants were randomised 2:1 to either PBM laser or sham control delivered twice weekly for 12 sessions. Assessments were conducted at baseline, the end of intervention (6 weeks), and 6 weeks post intervention (12 weeks). Participants completed neuropathy, quality of life and function questionnaires, and a clinical neurological assessment. The primary outcome was proportion of participants with CIPN response, defined as either symptom resolution or reduction of minimally clinically important difference. RESULTS: In the laser and control groups, CIPN response rates were - 48% and 53% at 6 weeks and 45% and 33% at 12 weeks, respectively. The null hypothesis that the true response rate is 5% in the laser arm was rejected at both 6 and 12 weeks (p < 0.001 for both). Compared to baseline, patient-reported CIPN improved in both laser and control groups after the intervention. At 12 weeks, improvement was sustained in the laser group and approaching baseline in the control group. Clinical signs, quality of life, and function remained stable in both groups. Low-grade "side-effects" were observed in both arms. CONCLUSION: PBM may offer clinically meaningful symptom benefit in cancer survivors with established CIPN with improvement potentially continuing beyond completion of the intervention. A larger study is warranted to evaluate this further.

Vaping product access and use among 14-17-year-olds in New South Wales: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed access to vaping products and types of products used and the factors associated with vaping and smoking among young people in the state of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a sample of 721 young people aged 14 to 17 years from NSW recruited through online panels. Poisson regression with robust variance was used to estimate relative risks of ever-vaping and ever-smoking. RESULTS: Almost one-third of the sample (32%, n=233) reported being an ever-vaper, of which more than half (54%) had never smoked prior to starting vaping. Ever-vaping was independently associated with age and being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and ever-smoking was independently associated with being male. Ever-smokers were seven times more likely to be ever-vapers than those who had never smoked, and ever-vapers were 18 times more likely to be ever-smokers than those who had never vaped. Among ever-vapers who reported which type of device they were using, 86% reported the use of disposable products. "Flavourings and taste" was rated as the most important characteristic of vapes. More than half of ever-vapers reported getting the last vape they used from their friends (55%, n=130). More than half of ever-vapers had used a vape that they knew contained nicotine (53%, n=123). CONCLUSIONS: Vaping was the strongest risk factor for smoking, and vice versa, suggesting there is not a straightforward, unidirectional relationship between vaping and smoking in young people. Young people appear to be readily accessing nicotine vaping products, which are often disposable and flavoured, through both social and commercial channels. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Stronger enforcement of federal and state policies designed to protect young people from vaping products is urgently needed.

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

Family history, obesity, urological factors and diabetic medications and their associations with risk of prostate cancer diagnosis in a large prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PC) aetiology is unclear. PC risk was examined in relation to several factors in a large population-based prospective study. METHODS: Male participants were from Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study (Australia) recruited between 2006 and 2009. Questionnaire and linked administrative health data from the Centre for Health Record Linkage and Services Australia were used to identify incident PC, healthcare utilisations, Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) testing reimbursements and dispensing of metformin and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) prescriptions. Multivariable Cox and Joint Cox regression analyses were used to examine associations by cancer spread, adjusting for various confounders. RESULTS: Of 107,706 eligible men, 4257 developed incident PC up to end 2013. Risk of PC diagnosis increased with: PC family history (versus no family history of cancer; HRadjusted = 1.36; 95% CI:1.21-1.52); father and brother(s) diagnosed with PC (versus cancer-free family history; HRadjusted = 2.20; 95% CI:1.61-2.99); severe lower-urinary-tract symptoms (versus mild; HRadjusted = 1.77; 95% CI:1.53-2.04) and vasectomy (versus none; HRadjusted = 1.08; 95% CI:1.00-1.16). PC risk decreased with dispensed prescriptions (versus none) for BPH (HRadjusted = 0.76; 95% CI:0.69-0.85) and metformin (HRadjusted = 0.57; 95% CI:0.48-0.68). Advanced PC risk increased with vasectomy (HRadjusted = 1.28; 95% CI:1.06-1.55) and being obese (versus normal weight; HRadjusted = 1.31; 95% CI:1.01-1.69). CONCLUSION: Vasectomy and obesity are associated with an increased risk of advanced PC. The reduced risk of localised and advanced PC associated with BPH, and diabetes prescriptions warrants investigation.

Tobacco smoking changes during the first pre-vaccination phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Globally, tobacco smoking remains the largest preventable cause of premature death. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced nations to take unprecedented measures, including 'lockdowns' that might impact tobacco smoking behaviour. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess smoking behaviour changes during the early pre-vaccination phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Methods: We searched Medline/Embase/PsycINFO/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases (January-November 2020) for published and pre-print articles that reported specific smoking behaviour changes or intentions after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used random-effects models to pool prevalence ratios comparing the prevalence of smoking during and before the pandemic, and the prevalence of smoking behaviour changes during the pandemic. The PROSPERO registration number for this systematic review was CRD42020206383. Findings: 31 studies were included in meta-analyses, with smoking data for 269,164 participants across 24 countries. The proportion of people smoking during the pandemic was lower than that before, with a pooled prevalence ratio of 0·87 (95%CI:0·79-0·97). Among people who smoke, 21% (95%CI:14-30%) smoked less, 27% (95%CI:22-32%) smoked more, 50% (95%CI:41%-58%) had unchanged smoking and 4% (95%CI:1-9%) reported quitting smoking. Among people who did not smoke, 2% (95%CI:1-3%) started smoking during the pandemic. Heterogeneity was high in all meta-analyses and so the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution (I2 >91% and p-heterogeneity<0·001). Almost all studies were at high risk of bias due to use of non-representative samples, non-response bias, and utilisation of non-validated questions. Interpretation: Smoking behaviour changes during the first phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 were highly mixed. Meta-analyses indicated that there was a relative reduction in overall smoking prevalence during the pandemic, while similar proportions of people who smoke smoked more or smoked less, although heterogeneity was high. Implementation of evidence-based tobacco control policies and programs, including tobacco cessation services, have an important role in ensuring that the COVID-19 pandemic does not exacerbate the smoking pandemic and associated adverse health outcomes. Funding: No specific funding was received for this study.

Changes in prostate cancer incidence, mortality and survival in relation to prostate specific antigen testing in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND: To examine changes in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates, and 5-year relative survival, in relation to changes in the rate of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening tests and the use of radical prostatectomy (RP) in the Australian population. METHODS: Prostate cancer stage-specific incidence rates, 5-year relative survival and mortality rates were estimated using New South Wales Cancer Registry data. PSA screening test rates and RP/Incidence ratios were estimated from Medicare Benefits Schedule claims data. We used multiple imputation to impute stage for cases with "unknown" stage at diagnosis. Annual percentage changes (APC) in rates were estimated using Joinpoint regression. RESULTS: Trends in the age-standardized incidence rates for localized disease largely mirrored the trends in PSA screening test rates, with a substantial 'spike' in the rates occurring in 1994, followed by a second 'spike' in 2008, and then a significant decrease from 2008 to 2015 (APC -6.7, 95% CI -8.2, -5.1). Increasing trends in incidence rates were observed for regional stage from the early 2000s, while decreasing or stable trends were observed for distant stage since 1993. The overall RP/Incidence ratio increased from 1998 to 2003 (APC 9.6, 95% CI 3.8, 15.6), then remained relatively stable to 2015. The overall 5-year relative survival for prostate cancer increased from 58.4% (95% CI: 55.0-61.7%) in 1981-1985 to 91.3% (95% CI: 90.5-92.1%) in 2011-2015. Prostate cancer mortality rates decreased from 1990 onwards (1990-2006: APC -1.7, 95% CI -2.1, -1.2; 2006-2017: APC -3.8, 95% CI -4.4, -3.1). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was a decrease in the incidence rate of localized prostate cancer after 2008, an increase in survival over time and a decrease in the mortality rate since the 1990s. This seems to indicate that the more conservative use of PSA screening tests in clinical practice since 2008 has not had a negative impact on population-wide prostate cancer outcomes.