Surgical and radiotherapy patterns of care in the management of breast cancer in NSW and ACT Australia.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to report on the surgical and radiotherapy patterns of breast cancer care in New South Wales (NSW) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) in Australia, to identify factors that impact on utilisation of evidence-based treatment and to report on the overall survival (OS) rate and the influencing factors on OS. METHODS: Cancer registry data linked to hospital records for all patients with breast cancer diagnosis in NSW and ACT between 2009 and 2014 were used to calculate rates of breast conserving surgery (BCS), mastectomy, sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and radiotherapy. Multivariate analysis used to identify factors that led to variations in care. 5-year OS was calculated and cox regression model assessed factors that influenced survival. RESULTS: Data for 30,337 patients were analysed. BCS and mastectomy rates were 64% and 36%, respectively. The SLNB, ALND and ALND after SLNB rates were 61.5%, 32.1% and 6.4%, respectively. Radiotherapy was utilised in 63%. Younger age, socio-economic disadvantage, longer distance to a radiotherapy facility and overseas place of birth were factors that predicted for increased rates of mastectomy and ALND. Radiotherapy was more likely to be utilised in later years of diagnosis, patients between 40-69 years old, and those who lived in major cities and closer to a radiotherapy facility. 5-year OS was 80.5%. Older patients, the socioeconomically disadvantaged and those advanced tumours had worse survival. CONCLUSION: Variations in breast cancer care continue to exist in certain patient groups that we identified. Targeted strategic planning and further research to identify other drivers of existing disparities remain a priority.

Radiotherapy underutilisation and its impact on local control and survival in New South Wales, Australia.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the actual radiotherapy utilisation rate (A-RUR) in New South Wales (NSW) Australia for 2009-2011 and compare that to the published evidence-based optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate (O-RUR) and to previously reported A-RUR in NSW in 2004-2006. It also aimed to estimate the effect of underutilisation on 5-year local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) and identify factors that predict for underutilisation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All cases of registered cancer diagnosed in NSW between 2009 and 2011 were identified from the NSW Central Cancer Registry and linked with data from all radiotherapy departments. The A-RUR was calculated and compared with O-RURs for all cancers. The difference for each indication was used to estimate 5-year OS and LC shortfall. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors that correlated with reduced radiotherapy utilisation. RESULTS: 110,645 cancer cases were identified. 25% received radiotherapy within one year of diagnosis compared to an estimated optimal rate of 45%. This has marginally improved from previously reported rate of 22% in NSW in 2004-2006. We estimated that 5-year OS and LC were compromised in 1162 and 5062 patients respectively. Factors that predicted for underuse of radiotherapy were older age, male gender, lower socioeconomic status, increasing distance to nearest radiotherapy centre and localised disease. CONCLUSION: The identified deficit in radiotherapy use has a significant negative impact on patient outcomes. Strategies to overcome such shortfalls need to be developed to improve radiotherapy use and patient outcomes.

Proposal for a gold standard for cosmetic evaluation after breast conserving therapy: Results from the St George and Wollongong Breast Boost trial.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cosmesis is an important endpoint of breast conserving therapy (BCT), but a gold standard method of its evaluation is not yet established. The St. George and Wollongong Randomised Breast Boost trial used five different methods of cosmetic assessment, including both subjective and objective, to comprehensively evaluate the cosmetic outcome of the trial patients. This current study analyses the level of concordance between these methods in an attempt to determine a possible standard in the evaluation of breast cosmesis. METHODS: Patients attending follow-up clinic reviews at 5 years post breast radiotherapy were evaluated. Patients completed a cosmesis and functional assessment questionnaire, assessing clinicians completed an EORTC (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer) cosmetic rating questionnaire and photographs were obtained. The photographs were later assessed by a panel of five experts, as well as analysed using the objective pBRA (relative Breast Retraction Assessment) and the BCCT.core (Breast Cancer Conservative Treatment.cosmetic results) computer software. Scores were dichotomised to excellent/good and fair/poor. Pairwise comparisons between all methods, except pBRA, were carried out using overall agreement calculations and kappa scores. pBRA scores were compared on a continuous scale with each of the other dichotomised scores obtained by the other four methods. RESULTS: Of 513 St George patients alive at 5 years, 385 (75%) attended St George for follow-up and consented to photography. Results showed that assessment by physicians in clinic and patient self-assessment were more favourable regarding overall cosmetic outcome than evaluation of photographs by the panel or the BCCT.core software. Excellent/good scores by clinician-live and patient self-assessments were 93% and 94% respectively (agreement 89%), as compared to 75% and 74% only by BCCT.core and panel assessments respectively (agreement 83%, kappa 0.57). For the pBRA measurements, there was a statistically significant difference (P <0.001) between scores for excellent/good versus fair/poor cosmesis by all four methods. The range of median pBRA measurements for fair/poor scores was 13.4-14.8 and for excellent/good scores was 8.0-9.4. CONCLUSION: Incorporating both BCCT.core assessment and patient self-assessment could potentially provide the basis of a gold standard method of breast cosmetic evaluation. BCCT.core represents an easy, time efficient, reproducible, cost effective and reliable method, however, it lacks the functional and psychosocial elements of cosmesis that only patient self-reported outcomes can provide.