Developmentally appropriate care for adolescents and young adults with cancer: how well is Australia doing?

PURPOSE: Developmentally appropriate care underpins quality cancer treatment. This study aimed to describe how well Australian cancer services deliver patient-focussed, developmentally appropriate care to adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. METHODS: In a national, cross sectional study, 196 AYAs with cancer aged between 15 and 25 years at diagnosis reported their general experiences of the cancer care team (Cancer Needs Questionnaire), access to age-appropriate treatment environments (Cancer Needs Questionnaire) and frequency of psychosocial assessment (Adolescent Friendly Hospital Survey). RESULTS: Very positive responses were reported around engagement and communication with staff who were reported as approachable, friendly and trustworthy; 11 of the 14 items were positively rated by over 90% of respondents. In contrast, over 70% of AYAs expressed unmet need around their physical and social environments, whether in relation to the opportunity to be nursed in wards designed for AYAs, spend time with other young people with cancer, or talk to young people their own age; less than a third reported their needs had been met on the majority of these items. The frequency that specific psychosocial assessment domains were discussed was highly variable; responses suggested that AYAs were less commonly questioned about overtly sensitive topics. AYAs who experienced private consultations with health care providers (41%) were significantly more likely to experience thorough psychosocial assessment. CONCLUSION: Australian cancer services are generally communicating well with AYAs. There is room for improvement around more developmentally specific aspects of healthcare quality, such as psychosocial assessment, and around treatment environments that promote greater social interaction between AYAs.

Clinical management of Australian adolescents and young adults with acute lymphoblastic and myeloid leukemias: A national population-based study.

BACKGROUND: While several studies have examined the treatment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), studies of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are rare. Using national data for Australia, we describe (i) the number and type of treatment centers caring for AYAs, (ii) induction/first-line treatments, and (iii) survival outcomes. PROCEDURE: National population-based study assessing treatment of 15- to 24-year-olds diagnosed with ALL or AML between 2007 and 2012. Treatment details were abstracted from hospital medical records. Treatment centers were classified as pediatric or adult (adult AYA-focused or other adult; and by AYA volume [high/low]). Cox proportional hazard regression analyses examined associations between treatment and overall, event-free, and relapse-free survival outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-seven hospitals delivered induction therapy to 351 patients (181 ALL and 170 AML), with 74 (21%) treated at pediatric centers; 70% of hospitals treated less than two AYA leukemia patients per year. Regardless of treatment center, 82% of ALL patients were on pediatric protocols. For AML, pediatric protocols were not used in adult centers, with adult centers using a non-COG 7+3-type induction protocol (51%, where COG is Cooperative Oncology Group) or an ICE-type protocol (39%, where ICE is idarubicin, cytarabine, etoposide). Exploratory analyses suggested that for both ALL and AML, AYAs selected for adult protocols have worse overall, event-free, and relapse-free survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric protocols were commonly used for ALL patients regardless of where they are treated, indicating rapid assimilation of recent evidence by Australian hematologists. For AML, pediatric protocols were only used at pediatric centers. Further investigation is warranted to determine the optimal treatment approach for AYA AML patients.

Factors influencing the documentation of fertility-related discussions for adolescents and young adults with cancer.

PURPOSE: A cancer diagnosis and treatment may have significant implications for a young patient's future fertility. Documentation of fertility-related discussions and actions is crucial to providing the best follow-up care, which may occur for many years post-treatment. This study examined the rate of medical record documentation of fertility-related discussions and fertility preservation (FP) procedures for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer in Australia. METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records for 941 patients in all six Australian states. Patients were identified through population-based cancer registries (four states) and hospital admission lists (two states). Trained data collectors extracted information from medical records using a comprehensive data collection survey. Records were reviewed for AYA patients (aged 15-24 years at diagnosis), diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, central nervous system (CNS) tumours, soft tissue sarcomas (STS), primary bone cancer or Ewing's family tumours between 2007 and 2012. RESULTS: 47.2% of patients had a documented fertility discussion and 35.9% had a documented FP procedure. Fertility-related documentation was less likely for female patients, those with a CNS or STS diagnosis and those receiving high-risk treatments. In multivariable models, adult hospitals with an AYA focus were more likely to document fertility discussions (odds ratio[OR] = 1.60; 95%CI = 1.08-2.37) and FP procedures (OR = 1.74; 95%CI = 1.17-2.57) than adult hospitals with no AYA services. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide the first national, population-based estimates of fertility documentation for AYA cancer patients in Australia. Documentation of fertility-related discussions was poor, with higher rates observed in hospitals with greater experience of treating AYA patients.

Inconsistencies and time delays in site-specific research approvals hinder collaborative clinical research in Australia.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the time and documentation needed to gain ethics and governance approvals in Australian states with and without a centralised ethical review system. METHODS: This is a prospective descriptive study undertaken between February 2012 and March 2015. Paediatric and adult hospitals (n = 67) in Australian states were approached to allow the review of their medical records. Participants included 15- to 24-year-olds diagnosed with cancer between 2008 and 2012. The main outcomes measures were time (weeks) to approval for ethics and governance and the number and type of documents submitted. RESULTS: Centralised ethics approval processes were used in five states, with approval taking between 2 and 18 weeks. One state did not use a centralised process, with ethics approval taking a median of 4.5 weeks (range: 0-15) per site. In four states using a centralised ethics process, 33 governance applications were submitted, with 20 requiring a site clinician listed as an investigator. Governance applications required the submission of 11 documents on average, including a Site-Specific Assessment form. Thirty-two governance applications required original signatures from a median of 3.5 (range: 1-10) non-research persons, which took a median of 5 weeks (range: 0-15) to obtain. Governance approval took a median of 6 weeks (range: 1-45). Twelve research study agreements were needed, each taking a median of 7.5 weeks (range: 1-20) to finalise. CONCLUSION: The benefits of centralised ethics review systems have not been realised due to duplicative, inflexible governance processes. A system that allowed the recognition of prior ethical approval and low-risk applications was more efficient than a central ethics and site-specific governance process.