Search

Background Emerging evidence on the optimal use of chemotherapy and biologics in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer should impact management in routine care. Recent studies have demonstrated benefits for initial triplet chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, FOLFOXIRI) and for initial treatment with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) in patients with a RAS wild-type tumour and a left-sided primary tumour. Aim To explore evolving pattern of metastatic colorectal cancer care over time in Australia. Methods We analysed data from the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer registry. Results From July 2009 to December 2017, 2552 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were entered into the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer registry. Of 1585 patients who initially underwent chemotherapy, treatment was with a doublet in 76%. FOLFOXIRI was given to 22 patients (1.4%), mostly young patients and those with potentially resectable disease. Along with first-line chemotherapy, 61% received bevacizumab, while 3.3% received an EGFRi, predominantly over the last 2 years. Within the KRAS wild-type left-sided tumour cohort, EGFRi use increased from 9% in 2015 to 37% in 2017. Across treatment sites, there was a wide variation in the utilisation of FOLFOXIRI and EGFRi therapy; bevacizumab use was more consistent. A clear impact on survival outcomes from these regimens is not evident, potentially due to multiple confounders. Conclusion Doublet chemotherapy + bevacizumab remains the dominant initial strategy, with limited uptake of triplet chemotherapy and of EGFRi. Potential explanations include uncertainty about the significance of post hoc analyses for EGFRi and concerns regarding adverse events for both strategies.

Background Prior studies have suggested improved outcomes for cancer patients managed in private centres, despite universal healthcare within Australia. Aims To compare patient, disease, treatment and survival data for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) managed in private versus public centres. Methods Analysis of prospectively collected registry data for consecutive patients with mCRC managed at 16 participating centres from July 2009. Results Data for 1065 patients were examined. Age, gender and Charlson comorbidity score were similar for public and private patients. Private patients were more commonly Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score 0–1 (85% vs 78%, P = 0.008), in the highest Index of Relative Socioeconomic Advantage and Disadvantage quintile (57% vs 18%, P < 0.001) or had a single metastatic site (62% vs 54%, P = 0.009). Patients treated in private were more likely to receive chemotherapy (84% vs 70%, P < 0.001), bevacizumab (59% vs 50%, P = 0.008), be treated with curative intent (37% vs 26%, P < 0.001) and undergo metastasectomy (30% vs 22%, P = 0.001). These management differences remained statistically significant after adjusting for baseline characteristics. Management in the private setting was associated with superior overall survival (median 27.9 vs 20 months, hazard ratio 0.7, 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.86, P = 0.001), significant in multivariate analysis adjusting for all baseline covariates. Conclusions Significant differences in baseline characteristics were noted for private versus public patients. However, these do not explain the higher rates of treatment delivery in the private setting, which likely contributed towards the observed survival difference. Further studies are required to determine if the increased likelihood of intervention in the private setting is driven by patient, clinician and/or institutional factors.

Background: The changing treatment landscape for metastatic colorectal cancer creates multiple potential treatment strategies. An Australian-centric database capturing comprehensive information across a range of treatment locations would create a valuable resource enabling multiple important research questions to be addressed. Aims: To establish a collection of a consensus dataset capturing treatment and outcomes at multiple public and private hospitals across Australia. Methods: An electronic database was developed by a panel of clinicians, to capture an agreed dataset for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer. Of particular interest were clinician decision-making, the impact of comorbidities and the frequency of major adverse events. Results: Since July 2009, data collection has been established at six public and eight private hospitals across three Australian states and territories. Successful linkage and analysis, with support from BioGrid Australia, of selected data on the initial 864 patients demonstrates that data can be captured from diverse sites, including public and private practice, that multiple factors impact on treatment delivered and outcomes achieved and that comprehensive data on rare but important adverse events can be captured. As a clinical research tool, the project has been highly successful, generating multiple presentations at national and international conferences related to a diverse range of research questions. Conclusions: Multistate, project-specific data collection involving large numbers of patients is achievable. Providing invaluable insight into the routine clinical management of metastatic colorectal cancer in the era of targeted therapies, this also creates a significant resource for research, including many questions not being addressed by clinical trials.

Background/Aim: The complexity and cost of treating cancer patients is escalating rapidly and increasingly difficult decisions are being made regarding which interventions provide value for money. BioGrid Australia supports collection and analysis of comprehensive treatment and outcome data across multiple sites. Here, we use preliminary data regarding the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) and stage-specific treatment costs for colorectal cancer (CRC) to demonstrate the potential value of real world data for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA). Methods: Data regarding the impact of NBCSP on stage at diagnosis were combined with stage-specific CRC treatment costs and existing literature. An incremental CEA was undertaken from a government healthcare perspective, comparing NBCSP with no screening. The 2008 invited population (n= 681 915) was modelled in both scenarios. Effectiveness was expressed as CRC-related life years saved (LYS). Costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. Results: Over the lifetime and relative to no screening, NBCSP was predicted to save 1265 life years, prevent 225 CRC cases and cost an additional $48.3 million, equivalent to a cost-effectiveness ratio of $38 217 per LYS. A scenario analysis assuming full participation improved this to $23 395. Conclusions: This preliminary CEA based largely on contemporary real world data suggests population-based faecal occult blood test screening for CRC is attractive. Planned ongoing data collection will enable repeated analyses over time, using the same methodology in the same patient populations, permitting an accurate analysis of the impact of new therapies and changing practice. Similar CEA using real world data related to other disease types and interventions appears desirable.

Background: Varying amounts of data related to cancer diagnosis, treatment and/or outcome are routinely collected by many disparate groups. Routinely combining data from these sources could improve data quality and utility for audit and research purposes. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the benefits of linkage between oncology databases. Methods: We examined colorectal cancer (CRC) data recorded by the Victorian Cancer Registry and two hospital clinical databases between January 2000 and December 2005. Where data were in common, the completeness and accuracy of each dataset were examined. Where content differed, the potential value of making this additional data available to the other database was examined. Results: Of the 831 cases recorded at the hospitals, 822 (98.9%) were also recorded on the cancer registry. Eight of the 913 cases (0.87%) recorded as having CRC by the registry did not have CRC. Errors in recording of tumour site and tumour or nodal stage were frequent in both databases. Metastasis stage was recorded in only 29 of 822 (3.5%) registry cases examined. Discordance for diagnosis date and death date was also frequent, although the difference was typically minor. Adding additional death data from the registry to the clinical database significantly altered stage-specific and overall survival figures. Conclusion: A multidirectional flow of data between hospital and registry databases provides multiple opportunities to improve data quality and utility. While issues around data ownership and usage need to be considered, the advantages of routine data linkage are readily apparent.

Background: Intensive follow up after surgery for colorectal cancer is associated with a significant survival advantage and is endorsed by expert panels, but are physicians convinced of the benefit? Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to all members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia, assessing surveillance practices after completion of adjuvant treatments. Results: Responses were obtained from 141 (55%) medical oncologists of which 121 were considered evaluable. Thirteen per cent (n = 16) routinely did not carry out follow-up investigations. Of those carrying out surveillance, 47% (n = 51) nominated identifying potentially resectable metastatic disease as prime consideration. Many (44%) were motivated by patient reassurance and expectation. Carcinoembryonic antigen levels were commonly monitored 3 monthly in years 1 (77%, n = 85) and 2 (57%, n = 63) and 6 monthly thereafter (67%, n = 74). Eighty per cent (n = 88) carried out computed tomography (CT) surveillance 1 year after surgery, 69% (n = 76) at year 2 and 55% (n = 60) at year 3. Twenty-six per cent (n = 29) continued scanning annually up to 5 years. Inclusion of CT chest was routine for 33% (n = 36) and never carried out by 11% (n = 12). Conclusion: A significant minority (13%) of oncologists carry out no follow-up investigations, despite level I evidence of a survival advantage similar to standard adjuvant therapies. Further education and study of physician attitudes and reservations to routine surveillance are required.