Search

This paper describes the sources of variability encountered in the use of an expert panel to review cancer-related knowledge items, necessary for medical students. Variability was observed in the interpretation of written material relating to the definition and rationale for the task to be completed by individual panel members, including the definition of a junior doctor, and levels of understanding and specificity. Panel sessions undertaken in phase II provided facilitated discussion and the ability to clearly define the aims and tasks required of participants, resulting in data of a higher quality. Consensus was achieved in a single session that would have likely taken several iterations of individual data collection to achieve. Eliminating phase I has the potential to remove the majority of variability encountered in this study. Subsequently, the resultant decrease in time demanded of participants would likely result in higher recruitment and participation rates.

A number of curricula have been developed to address shortfalls in cancer education. However, no standardised means of assessing medical graduates against such curricula currently exist. This paper describes the use of expert panels to determine the level of cancer-related knowledge required by junior doctors. Participants individually reviewed knowledge items from the Ideal Oncology Curriculum for Medical Students and rated the level of understanding and specificity of each. On completion, panel sessions were convened to reach consensus. Fifty-two (17 %) items were considered irrelevant for junior doctors, whilst 164 items (54 %) and 85 items (28 %) were deemed appropriate at a moderate and high level of understanding, respectively. As a result, 249 (83 %) of the 301 items were deemed appropriate for junior doctors. Expert panels provide an important insight into the requirements of junior doctors, reduce ambiguity and facilitate discussion, resulting in higher quality data than that produced solely through individual reviews.

Background: Recent randomised trials have demonstrated a statistically significant effect of trastuzumab on disease-free survival when used as adjuvant therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 protein (HER2)-positive resectable early stage breast cancer, with a treatment course lasting either 9 or 52 weeks. However, the cost effectiveness of adjuvant trastuzumab with respect to mortality remains uncertain, especially in an Australian setting., Objective: To estimate the cost effectiveness of trastuzumab in Australia, in a cohort of 50-year-old patients with HER2-positive breast cancer over a lifetime, using (i) disease-free survival and cardiotoxicity data from recent randomised trials; (ii) information on long-term survival of patients with treated primary breast cancer; and (iii) costs of treating local and distant relapses and disease from causes other than breast cancer., Methods: A Markov model consisting of four health states (remission, loco-regional recurrence, metastatic disease and death) was developed. Transition probabilities corresponded to patterns of relapse and metastases seen in recent trials. The model was run until age 100 years to allow calculation of average survival. Outcome measures were life-years and QALYs (calculated using utility weights reported in the literature). The model was calibrated to reflect literature evidence that the risk of breast cancer recurrence following primary treatment diminishes progressively to zero after about 20 years. It was assumed that the morbidity benefit of trastuzumab observed in trials would be present for 5 years but would then diminish progressively to zero after 8 years. Costs (year 2005 values) and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum., Results: For every 1000 patients treated with a 52-week course of trastuzumab, there were 136 fewer breast cancer deaths (relative risk reduction 28%). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were Australian dollars ($ A)13 730 per year of life saved (YOLS) and $ A22 793 per QALY. The net incremental cost was $ A56.3 million ($ A414 012/cancer death avoided). Cost effectiveness declined (ICER = $ A27 734/QALY) in older patients (age 65 years at treatment initiation). The ICER was driven mainly by the drug acquisition costs, the assumption of the duration of benefit and the discount rate. Cost offsets from reduced costs of treating recurrent or metastatic breast cancer during follow-up were present but these factors were of less importance according to sensitivity analyses. The 9-week treatment schedule approached economic dominance (ICER = $ A1700/QALY) because of decreased costs, improved relative risk for prevention of metastases and more cancer deaths avoided (196)., Conclusion: The results suggest that trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer may be cost effective when given over either 52 or 9 weeks at current acquisition costs in Australia. However, the overall budget impact of the 52-week course is significant, and the 9-week course appears economically attractive.

Background: This phase I study was designed to determine the optimal dosages of a novel repetitive high-dose therapy regimen for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC)., Patients and Methods: The planned treatment was three cycles of high-dose ifosfamide, thiotepa and conventional-dose paclitaxel delivered every 28 days with progressive dose-escalation in successive cohorts. Each cycle was supported by peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) and filgrastim., Results: Twenty-three patients were entered into this trial. Of the planned 69 treatment cycles, 59 were delivered and fifteen patients completed all three cycles. The dose-limiting toxicities were renal tubular acidosis, encephalopathy, mucositis and enterocolitis. There was one treatment-related hemorrhagic death., Conclusions: The recommended doses for phase II or III studies are ifosfamide (10 g/m2), thiotepa (350 mg/m2) and paclitaxel (175 mg/m2).