Search

Purpose: Impaired fertility in cancer patients and survivors of reproductive age (15–45 years) may lead to psychological distress and poor mental health outcomes, and may negatively impact quality of life. Limited research has focused on the fertility experiences of those who have had access to supportive oncofertility care. This study aims to explore the fertility-care experiences and reproductive concerns of reproductive age cancer patients at the time of their cancer diagnosis who have had access to oncofertility care. Methods: The qualitative data from a larger mixed method study is presented, comprising 30 semi-structured telephone interviews with newly diagnosed cancer patients across Australia and New Zealand, undertaken between April 2016 and April 2018. Results: Interviews were undertaken with 9 male patients and 21 female patients aged between 15 and 44 years. All patients recalled a discussion about fertility and majority underwent some form of fertility preservation. Thematic analysis identified five main themes: (i) satisfaction with oncofertility care, (ii) a need for individualised treatment and support, (iii) desire for parenthood, (iv) fertility treatment can be challenging, and (v) fertility preservation provides a safety net for the future. Conclusions: Participants who access supportive oncofertility care report low emotional impact of threatened future infertility at the time of cancer diagnosis. These results suggest that such services may assist in lowering the emotional burden of potential infertility in survivors. Long-term research is needed to assess the longitudinal benefits for different models of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an increasingly used treatment for unresectable neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) that express somatostatin receptors. Normal pituitary tissue expresses somatostatin receptors so patients receiving PRRT may be at risk of developing hypopituitarism. The aim was to assess the prevalence of clinically significant hypopituitarism a minimum of 2 years following radioisotope therapy for metastatic NET. This was a multicentre study (Australia and New Zealand). Sixty-six patients with unresectable NETs were included-34 had received PRRT and 32 comparison patients. Median follow-up after PRRT was 68 months. Male hypogonadism was the most common hormonal abnormality (16 of 38 men [42%]) from the total cohort. Of these, seven men had primary hypogonadism (five from PRRT group) and nine had secondary hypogonadism (six in PRRT group). There was no difference in either male hypogonadism or other hormonal dysfunction between patients who had received PRRT and those that had not. Patients who have received PRRT out to 68 months following treatment do not show concerning hypopituitarism although there may be the suggestion of growth hormone deficiency developing. However, hypogonadism is common in men with NETs so the gonadal axis should be assessed in men with suggestive symptoms as the treatment of testosterone deficiency may improve the quality of life., (© 2021 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose of Review: Persistent and significant inequalities for Indigenous people with cancer around the globe exist, arising from colonial settlement of Indigenous land with profound social, economic and cultural impacts. We summarize recent publications concerning cancer disparities affecting Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Aotearoa New Zealand Māori Peoples., Recent Findings: Cancer-free survival and overall survival statistics testify to the urgent need to 'close the gap'. For Indigenous peoples in Australia and New Zealand, disparity persists along the cancer care pathway, from increased risk factors to lower screening access, health resource utilization and survivorship care. Recent publications highlight multimorbidity as contributing to poor cancer outcomes in Indigenous populations. The implementation of tailored Optimal Care Pathways is described, as is the validation of tailored tools capturing the perspectives of Indigenous persons. Finally, the importance of Indigenous-led research is emphasized., Summary: Cancer-specific outcomes in Indigenous people of Australia and New Zealand remain poor with many widening disparities compared to non-indigenous populations. A growing body of epidemiological, health service and clinical research is documenting both the problems and potential solutions. Further work is needed in both broad health policies and the workforce, in building cultural competence to optimize individual care encounters., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: SCOT was an international, randomized phase 3 trial of 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine in patients with colorectal cancer. We sought patients' preferences for 3 months vs 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in the SCOT trial., Methods: SCOT participants from Australia and New Zealand completed a validated questionnaire (at 3 and 18 months) to elicit the minimum survival benefits judged necessary to make an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile, based on their experience. Standardized hypothetical scenarios used the following baseline survivals (with 3 months of chemotherapy): life expectancies (LE) of 5 years and 15 years and 5-year survival rates (5YS) of 65% and 85%., Results: Of the 160 participants, 82 were assigned 3 months adjuvant chemotherapy, and 78 were assigned 6 months. Adjuvant chemotherapy was FOLFOX in 121 (75.6%) and XELOX in 39 (24.4%). Preferences varied substantially and did not differ according to treatment group. The median survival benefits judged necessary to make the extra 3 months of chemotherapy worthwhile were an extra 3 years beyond a LE of 5 years; 3 years beyond a LE of 15 years; 15% beyond a 5YS of 65%; and 5% beyond a 5YS of 85%. Preferences were similar at 3 months and 18 months. Preferences were not predicted by participants' baseline characteristics., Conclusion: Preferences varied substantially, and the benefits many required to warrant an extra 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy were larger than the benefits of an extra 3 months of chemotherapy calculated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) meta-analysis., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration aimed to evaluate whether 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy are noninferior to 6 months. Our study objectives were to characterize medical oncologists' perspectives toward the results of the IDEA collaboration and to evaluate how IDEA impacted prescribing patterns of adjuvant FOLFOX and CAPOX in colon cancer., Materials and Methods: A list of questions developed by four medical oncologists regarding IDEA results were formulated and distributed online to gastrointestinal medical oncologists globally. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were used to summarize information., Results: Of 174 responses, 145 were complete and analyzed. Responses were obtained globally from South America (53%); the U.S. and Canada (28%); Europe, Australia, and New Zealand (12%); and Asia (7%). Most clinicians (98%) were aware of the IDEA study. Prior to IDEA, clinicians preferred FOLFOX over CAPOX (81% vs. 19%). Subsequent to IDEA, 55% of clinicians preferred CAPOX over FOLFOX (odds ratio, 5.0; 95% confidence interval, 3.0-8.5; p < .01 compared with pre-IDEA). Two thirds (68%) of responders tailored duration of adjuvant therapy based on risk stratification. Most oncologists (76%) were more willing to discontinue oxaliplatin early if toxicities develop after the results of IDEA. Half of responders (50%) found that IDEA increased their confidence in decision making for adjuvant treatment; 36% were unchanged, and 15% indicated decreased confidence. Less than half (48%) were comfortable communicating the study results and the concept of a noninferiority trial with patients., Conclusion: IDEA appears to have shifted clinician preference from FOLFOX to CAPOX for adjuvant therapy, and most clinicians now use a risk-stratified approach in determining duration of adjuvant therapy. Patient education resources may facilitate better communication of IDEA results to patients., Implications for Practice: This global survey illustrates that most gastrointestinal medical oncologists now use a risk-stratified approach for determining the duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. Clinicians are five times more likely to choose CAPOX over FOLFOX after the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration results., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)