Search

Objective: We examined the impact of long-term mental health outcomes on healthcare services utilisation among childhood cancer survivors in Western Australia using linked hospitalisations and community-based mental healthcare records from 1987 to 2019. Method: The study cohort included 2977 childhood cancer survivors diagnosed with cancer at age < 18 years in Western Australia from 1982 to 2014 and a matched non-cancer control group of 24,994 individuals. Adjusted hazard ratios of recurrent events were estimated using the Andersen–Gill model. The cumulative burden of events over time was assessed using the method of mean cumulative count. The annual percentage change in events was estimated using the negative binomial regression model. Results: The results showed higher community-based service contacts (rate/100 person-years: 30.2, 95% confidence interval = [29.7–30.7] vs 22.8, 95% confidence interval = [22.6–22.9]) and hospitalisations (rate/1000 person-years: 14.8, 95% confidence interval = [13.6–16.0] vs 12.7, 95% confidence interval = [12.3–13.1]) in childhood cancer survivors compared to the control group. Childhood cancer survivors had a significantly higher risk of any event (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.5, 95% confidence interval = [1.1–2.0]). The cumulative burden of events increased with time since diagnosis and across age groups. The annual percentage change for hospitalisations and service contacts significantly increased over time (p < 0.05). Substance abuse was the leading cause of hospitalisations, while mood/affective and anxiety disorders were common causes of service contacts. Risk factors associated with increased service events included cancer diagnosis at age < 5 years, leukaemia diagnosis, high socioeconomic deprivation, and an attained age of < 18 years. Conclusions: The elevated utilisation of healthcare services observed among childhood cancer survivors emphasises the need for periodic assessment of psychiatric disorders, particularly in high-risk survivors, to facilitate early management and optimise healthcare resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a case study on the design and implementation of a value-based bundled package of care for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in the private health sector in Australia. Value-based healthcare is an essential change to how we deliver healthcare, shifting the focus from paying for individual services provided to a focus on the health outcomes gained over a full cycle of care. The Australian health system has unintentionally created barriers to value-based cancer care through fragmented care pathways and complex funding arrangements where patients can unexpectedly encounter high out-of-pocket costs. A team of clinicians, service providers, health systems and funding experts, private health insurers and consumers have collaborated to design and pilot a complete bundled package of care for breast cancer patients which aims to address these challenges. With 40 patients recruited to date, early evaluation results show positive patient experience of 'joined-up' care and financial transparency. This case study provides a high-level overview of the approach taken to design and implement the Breast Cancer Bundle and the lessons learned for its expansion in both public and private settings. What is known about this topic? Enabling value-based healthcare is essential to improve healthcare, focusing on outcomes gained over a full cycle of care. Patients diagnosed with cancer frequently report care to be disjointed and the cause of financial stress, thus can particularly benefit from value-based care models. What does this paper add? This case study describes the design and implementation of a bundled package of care for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in the private health sector in Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? Lessons learned through this process provide considerations for expansion of this model of care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are more accurate than conventional imaging (CI) for breast cancer staging. How adding CEM and MRI to CI might change the surgical plan is understudied. Methods: Surgical plans (breast conserving surgery (BCS), wider BCS, BCS with diagnostic excision (>1BCS), mastectomy) were devised by mock‐MDT (radiologist, surgeon and pathology reports) according to disease extent on CI, CI + CEM and CI + MRI. Differences in the mock‐MDT's surgical plans following the addition of CEM or MRI were investigated. Using pre‐defined criteria, the appropriateness of the modified plans was assessed by comparing estimated disease extent on imaging with final pathology. Surgery performed was recorded from patient records. Results: Contrast imaging modified mock‐MDT plans for 20 of 61(32.8%) breasts. The addition of CEM changed the plan in 16/20 (80%) and MRI in 17/20 breasts (85%). Identical changes were proposed by both CEM and MRI in 13/20 (65%) breasts. The modified surgical plan based on CI + CEM was possibly appropriate for 6/16 (37.5%), and CI + MRI in 9/17, (52.9%) breasts. The surgery performed was concordant with the mock‐MDT plan for all 10 patients where the plans could be compared (BCS 1, >1 BCS 2 and mastectomy 7). Conclusion: Adding CEM or MRI to CI changed mock‐MDT plans in up to one third of women, but not all were appropriate. Changing surgical plans following addition of contrast imaging to CI without biopsy confirmation could lead to over or under‐treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine the experiences, needs, and perceptions of health professionals(HPs) treating women diagnosed with cancer during pregnancy(gestational cancer, GC). Interviews were undertaken with Australian HPs who had treated women diagnosed with GC over the previous five years. HPs were recruited via social media, and professional and community networks. Questions focussed upon HPs' confidence caring for these women, whether current guidelines/training met their needs, psychological impacts of care provision, and service gaps. Interview data were analysed thematically. Twenty-seven HPs were interviewed; most were oncology HPs(22/27) with experience caring for women with gestational breast cancer and 13 had a breast-specific clinical focus (e.g. breast surgeon). Many were currently treating women with GC(48%) or had in the last 6–12 months(29.6%). Four themes were identified: A clinically complex case, Managing multi-disciplinary care, C entralised resources for health professionals, and Liaison, information and shared experiences for women. HPs found this population personally challenging to treat. They reported initial uncertainty regarding treatment due to infrequent exposure to GC, limited resources/information, and the need to collaborate with services with which they did not usually engage. Solutions offered include centralised resources, clinical liaison/care coordinators, and connecting women with GC with peer support. HPs perceived women with GC as a vulnerable, complex population and experienced challenges providing comprehensive care; particularly when treatment was delivered at geographically separated hospitals. Systemic changes are needed to optimise comprehensive care for these women. Their insights can guide the development of more integrated cancer and obstetric care, and better HP support. • Women with cancer diagnosed in pregnancy require complex, coordinated, multidisciplinary care. • Clinicians consider these women vulnerable with needs that are hard to meet using standard care. • Systemic changes like co-locating services and integrating supportive care are needed. • Access to centralised, coordinated, up-to-date evidence-based guidelines is required. • Formalised ways to connect women with cancer in pregnancy with peer support would help. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To highlight the various options available for the management of breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy by describing the investigations, treatment, and outcomes in relation to these women. Methods: This is a narrative review of the literature to describe the issues related to pregnancy and obstetric management in patients with breast cancer. It incorporates a description of six cases of women (aged 29–39 years) with a first-time diagnosis of breast cancer during pregnancy to illustrate a number of issues that need to be considered during different trimesters. Results: Of the six cases, two were diagnosed in each pregnancy trimester. A painless breast mass was the presenting symptom in five cases (83%). In all cases, breast ultrasound was the primary diagnostic imaging procedure. Chest X-ray was performed in 3 (50%) and computed tomography in 2 (33%). A core needle biopsy was performed in all cases, and sentinel lymph node biopsy in 3 (50%) cases. Four women had grade 3 tumor; five had estrogen receptor-positive tumors. Four women had breast surgery during pregnancy. Five women gave birth after the induction of labor and/or cesarean section. In all six cases, a multidisciplinary team was involved in the delivery of health care. Conclusion: Regular breast examinations are needed for all pregnant woman during prenatal visits. Breast ultrasonography should be offered if a breast lump or other symptoms are detected. Breast surgery can be safely performed during all pregnancy trimesters, and some systemic therapeutic agents can be administered safely in the second and third trimesters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to explore the factors that influence perceived personal risk of developing breast cancer (BC) in younger women (<35) who are considering or have undergone bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (BPM). Qualitative interviews guided by interpretative phenomenological analysis were conducted with 46 women who had a strong family history of BC and had either undergone (n = 26) or were considering (n = 20) BPM. Participants were recruited from Australia and New Zealand via hospitals, a genetics clinic, a research cohort, a registry and online. Three main themes were identified: information that increases fear of BC and death, underlying anxiety and fear and screening anxiety. A further two themes: relief following surgery and confusion about residual risk following surgery were identified. Younger women (<35) appeared to have heightened and sometimes inaccurate perceptions of their BC risk. They appeared less relieved of anxiety and fear of developing BC by BPM surgery, in comparison to previous research with older women (>40). Those who had undergone BPM seemed more anxious about their risk of developing BC than those who were still considering surgery. This research has important implications for practice, particularly improving communication of accurate risk statistics. Future research should examine why some women interpret information differently and explore the benefits of psychological consultation for very anxious women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]