What are determinants of utilisation of pharmaceutical anticancer treatment during the last year of life in Norway? A retrospective registry study

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to investigate the use of, and predictors for, pharmaceutical anticancer treatment (PACT) towards the end of a patient's life in a country with a public healthcare system.

DESIGN

Retrospective registry study.

SETTING

Secondary care in Norway.

PARTICIPANTS

All Norwegian patients with cancer (International Classification of Diseases tenth revision (ICD-10) codes C00-99, D00-09, D37-48) in contact with a somatic hospital in Norway between 2009 and 2017 (N=420 655). Analyses were performed on a subsample of decedents with follow-back time of more than 1 year (2013-2017, N=52 496).

INTERVENTIONS

N/A.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of patients receiving PACT during the last year and month of life. We calculated CIs with block bootstrapping, while predictors of PACT were estimated with logistic regression.

RESULTS

24.0% (95% CI 23.4% to 24.6%) of the patients received PACT during the last year of life and 3.2% (95% CI 3.0% to 3.5%) during their final month. The proportion during the last month was highest for multiple myeloma (12.7%) and breast cancer (6.5%) and lowest for urinary tract (1.1%) and prostate and kidney cancer (1.4%). Patients living in northern (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94) and western (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) Norway had lower odds of PACT during the last month, while patients with myeloma (OR 3.0, 95% CI 2.5 to 3.7) and breast (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1 to 1.6) had higher odds. Kidney cancer (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.2. to 0.4), urinary tract (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) and prostate cancer (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3 to 0.5) were associated with lower probability of receiving PACT within the last month.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients receiving PACT in Norway is lower than in several other industrialised countries. Age, type of cancer and area of living are significant determinants of variation in PACT.

An evaluation of self-perceived knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of UK oncologists about LGBTQ+ patients with cancer

Introduction

Over one million people in the UK identify as LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning). Research has shown that this population experience differing cancer risk factors compared with non-LGBTQ+ patients and persistent inequalities in cancer care. Literature concerning the knowledge of oncologists of this group’s healthcare needs is limited; our study aimed to evaluate knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of UK oncologists about LGBTQ+ patients.

Methods

A 53-question survey was delivered via a secure online platform. Questions covered respondent demographics, knowledge, attitudes and behaviours with the majority of responses on a Likert scale. Oncologists were recruited via email from professional bodies and social media promotion. Informed consent was sought and responses fully anonymised. Multifactorial ordinal logistic regression and Fisher’s exact test were used to assess for interactions between demographics and responses with Holm-Bonferroni multiple testing correction.

Results

258 fully completed responses were received. Respondents had a median age of 43 years (range 28–69); 65% consultants and 35% registrars; 42% medical, and 54% clinical, oncologists. 84% felt comfortable treating LGBTQ+ patients but only 8% agreed that they were confident in their knowledge of specific LGBTQ+ patient healthcare needs. There were low rates of routine enquiry about sexual orientation (5%), gender identity (3%) and preferred pronouns (2%). 68% of oncologists felt LGBTQ+ healthcare needs should be a mandatory component of postgraduate training.

Conclusions

This survey showed that UK oncologists feel comfortable treating LGBTQ+ patients but may fail to identify these patients in their clinic, making it more difficult to meet LGBTQ+ healthcare needs. There is self-awareness of deficits in knowledge of LGBTQ+ healthcare and a willingness to address this through postgraduate training. Educational resources collated and developed in accordance with this study would potentially improve the confidence of oncologists in treating LGBTQ+ patients and the cancer care these patients receive.

Gender medicine and oncology: report and consensus of an ESMO workshop

BACKGROUND

The importance of sex and gender as modulators of disease biology and treatment outcomes is well known in other disciplines of medicine, such as cardiology, but remains an undervalued issue in oncology. Considering the increasing evidence for their relevance, European Society for Medical Oncology decided to address this topic and organized a multidisciplinary workshop in Lausanne, Switzerland, on 30 November and 1 December 2018.

DESIGN

Twenty invited faculty members and 40 selected physicians/scientists participated. Relevant content was presented by faculty members on the basis of a literature review conducted by each speaker. Following a moderated consensus session, the final consensus statements are reported here.

RESULTS

Clinically relevant sex differences include tumour biology, immune system activity, body composition and drug disposition and effects. The main differences between male and female cells are sex chromosomes and the level of sexual hormones they are exposed to. They influence both local and systemic determinants of carcinogenesis. Their effect on carcinogenesis in non-reproductive organs is largely unknown. Recent evidence also suggests differences in tumour biology and molecular markers. Regarding body composition, the difference in metabolically active, fat-free body mass is one of the most prominent: in a man and a woman of equal weight and height, it accounts for 80% of the man's and 65% of the woman's body mass, and is not taken into account in body-surface area based dosing of chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Sex differences in cancer biology and treatment deserve more attention and systematic investigation. Interventional clinical trials evaluating sex-specific dosing regimens are necessary to improve the balance between efficacy and toxicity for drugs with significant pharmacokinetic differences. Especially in diseases or disease subgroups with significant differences in epidemiology or outcomes, men and women with non-sex-related cancers should be considered as biologically distinct groups of patients, for whom specific treatment approaches merit consideration.