O-221 The concept of ‘family' in the era of assisted conception : a sociolinguistic analysis

Study question

Should current societal concerns about how the application of ART has resulted in evolving family structures influence clinical and legislative practice 

Summary answer

Concerns about the role of ART in ‘threatening' historical norms need to be addressed as they cause distress and fail to support valid life choices

What is known already

Techniques of assisted conception including gamete donation, cryopreservation and surrogacy have enabled many individuals to access unconventional and different family structures. ART modalities that were initially concerned with achieving a child for a hetero-normative couple are now widely accessed by individuals and couples with alternative family structures. Current societal concerns oscillate between anxieties about inappropriate access and recourse to fertility treatments, demographic evidence of declining fecundity and geo-political pressures to optimize social structures.   

Study design, size, duration

A historical review was undertaken of family structures during the historical epoque since records are available of family size, maternal mortality, generational divergence and ‘un-official' family formation. Consideration of literary sources including foundlings, child ‘gifting', adoption and abandonment was involved. Assessment of current cultural norms including Census data information on household composition was accessed. Semi-qualitative interviews with individuals wishing to access fertility treatment with donor gametes.. 

Participants/materials, setting, methods

On-line access to records, census data, historical reviews etc.

Main results and the role of chance

In the post-industrial era a significant proportion of children lived in families to which they had no genetic link. ‘Excess' children were ‘gifted' to relatives, ‘sent' to live with individuals who offered the opportunity of a ‘better' life or who simply required  a servant, or a companion or an heir. Quantitatively this is no different from the current situation in the UK  where half of all young children live in a household in which they are not genetically linked to one of the adults who care for them. Deferred marriage or coupledom and age-related subfertility have increased the use of donor eggs. Single women and same sex female partners can now freely access donor sperm. it could be concluded that the current ‘moral panic'about the status of ‘the family' is misguided and historically inaccurate.Contemporary family structures  are not so different from what has preceded them, even though the ways in which these longed for  children arrive may be nove.l   

Limitations, reasons for caution

These data refer to UK sources and may not be universalisable

Wider implications of the findings

Practitioners of ART and allied professionals who support their work need to be aware of the needs and entitlements of individuals who seek to form families by accessing ART.

Trial registration number

Not applicable

Five-year study assessing the clinical utility of anti-Müllerian hormone measurements in reproductive-age women with cancer

RESEARCH QUESTION

An important discussion point before chemotherapy is ovarian toxicity, a side-effect that profoundly affects young women with cancer. Their quality of life after successful treatment, including the ability to conceive, is a major concern. We asked whether serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) measurements before chemotherapy for two most common malignancies are predictive of long-term changes in ovarian reserve?

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study measured serum AMH in 66 young women with lymphoma and breast cancer, before and at 1 year and 5 years after chemotherapy, compared with 124 healthy volunteers of the same age range (18-43 years). Contemporaneously, patients reported their menses and live births during 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

After adjustment for age, serum AMH was 1.4 times higher (95% CI 1.1 to 1.9; P < 0.02) in healthy volunteers than in cancer patients before chemotherapy. A strong correlation was observed between baseline and 5-year AMH in the breast cancer group (P < 0.001, regression coefficient = 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89). No significant association was found between presence of menses at 5 years and serum AMH at baseline (likelihood ratio test from logistics regression analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

Reproductive-age women with malignancy have lower serum AMH than healthy controls even before starting chemotherapy. Pre-chemotherapy AMH was significantly associated with long-term ovarian function in women with breast cancer. At key time points, AMH measurements could be used as a reproductive health advisory tool for young women with cancer. Our results highlight the unsuitability of return of menstruation as a clinical indicator of ovarian reserve after chemotherapy.

Understanding the Experiences of Cancer Patients as They Transition From Treatment to Primary and Community Care: A Pan-Canadian Study of Over 13,000 Cancer Survivors

Background: Being diagnosed with cancer can be overwhelming, with many physical and emotional challenges. As needs of survivors shift from disease management to recovery, the adjustment is often not seamless. Ideally, a health care system is integrated and responsive to the needs of survivors, however, when cancer treatment is complete, they often face lingering concerns. Limited patient-reported data were available in Canada on experiences and barriers survivors face posttreatment. Aim: The Experiences of Cancer Patients in Transition study is the first national survey gathering data from cancer survivors in Canada as they transition from cancer care to the broader health care system. Methods: A survey was developed in consultation with patients/survivors, health care providers and researchers to address experiences related to physical, emotional, informational and practical needs. Ethics approvals were obtained and 10 provinces participated. Cancer survivors expected to have completed treatment within 1-3 years were identified from provincial cancer registries. Included were those aged 30+ at diagnosis of nonmetastatic breast, colorectal, prostate, melanoma or hematologic cancer; or aged 15-29 at diagnosis of any nonmetastatic cancer or metastatic testicular cancer. Despite the intention of the sampling, the final sample included some survivors diagnosed with a site other than the target sites, and some whose time since treatment was outside 1-3 years. All respondents are included in this analysis. Results are not weighted to represent the true distribution of cancer survivors. Results: From a total survey population of 40,790 Canadian cancer survivors, 33% completed the survey. The respondents were 48% male, 51% female; 2.5% were under 30 years old, 60% were 65+. 68% of respondents reported challenging periods posttreatment, with 48% of these saying that the first 6 months to 1 year were most challenging. Cancer survivors continued to live with side-effects: 87% reported physical challenges; 78% reported emotional challenges; 45% reported practical challenges. The most prevalent concerns were fatigue (68%), anxiety about cancer returning (68%) and returning to work/school (23%). Less than half of those with emotional or practical concerns received useful information (42% and 46%, respectively). 42% of respondents could not get help to address their most difficult concern. Of those who could get help, 10.7% waited a year or more. Conclusion: The results provide insight into the nature of challenges cancer survivors face, as well as needed supports and barriers faced in accessing them. There is a clear need for health systems to ensure a seamless patient experience throughout the cancer journey, for instance, through development and adoption of resources to help health care providers and their patients identify and address challenges from diagnosis through to survivorship.

Choosing wisely in cancer control across Canada-a set of baseline indicators

Value-based care, which balances high-quality care with the most efficient use of resources, has been considered the next frontier in cancer care and a means to maintain health system sustainability. Created to promote value-based care, Choosing Wisely Canada-modelled after Choosing Wisely in the United States-is a national clinician-driven campaign to identify unnecessary or harmful services that are frequently used in Canada. As part of the campaign, national medical societies have developed recommendations for tests and treatments that clinicians and patients should question. Here, we present baseline indicator findings about current practice patterns associated with 7 cancer-related recommendations from Choosing Wisely Canada and about the effects of those practices on patients and the health care system. Indicator findings point to substantial variations in cancer system performance between Canadian jurisdictions, most notably for breast cancer screening practices, treatment practices for men with low-risk localized prostate cancer, and radiation therapy practices for early-stage breast cancer and bone metastases. Extrapolating indicator findings to the entire country, it was estimated that 740,000 breast and cervical cancer screening tests were performed outside of the recommended age ranges, and within 1 year of diagnosis, 17,000 patients received treatments that could be low-value. A 15% reduction in the use of the 7 screening and treatment practices examined could lead to multiple benefits for patients and the health care system: 9000 false-positive results and 3000 treatments and related side effects could be avoided, and 4500 hours of linear accelerator capacity could be freed up each year. Interjurisdictional performance variations suggest potential differences in clinical practice patterns in the planning and delivery of cancer control services, and in some cases, in disease management outcomes. Although the cancer screening and treatment practices described might be unnecessary for some patients, it is important to realize that they could, in fact, be necessary for other patients. Further research into appropriate rates of use could help to determine how much cancer care represents overuse of practices that are not supported by evidence or underuse of practices that are supported by evidence.

How different is cancer control across Canada? Comparing performance indicators for prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment

Meaningful performance measures are an important part of the toolkit for health system improvement. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer has been reporting on pan-Canadian cancer system performance indicators since 2009-work that has led to the availability of standardized measures that can help to shed light on the extent of variation and opportunities for quality improvement across the country. Those measures include a core set of system indicators ranging from prevention and screening, through diagnosis and treatment, to survivorship and end-of-life care. Key indicators were calculated and graphed, showing the range from worst to best result for the provinces and territories included in the data. There were often significant differences in cancer system performance between provinces and territories. For example, smoking prevalence rates ranged from 14% to 62%. The 90th percentile wait times from an abnormal breast screen to resolution (without biopsy) ranged from 4 weeks to 8 weeks. The percentage of breast cancer resections that used breast-conserving surgery rather than mastectomy ranged from 38% to 75%. Clinical trial participation rates for adults ranged from 0.2% to 6.6%. Variations in performance indicators between Canadian jurisdictions suggest potential differences in the planning and delivery of cancer control services and in clinical practice patterns and patient outcomes. Understanding sources of variation can help to identify opportunities for improvements in the quality and outcomes of cancer control service delivery in each province and territory.

Smoking behaviours of current cancer patients in Canada

Evidence shows that continued smoking by cancer patients leads to adverse treatment outcomes and affects survival. Smoking diminishes treatment effectiveness, exacerbates side effects, and increases the risk of developing additional complications. Patients who continue to smoke also have a higher risk of developing a second primary cancer or experiencing a cancer recurrence, both of which ultimately contribute to poorer quality of life and poorer survival. Here, we present a snapshot of smoking behaviours of current cancer patients compared with the non-cancer patient population in Canada. Minimal differences in smoking behaviours were noted between current cancer patients and the rest of the population. Based on 2011-2014 data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, 1 in 5 current cancer patients (20.1%) reported daily or occasional smoking. That estimate is comparable to findings in the surveyed non-cancer patient population, of whom 19.3% reported smoking daily or occasionally. Slightly more male cancer patients than female cancer patients identified as current smokers. A similar distribution was observed in the non-cancer patient population. There is an urgent need across Canada to better support cancer patients in quitting smoking. As a result, the quality of patient care will improve, as will cancer treatment and survival outcomes, and quality of life for these patients.

A first look at relative survival by stage for colorectal and lung cancers in Canada

Monitoring and reporting on cancer survival provides a mechanism for understanding the effectiveness of Canada's cancer care system. Although 5-year relative survival for colorectal cancer and lung cancer has been previously reported, only recently has pan-Canadian relative survival by stage been analyzed using comprehensive registry data. This article presents a first look at 2-year relative survival by stage for colorectal and lung cancer across 9 provinces. As expected, 2-year age-standardized relative survival ratios (arsrs) for colorectal cancer and lung cancer were higher when the cancer was diagnosed at an earlier stage. The arsrs for stage i colorectal cancer ranged from 92.2% in Nova Scotia [95% confidence interval (ci): 88.6% to 95.1%] to 98.4% in British Columbia (95% ci: 96.2% to 99.3%); for stage iv, they ranged from 24.3% in Prince Edward Island (95% ci: 15.2% to 34.4%) to 38.8% in New Brunswick (95% ci: 33.3% to 44.2%). The arsrs for stage i lung cancer ranged from 66.5% in Prince Edward Island (95% ci: 54.5% to 76.5%) to 84.8% in Ontario (95% ci: 83.5% to 86.0%). By contrast, arsrs for stage iv lung cancer ranged from 7.6% in Manitoba (95% ci: 5.8% to 9.7%) to 13.2% in British Columbia (95% ci: 11.8% to 14.6%). The available stage data are too recent to allow for meaningful comparisons between provinces, but over time, analyzing relative survival by stage can provide further insight into the known differences in 5-year relative survival. As the data mature, they will enable an assessment of the extent to which interprovincial differences in relative survival are influenced by differences in stage distribution or treatment effectiveness (or both), permitting targeted measures to improve population health outcomes to be implemented.

Canadian cancer screening disparities: a recent historical perspective

Across Canada, introduction of the Pap test for cervical cancer screening, followed by mammography for breast cancer screening and, more recently, the fecal occult blood test for colorectal cancer screening, has contributed to a reduction in cancer mortality. However, another contribution of screening has been disparities in cancer mortality between certain populations. Here, we explore the disparities associated with breast and cervical cancer screening and preliminary data concerning disparities in colorectal cancer screening. Although some disparities in screening utilization have been successfully reduced over time (for example, mammography and Pap test screening in rural and remote populations), screening utilization data for other populations (for example, low-income groups) clearly indicate that disparities have existed and continue to exist across Canada. Organized screening programs in Canada have been able to successfully engage 80% of women for regular cervical cancer screening and 70% of women for regular mammography screening, but of the women who remain to be reached or engaged in regular screening, those with the least resources, those who are the most isolated, and those who are least culturally integrated into Canadian society as a whole are over-represented. Population differences are also observed for utilization of colorectal cancer screening services. The research literature on interventions to promote screening utilization provides some evidence about what can be done to increase participation in organized screening by vulnerable populations. Adaption and adoption of evidence-based screening promotion interventions can increase the utilization of available screening services by populations that have experienced the greatest burden of disease with the least access to screening services.

Rectal cancer resection and circumferential margin rates in Canada: a population-based study

INTRODUCTION [...]

Use of pet in the management of non-small-cell lung cancer in Canada

Positron-emission tomography (pet) has emerged as an effective imaging method for diagnosing, staging, [...]

Examining Cancer-Risk Profiles for the Largest Metropolitan Areas across Canada

Because health behaviours can be influenced at many different levels, there is value in examining differences in risk factors and health behaviours between the largest cities in Canada. [...]

Measuring concordance with guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of colon cancer

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death and the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Canada, with an estimated 9200 deaths and 23,300 new cases in 2012. [...]

New chart review data validate administrative data-based indicator for guideline-recommended treatment of locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and shed light on reasons for non-referral and non-treatment

The 2012 Cancer System Performance Report is the 4th annual report on the Canadian cancer control system produced by the System Performance initiative at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, in collaboration with its provincial and national partners. [...]

Differences in cancer awareness and beliefs between Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): do they contribute to differences in cancer survival?

BACKGROUND

There are wide international differences in 1-year cancer survival. The UK and Denmark perform poorly compared with other high-income countries with similar health care systems: Australia, Canada and Sweden have good cancer survival rates, Norway intermediate survival rates. The objective of this study was to examine the pattern of differences in cancer awareness and beliefs across these countries to identify where these might contribute to the pattern of survival.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based telephone interview survey of 19079 men and women aged ≥ 50 years in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure.

RESULTS

Awareness that the risk of cancer increased with age was lower in the UK (14%), Canada (13%) and Australia (16%) but was higher in Denmark (25%), Norway (29%) and Sweden (38%). Symptom awareness was no lower in the UK and Denmark than other countries. Perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation were highest in the UK, in particular being worried about wasting the doctor's time (UK 34%; Canada 21%; Australia 14%; Denmark 12%; Norway 11%; Sweden 9%).

CONCLUSION

The UK had low awareness of age-related risk and the highest perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation, but symptom awareness in the UK did not differ from other countries. Denmark had higher awareness of age-related risk and few perceived barriers to symptomatic presentation. This suggests that other factors must be involved in explaining Denmark's poor survival rates. In the UK, interventions that address barriers to prompt presentation in primary care should be developed and evaluated.

A retrospective chart review validates indicator results and provides insight into reasons for non-concordance with evidence-based guidelines

As part of the system performance initiative of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, indicators measuring treatment practice patterns across the country relative to evidence-based guidelines were first published in 2010 and are updated annually. Among the treatment indicators examined is the percentage of resected stage ii and iii rectal cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant (preoperative) radiation therapy (RT), the treatment approach recommended for locally advanced rectal cancer

Recently published indicators allow for comparison of radiation treatment rates relative to evidence-based guidelines for rectal cancer

The system performance initiative of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer is the first pan-Canadian report to offer indicators for measuring treatment practice patterns by province and for comparing practice with current guidelines [...]

Conditional survival in Canada: adjusting patient prognosis over time

Five-year relative survival statistics are often used to measure cancer control across jurisdictions, and international comparisons such as the CONCORD or EUROCARE studies often point to substantial survival differences across participating countries [...]

Hyperinflation of lungs during redo-sternotomy, a safer technique

Increasing numbers of patients are being referred for repeat cardiac procedures and redo-sternotomy is technically more arduous as well as time consuming. We describe our unique technique to overcome this challenging task by hyperinflating the lungs as a useful manoeuvre.

Long-term follow-up of allogeneic bone marrow transplantation for patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia prepared with a regimen consisting of cyclophosphamide, cytarabine and single-dose total body irradiation conditioning

We evaluated long-term toxicities and outcomes in 96 patients with chronic phase chronic myeloid leukemia treated with a single bone marrow allograft regimen. Conditioning was cytosine arabinoside, cyclophosphamide (120 mg/kg) and single fraction total body irradiation (500 cGy). Median follow-up was 12.8 years (0.4-19.9 years). Graft failure occurred in one patient, nonfatal veno-occlusive disease in 13 patients (14%). Overall incidences of acute (a) and chronic (c) graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) were 77 and 63%. The 100-day and 1-year transplant-related mortality (TRM) were 1 and 9.2%, respectively, with no change through 5 years. Five- and 10-year event-free survival rates were 56 and 49%, overall survival (OS) rates 72 and 70%, respectively. Forty patients have relapsed: 8 cytogenetic (20%), 10 hematologic (25%) and 22 molecular (55%). Most have been salvaged with donor-leukocyte infusion, second transplants and/or imatinib therapy. Survival was worse for patients transplanted >2 years from diagnosis (10-year OS 56 vs 78%, P=0.01), for patients over 50 years old (10-year OS 44 vs 75%, P=0.05) and for patients without cGVHD (10-year OS 53 vs 86%, P<0.001). This regimen resulted in successful engraftment, low risk of TRM and long-term survival. In an era when imatinib is first line therapy, this regimen offers a potentially low-toxicity, highly successful alternative in the event of poor imatinib response.

Phase I study of stereotactic radiotherapy for unresectable hepatobiliary cancer and liver metastases

4590

Background: Safety of stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and liver metastases (LM) has not been well established. Results from a phase I study of 6 fraction SRT are reported. Methods: Eligible patients had unresectable or medically inoperable HCC, CC or LM, liver enzymes < 6 fold higher than normal, platelets > 80,000 bil/L, Child score A, > 800 cc uninvolved liver, KPS = 60 and unsuitability for standard therapies. Patients were treated with breath hold and image guided 6 fraction SRT. Dose was individualized to maintain the same risk of liver toxicity at three risk levels (I-5%, II-10%, III-20%). Escalation to level II and III occurred once at least 3 patients had been followed for >3 months without dose limiting toxicity (grade 4/5 < 1 month or grade 4/5 liver < 3 months) for each stratum. Stratification was based on diagnosis and liver volume irradiated (low <20%, mid 20–50%, high 50–80%). Results: From Aug. 2003 to Dec. 2006, 82 patients initiated SRT. Two patients discontinued SRT after 1 fraction for progressive disease (LM) and a variceal bleed (HCC). 80 patients completed SRT (38 LM, 32 HCC, 10 CC). Median age was 64 years (38–92 years). Median tumor volume was 293 cc (3–3088 cc). 24 patients (30%) had extra-hepatic disease. 17 HCC patients had portal vein thrombosis (53%), 14 HBV, 12 HCV and 4 alcoholic cirrhosis. The median prescribed dose was 40 Gy (24 Gy - 60 Gy) in 6 fractions. Within 3 months post SRT, no dose-limiting grade 4/5 toxicity or classic radiation liver toxicity was observed. Grade 3 liver enzymes (2 new, 9 pre-existing), thrombocytopenia (3), nausea (3) and fatigue (1) was observed. Child score declined in 8 patients (5 HCC, 2 CC, 1 LM), 6 with progressive disease. Late toxicity included 1 tumor-duodenal fistula, 1 bowel obstruction and 2 GI bleeds. The in-field response rate was 60% (LM 57%, CC 50%, HCC 67%): CR 14%, PR 46%, SD 23%, PD 17%. Actuarial 12 month local control was 78% (95% CI: 58- 90%). The median survival for LM, CC and HCC was 16.6 months (7.9–25.6), 13.1 months (6.0–28.4) and 11.0 months (8.6–20.8) respectively. Conclusions: Individualized SRT is a safe, promising treatment for unresectable liver cancer.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Assessment of intra and interfractional organ motion during adjuvant radiochemotherapy in gastric cancer

15132

Background: Adjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (RT) in gastric cancer improves survival, however acute toxicity is substantial. Toxicity may be improved with three-dimensional (3D) RT, but organ motion must be considered in planning target volume (PTV) delineation. Methods: Participants (n=22) had baseline free breathing planning CT (CT0) with BodyFix immobilization. Abdominal CTs in free breathing (FB), inhale (I) and exhale (E) states were obtained in weeks 1, 3 and 5 of RT. Datasets were fused to CT0 in Pinnacle3 6.2 planning system using bone registration. Volumes of interest (VOIs) [right (R) and left (L) kidney, liver, stomach, pancreas, celiac axis and porta hepatis] were contoured and points of interest (POIs) were placed at each centre of mass. POIs were manually placed at the left dome of diaphragm and splenic hilum. Organ motion was determined by the difference between POI positions in cranial-caudal (CC), anterior-posterior (AP) and right-left (RL) directions. Maximal respiratory motion was determined from the difference between I and E positions. Interfractional displacement in organs relative to bones at weeks 1, 3 and 5 was determined on FB scans as compared to baseline. Results: Interfractional organ motion was maximal in CC direction with median absolute displacements (range) in mm of: splenic hilum 10 (0–52), stomach 8 (0.4–27.2), liver 7.4 (0.5–23.6), diaphragm 6 (0–28), L kidney 5.7 (0–37.3), R kidney 5.3 (0.2–35.3), pancreas 5.7 (0.3–29.1), porta hepatis 4 (0–14) and celiac axis 1.7 (0–9.1). Median interfraction displacement (range) in CC, AP and RL in mm for all organs was: 5.7 (0- 52), 2.1 (0–23.1), 2.3 (0–15.9). Positional difference between I and E state (median for all organs) was: 16 mm CC, 5.9 mm AP, and 1.7 mm RL with maximal individual breathing excursions of 59.9, 30.2 and 21.1 mm, respectively. Conclusions: Interfraction organ displacement relative to bones can be quantified and used in the safe design of 3D conformal radiotherapy. Respiratory motion can be substantial in some individuals. Accounting for organ motion in 3D RT planning is necessary and may reduce the toxicity of treatment.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.