Cancer in adolescents and young adults: treatment and outcome in Victoria

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Mitchell et al and the editorial by Cole on comparatively adverse outcomes in adolescents and young adults with cancer.1,2 The improvements in cancer survival, most remarkably demonstrated in children, have failed to similarly benefit older adolescents and young adults, a population with a higher and increasing incidence of cancer.3 Most authors advocate increasing research, networking resources and information, enhancing support for clinical trials and facilitating participation in them. Recently announced funding for a comprehensive cancer-care program for adolescents and young adults at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute in Melbourne is a welcome step towards these goals.

The specific emotional and psychosocial needs of this age group are also poorly addressed within traditional models of care.4 Patients in this group express strong preference for peer support, opportunities to be cohorted with each other and access to specific support services.4 The short and long term sequelae of cancer, as well as of its treatment, in adolescents and young adults create particular challenges for both healthcare professionals and the broader community. In December 2003, an entire issue of the European Journal of Cancer was dedicated to adolescent oncology — this science, clinical care and the needs of the patient population.5 An important development in the United Kingdom has been the establishment of eight “teenage cancer units” with a comprehensive approach to all aspects of care.6 Preliminary research in Australia and New Zealand by one of our group (J E) highlights gaps in service and support perceived by consumers, concerns yet to be addressed by appropriate policy and funding.7

The paediatric model of care has provided not only excellent survival but also an exemplary family-centred and comprehensive support system. The recent emphasis on the transition process for adolescents with a variety of chronic illnesses has highlighted systemic differences between the paediatric and adult models. Some paediatric oncologists, especially in the United States, have proposed raising the upper age limit for eligibility to childhood cancer units as a solution. A more realistic approach, particularly in Australia, requires establishing specialist facilities operated in partnership between (preferably collocated) adult and paediatric units, with subspecialisation of the multidisciplinary workforce, an age-appropriate environment and peer support from groups like the Australian Organisation for Young People Living with Cancer (CanTeen). This approach is capable of addressing all of the above issues, from better science through to psychosocial expertise appropriately targeted for age.

The ideal number and distribution of such centres/partnerships should be guided by the paediatric track record for balancing centralisation and quality with access and family focus.