Prostate cancer treatment in private and public health services

Ian N Olver
Med J Aust 2020; 213 (9): . || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50819
Published online: 2 November 2020

More evidence is required to explain the differences in cancer treatment reported by data linkage studies

Investigations linking cancer registry and administrative data sets provide evidence about outcomes that can highlight differences in treatment. What should follow is further quantitative and qualitative research, not speculation, to identify evidence‐based reasons for the differences, and to suggest remedies.

  • The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA


Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

  • 1. te Marvelde L, Milne RL, Hornby CJ, et al. Differences in treatment choices for localised prostate cancer diagnosed in private and public health services. Med J Aust 2020; 213: 411–417.
  • 2. Culp MB, Soerjomataram I, Efstathiou JA, et al. Recent global pattern in prostate cancer incidence and mortality rates. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 132–142.
  • 3. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow‐up. Lancet 2014; 384: 2027–2035.
  • 4. Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Yu K, et al. Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median of 15 years of follow‐up. Cancer 2017; 123: 592–599.
  • 5. De Koning HJ, Gulati M, Moss SM, et al. The efficacy of PSA screening. Impact of key components in the ERSPC and PLCO trial. Cancer 2018; 124: 1197–1206.
  • 6. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia; Cancer Council Australia PSA Testing Guidelines Expert Advisory Panel. Clinical practice guidelines for PSA testing and early management of test‐detected prostate cancer. Updated June 2020. (viewed June 2020).
  • 7. Beesley LJ, Morgan TM, Spratt DE, et al. Individual and population comparisons of surgery and radiotherapy outcomes in prostate cancer using Bayesian multistate models. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2: e187765.
  • 8. Heidenreich A. Multidisciplinary team meetings in cancer treatment. We can do much better in daily life. Oncol Res Treat 2019; 42: 363–364.
  • 9. Atwell D, Vignarajah DD, Chan BA, et al. Referral rates to multidisciplinary team meetings: is there disparity between tumour streams? J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2019; 63: 378–382.
  • 10. Bekelman JE, Suneja G, Guzzo T, et al. Effect of practice integration between urologists and radiation oncologist on prostate cancer treatment patterns. J Urol 2013; 190: 97–101.
  • 11. Schymura MJ, Kahn AR, German RR, et al. Factors associated with initial treatment and survival for clinically localized prostate cancer: results from the CDC‐NPCR Patterns of Care Study (PoC1). BMC Cancer 2010; 10: 152.
  • 12. Nardi AC, Dos Rios RB, De Cassio Zequi S, Nardozza A. Comparison of the epidemiologic factors and Patterns of initial care for prostate cancer between public and private institutions: a survey by the Brazilian Society of Urology. Int Braz J Urol 2012; 38: 155–165.
  • 13. Wang LL, Begashaw K, Evans M, et al. Patterns of care and outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer in Victoria: an update. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88: 1037–1042.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.