Topics

Cancer

Cancer Research 5 February 2024 Open Access

Immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in Australia: a retrospective real world cohort study

ICI therapy could benefit a broader range of people with advanced CSCC than are eligible for clinical trials

Luke S McLean · Annette M Lim · Mathias Bressel · Jenny Lee · Rahul Ladwa · Alexander D Guminski · Brett Hughes · Samantha Bowyer · Karen Briscoe · Samuel Harris · Craig Kukard · Rob Zielinski · Muhammad Alamgeer · Matteo Carlino · Jeremy Mo · John J Park · Muhammad A Khattak · Fiona Day · Danny Rischin

Health services administration Study protocol 16 October 2023 Open Access

Psychosocial outcomes and health service use after notifying women participating in population breast screening when they have dense breasts: a BreastScreen Queensland randomised controlled trial

Robust evidence is needed for future mammography population screening practice and policy

Brooke Nickel · Nick Ormiston‐Smith · Lisa Hammerton · Erin Cvejic · Paul Vardon · Zoe Mcinally · Paula Legerton · Karen Baker · Jennifer Isautier · Emma Larsen · Michelle Giles · Meagan E Brennan · Kirsten J McCaffery · Nehmat Houssami

Mja2 52117

Ethical implications of changing the eligibility criteria for the proposed National Lung Cancer Screening Program

To the Editor: The incidence of lung cancer and the five‐year survival of patients diagnosed with lung cancer reflect the social gradient within the Australian society. Most notably, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are twice as likely to develop lung cancer and half as likely to survive lung cancer.1 Reducing inequity in lung cancer outcomes was a key objective of Cancer Australia when it proposed a National Lung Cancer Screening Program (NLCSP) in 2020, following an enquiry that consulted both medical experts and the broader community.1 The Department of Health sought funding for Cancer Australia's proposed NLCSP in the 2021–2022 Budget but was required by the Department of Finance to refer the proposal to the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) for review.2 So, when MSAC recently announced its support for the creation of the NLCSP, there was great relief within the lung cancer community. However, what few people seemed to realise was that MSAC had in fact designed, then endorsed, their own alternative model for an NLCSP.3 MSAC's model is fundamentally different to Cancer Australia's model in terms of who is eligible to be screened and, therefore, who can benefit from the screening program. Whereas Cancer Australia intended using an individual's risk of lung cancer (as estimated by the PLCOm2012 risk calculator, which combines sociodemographic data and smoking history),4 MSAC recommended using fixed cut‐offs for age and smoking history. This is problematic in terms of both the evidence base that should have guided MSAC's decision and the ethical implications of the decision. MSAC's approach aligns with the design of historical lung cancer screening trials but it ignores an extensive body of evidence, including both a priori and post hoc analyses of trial data that consistently demonstrate that risk calculators are more efficient than fixed criteria.5 Furthermore, it also ignores international trends in the design of lung cancer screening trials and the implementation of lung cancer screening programs.1 But more importantly, the inevitable consequence of applying MSAC's eligibility criteria will be that fewer socially disadvantaged individuals will be eligible to participate in the NLCSP. This has the potential to exacerbate the existing inequity.

Jonathon B Ryan

Mja2 52040
Cancer Research 7 August 2023 Open Access

Patterns of care for people with small cell lung cancer in Victoria, 2011–19: a retrospective, population‐based registry data study

A national registry of SCLC-specific management and outcomes data could improve the quality and safety of care

Joanna Huang · Wasek Faisal · Margaret Brand · Shantelle Smith · Marliese Alexander · Lisa Briggs · Matthew Conron · Mary Duffy · Thomas John · David Langton · Jacqueline Lesage · Michael MacManus · Paul Mitchell · Inger Olesen · Phillip Parente · Jennifer Philip · Evangeline Samuel · Javier Torres · Craig R Underhill · John R Zalcberg · Susan Harden · Rob Stirling

Mja2 52017

A brief intervention for improving alcohol literacy and reducing harmful alcohol use by women attending a breast screening service: a randomised controlled trial

Brief alcohol interventions in diverse clinical settings can reach groups often not recognised as being at risk of harmful drinking

Jasmin Grigg · Victoria Manning · Darren Lockie · Michelle Giles · Robin J Bell · Peta Stragalinos · Chloe Bernard · Christopher J Greenwood · Isabelle Volpe · Liam Smith · Peter Bragge · Dan I Lubman

Mja2 51991

Subscribe to MJA email alerts

No spam, you can unsubscribe anytime you want.

By providing your information, you agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.

Thanks for Subscribing! Tell us more

Your email updates will use your name.

Good one! Your updates are coming

Thank you for subscribing to the MJA email alerts. Receive the latest content in your inbox.