Cancer

Objective: To describe tumour characteristics and clinical management of melanomas newly diagnosed in 1996 and in 2000 — before and after publication of the clinical practice Guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma by the Australian Cancer Network (1997), and their endorsement by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and republication (1999).Design and setting: Survey of clinicians involved in the management of patients with melanoma sampled from the Victorian Cancer Registry. The Registry is notified of all cases of cancer diagnosed by pathology laboratories and hospitals in both the public and private health sectors in the state of Victoria.Patients: People with a cutaneous melanoma newly diagnosed in 1996 and 2000. All invasive melanomas > 1.50 mm in thickness were included, and for each year random samples were selected of 100 each of invasive melanomas 0.76–1.50 mm in thickness, invasive melanomas ≤ 0.75 mm, and in-situ melanomas, plus 50 melanomas of unknown thickness.Main outcome measures: Biopsy method, adequacy of pathology reporting, adequacy of definitive excision (compared with margins recommended by the Guidelines), and follow-up procedures.Results: The use of partial biopsies increased between 1996 and 2000. Recommended margins of definitive excision were used in only 33.6% of cases. Margins were smaller than recommended for 36% of in-situ melanomas, risking recurrence of primary melanoma. Documented follow-up examinations for subsequent primary skin malignancy were uncommon (6%).Conclusions: Many aspects of the management of primary cutaneous melanoma appear not to meet the recommendations of the published Guidelines. Further studies to explore the reasons for failure to meet the Guideline recommendations are needed.

John W Kelly MD, FACD · Michael A Henderson MD, FRACS · Vicky J Thursfield BSc, GradDip(Applied Stats) · John Slavin FRCPA · Jill Ainslie FRANZCR · Graham G Giles PhD

To the Editor: A recent MJA Supplement discusses prognostic and end-of-life communication for health professionals on the basis of a systematic literature review and an expert advisory panel.1 It is usually the case that malignant disease is diagnosed after biopsy, and this is usually undertaken by a surgeon. In a consecutive series of 100 patients presenting with a lesion in a bone with no past history of malignancy, the lesion was the presenting feature of systemic malignancy in 44 of those patients.2 Hence, it is usually the surgeon’s role to advise the patient (and caregivers) that the patient has a terminal disease and, in some cases, the prognosis can only be measured in weeks. It will be obvious that this can be a significant shock to all, particularly when there was no prior indication that malignancy was a possibility. I note that not one of the 35 experts was a surgeon. I also note that surgery as palliation is given virtually no role other than a brief mention in Box 11, despite the well documented role of surgery.3 It has been my experience that the most common question asked by patients with the diagnosis of a terminal malignancy is about the role of surgery; the question “Why can’t you just cut it out?” is a universal feature. This has not been addressed. It is my sincere hope that further expert advisory panels addressing this area become truly multidisciplinary and include perhaps the most relevant discipline — surgery.

Mark T Clayer

In reply: We agree that the content area of these guidelines is very relevant for surgeons, as for all health professionals involved in the care of adult patients with advanced life-limiting illnesses and their caregivers. Surgical representation on our expert panel would have been very useful. We agree that surgery has an important role in terms of palliative treatment options that may be available for certain clinical circumstances. The issue of how to respond to the question “Why can’t you just cut it out?” is an important one. We believe that the principles outlined in these guidelines would be relevant when responding to this question, but would welcome specific suggestions from Clayer and other surgeons about how they respond to such patients. We would hope to include these suggestions along with other input from surgeons in any future update of these guidelines.

Josephine M Clayton · Karen M Hancock · Phyllis N Butow · Martin H N Tattersall · David C Currow

A 61-year-old woman diagnosed with multifocal, poorly differentiated epithelial mesothelioma in September 2002 went into sustained spontaneous remission within months. She was completely disease-free within 6 months, and remained so 5 years later. This case demonstrates that this tumour may, very rarely, regress spontaneously, with no recurrence for many years. A greater knowledge of the underlying immune mechanisms would aid future management of this and other tumours. Clinical recordIn early September 2002, a 61-year-old woman was referred to our centre from the emergency room of a local private hospital. She had presented with a 2-day history of intermittent, sudden onset, severe right-sided lateral pleuritic chest pain lasting a few minutes. In the private hospital emergency room, chest radiography and computed tomography (CT) had shown pleural masses, which were subsequently found to be poorly differentiated epithelial mesothelioma. The patient reported that, over the previous week, she had felt weak and lethargic, but was otherwise well. She had no previous serious illnesses, but had recently started taking iron supplements for anaemia and occasionally took non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents for osteoarthritis. She was a non-drinker, and had ceased smoking 5 months previously. (She started smoking at the age of 16 years and had been smoking 40 cigarettes a day.) She was a widow with three adult children, and had emigrated from the United Kingdom in 1969. Her husband died at the age of 39 years of a myocardial infarction. Her father died of carcinoma of the oesophagus, and her mother of “old age”. Her four siblings and three adult children were all well. Although she had no history of asbestos exposure from any of her husband’s occupations, she could have been exposed to asbestos during two periods of her life. From the age of 15–22 years in the UK, she worked as a machinist in a factory where asbestos lagging was used for the steam pipes of steam presses and central heating. Then, in 1984, her son worked for a year for a company making asbestos gaskets, and throughout this period she washed his work overalls. On examination, she looked well and was not in pain. She weighed 74 kg and was of normal build, but had slight conjunctival pallor. An electrocardiogram showed sinus rhythm; her blood pressure was 140/60 mmHg, and her jugular venous pressure was not elevated. There was no cyanosis or clubbing. Examination of the chest, cardiovascular system, breast, abdomen and peripheries showed no abnormalities. InvestigationsA chest radiograph taken before referral showed a pleural density measuring 10 cm × 2 cm overlying the posterior aspect of the right lower lobe, with no pleural plaques or other stigmata of asbestos exposure. A CT pulmonary angiogram performed the same day to exclude pulmonary embolism showed three pleural masses in the right side of the chest — the first corresponding to the opacity visible on the chest radiograph in the right costovertebral gutter at the level of the tracheal bifurcation, the second having a diameter of 6 cm and located in the right cardiophrenic angle (not of fatty attenuation), and the third in the right posteromedial costophrenic recess, just above the diaphragm (Box 1A and Box 1B). The lungs, mediastinum and upper abdomen (including the pancreas and para-aortic nodes) were normal. Laboratory tests showed her haemoglobin level was 104 g/L (reference range [RR], 115–160 g/L), with a normochromic normocytic anaemia; she had thrombocytosis (555 × 109/L [RR, 150–450 × 109/L]) and leukocytosis (11.2 × 109/L [RR, 4.0–11.0 × 109/L]), with mild neutrophilia (8.2 × 109/L [RR, 2.0–7.5 × 109/L]). Her erythrocyte sedimentation rate was markedly elevated at 110 mm/h (RR, 1–30 mm/h), as was her serum C-reactive protein level (294 mg/L [RR, 0–6 mg/L]). She had mildly elevated concentrations of liver enzymes (alanine aminotransferase, 98 U/L [RR, 0–45 U/L]; aspartate aminotransferase, 70 U/L [RR, 0–41 U/L]; and lactate dehydrogenase, 268 U/L [RR, 80–250 U/L]), with normal serum bilirubin and alkaline phosphatase levels. Her serum iron level was low (2 μmol/L [RR, 10–33 μmol/L]). A core biopsy (20 mm × 1 mm) of one of the right pleural masses showed morphological and immunohistochemical features of a poorly differentiated epithelial mesothelioma. A pathology report by an experienced pathologist with a special interest in pulmonary and pleural pathology read: There is a proliferation of poorly cohesive large cells many of which had vesicular nuclei, prominent nucleoli and abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm. Occasional binucleate and multinucleate forms are present and there is a small amount of associated collagenous stroma with a mild chronic inflammatory cell infiltrate [Box 2A]. There is no evidence of mucin production, and immunoperoxidase stains for a variety of keratins are strongly positive, along with positive staining for calretinin [Box 2B] and cytokeratin 5/6, both markers of mesothelial differentiation [Box 2C]. Stains for LCA and S100 protein are negative. The pathology results were later reviewed by another pathologist with considerable experience of mesothelioma, who drew the same conclusion. ManagementThe patient was told the diagnosis and referred to an oncologist with a special interest in mesothelioma in another tertiary hospital where clinical trials of drugs for the treatment of mesothelioma were in progress. She was offered chemotherapy and entry in a thalidomide trial, but, by the time she was entered, the tumour was already showing signs of spontaneous regression. The patient opted for no treatment, as she felt well. By 30 December 2002, a repeat CT scan of the chest showed a decrease in the size of the large, right-sided pleural mass in the costovertebral gutter from 17 mm × 9 mm (CT chest scan, 29 November 2002) to 12 mm × 6 mm. The second pleural mass was now so small it was difficult to see. The third mass was not visible, and there were two small intrapulmonary nodules — one in the right middle lobe and the other in the left lower lobe. By March 2003, the first and second pleural masses were even smaller (Box 1C) and, by June 2003, they had disappeared (Box 1D). A CT chest scan in June 2004 was normal except for the two tiny intrapulmonary nodules that had not changed in size and were probably granulomas. The patient was last reviewed in June 2007 and was in good health, with no evidence of tumour, and was scheduled for next review in 6 months. DiscussionThere have been a few reports of spontaneous regression of malignant mesothelioma, but prolonged, disease-free periods are rare. Our report appears to be the first to describe a patient in Australia with a poorly differentiated, multifocal epithelial mesothelioma that regressed spontaneously, with the disease remaining in remission for 5 years. There has been one case report of a patient with malignant mesothelioma of the pleura that regressed spontaneously, but after 6 years there was a single recurrence, which was resected surgically, and the patient was followed up for a total of 12 years.1 This raises the question in such cases of the duration of follow-up. In the latter case, a prominent host response to tumour was seen in both the primary tumour and the recurrence. In another case, a patient had a spontaneous remission of a malignant peritoneal mesothelioma, and had high spiking fevers when the tumour recurred.2 A report from Western Australia described a woman whose tumour regressed spontaneously but who eventually died 20 months later.3 It was noted that the tumour tissue was infiltrated with mononuclear cells, and as the tumour recurred some malignant mesothelioma antigens disappeared. Several aspects of our case should be noted. Histopathology The histopathological findings for our patient’s tumour were re-examined by another pathologist. Not all three lesions were biopsied, as it was felt highly probable that the pathological findings for all three would be identical. Author’s experience I have considerable experience in the management of mesothelioma and benign asbestos-related conditions and currently see about 600 patients with this condition a year. I also act as an expert witness for the courts. Mesothelioma is a relatively common condition in Australia at present and, as a result, our thoracic physicians, oncologists and pathologists have considerable experience in this area. Course of the disease The patient had markedly elevated inflammatory markers and is likely to have had the tumour for several months before diagnosis. It is suspected that her natural killer cells and cell-mediated immunity accounted for the regression of the tumour. Evidence of the beginning of spontaneous regression was unusually rapid, occurring within months of diagnosis. Exposure Our patient’s exposure to asbestos seems to have been relatively mild and incidental, as often occurs with women who develop mesothelioma. Self-treatment The patient did not use any unusual therapies, such as alternative medicines, diets and faith healing, after the diagnosis. This case highlights the possibility that spontaneous regression of mesothelioma may occur occasionally. Spontaneous tumour regression therefore should be seen as part of the spectrum of the natural history of mesothelioma and other tumours. A detailed study of the immunity of such individuals “after the event” is unlikely to reveal any particular abnormality but, in hindsight, it would have been interesting to have performed detailed immunological studies during the initial regression period. The role of mesothelin-related serum proteins needs further evaluation. The understanding of this process is likely to be pivotal in the improved treatment of this usually lethal condition. 1 Computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest at referral (September 2002) and 6 and 9 months later A, B: CT pulmonary angiogram at referral (September 2002) showing (A) the pleural-based mass in the right costovertebral gutter at the level of the tracheal bifurcation (arrow) and (B) the two lower pleural-based masses — one in the right cardiophrenic angle and the other in the right posteromedial costophrenic recess (arrows). C: CT scan (March 2003) showing that the pleural-based mass in the right costovertebral gutter had all but disappeared (arrow). D: CT scan (June 2003) which appeared normal apart from a small stable nodule in the left lower lobe which was probably a granuloma (arrow). 2 Histological examination of a core biopsy specimen from one of the pleural masses (Box 1) A: Histological section of the core biopsy of the pleural mass in Box 1A showing sheet-like proliferation of pleomorphic epithelioid cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, representing a poorly differentiated epithelioid malignant mesothelioma. B: Core biopsy showing a positive result on immunoperoxidase staining for calretinin. C: Core biopsy showing a positive result on immunoperoxidase staining for cytokeratin 5/6.

Roger K A Allen FRACP, FCCP, PhD

Objective: To evaluate the outcomes 10 years after a flexible sigmoidoscopy colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program in asymptomatic average-risk individuals.Design, setting and patients: In 1995, a program of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening of asymptomatic average-risk individuals aged 55–64 years was established at Fremantle Hospital, Western Australia. Insertion depths, pathological findings and subject-rated pain scores have been prospectively recorded. A follow-up flexible sigmoidoscopy examination was offered to attendees 5 years after the initial screening. Post-screening malignancies were determined by linkage with the Western Australian Cancer Registry in September 2006.Main outcome measures: Yield of neoplasia at initial and follow-up sigmoidoscopy, and the incidence of CRC detected after screening.Results: Between 1995 and 2005, 3402 people underwent an initial flexible sigmoidoscopy screening examination (mean age, 60 years; women, 41%) and 1025 had a 5-year recall examination. Mean insertion depth was greater in men than women (60 cm v 52 cm, P < 0.001). The insertion depth in women was more likely to be < 40 cm (17% v 6%, P < 0.001). Mean pain score was 2.9 for men and 4.0 for women (P < 0.001). Fourteen per cent of initial screenings detected at least one adenoma. Over a mean follow-up time of 8 years, invasive CRC was detected by flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in 0.4% of participants; 0.7% of those with a normal result of screening later developed CRC, with 75% of these found proximal to the splenic flexure.Conclusions: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a viable screening method, with well defined utility and limitations, for CRC screening of asymptomatic people with average risk.

Charlie H Viiala MB BS, FRACP · John K Olynyk MB BS, FRACP, MD

A 57-year-old man had a colonoscopy which revealed a partially obstructing polyp in the rectum. Biopsy revealed an adenocarcinoma. A computed tomography scan of the abdomen revealed multiple low-attenuation lesions diffusely throughout the liver (Box). Differential considerations included multiple small hepatic cysts, Caroli’s disease, microabscesses and metastases. The patient had a low anterior resection for his rectal tumour and wedge biopsy of the liver. Macroscopically, there were multiple 2–3 mm white nodular lesions throughout the liver, with the macroscopic appearance of diffuse liver metastases. Pathology of the liver biopsy revealed von Meyenberg complexes. Von Meyenberg complexes are benign liver malformations that play an important part in the differential diagnosis of liver lesions. The clinical significance is that they are easily misdiagnosed as multiple liver metastases on imaging, or even on gross examination.1 Because the presence of liver metastasis is crucial to the correct therapeutic approach, ruling out other possible diagnoses, such as von Meyenberg complexes, is of great importance. Von Meyenberg complexes in the liver A: Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen showing multiple diffuse, low-attenuation lesions throughout the liver. B: CT scan of the abdomen with contrast showing multiple low-attenuation, non-enhancing lesions throughout the liver.

Bassem M Chehab MD · Shaker R Dakhil MD, FACP

Objective: To measure and compare the casemix and diagnostic accuracy of excised or biopsied skin lesions managed by mainstream general practitioners and doctors within primary care skin cancer clinics.Design, setting and participants: Prospective comparative study of 104 GPs and 50 skin cancer clinic doctors in south-eastern Queensland, involving 28 755 patient encounters. The study was conducted in 2005.Main outcome measures: Prevalence of each type of skin lesion; sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for the clinical diagnosis against histology; number needed to excise or biopsy (NNE) for a diagnosis of skin cancer.Results: GPs excised or biopsied 3175 skin lesions (mean 2.5/week) including 743 basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) (23.4%), 704 squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) (22.2%) and 49 melanomas (1.5%). Skin cancer clinic doctors excised or biopsied 7941 skin lesions (mean 34/week), including 2701 BCCs (34.0%), 1274 SCCs (16.0%) and 103 melanomas (1.3%). Overall, sensitivity for diagnosing any skin cancer was similar for skin cancer clinic doctors (0.94) and GPs (0.91), although higher for skin cancer clinic doctors for BCC (0.89 v 0.79; P < 0.01) and melanoma (0.60 v 0.29; P < 0.01). The overall NNE was similar for skin cancer clinic doctors (1.9; 95% CI, 1.8%–2.1%) and GPs (2.1; 95% CI, 1.9%–2.3%). This did not change after adjusting for years of clinical experience.Conclusions: GPs and skin cancer clinic doctors in Queensland treat large numbers of skin cancers and diagnose these with overall high sensitivity. The two groups diagnosed skin cancer with similar accuracy.

Philippa H Youl MPH · Peter D Baade PhD · Monika Janda PhD · Christopher B Del Mar MD · David C Whiteman PhD · Joanne F Aitken PhD

To the Editor: The recent editorial by Macrae1 outlined the potential issues facing the rollout of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. It is estimated there will be about 5000 additional colonoscopies performed in New South Wales in the first year.2 To ascertain how the NSW public health system might absorb this increased demand, the Greater Metropolitan Clinical Taskforce (GMCT) Gastroenterology Network conducted a survey in 2006, featuring structured interviews with clinicians. Our aims were to estimate the current capacity of NSW public hospitals to perform colonoscopies and to identify perceived impediments to meeting future demand. From a total of 113 public hospitals where colonoscopies had been performed in the period 2001–2004,3 we selected a purposive sample of 32 where there had been at least 500 procedures, or which were regarded as major providers in their area health service. Responses were received from 26 hospitals, which represented 54% of colonoscopies performed in all public hospitals in NSW in 2001–20043 and included both metropolitan and rural hospitals. No information was collected from the private sector. Fifteen hospitals had dedicated endoscopy suites, 10 used operating theatres, and one unit used a day surgery centre. We found that for the majority of these hospitals (23/26), colonoscopy activity is currently at or near maximal capacity, with limited potential for expansion of services. The additional number of colonoscopies that could be accommodated ranged from one to four per week in six hospitals, up to a maximum of eight per week in a single hospital. Reasons for unbooked hours included insufficient funds, and a lack of nurses and anaesthetists. The Box summarises other key findings, which emphasise that the three major factors limiting activity are insufficient endoscopy nurses, insufficient nursing applicants, and the need for more equipment. Importantly, an absolute shortage of proceduralists was not found to be a restricting factor. Rather, insufficient available colonoscopy time for existing proceduralists was identified as a limitation. While our survey was successful in clarifying factors that impede optimal performance, the small number of participating hospitals is a relative limitation. Nevertheless, the survey suggests a requirement for additional nursing staff and equipment, and for the establishment of uniform data collection and reporting systems. Areas requiring further exploration include greater unit efficiency, opportunities for workplace redesign, and consideration of inequities in access to anaesthetic cover for patients in public hospitals. The GMCT Gastroenterology Network is currently working on these issues in collaboration with the NSW Department of Health. Factors affecting colonoscopy capacity in selected New South Wales public hospitals* Most responding units (22/26) regarded additional nursing staff as a medium to high priority requirement Increasing time available to existing proceduralists (18/25) and allocating time for new proceduralists (16/25) were regarded as medium to high priorities 11/15 hospitals with dedicated endoscopy suites had an unused endoscopy room. Most common reasons were: insufficient funds (5); lack of nurses (5); insufficient equipment, including anaesthetic machines (3); and lack of anaesthetists (2) No unit cited a shortage of proceduralists as a reason for the unit not running at full capacity “For” (11/24) and “against” (13/24) responses for the addition of procedure rooms were evenly spread across responding facilities Prioritisation of colonoscopies over other procedures was not favoured (14/24 ranked this of low importance, 5 as neither low nor high, 5 as medium to high) Most important factors impeding capacity were: Lack of approval to recruit nursing staff (18/23) Shortage of nursing staff applicants (16/25) Budgetary limitations (19/25) Insufficient endoscopy time for existing proceduralists (17/25) Insufficient budget to recruit new proceduralists (16/23) Only 2/26 units (both using operating theatres) had a data manager recording data and compiling statistics; others (13/26) in dedicated endoscopy suites used commercial reporting systems, such as Endoscribe, however the survey did not determine how systematically and completely data were compiled and reported from these systems * Some respondents did not answer all questions.

Shelanah A Fernando · Anne E Duggan · Owen F Dent · Maeve C Eikli

To the Editor: I note with interest the results of the study by Morris and colleagues comparing survival outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer treated in public and private hospitals.1 Stage of disease is a major determinant of survival in colorectal cancer, yet, as stated in their article, stage of disease was derived solely from pathology reports. I believe that this method would have very limited accuracy in diagnosing stage IV disease. Determining stage IV disease requires additional investigations such as computed tomography, which may either not have been performed before surgery, or the results of which may not have been noted on the pathology request form. Underdiagnosis of stage IV disease appears likely, as the incidence of stage IV disease of about 10% noted in this study is substantially less than the 20%–25% incidence observed in other epidemiological studies.2 Moreover, the limitations associated with the use of pathology reports to determine stage IV disease have been observed by other investigators.3 Although this study evaluates an interesting question in relation to the management of colorectal cancer, the significant possibility of an imbalance of important prognostic factors (such as tumour stage) between public and private patients creates major doubt about its conclusions.

Niall C Tebbutt

To the Editor: We suggest that marked differences in comorbidities could be one explanation for the superior outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer treated in private hospitals as reported in the study by Morris et al.1 We also have concerns about the quality of the data used in their study. We used a comprehensive prospective database to examine a cohort of Victorian patients treated at the Royal Melbourne Hospital (n = 260) and the adjacent Melbourne Private Hospital (n = 118) between 2003 and 2006. Specifically, we included data on important patient variables that were not considered in the Western Australian series (Box). These data showed a clear bias towards improved postoperative and long-term survival outcomes for patients in the private system, independent of cancer treatment. Significantly, diabetes, which affected a much larger proportion of public than private hospital patients, is also associated with inferior cancer-specific outcomes.2 Together, these results could explain the differences reported by Morris et al. In support of this, the 5-year cancer-specific survival rates they report for stage I cancer in the two hospital groups is similar (89% public versus 92% private), but the overall survival rates are markedly different (74% public versus 85% private) — consistent, we contend, with an excess of non-cancer deaths in public patients. Morris et al also report an imbalance in the receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy between public and private patients, possibly a marker of inequality of care. We analysed prospectively collected data for our patients with stage III colon cancer, where adjuvant chemotherapy has a proven impact on survival. As shown in the Box, a similar percentage were offered, accepted and completed adjuvant chemotherapy, suggesting, in Victoria at least, similar access to care and support for public and private patients. The pathology-based staging used by Morris et al may also be inaccurate, as recording of stage IV disease relies on the surgeon noting this on the pathology request form and patients having been fully evaluated before surgery (we contend that preoperative computed tomography scanning would not have been routine). This may explain the relatively low percentage of patients recorded as having stage IV disease (12% public; 9% private) compared with 17% in our combined series in which prospective clinicopathological staging was used. Finally, inaccurate data are suggested by the reported 5-year overall survival figures for patients with stage IV cancer (17% in private care).1 That this is superior to figures reported in recent clinical trials is an unexpected finding, particularly as clinical trials enrol only a select subset of patients and provide access to novel combination chemotherapy, and presentation with metastatic disease is an adverse prognostic factor. Comparison of public and private hospital patients with colorectal cancer Public hospital Private hospital P Number of patients 277 122 Smoker 141 (51%) 16 (13%) < 0.001 Diabetes 57 (21%) 8 (7%) 0.002 Emergency presentation 22 (8%) 2 (2%) 0.02 ASA score* 1 28 (10%) 36 (30%) 2 131 (47%) 32 (26%) 3 89 (32%) 22 (18%) 4 15 (5%) 0 Unknown 14 (5%) 32 (26%) Stage III colon cancer 64 38 Chemotherapy advised 50 (78%) 30 (79%) 0.22 Patient followed advice 44 (88%) 29 (97%) 0.12 Chemotherapy completed 28 (64%) 21 (72%) Chemotherapy not completed 16 (36%) 8 (28%) Toxicity 7 (44%) 3 (38%) Patient request 4 (25%) 0 Ongoing computed tomography 3 (19%) 4 (50%) Other 2 (12%) 1 (12%) * American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score.

Suzanne Kosmider · Ian T Jones · Ian P Hayes · Peter Gibbs

In reply: The first issue is whether we accurately identified patients with stage IV disease, as the incidence in our study was only 11% and the anticipated incidence is normally 20%–25%. We agree that simply reviewing pathology reports would tend to underdiagnose stage IV disease. However, all patients were crosschecked to the linked database to see if they had had a computed tomography scan or ultrasound image showing metastatic disease. In addition, we only reviewed patients whose primary cancer was resected. This excluded about a third of all the patients with stage IV disease. In my (C P) own surgical prospective colorectal cancer database of 781 patients, (1996 to 2007), 24% of the 185 referred with colorectal cancer had stage IV disease (private hospital patients, 21% v public hospital patients, 25%). Resection of the primary cancer was only undertaken in 126 of the 185 patients with stage IV disease (68%). Therefore, only 16% of all patients with colorectal cancer who had resections had stage IV disease (126/781). Tebbutt argues that there could be a possibility of some imbalance between public and private patients based on this observation. We argue that the difficulty in diagnosing stage IV disease applies equally to public and private patients. Similarly, my own database does not show a significant difference in the incidence of stage IV disease between public and private hospital patients. Kosmider et al report that, at their own institution, completion rates for chemotherapy for stage III colon cancers are the same for public and private patients, “. . . suggesting, in Victoria at least, similar access to care and support for public and private patients”. These results are hardly comparable with our study. Their observations are limited to a select subgroup and only relevant to a small section of the Victorian population, where there is a collocated public and private hospital. In contrast, our study included the entire population of Western Australia, and all public and private hospital patients. Interestingly, we noted wide variations in the rates at which chemotherapy was used, not only between public and private hospitals, but also between individual hospitals. We also noted that there are few collocated public and private hospitals within WA. The fact remains that, at a population level, public hospital patients in WA were less likely to receive chemotherapy. Finally, Kosmider et al raise the issue that comorbidities can influence overall and cancer-specific survival (especially in relation to diabetes). We recognise this as a weakness of our study, and highlighted it in the discussion. Nonetheless, we did include a number of measures of social disadvantage in the analysis. Such measures can act as surrogate markers of common comorbidities. For example, there is a fairly clear association between type 2 diabetes and disadvantage.1 We therefore do not believe that comorbidities can account for all of the observations seen in our study. Our conclusion therefore remains — that patients with colon and rectal cancer treated in private hospitals in WA had superior outcomes. In reality, given the inequities between the two systems, is this really so surprising?

Cameron Platell · Melinda Morris · Barry Iacopetta

During 1994–2006, 10 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed among 550 women employed for some time at a broadcast media site in Brisbane, Queensland. These cases represented a more than sixfold increase in risk compared with the female population of Queensland. After an initial unsatisfactory inquiry, an independent assessment was successful when the investigation addressed environmental factors of concern to the employees, as well as agents that may have accounted for the cluster. The perceptions of the women affected were documented in the television program Australian Story. No specific cause of the cluster was identified, but staff concerns were allayed by relocation from the site. The outcome suggests a specific duty of care involving adequate attention being paid to community needs in such situations.

Bernard W Stewart PhD, FRACI, DipLaw

Cancer is the leading cause of death among Australians, causing 28% of all deaths. The average general practitioner will only encounter about four new patients each year with a potentially fatal cancer. A GP’s cancer-related workload mostly involves prevention, and dealing with patients with suspicious symptoms or concerns about possible cancer, or who may be at increased risk due to family history or lifestyle factors. GPs cover the full spectrum of cancer care from prevention to palliation, including providing psychosocial support to patients and their families and carers. GPs have a key role in early diagnosis and referral, follow-up and detection of recurrence, and survivorship. There is a developing role for GPs in cancer policy and research.

Brian R McAvoy MD, FRCP, FRACGP

Despite advances in treatment, the greatest gains in cancer control are achieved through prevention The translation of basic cancer research on cell growth to the clinic has resulted in a paradigm shift in cancer treatment by providing new therapeutic targets. The initial successes — the monoclonal antibodies trastuzumab and rituximab — have improved the survival of patients with breast cancer and lymphoma, as has the small molecule imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia; all have less toxicity than conventional cytotoxics.1 The challenge is to fund these new high-cost drugs. Although targeted drugs can be limited to the specific patient populations expressing the appropriate target, further funding is then required to screen patients for those targets. New models of cost- and risk-sharing between governments and industry must evolve to pay for these developments. A similar evolution in the diagnosis of cancer will see genomics and proteomics become a more important guide to treatment selection and prognosis than traditional pathology tests.2,3 These research technologies will need to be developed in such a way that they can provide guidance to clinicians as quickly as conventional techniques, and will also require upskilling of current clinicians, pathologists and their trainees. Investment in cancer research pays considerable dividends.4 There is a need for more funding of translational research — it has been an ongoing concern that Australia lacks the infrastructure to take promising new drug discoveries all the way from the laboratory into clinical practice. Newer fields, such as health services research, with its potential to address the pressing issue of inequities in access to treatment and cancer outcomes in rural and remote Australia, and psychosocial research, require new sources of funding. The challenge in Australia is to make research less fragmented and better targeted to questions of international importance, which we have the capability to competitively pursue. Although breakthroughs in cancer treatment generate significant media coverage, the greatest gains in cancer control in Australia are to be made in prevention strategies based on established science. Evidence-based health promotion campaigns have provided strong economic returns, yet governments invest only 1.7% of the overall health care budget in primary prevention.5 More than 21% of cancer deaths in Australia are attributed to tobacco use. Add smoking to excessive sun exposure, inadequate fruit and vegetable intake, alcohol, inactivity and obesity, and more than 34% of cancer deaths in Australia can be attributed to modifiable behaviour.6 Currently, 17.4% of Australians smoke.7 Australia has a smoking prevalence among the world’s lowest, but from a public health perspective it remains unacceptable that almost one in five Australians incurs a significant yet avoidable cancer risk by continuing to smoke. The prohibition of broadcast tobacco advertising in the mid 1970s was the first key policy step in a series of tobacco control reforms that have since been shown to have saved 17 000 Australians from premature death.8 This government initiative required no taxpayer funding, but a cultural shift. Where funds have been invested, the returns have been enormous, with the $176 million spent on antismoking campaigns over the past 30 years delivering $8.6 billion in benefits.9 There remains no more effective cancer control measure than reducing smoking, but there is a risk that the incremental reduction in smoking prevalence achieved over the past 30 years will stall unless the tobacco control effort is sustained. Smoking also contributes significantly to social inequities in health outcomes. For example, a smoking prevalence of 50% among Indigenous Australians10 is believed to be a major cause of the significantly poorer cancer survival rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Targeted approaches are needed to break the cycle of social disadvantage, smoking, and cancer evident in specific population groups. Moreover, studies on tobacco control achievements over recent decades strongly suggest that a more sustained, whole-of-government commitment, built around integrated policy, social marketing, and research, could bring smoking prevalence down in Australia by a further 1% annually. Estimates based on recent trends indicate that reducing smoking prevalence by 5% in 5 years would save more than $1.15 billion in health care costs over the next 30 years.8 Yet some major political parties continue to accept donations from tobacco companies,11 and governments delay legislation to ban smoking in enclosed public spaces, and invest taxpayer funds in tobacco companies on the basis of sound economic management — despite having to spend more taxpayer funds on treating tobacco-related diseases (at least until patients die of them). While public policy has been gradually reducing the tobacco burden, obesity is escalating as a community health crisis. Obesity is linked to colorectal cancer, postmenopausal breast cancer, and kidney, oesophageal, gall bladder and endometrial cancers.12 Obesity control includes encouraging and facilitating physical activity and communicating dietary advice. The tobacco experience suggests that restricting junk-food advertising to children is likely to have an important impact, as supported by early Canadian data.13 This measure is not about restricting choice, as well targeted multimillion-dollar advertising campaigns already create an imbalance in the choices that uninformed and often disadvantaged families see as being available to them. Other lifestyle messages require more subtle public education. Advice from the SunSmart skin cancer prevention program must balance the need to avoid excessive sun exposure with the importance of low-level sunlight for vitamin D production. Similarly, while any alcohol consumption carries some cancer risk, the more you drink, the higher the risk — a factor that should be balanced against the benefits of very low alcohol intake in preventing cardiovascular disease. Cancer screening is another area that is presenting new opportunities and challenges. The benefits of breast cancer screening need to be continually reinforced to ensure high participation rates by eligible women. A new challenge for cervical cancer screening is ensuring continued high participation despite the introduction of the human papillomavirus immunisation program. The new National Bowel Cancer Screening Program requires community and professional education, a patient registry to ensure follow-up, and extra resources and minimum standards to meet increased colonoscopy demand. This will test the shared responsibilities for health care between national and state/territory governments — a potential barrier to efficient health policy implementation. The community must also understand that an ineffective screening test — one that evidence shows lacks the specificity and sensitivity to reduce cancer mortality on a population basis — is worse than no test at all, as the false positives and negatives can lead to poorer health outcomes than would surveillance on a case-by-case basis. The key is ensuring that evidence guides the implementation of government-funded measures aimed at cancer prevention and early detection — at a time when we could prevent well over a third of all cancer deaths in Australia using existing prevention and early detection technology. By investing more taxpayer funds in the high proven returns of cancer prevention and early detection, we could make resources available to better support the significantly increasing numbers of new cancer patients associated with population ageing over the coming years. Savings generated through improved prevention could also fund targeted cancer research to help further reduce the impact of cancer in the future. Increasing the cancer workforce, and improving workforce training and support through a more integrated approach across jurisdictions, is also pivotal to ensuring we can provide optimal multidisciplinary cancer care to meet the challenges of the future.

Ian N Olver MD, PhD, FRACP

Objectives: To describe the self-reported use of prostate specific antigen (PSA) tests, faecal occult blood tests (FOBTs), and whole-body skin examinations among Queensland men, reasons for use, and the personal characteristics of men undergoing the tests for cancer screening.Setting and design: Data were obtained from the Queensland Cancer Risk Study (QCRS), a population-based telephone survey conducted in 2004, which used random sampling stratified by age, sex, and geographic location.Participants: All men aged 50–75 years who participated in the QCRS (n = 2336).Main outcome measures: Use of PSA test, FOBT, or whole-body skin examination, specifically as a screening procedure; the probability of being screened; and associations with sociodemographic factors, risk behaviour, and cancer experience.Results: More than a third of men reported never having been screened for prostate, colorectal, or skin cancer. Of those who had been screened, the odds of PSA testing being reported were more than two times greater than the odds of whole-body skin examination (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.54; 95% CI, 1.49–4.32), and the odds of reporting an FOBT were less (adjusted OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.22–1.04). Men who participated in cancer screening tended to be older, white, living with a partner, and to have private health insurance. Smokers were less likely to be screened with any of the three screening tests.Conclusions: Of these three cancer screening tests, the FOBT has the best evidence for reducing mortality and yet is the least frequently used by Queensland men. There are disparities in reported screening prevalence between the specific tests and across certain population subgroups.

Philippe Carrière MD, MSc · Peter Baade PhD, AStat · Beth Newman PhD · Joanne Aitken PhD · Monika Janda PhD

A 50-year-old woman presented to her dermatologist in 1999 with a 6-month history of recurrent pruritic scaly plaques on the abdomen, arms and hairline. The rash, which was presumed to be seborrhoeic dermatitis, improved after treatment with systemic prednisolone. No skin biopsies were taken at the time. In 2004, she developed a leonine facies (Box, A), widespread erythroderma, alopecia, generalised peripheral lymphadenopathy, hyperkeratosis of the palms, and bilateral swollen pinnae with otorrhoea (Box, B). Punch biopsies revealed Pautrier microabscesses containing atypical CD4+ lymphocytes. A peripheral blood film showed Sézary cells, confirming Sézary syndrome. The patient’s condition deteriorated despite treatment with methotrexate, prednisone, bexarotene, interferon, psoralen and ultraviolet A, as well as extracorporeal photopheresis. Radical palliative radiotherapy to the head and neck improved her leonine facies and otitis externa (Box, C). The patient died in 2006, 8 years after initial presentation. Sézary syndrome is a rare, aggressive, cutaneous T-cell lymphoma characterised by widespread erythroderma, atypical peripheral lymphocytes (Sézary cells) and lymphadenopathy. Cutaneous T-cell lymphomas typically present as indolent cutaneous eruptions and are often misdiagnosed at initial presentation, as the skin lesions mimic common dermatological disorders such as eczema or psoriasis. A: Leonine facies. B: Oedematous right pinna. C: Left pinna after radiotherapy.

David R Waterhouse MB ChB · Subhaschandra Shetty MB BS, MS(ENT) · Jeremy S Gathercole MRCS, LRCP, FRACS · Christopher J Seeley MB ChB, FRACS

Objective: To evaluate whether prolonged waiting times for colonoscopy in public hospitals could result in delayed diagnosis of colorectal carcinoma.Design, setting and patients: Analysis of all outpatient colonoscopies performed at a Western Australian tertiary teaching hospital, 1 November 2003 – 31 October 2005. Colonoscopy data, corresponding pathological findings, category of urgency at referral for colonoscopy, and waiting time for colonoscopy were obtained. Patients were coded as having cancer if it was diagnosed by colonoscopy or if colonoscopy identified a lesion subsequently diagnosed as cancer.Main outcome measures: Colorectal carcinoma detected by outpatient colonoscopy and length of waiting time to colonoscopy.Results: 1632 outpatient colonoscopies were recorded. Category I patients received a colonoscopy within the recommended 30 days from referral. Median waiting times for Category II and Category III patients exceeded recommendations (observed, 113 days and 258 days; recommended, within 90 days and 180 days, respectively), although the number of cancers detected was low (2.4% and 0.6% of referrals, respectively in each category). Early- and late-stage cancers had similar median waiting times from referral to diagnosis. Age over 65 years and the blood-loss indications — a positive faecal occult blood test or iron deficiency/anaemia — were predictors of an increased risk of carcinoma at colonoscopy.Conclusions: Waiting time for colonoscopy was not associated with an increase in the proportion of late-stage cancers diagnosed. Age over 65 years and evidence of blood loss increased the likelihood of a cancer diagnosis.

Charlie H Viiala MB BS, FRACP · Kevin W Tang MB BS · Ian C Lawrance MB BS, FRACP, PhD · Kevin Murray BSc, MSc · John K Olynyk BMedSc, MB BS, FRACP, MD

Objective: To describe the process of colorectal cancer diagnosis in Queensland, and to determine factors associated with time to diagnosis.Design, setting and participants: Cross-sectional study of 1996 patients with colorectal cancer recruited through the Queensland Cancer Registry. Data were collected by computer-assisted telephone interview between May 2003 and August 2005.Main outcome measures: Time to diagnosis: pre-presentation time (time from first noticing a symptom to first presenting to a doctor); and post-presentation time (time between the first presentation and diagnosis).Results: Most patients (90%) had experienced symptoms before being diagnosed with colorectal cancer; only 2% of patients were diagnosed by faecal occult blood testing. Older participants and those who experienced abdominal pain had the shortest time from symptom onset to their first doctor consultation, while participants with a change in bowel habit, or rectal bleeding, and those without private health insurance tended to wait longer to see a doctor. Participants who experienced abdominal pain were diagnosed more quickly, whereas those who experienced a change in bowel habit, women, and those without private health insurance experienced a longer time to diagnosis.Conclusions: The strong association between not having health insurance and longer post-presentation times is concerning. The other hypothesised predictors of time to diagnosis were not as strongly associated as we anticipated.

Brigid M Lynch BSc, MScsComm · Peter Baade PhD · Lin Fritschi MB BS, PhD · Barbara Leggett MB BS, MD · Neville Owen PhD · Kenneth Pakenham PhD, MAP(Clin) · Beth Newman PhD · Joanne F Aitken PhD

Objective: To investigate predictors of evidence-based surgical care in a population-based sample of patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer.Design, patients and setting: Prospective audit of all new patients with colorectal cancer reported to the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry between 1 February 2000 and 31 January 2001.Main outcome measures: Concordance with seven guidelines from the 1999 Australian evidence-based guidelines for colorectal cancer; predictors of guideline concordance; the mean proportion of relevant guidelines followed for individual patients.Results: Questionnaires were received for 3095 patients (91.6%). Between 0 and 100% of relevant guidelines were followed for individual patients (median, 67%). Concordance with individual guidelines varied considerably. Patient age independently predicted non-concordance with guidelines for adjuvant therapy and preoperative radiotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy was more likely if a patient with node-positive colon cancer was treated in a metropolitan hospital or by a general surgeon. Surgeons with a high caseload or specialty in colorectal cancer were more likely to perform colonic pouch reconstruction, prescribe thromboembolism or antibiotic prophylaxis, and were less likely to refer patients with high-risk rectal cancer for adjuvant radiotherapy. Bowel preparation was less likely among older patients and in high-caseload hospitals.Conclusion: Effective strategies to fully implement national colorectal cancer guidelines are needed. In particular, increasing the use of appropriate adjuvant therapy should be a priority, especially among older people.

Jane M Young MPH, PhD, FAFPHM · David C Leong MB BS, FRACP · Katie Armstrong BAppSc(HIM) · Dianne O’Connell BMaths(Hons), PhD · Bruce K Armstrong DPhil, FRACP, FAFPHM · Allan D Spigelman FRACS, FRCS, MD · Stephen Ackland MB BS, FRACP · Pierre Chapuis MB BS, DS, FRACS · Andrew B Kneebone MB BS, FRANZCR · Michael J Solomon MB BCh(Hons), MSc(ClinEpid), FRACS

Objective: To explore the ways that patients and health professionals communicate about intimate and sexual changes in cancer and palliative care settings.Design: A qualitative study using a three-stage reflexive-inquiry approach, with semi-structured, participant interviews (n = 82); textual analysis of national and international cancer and palliative care clinical practice guidelines (n = 33); and participant feedback at 15 educational forums for cancer patients or health professionals.Setting: A large Australian public teaching hospital between 2002 and 2005.Participants: 50 patients diagnosed with cancer, and 32 health professionals who had worked in cancer and/or palliative care for a minimum of 12 months.Main outcome measures: Communication about intimacy and sexuality: patients’ needs and experiences and health professionals’ attitudes and experiences.Results: There were mismatched expectations between patients and health professionals and unmet patient needs in communication about sexuality and intimacy. Most patients sought information, support and practical strategies about how to live with intimate and sexual changes after treatment for cancer, even if their cancer type did not affect fertility or sexual performance. In contrast, many health professionals assumed that patients shared their professional focus on combating the disease, irrespective of the emotional and physical costs to the patient. Health professionals overwhelmingly limited their understanding of patient sexuality to fertility, contraception, menopausal or erectile status. Many stereotypical assumptions were made about patient sexuality, based on age, sex, diagnosis, culture, and partnership status. There was a relationship between providing patient-centred communication about intimacy and sexuality and health professionals’ understanding of their own attitudes and beliefs.Conclusion: Resources are needed to help health professionals engage in an exploration of their own definitions of intimacy and sexuality and understand how these affect interactions with patients with cancer.

Amanda J Hordern PhD · Annette F Street PhD

To the Editor: Sanderson et al provide an interesting viewpoint about how the community, including medical practitioners, have embraced complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).1 However, if we were reviewing this article for publication, we would ask the authors to: make a valid distinction between those complementary and alternative therapies promoted as curative versus those considered palliative; define how they decided which therapies belong to one or other side of the arbitrary CAM boundary; review and justify the boundaries for the “therapeutic footprint” in a more evidence-based and rigorous way; locate specific therapies inside the footprint; locate where chemotherapy lies within the footprint, in light of the recent review showing, for the vast majority of adult malignancies, its marginal survival benefits considering its high costs, both monetary and healthwise;2 emphasise that there are relatively few recorded adverse events for CAM compared with conventional cancer care (Therapeutic Goods Administration Medicine Summary reports 2003, 2004, 2005 — Dr K Mackay, Acting Director, Adverse Drug Reactions Unit, TGA, personal communication); and vigorously question the marketing of conventional medicines, such as trastuzumab (Herceptin, Roche), to vulnerable patients and an uncritical public when the evidence suggests huge expense and little, if any, survival benefit.3 Perhaps a distinction also needs to be made between CAM therapies, many of which provide proven symptomatic relief, and those lifestyle interventions, such as exercise,4 dietary change,5 and social support, which provide symptomatic relief and may also confer a survival benefit. It does not serve the profession well when many cancer patients and their carers have to go outside the medical system to access information, advice and therapies which they should have easy access to within the system. In fact, we might even question how helpful these arbitrary boundaries are when all that patients and doctors want is to use what works and what is safe.

Craig S Hassed · Vicki Kotsirilos · Marie Pirotta · Avni Sali

In reply: We would like to thank Hassed and colleagues for their comments on the “therapeutic footprint” and their questions about locating specific therapies within the model. While it was outside the scope of our article to critically analyse different treatments using the model (as benefits and risks will vary from patient to patient), we would like to direct Hassed et al to a more detailed consideration of the risks and benefits of chemotherapy.1 We do not see our model as a tool to categorise or economically appraise specific treatments, but rather as one to help conceptualise the key issues to be considered when proposing treatment — the evidence for benefits and risks, contextualised according to treatment goals. The model provides a basis for comparison, taking us beyond arbitrary and unhelpful arguments about the distinctions between complementary and alternative therapies and their boundaries. We hope that the model will encourage evaluation of evidence for all therapies and support critical evaluation not only of drugs, but also lifestyle interventions that may benefit patients. The primary or essential purpose of the model is to encourage the posing of questions like those articulated by Hassed and colleagues to any therapist — whether they identify as medical, complementary or alternative.

Christine R Sanderson · Bogda Koczwara · David C Currow

To the Editor: Primary care skin cancer clinics continue to receive negative publicity. We have previously reported on the workload profile of one network of clinics.1 We report here the profile of clinical activity of the four MoleScan skin cancer clinics situated on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. Between them, these clinics have been open for a total of 22 years, ranging from 2 years to nearly 9 years of operation. MoleScan is a service company with clinics across Australia. Doctors are employed as subcontractors and are provided with digital dermascopes. The clinics do not have dedicated day surgery facilities, and surgical procedures are conducted in the consulting rooms (http://www.molescan.com.au). Using Medicare Benefits Schedule item number billing data (as previously reported1), we calculated the number of consultations, biopsies, excised lesions (benign, non-melanoma skin cancers [NMSCs] and melanoma), surgical repairs, non-surgical treatment of skin cancers, and non-surgical treatment of other skin lesions. We also estimated the number needed to treat (NNT), defined as the number of benign lesions removed per melanoma. There were 98 276 consultations at the four clinics during the 22 years of operation (Box). In all, 14 982 skin cancers were treated: 395 melanomas and 7468 NMSCs by surgical excision, and 7119 NMSCs by non-surgical methods. The estimated NNT was 22.5. Of the 16 962 lesions excised, 11% (1812) were repaired by a skin flap, 68% (1226) of which were simple flaps. Our previous report, on a different network of clinics,1 showed a different pattern of surgical repairs: 33% (2651) of the 8055 lesions excised were repaired by a skin flap, 45% (1187) of which were simple flaps. Clearly, the clinical practices of these two clinic networks vary. Another area of apparent difference between the two clinic groups is the NNT — 22.5 reported here, compared with 28.6 from the other network.1 The lower NNT in these MoleScan clinics may result from the use of digital dermoscopy, but this requires further study. These early findings from our analyses of MoleScan data highlight the dangers of generalising about the activities of primary care skin cancer clinics from one dataset. Workload profiles of different clinical services may vary markedly, and the widely expressed concern about large numbers of inappropriate surgical repairs may not be warranted. Activities billed at four MoleScan skin cancer clinics on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, over a total of 22 years of operation * Eyelid, nose, ear, lip, neck, hand, digit or genitals.

Deborah A Askew · David Wilkinson · Gordon L Patrick

To the Editor: We read with interest the article by Couper et al on the psychosocial impact of prostate cancer (PCA) on patients and their female partners.1 We agree that involvement of partners in the research pro-cess is pivotal to understanding the relational dimension of how PCA is both understood and approached by men and their partners.2 However, this could be extended to consider the unique experiences of gay men diagnosed with PCA and their partners. Heteronormative viewpoints are commonplace in PCA research. This bias is unfortunate, as there is a 28% possibility that one of the men in a gay relationship will develop PCA over the course of his lifetime.3 While it is probable that gay men and their partners have some of the same concerns regarding PCA as heterosexual couples, there are also unique concerns that are specific to gay men and their partners. Such considerations may include (but are not limited to): the prostate gland as a site of sexual pleasure and the associated implications of being able to engage in penetrative anal sex after prostate surgery;4 homophobia and/or disregard for sexuality within the health care system5 when being diagnosed with and treated for PCA; and the impact of polygamous (open) relationships and the ambiguous position of gay partners having to care for their mates.4 At this stage, the above concerns are purely speculative, as there is a paucity of literature on gay men and PCA.4,6 We believe future research on the psychosocial impacts of PCA should consider the experiences and special concerns of gay men with PCA, as well as those of their partners.

James A Smith · Shaun M Filiault · Murray J Drummond · Robert J Knapman

In reply: We thank Smith et al for their acknowledgement of the importance of the relational dimension to understanding how prostate cancer (PCA) is understood and approached by men and their partners. The psychosocial implications of prostate cancer for same-sex couples are important and need specific investigation. However, there are methodological difficulties in attempting to quantify the impact of PCA on same-sex couples and in comparing their experience with other couples. In our review of the literature,1 we discovered that where previous researchers had included same-sex partners in their studies, insufficient numbers were recruited for meaningful quantitative statistical comparisons. For example, Perez and colleagues,2 Neese and colleagues3 and Davison and colleagues4 each recruited only one same-sex couple into their studies of 134, 164 and 74 couples, respectively. We believe that a qualitative approach is needed, specifically seeking out and examining the experiences of a group of same-sex couples and comparing and contrasting their experiences with those of a group of male–female couples. This is an approach we are considering in future studies to help us develop and refine an effective but broadly applicable couple-focused psychosocial intervention for PCA.

Jeremy W Couper