Topics

Antibiotic allergy testing programs will ensure that vulnerable patients receive appropriate antibiotic therapy

Antibiotic allergy labels are accumulated by various mechanisms and are often incorrectly self-reported or recorded. Incorrect antibiotic allergy labels frequently persist in community and hospital medical records throughout patients’ health care journeys, either with the phenotype unverified by clinicians or recorded as unknown.1,2 Among a cohort of older Australian general medical inpatients, we identified that 25% had a mismatch between their reported and recorded antibiotic allergy.3 Further, as an additional source of incorrect antibiotic allergy labels, patients with a true immunological basis for antibiotic allergy, such as immediate (IgE-mediated) reactions, may lose reactivity over time.4 Incorrect antibiotic allergy labels often prevent the use of appropriate narrow spectrum penicillin and targeted antibiotic therapies in both community and hospital practice, frequently among the patients most in need.4,5

1 Austin Health, Melbourne, VIC
2 Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and National Centre for Infections in Cancer, Melbourne, VIC
3 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
4 Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, VIC
5 Institute for Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Murdoch University, Perth, WA

Correspondence: Jason.Trubiano@austin.org.au

Acknowledgements:

We thank Megan Crane for her significant contribution to the manuscript preparation and Michael Sutherland for establishing the Austin Health multidisciplinary antibiotic allergy testing service.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Trubiano JA, Chen C, Cheng AC, et al. Antimicrobial allergy ‘labels’ drive inappropriate antimicrobial prescribing: lessons for stewardship. J Antimicrob Chemother 2016; 71: 1715-1722.
2. Knezevic B, Sprigg D, Seet J, et al. The revolving door: antibiotic allergy labelling in a tertiary care centre. Intern Med J 2016; 46: 1276-1283.
3. Zhou L, Dhopeshwarkar N, Blumenthal KG, et al. Drug allergies documented in electronic health records of a large healthcare system. Allergy 2016; 71: 1305-1313.
4. Trubiano JA, Leung VK, Chu MY, et al. The impact of antimicrobial allergy labels on antimicrobial usage in cancer patients. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2015; 4: 23.
5. MacFadden DR, LaDelfa A, Leen J, et al. Impact of reported beta-lactam allergy on inpatient outcomes: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 63: 904-910.
6. Trubiano JA, Pai Mangalore R, Baey YW, et al. Old but not forgotten: Antibiotic allergies in General Medicine (the AGM Study). Med J Aust 2016; 204: 273. <MJA full text>
7. Caubet JC, Frossard C, Fellay B, Eigenmann PA. Skin tests and in vitro allergy tests have a poor diagnostic value for benign skin rashes due to beta-lactams in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2015; 26: 80-82.
8. Vezir E, Dibek Misirlioglu E, Civelek E, et al. Direct oral provocation tests in non-immediate mild cutaneous reactions related to beta-lactam antibiotics. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2016; 27: 50-54.
9. Bourke J, Pavlos R, James I, Phillips E. Improving the effectiveness of penicillin allergy de-labeling. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2015; 3: 365-334 e361.
10. Trubiano JA, Worth LJ, Urbancic K, et al. Return to sender: the need to re-address patient antibiotic allergy labels in Australia and New Zealand. Intern Med J 2016; 46: 1311-1317.
11. Macy E, Contreras R. Health care use and serious infection prevalence associated with penicillin “allergy” in hospitalized patients: a cohort study. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014; 133: 790-796.
12. Campagna JD, Bond MC, Schabelman E, Hayes BD. The use of cephalosporins in penicillin-allergic patients: a literature review. J Emerg Med 2012; 42: 612-620.
13. Romano A, Gaeta F, Arribas Poves MF, Valluzzi RL. Cross-reactivity among beta-lactams. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2016; 16: 24.
14. Kula B, Djordjevic G, Robinson JL. A systematic review: can one prescribe carbapenems to patients with IgE-mediated allergy to penicillins or cephalosporins? Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59: 1113-1122.
15. Patriarca G, Schiavino D, Lombardo C, et al. Tolerability of aztreonam in patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity to beta-lactams. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol 2008; 21: 375-379.
16. Ressner RA, Gada SM, Banks TA. Antimicrobial stewardship and the allergist: reclaiming our antibiotic armamentarium. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62: 400-401.
17. Dellit TH, Owens RC, McGowan JE Jr, et al. Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America guidelines for developing an institutional program to enhance antimicrobial stewardship. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 44: 159-177.
18. Schuts EC, Hulscher M, Mouton JW, et al. Current evidence on hospital antimicrobial stewardship objectives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Infect Dis 2016; 16: 847-856.
19. Barlam TF, Cosgrove SE, Abbo LM, et al. Implementing an antibiotic stewardship program: guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. Clin Infect Dis 2016; 62: e51-77.
20. King EA, Challa S, Curtin P, Bielory L. Penicillin skin testing in hospitalized patients with beta-lactam allergies: effect on antibiotic selection and cost. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2016; 117: 67-71.
21. Trubiano JA, Thursky KA, Stewardson AJ, et al. Impact of an integrated antibiotic allergy testing program on antimicrobial stewardship: a multicenter evaluation. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65: 166-174.
22. Marwood J, Aguirrebarrena G, Kerr S, et al. De-labelling self-reported penicillin allergy within the emergency department through the use of skin tests and oral drug provocation testing. Emerg Med Australas 2017; 29: 509-515.
23. Confino-Cohen R, Rosman Y, Meir-Shafrir K, et al. Oral challenge without skin testing safely excludes clinically significant delayed-onset penicillin hypersensitivity. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2017; 5: 669-675.

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

Perspectives

Transcranial magnetic stimulation: an item number is justified

Saxby Pridmore

Med J Aust 2018; 208 (11): . || doi: 10.5694/mja17.00849
Published online: 18 June 2018

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Mental disorders

Evidence shows that transcranial magnetic stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for drug-resistant depression

Depression is the leading cause of disability globally.1 The condition is painful for the patient (and may end in suicide), distressing for relatives and friends and challenging to clinicians. One-third of patients with depression do not respond to the first antidepressant medication, the likelihood of achieving remission diminishes with each additional medication, and one-third will not respond to any known medication.2

University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS

Correspondence: s.pridmore@utas.edu.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. World Health Organization The global burden of disease: 2004 update. Geneva: WHO; 2008. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/index.html (viewed Aug 2017).
2. Rush AJ, Trivedi MH, Wisniewski SR, et al. Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1905-1917.
3. George MS, Wassermann EM, Williams WA, et al. Daily repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) improves mood in depression. Neuroreport 1995; 6: 1853-1856.
4. Lefaucheur J-P, André-Obadia N, Antal A, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS). Clin Neurophysiol 2014; 125: 2150-2206.
5. Loo CK, Mitchell PB, Corker VM, et al. Double-blind controlled investigation of bilateral prefrontal transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of resistant major depression. Psychol Med 2003; 33: 33-40.
6. Fitzgerald PB, Brown TL, Marston NA, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of depression: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60: 1002-1008.
7. Milev R, Giacobbe P, Kennedy SH, et al. Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 clinical guidelines for the management of adults with major depressive disorder: section 4. Neurostimulation treatments. Can J Psychiatry 2016; 61: 561-575.
8. Magnezi R, Aminov E, Shmuel D, et al. Comparison between neurostimulation techniques repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation vs electroconvulsive therapy for the treatment of resistant depression: patient preference and cost-effectiveness. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016; 10: 1481-1487.
9. Kozel FA, George MS, Simpson KN. Decision analysis of the cost-effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus electroconvulsive therapy for treatment of nonpsychotic severe depression. CNS Spectr 2004; 9: 476-482.
10. Zhao YJ, Tor PC, Khoo AL, et al. Cost-effectiveness modelling of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation compared to electroconvulsive therapy for treatment-resistant depression in Singapore. Neuromodulation 2017. doi:10.1111/ner.12723. [Epub ahead of print].
11. Galletly CA, Clarke P, Carnell BL, Gill S. A clinical repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation service: 6 years on. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2014; 49: 1040-1047.
12. McClintock SM, Reti IM, Carpenter LL, et al. Consensus recommendations for the clinical application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression. J Clin Psychiatry 2018; 79: 16cs10905.

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

Position statement summary

Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents

Michelle M Telfer, Michelle A Tollit, Carmen C Pace and Ken C Pang

Med J Aust 2018; 209 (3): . || doi: 10.5694/mja17.01044
Published online: 18 June 2018

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Mental disorders

Pediatric medicine

Abstract

Introduction: The Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines aim to maximise quality care provision to transgender and gender diverse (TGD) children and adolescents across Australia, while recognising the unique circumstances of providing such care to this population. Recommendations are made based on available empirical evidence and clinician consensus, and have been developed in consultation with Australian professionals from multiple disciplines working with the TGD population, TGD support organisations, as well as TGD children and adolescents and their families.

Main recommendations: Recommendations include general principles for supporting TGD children and adolescents using an affirmative approach, separate guidelines for the care of pre-pubertal children and TGD adolescents, as well as discipline-based recommendations for mental health care, medical and surgical interventions, fertility preservation, and speech therapy.

Changes in management as a result of this statement: Although published international treatment guidelines currently exist, challenges in accessing and providing TGD health care specific to Australia have not been addressed to date. In response to this, these are the first guidelines to be developed for TGD children and adolescents in Australia. These guidelines also move away from treatment recommendations based on chronological age, with recommended timing of medical transition and surgical interventions dependent on the adolescent’s capacity and competence to make informed decisions, duration of time on puberty suppression, coexisting mental health and medical issues, and existing family support.

1 Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
2 Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, VIC

Correspondence: michelle.telfer@rch.org.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Couch M, Pitts M, Mulcare H, et al. Tranznation: a report on the health and wellbeing of transgendered people in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, 2007.
2. Giordano S. Children with gender identity disorder: a clinical, ethical, and legal analysis. Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2013.
3. Hillier L, Jones T, Monagle M, et al. Writing Themselves in 3: the third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and gender questioning young people. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, 2010.
4. Hyde Z, Doherty M, Tilley P, et al. The First Australian National Trans Mental Health Study: summary of results. Perth: Curtin University, 2014.
5. Strauss P, Cook A, Winter S, et al. Trans Pathways: the mental health experiences and care pathways of trans young people. Summary of results. Perth: Telethon Kids Institute, 2017.
6. Telfer M, Tollit M, Feldman D. Transformation of health-care and legal systems for the transgender population: the need for change in Australia. J Paediatr Child Health 2015; 51: 1051-1053.
7. Clark T, Lucassen M, Bullen P, et al. The health and well-being of transgender high school students: Results from the New Zealand adolescent health survey (Youth’12). J Adolesc Health 2014; 55: 93-99.
8. Coleman E, Bockting W, Botzer M, et al. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender-nonconforming people, version 7. Int J Transgend 2012; 13: 165-232.
9. Hembree WC, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Gooren L, et al. Endocrine treatment of gender-dysphoric/gender-incongruent persons: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017; 102: 3869-3903.
10. Strang JF, Meagher H, Kenworthy L, et al. Initial clinical guidelines for co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gender dysphoria or incongruence in adolescents. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 2018; 47: 105-115.
11. Bockting WO, Goldberg J. Guidelines for transgender care. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Medical Press, 2006.
12. Adler RK, Hirsch S, Mordaunt M. Voice and communication therapy for the transgender/transsexual client: a comprehensive clinical guide. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing, 2012.
13. Finlayson C, Johnson EK, Chen D, et al. Proceedings of the working group session on fertility preservation for individuals with gender and sex diversity. Transgend Health 2016; 1: 99-107.
14. American Psychological Association. Report of the Task Force on Gender Identity and Gender Variance. Washington, DC: APA; 2009.
15. Burnes TR, Singh AA, Harper A, et al. American Counseling Association: competencies for counseling with transgender clients. J LGBT Issues Couns 2010; 4: 135-159.
16. Hidalgo MA, Ehrensaft D, Tishelman AC, et al. The gender affirmative model: what we know and what we aim to learn. Hum Dev 2013; 56: 285-290.
17. de Vries A, McGuire J, Steensma T, et al. Young adult psychological outcome after puberty suppression and gender reassignment. Pediatrics 2014; 134: 696-704.
18. Simons L, Schrager S, Clark L, et al. Parental support and mental health among transgender adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2013; 53: 791-793.
19. Olson K, Durwood L, DeMeules M, McLaughlin K. Mental health of transgender children who are supported in their identities. Pediatrics 2016; 137: e20153223.
20. Costa R, Dunsford M, Skagerberg E, et al. Psychological support, puberty suppression, and psychosocial functioning in adolescents with gender dysphoria. J Sex Med 2015; 12: 2206-2214.
21. De Vries AL, Steensma TD, Doreleijers TA, Cohen-Kettenis PT. Puberty suppression in adolescents with gender identity disorder: A prospective follow-up study. J Sex Med 2011; 8: 2276-2283.
22. De Vries AL, McGuire JK, Steensma TD, et al. Young adult psychological outcome after puberty suppression and gender reassignment. Pediatrics 2014; 134: 696-704.
23. Delemarre-van de Waal HA, Cohen-Kettenis PT. Clinical management of gender identity disorder in adolescents: A protocol on psychological and paediatric endocrinology aspects. Eur J Endocrinol 2006; 155(suppl 1): S131-S137.
24. Tack LJ, Heyse R, Craen M, et al. Consecutive cyproterone acetate and estradiol treatment in late-pubertal transgender female adolescents. J Sex Med 2017; 14: 747-757.
25. Durwood L, McLaughlin KA, Olson KR. Mental health and self-worth in socially transitioned transgender youth. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2017; 56: 116-123 e2.
26. Schagen SE, Cohen-Kettenis PT, Delemarre-van de Waal HA, Hannema SE. Efficacy and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist treatment to suppress puberty in gender dysphoric adolescents. J Sex Med 2016; 13: 1125-1132.
27. Vlot MC, Klink DT, den Heijer M, et al. Effect of pubertal suppression and cross-sex hormone therapy on bone turnover markers and bone mineral apparent density (BMAD) in transgender adolescents. Bone 2016; 95: 11-19.
28. Rieger E, editor. Abnormal psychology: leading researcher perspectives. 4th ed. Sydney: McGraw-Hill Education, 2017.
29. Deutsch MB, Buchholz D. Electronic health records and transgender patients—practical recommendations for the collection of gender identity data. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30: 843-847.
30. Riggs DW, Coleman K, Due C. Healthcare experiences of gender diverse Australians: a mixed-methods, self-report survey. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 230-234.
31. Cohen-Kettenis PT, Steensma TD, de Vries AL. Treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria in the Netherlands. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am 2011; 20: 689-700.
32. Gelder MG, Marks IM. Aversion treatment in transvestism and transsexualism. In: Green R, Money J, editors. Transsexualism and sex reassignment. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1969.
33. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Ending conversion therapy: supporting and affirming LGBTQ youth, HHS Publication No. (SMA) 15-4928. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA, 2015.
34. American Psychological Association. Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Washington, DC: APA; 2009.
35. Drescher J. Controversies in gender diagnoses. LGBT Health 2013; 1: 10-14.
36. Smith E, Jones T, Ward R, et al. From blues to rainbows: the mental health and well-being of gender diverse and transgender young people in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, 2014.
37. Kerry SC. Sistergirls/brotherboys: the status of indigenous transgender Australians. Int J Transgend 2014; 15: 173-186.
38. Re Alex: Hormonal Treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria [2004] FamCA 297 (13 April 2004). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FamCA/2004/297.html?context=1 (viewed Feb 2018).
39. Re: Jamie [2013] FamCAFC 110 (31 July 2013). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FamCAFC/2013/110.html?context=1; (viewed Feb 2018).
40. Re: Kelvin [2017] FamCAFC 258 (30 November 2017). http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FamCAFC/2017/258.html?context=1 (viewed Feb 2018).
41. Light A, Obedin-Maliver J, Sevelius J, Kerns J. Transgender men who experienced pregnancy after female-to-male gender transitioning. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124: 1120-1127.
42. Thiagaraj D, Gunasegaram R, Loganath A, et al. Histopathology of the testes from male transsexuals on oestrogen therapy. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1987; 16: 347-348.
43. Schulze C. Response of the human testis to long-term estrogen treatment: morphology of Sertoli cells, Leydig cells and spermatogonial stem cells. Cell Tissue Res 1988; 251: 31-43.
44. Lubbert H, Leo-Rossberg I, Hammerstein J. Effects of ethinyl estradiol on semen quality and various hormonal parameters in a eugonadal male. Fertil Steril 1992; 58: 603-608.
45. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th Edition. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
46. Kreukels BP, Cohen-Kettenis PT. Puberty suppression in gender identity disorder: the Amsterdam experience. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2011; 7: 466-472.
47. Mahfouda S, Moore JK, Siafarikas A, et al. Puberty suppression in transgender children and adolescents. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017; 5: 816-826.
48. Bird S. Consent to medical treatment: the mature minor. Aust Fam Physician 2011; 40: 159-160.
49. Marinkovic M, Newfield RS. Chest reconstructive surgeries in transmasculine youth: experience from one pediatric center. Int J Transgend 2017. 18: 376-381.
50. Milrod C, Karasic D. Age is just a number: WPATH-affiliated surgeons’ experiences and attitudes toward vaginoplasty in transgender females under 18 years of age in the United States. J Sex Med 2017; 14: 624-634.

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

Narrative review

Lung transplantation in Australia, 1986–2018: more than 30 years in the making

Miranda A Paraskeva, Kovi C Levin, Glen P Westall and Gregory I Snell

Med J Aust 2018; 208 (10): . || doi: 10.5694/mja17.00909
Published online: 4 June 2018

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Respiratory tract diseases

Summary

Lung transplantation in Australia is 32 years old in 2018. From its early infancy in 1986, it continues to evolve and is internationally recognised as demonstrating world’s best practices in organ donation, utilisation and transplantation procedures.
Over the past decade, transplant numbers have increased substantially due to innovations in donor procurement, such as donation after circulatory death, the use of ex vivo lung perfusion, extended criteria and organ utilisation, with more than 200 lung transplants undertaken in Australia annually. Parallel to this, lung transplant outcomes have continued to improve.
While the management of lung transplant recipients is heavily dependent on a tertiary care paradigm, this model is well developed and has been extremely successful, with Australian outcomes exceeding those of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry at all time points.

1 Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC
2 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC

Correspondence: m.paraskeva@alfred.org.au

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures

1. Hardy JD, Webb WR, Dalton ML Jr, Walker GR Jr. Lung homotransplantation in man. JAMA 1963; 186: 1065-1074.
2. Borel JF, Feurer C, Gubler HU, Stahelin H. Biological effects of cyclosporin A: a new antilymphocytic agent. Agents Actions 1976; 6: 468-475.
3. Reitz BA, Wallwork JL, Hunt SA, et al. Heart-lung transplantation: successful therapy for patients with pulmonary vascular disease. N Engl J Med 1982; 306: 557-564.
4. Toronto Lung Transplant Group. Unilateral lung transplantation for pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 1986; 314: 1140-1145.
5. Cooper JD, Patterson GA, Grossman R, Maurer J. Double-lung transplant for advanced chronic obstructive lung disease. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989; 139: 303-307.
6. Tait BD. More than a footnote: the story of organ transplantation in Australia and New Zealand. Melbourne: Australian Scholarly, 2012.
7. Chambers DC, Yusen RD, Cherikh WS, et al; The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Thirty-fourth Adult Lung And Heart-Lung Transplantation Report — 2017; Focus Theme: Allograft ischemic time. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017; 36: 1047-1059.
8. Australia and New Zealand Cardiothoracic Organ Transplant Registry. 2016 annual report. ANZCOTR: Sydney. 2016. http://www.anzcotr.org.au/ (viewed Aug 2017).
9. Organ and Tissue Authority. National program. http://www.donatelife.gov.au/about-us/national-reform-programme (viewed Aug 2017).
10. Organ and Tissue Authority. Australian donation and transplantation activity report 2016. Canberra: OTA, 2016. http://www.donatelife.gov.au/sites/default/files/Australian%20Donation%20and%20Transplantation%20Activity%20Report%202016.pdf (viewed Aug 2017).
11. Levin K, Kotecha S, Westall G, Snell G. How can we improve the quality of transplantable lungs? Expert Rev Respir Med 2016: 1-7.
12. Snell GI, Westall GP, Oto T. Donor risk prediction: how ‘extended’ is safe? Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2013; 18: 507-512.
13. Australia and New Zealand Organ Donation Registry. 2016 annual report. Adelaide: ANZOD, 2016. http://www.anzdata.org.au/anzod/v1/reports.html (viewed Aug 2017).
14. Kootstra G, Daemen JH, Oomen AP. Categories of non-heart-beating donors. Transplant Proc 1995; 27: 2893-2894.
15. Cypel M, Levvey B, Van Raemdonck D, et al. International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Donation After Circulatory Death Registry report. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34: 1278-1282.
16. Levvey BJ, Harkess M, Hopkins P, et al. Excellent clinical outcomes from a national donation-after-determination-of-cardiac-death lung transplant collaborative. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 2406-2413.
17. Rakhra SS, Opdam HI, Gladkis L, et al. Untapped potential in Australian hospitals for organ donation after circulatory death. Med J Aust 2017; 207: 294-301. <MJA full text>
18. Transplantation Society of Australia and New Zealand. Organ transplantation from deceased donors: consensus statement on eligibility criteria and allocation protocols. Sydney: TSANZ, 2011. http://www.donatelife.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/TSANZ_Consensus_Statement_V1_1.pdf (viewed Aug 2017).
19. Weill D, Benden C, Corris PA, et al. A consensus document for the selection of lung transplant candidates: 2014 – an update from the Pulmonary Transplantation Council of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34: 1-15.
20. Singer JP, Diamond JM, Gries CJ, et al. Frailty phenotypes, disability, and outcomes in adult candidates for lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: 1325-1334.
21. Wilson ME, Vakil AP, Kandel P, et al. Pretransplant frailty is associated with decreased survival after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2016; 35: 173-178.
22. De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, et al. Cancer survival in Europe 1999-2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE–5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: 23-34.
23. Vajdic CM, McDonald SP, McCredie MR, et al. Cancer incidence before and after kidney transplantation. JAMA 2006; 296: 2823-2831.
24. Mollberg NM, Farjah F, Howell E, et al. Impact of primary caregivers on long-term outcomes after lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2015; 34: 59-64.
25. Castleberry AW, Bishawi M, Worni M, et al. Medication nonadherence after lung transplantation in adult recipients. Ann Thorac Surg 2017; 103: 274-280.
26. Butler JA, Roderick P, Mullee M, et al. Frequency and impact of nonadherence to immunosuppressants after renal transplantation: a systematic review. Transplantation 2004; 77: 769-776.
27. Goldfarb SB, Levvey BJ, Cherikh WS, et al, Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: Twentieth Pediatric Lung and Heart-Lung Transplantation Report — 2017; Focus Theme: Allograft ischemic time. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017; 36: 1070-1079.
28. Casswell GK, Pilcher DV, Martin RS, et al. Buying time: the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to lung transplantation in pediatric patients. Pediatr Transplant 2013; 17: E182-188.
29. Keating DT, Marasco SF, Negri J, et al. Long-term outcomes of cadaveric lobar lung transplantation: helping to maximize resources. J Heart Lung Transplant 2010; 29: 439-444.
30. Paraskeva MA, Edwards LB, Levvey B, et al. Outcomes of adolescent recipients after lung transplantation: an analysis of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry. J Heart Lung Transplant 2018; 37: 323-331.
31. Lowery E, Adams W, Grim S, et al. Increased risk of PTLD in lung transplant recipients with cystic fibrosis. J Cystic Fibrosis 2017; 16: 727-734.
32. Sundaresan S, Trachiotis GD, Aoe M, et al. Donor lung procurement: assessment and operative technique. Ann Thorac Surg 1993; 56: 1409-1413.
33. Orens JB, Boehler A, de Perrot M, et al. A review of lung transplant donor acceptability criteria. J Heart Lung Transplant 2003; 22: 1183-1200.
34. Kotloff RM, Blosser S, Fulda GJ, et al. Management of the potential organ donor in the ICU: Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians/Association of Organ Procurement Organizations consensus statement. Crit Care Med 2015; 43: 1291-1325.
35. Bansal R, Esan A, Hess D, et al. Mechanical ventilatory support in potential lung donor patients. Chest 2014; 146: 220-227.
36. Angel LF, Levine DJ, Restrepo MI, et al. Impact of a lung transplantation donor-management protocol on lung donation and recipient outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006; 174: 710-716.
37. Pratschke J, Wilhelm MJ, Kusaka M, et al. Brain death and its influence on donor organ quality and outcome after transplantation. Transplantation 1999; 67: 343-348.
38. Mascia L, Pasero D, Slutsky AS, et al. Effect of a lung protective strategy for organ donors on eligibility and availability of lungs for transplantation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2010; 304: 2620-2627.
39. Kirschbaum CE, Hudson S. Increasing organ yield through a lung management protocol. Prog Transplant 2010; 20: 28-32.
40. Noiseux N, Nguyen BK, Marsolais P, et al. Pulmonary recruitment protocol for organ donors: a new strategy to improve the rate of lung utilization. Transplant Proc 2009; 41: 3284-3289.
41. Eberlein M, Permutt S, Chahla MF, et al. Lung size mismatch in bilateral lung transplantation is associated with allograft function and bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Chest 2012; 141: 451-460.
42. Eberlein M, Reed RM, Permutt S, et al. Parameters of donor-recipient size mismatch and survival after bilateral lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2012; 31: 1207-1213. e7.
43. Borro JM, Sole A, De la Torre M, et al. Steroid withdrawal in lung transplant recipients. Transplant Proc 2005; 37: 3991-3993.
44. Le Page AK, Jager MM, Kotton CN, et al. International survey of cytomegalovirus management in solid organ transplantation after the publication of consensus guidelines. Transplantation 2013; 95: 1455-1460.
45. Paraskeva M, Bailey M, Levvey BJ, et al. Cytomegalovirus replication within the lung allograft is associated with bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome. Am J Transplant 2011; 11: 2190-2196.
46. Westall GP, Cristiano Y, Peleg A, et al. A study of QuantiFERON-CMV-directed CMV prophylaxis versus standard-of-care to reduce late CMV reactivation following lung transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 2017; 36: S200-S201.
47. Langer D, Burtin C, Schepers L, et al. Exercise training after lung transplantation improves participation in daily activity: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Transplant 2012; 12: 1584-1592.
48. Ihle F, Neurohr C, Huppmann P, et al. Effect of inpatient rehabilitation on quality of life and exercise capacity in long-term lung transplant survivors: a prospective, randomized study. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011; 30: 912-919.
49. Belloli EA, Wang X, Murray S, et al. Longitudinal forced vital capacity monitoring as a prognostic adjunct after lung transplantation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2015; 192: 209-218.
50. Sato M, Waddell TK, Wagnetz U, et al. Restrictive allograft syndrome (RAS): a novel form of chronic lung allograft dysfunction. J Heart Lung Transplant 2011; 30: 735-742.

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

Research

Clustered domestic residential aged care in Australia: fewer hospitalisations and better quality of life

Suzanne M Dyer, Enwu Liu, Emmanuel S Gnanamanickam, Rachel Milte, Tiffany Easton, Stephanie L Harrison, Clare E Bradley, Julie Ratcliffe and Maria Crotty

Med J Aust 2018; 208 (10): . || doi: 10.5694/mja17.00861
Published online: 4 June 2018

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Social determinants of health

Gerontology

Health services administration

Abstract

Objective: To compare the outcomes and costs of clustered domestic and standard Australian models of residential aged care.

Design: Cross-sectional retrospective analysis of linked health service data, January 2015 – February 2016.

Setting: 17 aged care facilities in four Australian states providing clustered (four) or standard Australian (13) models of residential aged care.

Participants: People with or without cognitive impairment residing in a residential aged care facility (RACF) for at least 12 months, not in palliative care, with a family member willing to participate on their behalf if required. 901 residents were eligible; 541 consented to participation (24% self-consent, 76% proxy consent).

Main outcome measures: Quality of life (measured with EQ-5D-5L); medical service use; health and residential care costs.

Results: After adjusting for patient- and facility-level factors, individuals residing in clustered models of care had better quality of life (adjusted mean EQ-5D-5L score difference, 0.107; 95% CI, 0.028–0.186; P = 0.008), lower hospitalisation rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13–0.79; P = 0.010), and lower emergency department presentation rates (adjusted rate ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.14–0.53; P < 0.001) than residents of standard care facilities. Unadjusted facility running costs were similar for the two models, but, after adjusting for resident- and facility-related factors, it was estimated that overall there is a saving of $12 962 (2016 values; 95% CI, $11 092–14 831) per person per year in residential care costs.

Conclusions: Clustered domestic models of residential care are associated with better quality of life and fewer hospitalisations for residents, without increasing whole of system costs.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.

View on Wiley Online Library

1 Flinders University, Adelaide, SA
2 NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
3 Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Melbourne, VIC
4 Institute for Choice, University of South Australia Business School, Adelaide, SA
5 South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, SA

Correspondence: sue.dyer@flinders.edu.au

Acknowledgements:

We sincerely thank the INSPIRED study participants and their families for their participation and interest in the study. The assistance of facility staff, careworker researchers, facility pharmacists and data collectors in each state is gratefully acknowledged. We thank members of the study team - Anne Whitehouse, Angela Basso, Keren McKenna, Lua Perimal-Lewis, Wendy Shulver and Rebecca Bilton - for their input into study management, data collection, and data coordination. We acknowledge federal and state data custodians of the datasets used and the respective data linkage organisations, including the federal Departments of Veterans’ Affairs and Human Services, the Centre for Health Record Linkage (NSW Health), the Queensland Health Statistics Unit, the Data and Reporting Services Unit (SA Health, eHealth Systems), and the Western Australian Department of Health Data Linkage Branch.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. Report on government services 2017. Aged care services. Canberra: Productivity Commission, 2017. http://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services/2017/community-services/aged-care-services (viewed Jan 2018).
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Dementia in Australia (AIHW Cat. No. AGE 70). Canberra: AIHW, 2012.
3. Australian Government Department of Health. Why is aged care changing. Updated Nov 2017. https://agedcare.health.gov.au/ageing-and-aged-care-aged-care-reform/why-is-aged-care-changing (viewed Jan 2018).
4. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Residential aged care in Australia 2010–11: a statistical overview (AIHW Cat. No. AGE 68; Aged Care Statistics Series No. 36). Canberra: AIHW, 2012.
5. Productivity Commission. Caring for older Australians: overview. Final inquiry report (Report No. 53). 28 June 2011. http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/aged-care/report/aged-care-overview-booklet.pdf (viewed Jan 2018).
6. Ausserhofer D, Deschodt M, De Geest S, et al. “There’s no place like home”: a scoping review on the impact of homelike residential care models on resident-, family-, and staff-related outcomes. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016; 17: 685-693.
7. World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health. Geneva: WHO, 2015. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/186463/1/9789240694811_eng.pdf (viewed Jan 2018).
8. Afendulis CC, Caudry DJ, O’Malley AJ, et al. Green House adoption and nursing home quality. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 Suppl 1: 454-474.
9. Lawton MP. The physical environment of the person with Alzheimer’s disease. Aging Ment Health 2001; 5 Suppl 1: S56-S64.
10. Sharkey SS, Hudak S, Horn SD, et al. Frontline caregiver daily practices: a comparison study of traditional nursing homes and the Green House project sites. J Am Geriatr Soc 2011; 59: 126-131.
11. Gnanamanickam ES, Dyer SM, Milte R, et al. Direct health and residential care costs of people living with dementia in Australian residential aged care. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2018; doi:10.1002/gps.4842 [Epub ahead of print].
12. Harrison SL, Kouladjian O’Donnell L, Milte R, et al. Costs of potentially inappropriate medication use in residential aged care facilities. BMC Geriatr 2018; 18: 9.
13. EuroQol. EQ-5D-5L. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/ (viewed Feb 2018).
14. StewartBrown. Aged care financial performance benchmarks: participant’s kit. Dec 2016. http://www.stewartbrown.com.au/images/documents/2017_Participants_Kit.pdf (viewed Jan 2018).
15. Zimmerman S, Bowers BJ, Cohen LW, et al. New evidence on the Green House model of nursing home care: synthesis of findings and implications for policy, practice, and research. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 Suppl 1: 475-496.
16. Fleming R, Purandare N. Long-term care for people with dementia: environmental design guidelines. Int Psychogeriatr 2010; 22: 1084-1096.
17. Verbeek H, Zwakhalen SM, van Rossum E, et al. Dementia care redesigned: effects of small-scale living facilities on residents, their family caregivers, and staff. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2010; 11: 662-670.
18. Australian Government Department of Health. Manual of resource items and their associated unit costs. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; Dec 2016. http://www.pbs.gov.au/info/industry/useful-resources/manual (viewed Jan 2018).
19. Easton T, Milte R, Crotty M, Ratcliffe J. Where’s the evidence? a systematic review of economic analyses of residential aged care infrastructure. BMC Health Serv Res 2017; 17: 226.
20. Easton T, Milte R, Crotty M, Ratcliffe J. Advancing aged care: a systematic review of economic evaluations of workforce structures and care processes in a residential care setting. Cost Eff and Resour Alloc 2016; 14: 12.
21. Hounsome N, Orrell M, Edwards RT. EQ-5D as a quality of life measure in people with dementia and their carers: evidence and key issues. Value Health 2011; 14: 390-399.
22. Nakanishi M, Nakashima T, Sawamura K. Quality of life of residents with dementia in a group-living situation: an approach to creating small, homelike environments in traditional nursing homes in Japan. Nihon Koshu Eisei Zasshi 2012; 59: 3-10.
23. te Boekhorst S, Depla MF, de Lange J, et al. The effects of group living homes on older people with dementia: a comparison with traditional nursing home care. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2009; 24: 970-978.
24. de Rooij AH, Luijkx KG, Schaafsma J, et al. Quality of life of residents with dementia in traditional versus small-scale long-term care settings: a quasi-experimental study. Int J Nurs Stud 2012; 49: 931-940.
25. Kane RA, Lum TY, Cutler LJ, et al. Resident outcomes in small-house nursing homes: a longitudinal evaluation of the initial green house program. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007; 55: 832-839.
26. Wolf-Ostermann K, Worch A, Fischer T, et al. Health outcomes and quality of life of residents of shared-housing arrangements compared to residents of special care units: results of the Berlin DeWeGE-study. J Clin Nurs 2012; 21: 3047-3060.
27. Grabowski DC, Afendulis CC, Caudry DJ, et al. The impact of Green House adoption on Medicare spending and utilization. Health Serv Res 2016; 51 Suppl 1: 433-453.
28. Grabowski DC, O’Malley AJ, Barhydt NR. The costs and potential savings associated with nursing home hospitalizations. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007; 26: 1753-1761.
29. Jenkens R, Sult T, Lessell N, et al. Financial implications of the Green House model. Seniors and Housing Care Journal 2011; 19: 3-22.

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

Editorials

Low risk prostate cancer and an opportunity lost: more activity required in active surveillance

David P Smith and Gary A Wittert

Med J Aust 2018; 208 (10): . || doi: 10.5694/mja18.00209
Published online: 4 June 2018

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Urologic diseases

General medicine

Men's health

Men who are being monitored may be more open to interventions for improving their general health and quality of life

Prostate cancer is the most frequently registered cancer in Australian men, with an estimated 17 729 new diagnoses in 2018.1 For the 25% who are diagnosed with low risk disease, active surveillance (AS) is now the recommended management strategy, as their cancer may never progress.2 Avoiding or at least postponing radical treatment reduces the quality of life risks associated with surgery or radiation therapy. However, there is no evidence-based consensus about the optimal approach to surveillance, and practices differ between countries with regard to the type, frequency, and sequence of follow-up.3 AS differs from “watchful waiting” in that it has a curative intent; watchful waiting involves less intense routine monitoring, intervening only when symptoms appear. One standard approach to AS recommends prostate-specific antigen (PSA) assessment every 3–6 months, a digital rectal examination at least once a year, and at least one biopsy within 12 months of diagnosis, followed by serial biopsy every 2–5 years.

1 Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW
2 University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA
3 Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA

Correspondence: dsmith@nswcc.org.au

Acknowledgements:

David Smith and Gary Wittert are collaborators on an NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Prostate Cancer Survivorship (CRE-PCS) (1116334). David Smith was supported by a grant from Cancer Institute NSW (15/CDF/1‑10).

Competing interests:

David Smith is a member of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Australia and New Zealand (PCOR-ANZ) steering committee. Gary Wittert is Independent Chair of the Weight Management Council of Australia and has received research support from Weight Watchers.

1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia 2017 (AIHW Cat. No. CAN 100). Canberra: AIHW, 2017.
2. Chen RC, Rumble RB, Loblaw DA, et al. Active surveillance for the management of localized prostate cancer (Cancer Care Ontario Guideline): American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2182-2190.
3. Ganz PA, Barry JM, Burke W, et al. National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference: role of active surveillance in the management of men with localized prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 591-595.
4. Evans MA, Millar JL, Earnest A, et al. Active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer: evidence from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Victoria. Med J Aust 2018; 208: 439-443.
5. Egger SJ, Calopedos RJ, O’Connell DL, et al. Long-term psychological and quality-of-life effects of active surveillance and watchful waiting after diagnosis of low-risk localised prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2017; doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.013. [Epub ahead of print]
6. Sutton E, Hackshaw-McGeagh LE, Aning J, et al. The provision of dietary and physical activity advice for men diagnosed with prostate cancer: a qualitative study of the experiences and views of health care professionals, patients and partners. Cancer Causes Control 2017; 28: 319-329.
7. Daubenmier JJ, Weidner G, Marlin R, et al. Lifestyle and health-related quality of life of men with prostate cancer managed with active surveillance. Urology 2006; 67: 125-130.
8. Farris MS, Courneya KS, Kopciuk KA, et al. Post-diagnosis alcohol intake and prostate cancer survival: a population-based cohort study. Int J Cancer 2018; doi:10.1002/ijc.31307. [Epub ahead of print]
9. Peisch SF, Van Blarigan EL, Chan JM, et al. Prostate cancer progression and mortality: a review of diet and lifestyle factors. World J Urol 2017; 35: 867-874.
10. Adams R, Appleton S, Taylor A, et al. Are the ICSD-3 criteria for sleep apnoea syndrome too inclusive? Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4: e19-e20.
11. Emery JD, Shaw K, Williams B, et al. The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014; 11: 38-48.

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

Perspectives

Beyond PSA testing for prostate cancer

Doug Brooks, Ian N Olver and Adrian J Esterman

Med J Aust 2018; 208 (10): . || doi: 10.5694/mja18.00324
Published online: 4 June 2018

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Men's health

Neoplasms

Diagnostic techniques and procedures

Anatomy and physiology

Better biomarkers are needed to ensure early and accurate detection and prognosis of prostate cancer

Prostate cancer is now the most common cancer diagnosed in men in Australia,1 and Australia has one of the highest incidence rates of prostate cancer in the world, with an estimated age-standardised rate of 119.2 per 100 000 men.2 Before 1960, the primary diagnostic test for prostate cancer was the prostatic acid phosphatase test. This was eventually replaced in the 1980s by the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.

1 University of South Australia Cancer Research Institute, Adelaide, SA
2 Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD

Correspondence: Doug.Brooks@unisa.edu.au

Competing interests:

Doug Brooks is developing cancer biomarkers for commercialisation with Envision Sciences Pty Ltd.

1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia 2017 (AIHW Cat. No. CAN 100; Cancer Series No. 101). Canberra: AIHW, 2017. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-in-australia-2017/contents/table-of-contents (viewed Mar 2018).
2. International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012: estimated cancer incidence and mortality worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr (viewed Mar 2018).
3. Flocks RH, Urich VC, Patel CA, Opitz JM. Studies on the antigenic properties of prostatic tissue. 1. J Urol 1960; 84: 134-143.
4. Wang MC, Papsidero LD, Kuriyama M, et al. Prostate antigen: a new potential marker for prostatic cancer. Prostate 1981; 2: 89-96.
5. Kuriyama M, Wang MC, Lee CI, et al. Use of human prostate-specific antigen in monitoring prostate cancer. Cancer Res 1981; 41: 3874-3876.
6. Medscape. PSA test is misused, unreliable, says the antigen’s discoverer. Medscape Aug 08, 2014. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/828854 (viewed March 2018).
7. Harvey P, Basuita A, Endersby D, et al. A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen. BMC Urol 2009; 9: 14.
8. Roddam AW, Duffy MJ, Hamdy FC, et al. Use of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) isoforms for the detection of prostate cancer in men with a PSA level of 2-10 ng/ml: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 386-399.
9. Thompson IM, Pauler DK, Goodman PJ, et al. Prevalence of prostate cancer among men with a prostate-specific antigen level ≤4.0 ng per milliliter. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2239-2246.
10. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Goodman PJ, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicentre clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994; 151: 1283-1290.
11. Pinsky PF, Porok PC, Yu K, et al. Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with a median 15 years follow-up. Cancer 2017; 123: 592-599.
12. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer (ERSPC) investigators. Lancet 2014; 384: 2072-2035.
13. Tsodikov A, Gulati R, Heijnsdijk, et al. Reconciling the effects of screening on prostate cancer mortality in the ERSPC and PLCO Trials. Ann Intern Med 2017; 167: 449-455.
14. Australian Government Department of Health Standing Committee on Screening. Prostate cancer screening. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/prostate-cancer-screening? (viewed Apr 2018).
15. Olver I, Brooks DA, Esterman A. Cancer biomarkers in Australia. Adelaide: University of South Australia, 2017. http://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/Health/Research/Cancer%20Biomarkers%20in%20Australia%20Report.pdf (viewed Mar 2018).
16. Pal RP, Kockelbergh RC, Pringle JH, et al. Immunocytochemical detection of ERG expression in exfoliated urinary cells identifies with high specificity patients with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2016; 117: 686-696.
17. Eklund M, Nordström T, Aly M, et al. The Stockholm-3 (STHLM3) model can improve prostate cancer diagnostics in men aged 50-69 yr compared with current prostate cancer testing. Eur Urol Focus 2016; doi:10.1016/j.eurf.2016.10.009 [Epub ahead of print].
18. Hille C, Pantel K. Prostate cancer: circulating tumour cells in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2018; doi:10.1038/nrurol.2018.25 [Epub ahead of print].
19. Johnson IRD, Parkinson-Lawrence EJ, Keegan H, et al. Endosomal gene expression: an important new indicator for prostate cancer patient prognosis? Oncotarget 2015; 6: 37919-37929.

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

Research

Active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer: evidence from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Victoria

Melanie A Evans, Jeremy L Millar, Arul Earnest, Mark Frydenberg, Ian D Davis, Declan G Murphy, Paul Aidan Kearns and Sue M Evans

Med J Aust 2018; 208 (10): . || doi: 10.5694/mja17.00559
Published online: 28 May 2018

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Environment and public health

Health services administration

Men's health

Neoplasms

Abstract

Objective: To characterise the practice of active surveillance (AS) for men with low risk prostate cancer by examining the characteristics of those who commence AS, the rate of adherence to accepted AS follow-up protocols over 2 years, and factors associated with good adherence.

Design, setting: Retrospective cohort study; analysis of data collected from 38 sites participating in the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Victoria.

Participants: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer between August 2008 and December 2014 aged 75 years or less at diagnosis, managed by AS for at least 2 years, and with an ISUP grade group of 3 or less (Gleason score no worse than 4 + 3 = 7).

Main outcome measures: Adherence to an AS schedule consisting of at least three PSA measurements and at least one biopsy in the 2 years following diagnosis.

Results: Of 1635 men eligible for inclusion in the analysis, 433 (26.5%) adhered to the AS protocol. The significant predictor of adherence in the multivariate model was being diagnosed in a private hospital (v public hospital: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.42–2.37; P < 0.001). Significant predictors of non-adherence included being diagnosed by transurethral resection of the prostate (v transrectal ultrasound biopsy [TRUS]: OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39–0.77; P < 0.001) or transperineal biopsy (v TRUS: OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.19–0.52; P < 0.001), and being 66 years of age or more at diagnosis (v < 55 years: OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.92; P = 0.015).

Conclusion: Almost three-quarters of men who had prostate cancer with low risk of disease progression did not have follow-up investigations consistent with standard AS protocols. The clinical consequences of this shortcoming are unknown.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.

View on Wiley Online Library

1 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
2 Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC
3 Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC
4 Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC
5 The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC
6 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC
7 Barwon Health, Geelong, VIC
8 Geelong Urology, Geelong, VIC

Correspondence: sue.evans@monash.edu

Acknowledgements:

Funding for this project has been provided by the Movember Foundation. Ian Davis is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (APP1102604). Sue Evans is supported by a Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre Fellowship.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, et al. Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 597-603.
2. Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia; Cancer Council Australia PSA Testing Guidelines Expert Advisory Panel. PSA testing and early management of test-detected prostate cancer: active surveillance (Clinical practice guidelines). Jan 2016. http://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=122836 (viewed March 2017).
3. Dall'Era MA, Cooperberg MR, Chan JM, et al. Active surveillance for early-stage prostate cancer: review of the current literature. Cancer 2008; 112: 1650-1659.
4. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management (CG175). Jan 2014. http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg175/resources/prostate-cancer-diagnosis-andmanagement-35109753913285 (viewed Feb 2017).
5. Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance (PRIAS). Guideline and study for the expectant management of localized prostate cancer with curative intent: study protocol. Nov 2014. https://www.prias-project.org/uploads/pdfs/2014-11-27%20Protocol%20versie%205.0%20(FINAL).pdf (viewed March 2017).
6. Mottet N, Bellmunt J, Briers E, et al. EAU/ESTRO/SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. European Association of Urology, 2016. https://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Prostate-Cancer-2016.pdf (viewed Feb 2017).
7. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Prostate cancer (NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology). Version 3.2016. May 2016. https://www.tri-kobe.org/nccn/guideline/urological/english/prostate.pdf (viewed Feb 2017).
8. Klotz L. Active surveillance for men with low-risk, clinically localized prostate cancer. UpToDate; Aug 2016. http://www.uptodate.com/contents/active-surveillance-for-men-with-low-risk-clinically-localized-prostate-cancer#H12016 (viewed Feb 2017).
9. Cheng JY. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) in perspective. J Clin Med Res 2013; 5: 266-268.
10. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Neal DE. 10-Year outcomes in localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 180.
11. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203-213.
12. Evans SM, Millar JL, Wood JM, et al. The Prostate Cancer Registry: monitoring patterns and quality of care for men diagnosed with prostate cancer. BJU Int 2013; 111: E158-E166.
13. Sampurno F, Earnest A, Kumari PB, et al. Quality of care achievements of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Victoria. Med J Aust 2016; 204: 319. <MJA full text>
14. Womble PR, Montie JE, Ye ZJ, et al. Contemporary use of initial active surveillance among men in Michigan with low-risk prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 44-50.
15. Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR. Trends in management for patients with localized prostate cancer, 1990–2013. JAMA 2015; 314: 80-82.
16. Loeb S, Folkvaljon Y, Curnyn C, et al. Uptake of active surveillance for very-low-risk prostate cancer in Sweden. JAMA Oncol 2016; Oct 20: 1393-1398.
17. Luckenbaugh AN, Auffenberg GB, Hawken SR, et al. Variation in guideline concordant active surveillance followup in diverse urology practices. J Urol 2017; 197: 621-626.
18. Bokhorst LP, Alberts AR, Rannikko A, et al. Compliance rates with the Prostate Cancer Research International Active Surveillance (PRIAS) protocol and disease reclassification in noncompliers. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 814-821.
19. Loeb S, Walter D, Curnyn C, et al. How active is active surveillance? Intensity of followup during active surveillance for prostate cancer in the United States. J Urol 2016; 196: 721-726.
20. Kinsella N, Stattin P, Cahill D, et al. Factors influencing men's choice of and adherence to active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: a mixed-method systematic review. Eur Urol 2018; doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026 [Epub ahead of print].
21. Droz JP, Aapro M, Balducci L, et al. Management of prostate cancer in older patients: updated recommendations of a working group of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15: e404-e414.
22. Vyas L, Acher P, Kinsella J, et al. Indications, results and safety profile of transperineal sector biopsies (TPSB) of the prostate: a single centre experience of 634 cases. BJU Int 2014; 114: 32-37.
23. Schoots IG, Petrides N, Giganti F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in active surveillance of prostate cancer: a systematic review. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 627-636.
24. Chapple AB, Ziebland S, Brewster S, McPherson A. Patients’ perceptions of transrectal prostate biopsy: a qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2007; 16: 215-221.
25. Roth H, Millar JL, Cheng AC, et al. The state of TRUS biopsy sepsis: readmissions to Victorian hospitals with TRUS biopsy-related infection over 5 year. BJU Int 2015; 116: 49-53.

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

How antibiotic allergy labels may be harming our most vulnerable patients

Topics

Author

Transcranial magnetic stimulation: an item number is justified

Topics

Author

Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents

Topics

Abstract

Author

Lung transplantation in Australia, 1986–2018: more than 30 years in the making

Topics

Summary

Author

Clustered domestic residential aged care in Australia: fewer hospitalisations and better quality of life

Topics

Abstract

Author

Low risk prostate cancer and an opportunity lost: more activity required in active surveillance

Topics

Author

Beyond PSA testing for prostate cancer

Topics

Author

Active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer: evidence from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Victoria

Topics

Abstract

Author

Virtual medicine: how virtual reality is easing pain, calming nerves and improving health

Topics

Author

Impact of ethnicity on the natural history of Parkinson disease

Topics

Summary

Author

How antibiotic allergy labels may be harming our most vulnerable patients

Topics

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Transcranial magnetic stimulation: an item number is justified

Topics

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Australian standards of care and treatment guidelines for transgender and gender diverse children and adolescents

Topics

Abstract

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Lung transplantation in Australia, 1986–2018: more than 30 years in the making

Topics

Summary

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Clustered domestic residential aged care in Australia: fewer hospitalisations and better quality of life

Topics

Abstract

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Low risk prostate cancer and an opportunity lost: more activity required in active surveillance

Topics

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Beyond PSA testing for prostate cancer

Topics

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Active surveillance of men with low risk prostate cancer: evidence from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry–Victoria

Topics

Abstract

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Virtual medicine: how virtual reality is easing pain, calming nerves and improving health

Topics

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Impact of ethnicity on the natural history of Parkinson disease

Topics

Summary

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

Pagination