Survival disparities among recently diagnosed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer patients in Australia remain

Patients' perspective of quality-of-care and its correlation to quality-of-life following spontaneous coronary artery dissection

AIMS

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an under-recognized cause of myocardial infarction. We aimed to investigate SCAD survivors' perceptions of their quality-of-care and its relationship to quality-of-life.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An anonymous survey was distributed online to SCAD survivors involved in Australian SCAD support groups, with 172 (95.3% female, mean age 52.6 ± 9.2 years) participants in the study. The survey involved assessment of quality-of-life using a standardized questionnaire (EQ-5DTM-3L). Respondents rated the quality-of-care received during their hospital admission for SCAD with a median of 8/10 [interquartile range (IQR) 7-10]. Respondents ≤ 50 years vs. >50 years were more likely to perceive that their symptoms were not treated seriously as a myocardial infarction (χ2 = 4.127, df = 1, P < 0.05). Participants rated clinician's knowledge of SCAD with a median of 4/10 (IQR 2-8) and 7/10 (IQR 3-9) for Emergency and Cardiology clinicians, respectively (P < 0.05). The internet was the most selected source (45.4%) of useful SCAD information. The mean EQ-5DTM summary index was 0.79 (population norm 0.87). A total of 47.2% of respondents reported a mental health condition diagnosis, with 36% of these diagnosed after their admission with SCAD. Quality-of-life was significantly associated with perceived quality-of-care: EQ-5DTM index/(1-EQ-5DTM index) increased by 13% for each unit increase in quality-of-care after adjusting for age and comorbidities (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

While SCAD survivors rated their overall hospital care highly, healthcare providers' knowledge of SCAD was perceived to be poor, and the most common source of SCAD information was the internet. Mental health conditions were common, and a significant association was observed between perceived quality-of-care and SCAD survivors' quality-of-life.

Integrating Cardio-Oncology Across the Research Pipeline, Policy, and Practice in Australia-An Australian Cardiovascular Alliance Perspective

Over 18 million people worldwide were diagnosed with cancer in 2020, including over 150,000 people in Australia. Although improved early detection and treatment have increased the survival rates, cardiotoxic treatment and inadequate management of cardiovascular risk factors have resulted in cardiovascular disease (CVD) being one of the leading causes of non-cancer-related death and disability among cancer survivors. International guidelines outline the standards of care for CVD risk surveillance and management. However, Australian cardio-oncology policies and clinical guidelines are limited. There is increasing growth of cardio-oncology research in Australia and support from leading Australian professional bodies and advocacy and research networks, including the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, the National Heart Foundation of Australia, and the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance (ACvA). Thus, opportunities to drive multidisciplinary cardio-oncology initiatives are growing, including grant funding, position statements, and novel research to inform new policies. The ACvA has a unique flagship structure that spans the translational research pipeline from drug discovery to implementation science. This article aims to highlight how multidisciplinary cardio-oncology innovations could intersect with the seven ACvA flagships, and to showcase Australian achievements in cardio-oncology thus far. We summarise eight key priority areas for future cardio-oncology research that emerged. These strategies will strengthen cardio-oncology research and care in Australia, and drive new guidelines, policies, and government initiatives to ensure equity in health outcomes for all cardio-oncology patients.

Utilising the CREATE quality appraisal tool to analyse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' involvement and reporting of cancer research in Australia

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement in research focusing on cancer experiences using an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool (the QAT).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' experiences associated with cancer, recently published elsewhere. We then appraised articles for the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led research, community consultation, and involvement.

RESULTS

91 articles were appraised. A lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-led research and consultation was reported in the majority of articles, only 10 (11%) demonstrated success across seven (50%) or more questions of the QAT.

CONCLUSIONS

This review underscores the need for anti-racist research and publication practices that actively engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and researchers. This approach is vital to enhance cancer outcomes within these communities.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

To advance and prioritise appropriate involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in cancer research, the onus must be on 'systems owners,' including academic journals and institutions, to require and report genuine engagement as standard practice. Researchers will produce higher-calibre research with a strengths-based focus, advancing the cause of equitable research.

Cancer survival differentials for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Queensland: the impact of remoteness

PURPOSE

In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (First Nations population) often have low overall cancer survival, as do all residents of geographically remote areas. This study aimed to quantify the survival disparity between First Nations and other Queenslanders for 12 common cancer types by remoteness areas.

METHODS

For all Queensland residents aged 20-89 years diagnosed with a primary invasive cancer during 1997-2016, we ran flexible parametric survival models incorporating age, First Nations status, sex, diagnosis time period, area-level socioeconomic status, remoteness categories and where appropriate, broad cancer type. Three survival measures were predicted: cause-specific survival, survival differences and the comparative survival ratio, each standardised to First Nations peoples' covariate distributions.

RESULTS

The standardised five-year cause-specific cancer survival was 60% for urban First Nations and 65% for other Queenslanders, while remote residents were 54% (First Nations) and 58% (other). The absolute survival differential between First Nations and other Queenslanders was often similar, regardless of remoteness of residence. The greatest absolute difference in five-year standardised cancer survival was for head and neck cancers, followed by cervical cancer. The five-year comparative survival ratio (First Nations: other Queenslanders) for urban cancer patients was 0.91 (95% CI 0.90-0.93), similar to outer regional, inner regional and remote areas. The greatest comparative survival differential was for oesophageal cancer.

CONCLUSION

First Nations' survival inequalities are largely independent of geographical remoteness. It remains a priority to determine the contribution of other potential factors such as the availability of culturally acceptable diagnostic, management and/or support services.

Factors associated with cancer survival disparities among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared with other Australians: A systematic review

Background

While cancer survival among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples has improved over time, they continue to experience poorer cancer survival than other Australians. Key drivers of these disparities are not well understood. This systematic review aimed to summarise existing evidence on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer survival disparities and identify influential factors and potential solutions.

Methods

In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, multiple databases were systematically searched for English language peer-reviewed articles on cancer survival by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status published from 1/1/2008 to 4/05/2022. Observational studies presenting adjusted survival measures in relation to potential causal factors for disparities were included. Articles were screened independently by two authors. Included studies were critically assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools.

Results

Thirty population-based and predominantly state-level studies were included. A consistent pattern of poorer unadjusted cancer survival for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples was evident. Studies varied widely in the covariates adjusted for including a combination of socio-demographics, cancer stage, comorbidities, and treatment. Potential contributions of these factors varied by cancer type. For lung and female breast cancer, adjusting for treatment and comorbidities reduced the survival disparity, which, while still elevated was no longer statistically significant. This pattern was also evident for cervical cancer after adjustment for stage and treatment. However, most studies for all cancers combined, or colorectal cancer, reported that unexplained survival disparities remained after adjusting for various combinations of covariates.

Conclusions

While some of the poorer survival faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer patients can be explained, substantial disparities likely to be related to Aboriginal determinants, remain. It is imperative that future research consider innovative study designs and strength-based approaches to better understand cancer survival for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and to inform evidence-based action.

Quantifying the number of deaths among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer patients that could be avoided by removing survival inequalities, Australia 2005–2016

Background

While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have poorer cancer survival than other Australians, absolute measures of survival disparities are lacking. This study quantified crude probabilities of deaths from cancer and other causes and estimated the number of avoidable deaths for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders if these survival disparities were removed.

Methods

Flexible parametric relative survival models were used to estimate reported measures for a population-based cohort of 709,239 Australians (12,830 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples), 2005–2016.

Results

Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, the 5-year crude probability of cancer death was 0.44, while it was 0.07 for other causes of death. These probabilities were 0.07 and 0.03 higher than among other Australians, respectively. Magnitude of these disparities varied by cancer type and ranged for cancer deaths from <0.05 for pancreatic, prostate and uterine cancers to 0.20 for cervical and head and neck cancers. Values for disparity in other causes of death were generally lower. Among an average cohort of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples diagnosed per year over the most recent five-year diagnosis period (2012–2016, n = 1,269), approximately 133 deaths within 5 years of diagnosis were potentially avoidable if they had the same overall survival as other Australians, with 94 of these deaths due to cancer. The total number of avoided deaths over the entire study period (2005–2016) was 1,348, with 947 of these deaths due to cancer.

Conclusions

Study findings suggest the need to reduce the prevalence of risk factors prevalence, increase screening participation, and improve early detection, diagnosis and treatment rates to achieve more equitable outcomes for a range of cancer types. Reported measures provide unique insights into the impact of a cancer diagnosis among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples from a different perspective to standard relative survival measures.

Quantifying Differences in Remaining Life Expectancy after Cancer Diagnosis, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and Other Australians, 2005-2016

BACKGROUND

This study quantified differences in remaining life expectancy (RLE) among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and other Australian patients with cancer. We assessed how much of this disparity was due to differences in cancer and noncancer mortality and calculated the population gain in life years for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders cancer diagnoses if the cancer survival disparities were removed.

METHODS

Flexible parametric relative survival models were used to estimate RLE by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status for a population-based cohort of 709,239 persons (12,830 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), 2005 to 2016.

RESULTS

For all cancers combined, the average disparity in RLE was 8.0 years between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (12.0 years) and other Australians (20.0 years). The magnitude of this disparity varied by cancer type, being >10 years for cervical cancer versus <2 years for lung and pancreatic cancers. For all cancers combined, around 26% of this disparity was due to differences in cancer mortality and 74% due to noncancer mortality. Among 1,342 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders diagnosed with cancer in 2015 an estimated 2,818 life years would be gained if cancer survival disparities were removed.

CONCLUSIONS

A cancer diagnosis exacerbates the existing disparities in RLE among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Addressing them will require consideration of both cancer-related factors and those contributing to noncancer mortality.

IMPACT

Reported survival-based measures provided additional insights into the overall impact of cancer over a lifetime horizon among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.