The relative risk of second primary cancers in Queensland, Australia: A retrospective cohort study

Background Cancer survivors face an increased likelihood of being subsequently diagnosed with another cancer. The aim of this study was to quantify the relative risk of survivors developing a second primary cancer in Queensland, Australia. Methods Standardised incidence rates stratified by type of first primary cancer, type of second primary cancer, sex, age at first diagnosis, period of first diagnosis and follow-up interval were calculated for residents of Queensland, Australia, who were diagnosed with a first primary invasive cancer between 1982 and 2001 and survived for a minimum of 2 months. Results A total of 23,580 second invasive primary cancers were observed over 1,370,247 years of follow-up among 204,962 cancer patients. Both males (SIR = 1.22; 95% CI = 1.20-1.24) and females (SIR = 1.36; 95% CI = 1.33-1.39) within the study cohort were found to have a significant excess risk of developing a second cancer relative to the incidence of cancer in the general population. The observed number of second primary cancers was also higher than expected within each age group, across all time periods and during each follow-up interval. Conclusions The excess risk of developing a second malignancy among cancer survivors can likely be attributed to factors including similar aetiologies, genetics and the effects of treatment, underlining the need for ongoing monitoring of cancer patients to detect subsequent tumours at an early stage. Education campaigns developed specifically for survivors may be required to lessen the prevalence of known cancer risk factors.

Acceptability of the distress thermometer and problem list to community-based telephone cancer helpline operators, and to cancer patients and carers

Background Cancer can be a distressing experience for cancer patients and carers, impacting on psychological, social, physical and spiritual functioning. However, health professionals often fail to detect distress in their patients due to time constraints and a lack of experience. Also, with the focus on the patient, carer needs are often overlooked. This study investigated the acceptability of brief distress screening with the Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List (PL) to operators of a community-based telephone helpline, as well as to cancer patients and carers calling the service. Methods Operators (n = 18) monitored usage of the DT and PL with callers (cancer patients/carers, >18 years, and English-speaking) from September-December 2006 (n = 666). The DT is a single item, 11-point scale to rate level of distress. The associated PL identifies the cause of distress. Results The DT and PL were used on 90% of eligible callers, most providing valid responses. Benefits included having an objective, structured and consistent means for distress screening and triage to supportive care services. Reported challenges included apparent inappropriateness of the tools due to the nature of the call or level of caller distress, the DT numeric scale, and the level of operator training. Conclusions We observed positive outcomes to using the DT and PL, although operators reported some challenges. Overcoming these challenges may improve distress screening particularly by less experienced clinicians, and further development of the PL items and DT scale may assist with administration. The DT and PL allow clinicians to direct/prioritise interventions or referrals, although ongoing training and support is critical in distress screening.