Fruit and vegetable consumption and the risk of proximal colon, distal colon and rectal cancers in a case-control study in Western Australia

Background Fruits and vegetables (F/V) have been examined extensively in nutrition research in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC). However, their protective effect is subject to debate, possibly because of different effects on different subsites of the large bowel.

Objective To determine whether any association between F/V consumption and risk of CRC differed by subsite of the bowel (proximal colon, distal colon, and rectum).

Design The Western Australian Bowel Health Study is a population-based, case-control study conducted between June 2005 and August 2007. Complete food frequency questionnaire data were analysed from 834 CRC cases and 939 controls. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the effects of quartiles of F/V intake on risk of CRC at different subsites. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for CRC overall and for the three separate subsites.

Results Risk of proximal colon cancer and rectal cancer was not associated with intakes of total F/V, total vegetable, or total fruit. Brassica vegetable intake was inversely related with proximal colon cancer (Q4 vs Q1 OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.93). For distal colon cancer, significant negative trends were seen for total F/V, and total vegetable intake. Distal colon cancer risk was significantly decreased for intake of dark yellow vegetables (Q4 vs Q1 OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.92) and apples (Q4 vs Q1 OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77). An increased risk for CRC was found to be associated with intake of fruit juice (Q4 vs Q1 OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.24 to 2.45).

Conclusions Our results suggest that different F/V may confer different risks for cancer of the proximal colon, distal colon, or rectum. Future studies might consider taking into account the location of the tumor when examining the relation between F/V consumption and risk of CRC.

A randomized controlled trial of a nurse-led supportive care package (SurvivorCare) for survivors of colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer (CRC) and its treatments can cause distressing sequelae. We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial aiming to improve psychological distress, supportive care needs (SCNs), and quality of life (QOL) of patients with CRC. The intervention, called SurvivorCare (SC), comprised educational materials, needs assessment, survivorship care plan, end-of-treatment session, and three follow-up telephone calls.

METHODS: At the end of treatment for stage I-III CRC, eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care (UC) or to UC plus SC. Distress (Brief Symptom Inventory 18), SCNs (Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs measure), and QOL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QOL questionnaires C30 and EORTC CRC module CR29) were assessed at baseline and at 2 and 6 months (follow-up 1 [FU1] and FU2, respectively). The primary hypothesis was that SC would have a beneficial effect on distress at FU1. The secondary hypotheses were that SC would have a beneficial effect on (a) SCN and QOL at FU1 and on (b) distress, SCNs, and QOL at FU2. A total of 15 items assessed experience of care.

RESULTS: Of 221 patients randomly assigned, 4 were ineligible for the study and 1 was lost to FU, leaving 110 in the UC group and 106 in the SC group. Patients' characteristics included the following: median age, 64 years; men, 52%; colon cancer, 56%; rectal cancer, 35%; overlapping sites of disease, 10%; stage I disease, 7%; stage II, 22%; stage III, 71%. Baseline distress and QOL scores were similar to population norms. Between-group differences in distress at FU1 (primary outcome) and at FU2, and SCNs and QOL at FU1 and FU2 were small and nonsignificant. Patients in the SC group were more satisfied with survivorship care than those in the UC group (significant differences on 10 of 15 items).

CONCLUSION: The addition of SC to UC did not have a beneficial effect on distress, SCNs, or QOL outcomes, but patients in the SC group were more satisfied with care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Some survivors of colorectal cancer report distressing effects after completing treatment. Strategies to identify and respond to survivors' issues are needed. In a randomized controlled trial, the addition of a nurse-led supportive care package (SurvivorCare) to usual posttreatment care did not impact survivors' distress, quality of life, or unmet needs. However, patients receiving the SurvivorCare intervention were more satisfied with survivorship care. Factors for consideration in the design of subsequent studies are discussed.

Radiotherapy in the Barwon South Western Region: a rural perspective

Introduction: Cancer-related mortality rates are higher in rural areas compared with urban regions. Whether there are corresponding geographical variations in radiotherapy utilisation rates (RURs) is the subject of this study. Methods: RURs for the regional centre of Geelong and rural areas of the Barwon South Western Region were calculated using a population-based database (2009). Results: Lower RURs were observed for rural patients compared with the Geelong region for prostate cancer (15.7% vs 25.8%, P = 0.02), rectal cancer (32.8% vs 44.7%, P = 0.11), lymphoma (9.4% vs 26.2%, P = 0.05), and all cancers overall (25.6% vs 28.9%, P = 0.06). This lower rate was significant in men (rural, 19.9%; Geelong, 28.3%; P = 0.00) but not in women (rural, 33.6%; Geelong, 29.7%; P = 0.88). Time from diagnosis to radiotherapy was not significantly different for patients from the two regions. Tumour staging within the rural and Geelong regions was not significantly different for the major tumour streams of rectal, prostate and lung cancer (P = 0.61, P = 0.79, P = 0.43, respectively). A higher proportion of tumours were unstaged or unstageable in the rural region for lung (44% vs 18%, P < 0.01) and prostate (73% vs 57%, P < 0.01) cancer. Conclusion: Lower RURs were observed in our rural region. Differences found within tumour streams and in men suggest a complexity of relationships that will require further study.

Colorectal multidisciplinary meetings: how do they affect the timeliness of treatment?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine whether multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings alter the length of time to treatment (LOTT) for patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective audit of all patients with colorectal cancer from the Geelong Hospital (TGH) mandatory colorectal database from 1 January 2006 to 3 February 2011. To be included, patients had to have had elective surgical intervention for primary colorectal adenocarcinoma. A comparison of historical controls was conducted between patients discussed in MDT meetings and those managed prior to the introduction of MDT meetings (3 October 2006) to determine the LOTT in days from definitive diagnosis (colonoscopy) to definitive management (surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy). RESULTS: In total, the median LOTT for the historical control and MDT era patient populations were 19.5 and 20 days, respectively. Within the MDT era, we noticed significantly longer times to treatment for patients with rectal cancer who were seen in an MDT meeting prior to definitive management than patients who did not have an intervening MDT meeting (P < 0.001). With a difference of 7.5 days, the clinical significance of these findings remains contentious. However, it is worthwhile recognizing this trend in patients who are exhibiting symptoms due to near obstruction or significant bleeding. The LOTT for colon cancer patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: The introduction of MDT meetings to TGH has prolonged the LOTT for patients with rectal cancer. These findings pave the way for further revision of the efficiency of MDT meeting at TGH.

Knowledge, attitudes and experience associated with testing for prostate cancer: a comparison between male doctors and men in the community

Background: Debate about testing for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) continues. The evidence of benefit from screening for prostate cancer using PSA tests is inconclusive, and it is unclear how PSA can be used most effectively in the detection of prostate cancer. Given the lack of consensus, it is important that consumers understand the issues in a way that will permit them to decide whether or not to have a test and, if symptomatic, how their condition is managed.

Aims: To compare prostate cancer knowledge, attitudes and testing experiences reported by male doctors and men in the community, despite the lack of evidence of a benefit.

Methods : The primary method for ascertaining the attitudes of male doctors (MD) was a telephone survey, with some doctors electing to complete a written survey. Each MD was selected, at random, from a register of male practitioners aged ≥ 49 years of age. A total of 266 MD participated in the survey. The community sample (CS) was accessed using a telephone survey. Five hundred male Victorian residents aged ≥ 49 years of age participated in the study.

Results:
Knowledge − Overall, 55% of the CS indicated ­correctly that prostate disease is sometimes cancer, compared to 83% of MD.

Attitudes − Fifty-five per cent of MD believed men should be tested for prostate disease at least every 2 years, compared to 68% of men in the CS.

Testing experience − Forty-five per cent of MD had been tested for prostate cancer in the past, and 92% of those tests were reported as negative. In the CS, 56% had been tested for prostate cancer in the past, and 78% of the results were reported as negative. The ­significant independent predictors of having had a prostate test among MD were: (i) age (≥ 60 years; odds ratio (OR): 1.59; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.30−1.88) and (ii) positive attitudes towards regular testing for prostate cancer (OR: 2.27; 95% CI: 1.98−2.56). The significant independent predictors for the CS were: (i) age (≥ 60 years; OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.40−1.89), (ii) being married (OR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.00−1.60), (iii) knowledge that prostate disease was sometimes cancer (OR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.26−1.66) and (iv) positive attitudes towards regular testing for prostate cancer (OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.90−2.34).

Conclusions: The results highlight that testing for prostate cancer is widespread in the community and in the medical profession. Further research should be undertaken to identify how to help men make fully informed decisions about prostate cancer testing.

Primary tumor resection and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with palliative intent

The survival impact of primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with palliative intent remains uncertain. In the absence of randomized data, the objectives of the present study were to examine the effect of primary tumor resection (PTR) and major prognostic variables on overall survival (OS) of patients with de novo mCRC. Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients from the Australian 'Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer' registry were examined from June 2009 to March 2015. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to identify associations between multiple patient or clinical variables and OS. Patients with metachronous mCRC were excluded from the analyses. Results: A total of 690 patients de novo and 373 metachronous mCRC patients treated with palliative intent were identified. The median follow-up period was 30 months. The median age of de novo patients was 66 years; 57% were male; 77% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1; and 76% had a colon primary. A total of 216 de novo mCRC patients treated with palliative intent underwent PTR at diagnosis and were more likely to have a colon primary (odds ratio [OR], 15.4), a lower carcinoembryonic antigen level (OR, 2.08), and peritoneal involvement (OR, 2.58; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, PTR at diagnosis in de novo patients was not associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.09; P = .068). PTR at diagnosis did not correlate with outcome in de novo patients with a colon primary (HR, 0.74; 99% CI, 0.54-1.01; P = .014) or a rectal primary (HR, 0.81; 99% CI, 0.27-2.44; P = .621). Conclusion: For de novo mCRC patients treated with palliative intent, PTR at diagnosis does not significantly improve OS when adjusting for known major prognostic factors. The outcomes of randomized trials examining the survival impact of PTR are awaited.