Participation in the RACS sentinel node biopsy versus axillary clearance trial

Background: The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) SNAC trial is a randomized controlled trial of sentinel node biopsy (SNB) versus axillary clearance (AC). It opened in May 2001 and is recruiting rapidly with good acceptance by consumers. Methods: A study of eligibility and treatment choices was conducted between November 2001 and September 2002 for women presenting with early breast cancer to 10 centres participating in the trial. Results: More than half of the 622 women (54%) were ineligible for trial entry because they had large (> 3 cm) or multicentric cancers. Participation was offered to 92% of eligible women and was taken up by 63%. The commonest reason for not participating was the desire to choose treatment rather than have it randomly allocated. Despite this there is a great acceptance of clinical trials because very few women (4% of those eligible) gave 'lack of interest in clinical trials' as the reason for non-participation. Few women who declined trial participation chose to have SNB alone (4.5% of those eligible). Conclusion: Sentinel node biopsy may become the standard of care for managing small breast cancers, but a significant number of patients will still require or choose axillary dissection. Results from large randomized trials are needed to determine the relative benefits and harms of SNB compared with AC. Surgeons must carefully discuss options for management with their patients.

An educational workshop on the early detection of prostate cancer

The authors have developed an education program for GPs to facilitate informed choice about PSA testing.

General practitioner, specialist providers case conferences in palliative care: Lessons learned from 56 case conferences

OBJECTIVE: To describe the utility and acceptability to general practitioners and palliative care staff of case conferences in palliative care. METHOD: Research focussed on case conferences conducted between GPs and staff of three specialist palliative care units (in an inner urban, outer metropolitan and regional setting), at the time of referral of patients to the service. Telephone interviews were conducted with all GPs who participated in a case conference, and focus groups were conducted with palliative care staff. RESULTS: For most GPs, case conferences by teleconference were a time effective and immediate means of information transfer. The best instances for a conference were at time of patient referral, time of discharge to the community, or where the case was complex. General practitioners appreciated access to multiple professionals simultaneously. Workload pressures were a drawback of participation for both GPs and specialists. Palliative care team members thought case conferences gave GPs an appreciation of a team approach, and reduced professional isolation. The usefulness of the case conferences depended on the willingness of the GP to participate. General practitioners would participate again provided they did not have to organise the case conference. Specialist staff were concerned by the financial cost of organising case conferences. DISCUSSION: Case conferences provide useful information exchange between GPs and specialist staff, and are acceptable to both parties. Much depends on the individual GPs attitude toward participation, as well as the timing of the conferences in the course of the patient's illness. Organisation needs to be a task of the specialist units, who would need administrative support to organise them. (author abstract)