Objective: To investigate predictors of evidence‐based surgical care in a population‐based sample of patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Design, patients and setting: Prospective audit of all new patients with colorectal cancer reported to the New South Wales Central Cancer Registry between 1 February 2000 and 31 January 2001. Main outcome measures: Concordance with seven guidelines from the 1999 Australian evidence‐based guidelines for colorectal cancer; predictors of guideline concordance; the mean proportion of relevant guidelines followed for individual patients. Results: Questionnaires were received for 3095 patients (91.6%). Between 0 and 100% of relevant guidelines were followed for individual patients (median, 67%). Concordance with individual guidelines varied considerably. Patient age independently predicted non‐concordance with guidelines for adjuvant therapy and preoperative radiotherapy. Adjuvant chemotherapy was more likely if a patient with node‐positive colon cancer was treated in a metropolitan hospital or by a general surgeon. Surgeons with a high caseload or specialty in colorectal cancer were more likely to perform colonic pouch reconstruction, prescribe thromboembolism or antibiotic prophylaxis, and were less likely to refer patients with high‐risk rectal cancer for adjuvant radiotherapy. Bowel preparation was less likely among older patients and in high‐caseload hospitals. Conclusion: Effective strategies to fully implement national colorectal cancer guidelines are needed. In particular, increasing the use of appropriate adjuvant therapy should be a priority, especially among older people.

BackgroundMonitoring treatment patterns is crucial to improving cancer patient care. Our aim was to determine the accuracy of linked routinely collected administrative health data for monitoring colorectal and lung cancer care in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.MethodsColorectal and lung cancer cases diagnosed in NSW between 2000 and 2002 were identified from the NSW Central Cancer Registry (CCR) and linked to their hospital discharge records in the NSW Admitted Patient Data Collection (APDC). These records were then linked to data from two relevant population-based patterns of care surveys. The main outcome measures were the sensitivity and specificity of data from the CCR and APDC for disease staging, investigative procedures, curative surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and selected comorbidities.ResultsData for 2917 colorectal and 1580 lung cancer cases were analysed. Unknown disease stage was more common for lung cancer in the administrative data (18%) than in the survey (2%). Colonoscopies were captured reasonably accurately in the administrative data compared with the surveys (82% and 79% respectively; 91% sensitivity, 53% specificity) but all other colorectal or lung cancer diagnostic procedures were under-enumerated. Ninety-one percent of colorectal cancer cases had potentially curative surgery recorded in the administrative data compared to 95% in the survey (96% sensitivity, 92% specificity), with similar accuracy for lung cancer (16% and 17%; 92% sensitivity, 99% specificity). Chemotherapy (~40% sensitivity) and radiotherapy (sensitivity≤30%) were vastly under-enumerated in the administrative data. The only comorbidity that was recorded reasonably accurately in the administrative data was diabetes.ConclusionsLinked routinely collected administrative health data provided reasonably accurate information on potentially curative surgical treatment, colonoscopies and comorbidities such as diabetes. Other diagnostic procedures, comorbidities, chemotherapy and radiotherapy were not well enumerated in the administrative data. Other sources of data will be required to comprehensively monitor the primary management of cancer patients.

No abstract

Changing the metal atom within a metallocene nucleoside analogue from iron to ruthenium results in a five-fold reduction in biological activity in a pancreatic cancer cell line.

In some respects pathology reports of resected colorectal cancer specimens displayed a high level of completeness. Some important features, however, were poorly described. Reporting could be improved if surgeons were to use a standardized form to convey clinical information to the pathologist and if pathologists were to report in a structured or synoptic format, explicitly recording the presence or absence of each feature in a standard list.