Australia Postgraduate Award PhD Scholarship, Translational Cancer Research Network Top-up scholarship (supported by Cancer Institute NSW) and Cancer Council NSW.

Survey data highlight marked cancer service deficiencies in rural and regional Australia. It is not unreasonable to conclude that these deficiencies might contribute to poorer outcomes for cancer patients living in these areas. The results suggest the need for short- and long-term measures to improve access to best-practice cancer services for patients living in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia.

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) will fully roll-out 2-yearly screening using the immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Testing (iFOBT) in people aged 50 to 74 years by 2020. In this study, we aimed to estimate the comparative health benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening with iFOBT, versus other potential alternative or adjunctive technologies. A comprehensive validated microsimulation model, Policy1-Bowel, was used to simulate a total of 13 screening approaches involving use of iFOBT, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, computed tomographic colonography (CTC), faecal DNA (fDNA) and plasma DNA (pDNA), in people aged 50 to 74 years. All strategies were evaluated in three scenarios: (i) perfect adherence, (ii) high (but imperfect) adherence, and (iii) low adherence. When assuming perfect adherence, the most effective strategies involved using iFOBT (annually, or biennially with/without adjunct sigmoidoscopy either at 50, or at 54, 64 and 74 years for individuals with negative iFOBT), or colonoscopy (10-yearly, or once-off at 50 years combined with biennial iFOBT). Colorectal cancer incidence (mortality) reductions for these strategies were 51-67(74-80)% in comparison with no screening; 2-yearly iFOBT screening (i.e. the NBCSP) would be associated with reductions of 51(74)%. Only 2-yearly iFOBT screening was found to be cost-effective in all scenarios in context of an indicative willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000/life-year saved (LYS); this strategy was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$2,984/LYS-A$5,981/LYS (depending on adherence). The fully rolled-out NBCSP is highly cost-effective, and is also one of the most effective approaches for bowel cancer screening in Australia.

Background Improved survival means that cancer is increasingly becoming a chronic disease. Understanding and improving functional outcomes are critical to optimising survivorship. We quantified physical and mental health-related outcomes in people with versus without cancer, according to cancer type. Methods Questionnaire data from an Australian population-based cohort study (45 and Up Study (n = 267,153)) were linked to cancer registration data to ascertain cancer diagnoses up to enrolment. Modified Poisson regression estimated age- and sex-adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) for adverse person-centred outcomes—severe physical functional limitations (disability), moderate/high psychological distress and fair/poor quality of life (QoL)—in participants with versus without cancer, for 13 cancer types. Results Compared to participants without cancer (n = 244,000), cancer survivors (n = 22,505) had greater disability (20.6% versus 12.6%, respectively, PR = 1.28, 95%CI = (1.25–1.32)), psychological (22.2% versus 23.5%, 1.05 (1.02–1.08)) and poor/fair QoL (15.2% versus 10.2%; 1.28 (1.24–1.32)). The outcomes varied by cancer type, being worse for multiple myeloma (PRs versus participants without cancer for disability 3.10, 2.56–3.77; distress 1.53, 1.20–1.96; poor/fair QoL 2.40, 1.87–3.07), lung cancer (disability 2.81, 2.50–3.15; distress 1.67, 1.46–1.92; poor/fair QoL 2.53, 2.21–2.91) and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (disability 1.56, 1.37–1.78; distress 1.20, 1.05–1.36; poor/fair QoL 1.66, 1.44–1.92) and closer to those in people without cancer for breast cancer (disability 1.23, 1.16–1.32; distress 0.95, 0.90–1.01; poor/fair QoL 1.15, 1.05–1.25), prostate cancer (disability 1.11, 1.04–1.19; distress 1.09, 1.02–1.15; poor/fair QoL 1.15, 1.08–1.23) and melanoma (disability 1.02, 0.94–1.10; distress 0.96, 0.89–1.03; poor/fair QoL 0.92, 0.83–1.01). Outcomes were worse with recent diagnosis and treatment and advanced stage. Physical disability in cancer survivors was greater in all population subgroups examined and was a major contributor to adverse distress and QoL outcomes. Conclusions Physical disability, distress and reduced QoL are common after cancer and vary according to cancer type suggesting priority areas for research, and care and support.

Emerging evidence suggests the COVID-19 pandemic has, to some extent, disrupted the delivery and improvement of cancer screening programs, and thus delayed diagnoses, resulting in potential adverse morbidity and mortality • The extent of potential adverse effects is emerging. Rapid research into the effects will inform urgent responses and could also fast-track evidence for optimisation of cancer screening in Australia, with benefits during and after the pandemic response and recovery