Exploring the impact of remoteness on people with head and neck cancer: Utilisation of a state‐wide dataset

Foley, Jasmine; Wishart, Laurelie R; Ward, Elizabeth C.; Burns, Clare L.; Packer, Richard; Philpot, Shoni; Kenny, Lizbeth; Stevens, Maurice

doi:10.1111/ajr.13005

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…26 Rural-residing head and neck cancer patients are more likely to travel to receive treatment, which means there are fewer patients receiving care locally. 27 The complete absence of clinical trials for some tumour streams outside of metropolitan clinical trial units again highlights the requirement to travel for those living outside of metropolitan areas.…”

Section: Tumour Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in cancer clinical trial activity and trial characteristics at metropolitan and rural trial sites in Victoria, Australia

McPhee,

Leach,

Nightingale

et al. 2024

Australian J Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveCancer clinical trials (CCTs) provide access to emerging therapies and extra clinical care. We aimed to describe the volume and characteristics of CCTs available across Victoria, Australia, and identify factors associated with rural trial location.MethodsQuantitative analysis of secondary data from Cancer Council Victoria's Clinical Trials Management Scheme dataset.DesignA cross‐sectional study design was used.SettingCCTs were available Victoria‐wide in 2018.ParticipantsThere were 1669 CCTs and 5909 CCT participants.Main Outcome MeasuresRural CCT location was assessed as a binary variable with categories of ‘yes’ (modified Monash [MM] categories 2–7) and ‘no’ (MM category 1). MM categories were determined from postcodes. The highest (‘least rural’) MM category was used for postcodes with multiple MM categories.ResultsOf 1669 CCTs, 168 (10.1%) were conducted in rural areas. Of 5909 CCT participants, 315 (5.3%) participated in rural CCTs. There were 526 CCTs (31.5%) with 1907 (32.3%) newly enrolled participants. Of 1892 newly enrolled participants with postcode data, 488 (25.8%) were rural residents. Of them, 368 (75.4%) participated in metropolitan CCTs. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis for all 1669 CCTs, odds of a rural rather than metropolitan CCT location were significantly (p‐value <0.05) lower for early‐phase than late‐phase trials and non‐solid than solid tumour trials but significantly (p‐value <0.05) higher for non‐industry than industry‐sponsored trials.ConclusionsIn Victoria, 10% of CCTs are at rural sites. Most rural‐residing CCT participants travel to metropolitan sites, where there are more late‐phase, non‐solid‐tumour and industry‐sponsored trials. Approaches to increase the volume and variety of rural CCTs should be considered.

show abstract

Section: Tumour Typementioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in cancer clinical trial activity and trial characteristics at metropolitan and rural trial sites in Victoria, Australia

McPhee,

Leach,

Nightingale

et al. 2024

Australian J Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Disparities in Care for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Marrero-Gonzalez,

Graboyes

2024

Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unveiling a Health Disparity: Comparative Analysis of Head and Neck Cancer Trends between First Nations People and Non-Indigenous Australians (1998–2015)

Khan,

Tadakamadla,

Tadakamadla

2024

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We aim to assess and compare the HNC trends between the First Nations and non-Indigenous population. Methods: HNC incidence (1998–2013) and mortality (1998–2015) data in First Nations people and non-Indigenous Australians were utilised from the Australian Cancer Database. The age-standardised incidence and mortality trends along with annual percentage changes were analysed using Joinpoint models. Age-standardised incidence and mortality rates according to remoteness, states, and five-year survival rates among First Nations people and non-Indigenous Australians were presented as graphs. Results: First Nations people had over twice the age-standardised incidence (2013; 29.8/100,000 vs. 14.7/100,000) and over 3.5 times the age-standardised mortality rates (2015; 14.2/100,000 vs. 4.1/100,000) than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Both populations saw a decline in mortality, but the decline was only statistically significant in non-Indigenous Australians (17.1% decline, 1998: 4.8/100,000, 2015: 4.1/100,000; p < 0.05). Across all remoteness levels and states, First Nations people consistently had higher age-standardised incidence and mortality rates. Furthermore, the five-year survival rate was lower by 25% in First Nations people. Conclusion: First Nations people continue to shoulder a disproportionate HNC burden compared to non-Indigenous Australians.

show abstract

Exploring the impact of remoteness on people with head and neck cancer: Utilisation of a state‐wide dataset

Cited by 3 publications

References 36 publications

Differences in cancer clinical trial activity and trial characteristics at metropolitan and rural trial sites in Victoria, Australia

Differences in cancer clinical trial activity and trial characteristics at metropolitan and rural trial sites in Victoria, Australia

Disparities in Care for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer

Unveiling a Health Disparity: Comparative Analysis of Head and Neck Cancer Trends between First Nations People and Non-Indigenous Australians (1998–2015)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About