Background/objectivesDelayed presentation of symptomatic cancer is associated with poorer survival. Aboriginal patients with cancer have higher rates of distant metastases at diagnosis compared with non-Aboriginal Australians. This paper examined factors contributing to delayed diagnosis of cancer among Aboriginal Australians from patient and service providers' perspectives.MethodsIn-depth, open-ended interviews were conducted in two stages (2006–2007 and 2011). Inductive thematic analysis was assisted by use of NVivo looking around delays in presentation, diagnosis and referral for cancer.ParticipantsAboriginal patients with cancer/family members (n=30) and health service providers (n=62) were recruited from metropolitan Perth and six rural/remote regions of Western Australia.ResultsThree broad themes of factors were identified: (1) Contextual factors such as intergenerational impact of colonisation and racism and socioeconomic deprivation have negatively impacted on Aboriginal Australians' trust of the healthcare professionals; (2) health service-related factors included low accessibility to health services, long waiting periods, inadequate numbers of Aboriginal professionals and high staff turnover; (3) patient appraisal of symptoms and decision-making, fear of cancer and denial of symptoms were key reasons patients procrastinated in seeking help. Elements of shame, embarrassment, shyness of seeing the doctor, psychological ‘fear of the whole health system’, attachment to the land and ‘fear of leaving home’ for cancer treatment in metropolitan cities were other deterrents for Aboriginal people. Manifestation of masculinity and the belief that ‘health is women's domain’ emerged as a reason why Aboriginal men were reluctant to receive health checks.ConclusionsSolutions to improved Aboriginal cancer outcomes include focusing on the primary care sector encouraging general practitioners to be proactive to suspicion of symptoms with appropriate investigations to facilitate earlier diagnosis and the need to improve Aboriginal health literacy regarding cancer. Access to health services remains a critical problem affecting timely diagnosis.

Inflammation plays a major role in cancer development and progression and has the potential to be used as a prognostic marker in cancer. Previous studies have attempted to evaluate Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (NLR) or monocyte–lymphocyte ratio (MLR) as indicators of inflammation/prognostic markers in cancer, but there is no common consensus on their application in clinical practice. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to (a) assess the prognostic efficacy of all three prognostic markers in comparison to each other and (b) investigate the prognostic potential of these three markers in HNC. The study followed PRISMA guidelines, with the literature being collated from multiple bibliographic databases. Preliminary and secondary screening were carried out using stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was carried out on selected studies using CMA software and HR as the pooled effect size metric. A total of 49 studies were included in the study. The pooled HR values of PLR, NLR and MLR indicated that they were significantly correlated with poorer OS. The pooled effect estimates for PLR, NLR and MLR were 1.461 (95% CI 1.329–1.674), 1.639 (95% CI 1.429–1.880) and 1.002 (95% CI 0.720–1.396), respectively. Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed in the meta-analysis of all three. The results of this study suggest that PLR, NLR and MLR ratios can be powerful prognostic markers in head and neck cancers that can guide treatment. Further evidence from large-scale clinical studies on patient cohorts are required before they can be incorporated as a part of the clinical method. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42019121008

While Mohs micrographic surgery may be considered the gold standard, wide local excision and adjuvant radiotherapy offers comparable control rates. Doses of 50 Gy or greater should be prescribed with generous margins (3-5 cm) owing to its tendency for peri-neural and deep invasion. There was no evidence that radiotherapy can cause aggressive transformation of the tumour. The role for definitive radiotherapy remains uncertain.

Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) is the sixth most common type of cancer across the globe, with more than 300,000 deaths each year, globally. However, there are currently no standardised molecular markers that assist in determining HNC prognosis. The literature for this systematic review and meta-analysis were sourced from multiple bibliographic databases. This review followed PRISMA guidelines. The Hazard Ratio (HR) was selected as the effect size metric to independently assess overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and prognosis. Subgroup analysis was performed for individual highly represented miRNA. A total of 6843 patients across 50 studies were included in the systematic review and 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Studies across 12 countries were assessed, with China representing 36.7% of all included studies. The analysis of the survival endpoints of OS and DFS were conducted separately, with the overall pooled effect size (HR) for each being 1.825 (95% CI 1.527–2.181; p < 0.05) and 2.596 (95% CI 1.917–3.515; p < 0.05), respectively. Subgroup analysis was conducted for impact of miR-21, 200b, 155, 18a, 34c-5p, 125b, 20a and 375 on OS, and miR-21 and 34a on DFS. The pooled results were found to be statistically significant for both OS and DFS. The meta-analysis indicated that miRNA alterations can account for an 82.5% decrease in OS probability and a 159.6% decrease in DFS probability. These results indicate that miRNAs have potential clinical value as prognostic biomarkers in HNC, with miR-21, 125b, 34c-5p and 18a, in particular, showing great potential as prognostic molecular markers. Further large scale cohort studies focusing on these miRNAs are recommended to verify the clinical utility of these markers individually and/or in combination.

Travel logistics impede Aboriginal patients’ uptake of cancer treatments and is one reason for the poorer outcomes of Aboriginal people with cancer. This research examined benefits of a newly established rurally based radiotherapy unit in southwest Western Australia (WA), and included exploring the experience of Aboriginal patients and possible reasons for Aboriginal people’s underrepresentation in treatment. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 21 service providers involved in the treatment and care of people with cancer, and 3 Aboriginal patients with cancer who undertook radiotherapy at the Service were undertaken. Data were subject to thematic analysis involving immersion in the data for familiarization, inductive coding, investigator discussion and refining of emerging themes and triangulation of patient and provider interviews. Aboriginal cancer patients were positive about the treatment and support they had received, highlighting the often complex challenges faced by rural Aboriginal cancer patients in accessing and maintaining treatment. Service providers offered suggestions for small numbers presenting to the Service, including late presentation, potential perceptions of cultural insensitivity on the part of service providers, out-of-pocket costs and under-ascertainment of Aboriginal status. The Service has put in place practices and initiatives to support patient health and wellbeing, including making the facility more welcoming towards Aboriginal people and ensuring culturally appropriate care.