Linda K Martin, Pascale Guitera, Georgina V Long, Richard A Scolyer, Anne E Cust
<p>Melanoma is often referred to as Australia's national cancer, with the highest incidence per capita in the world due to the combination of high solar ultraviolet radiation levels, a temperate climate, outdoor lifestyle and genetically susceptible population.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Melanoma is our third most common invasive cancer, and two-thirds of Australians will be diagnosed with keratinocytic tumours (including basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas).<span><sup>2</sup></span> Despite advances in treatment and improved survival over the past decade, one Australian dies about every six hours from melanoma.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>Routine skin checks occur widely in Australia, with about one-third of Australian adults aged 45–69 years reporting having a whole-body skin check annually.<span><sup>4</sup></span> This form of ad-hoc screening is contrary to national and international recommendations, with both the Australian Government Standing Committee on Screening<span><sup>5</sup></span> and United States Preventive Services Taskforce<span><sup>6</sup></span> concluding insufficient information on the benefits and harms of skin cancer screening, and lack of data on cost-effectiveness. Herein, we discuss the need for evidence-based approaches to skin cancer detection in Australia. Risk factors and diagnostic techniques for melanoma and keratinocyte carcinoma overlap. This perspective article focuses on melanoma, which is most likely to be associated with mortality, and its detection and cost benefits from an organised screening program.</p><p>“Population screening” refers to an organised program to identify disease in asymptomatic populations.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Australian clinical practice guidelines recommend “opportunistic screening”, that is, patient-driven or clinician-initiated skin checks occurring outside an organised program, for patients at increased risk of melanoma, and six- to 12-monthly skin checks for anyone who has ever had a melanoma (targeted screening).<span><sup>7</sup></span> Detection and treatment of melanoma at an early stage is associated with an excellent prognosis, and increased mortality has been demonstrated with each 0.2 mm increment in Breslow thickness at diagnosis.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>Skin cancer is Australia's most expensive cancer, with direct costs to the health care system of almost $2 billion per year.<span><sup>9</sup></span> The additional cost of skin checks that do not result in a diagnosis of skin cancer is difficult to accurately quantify, as there is no Medicare item or process to collect these data. Current reimbursement models reward high patient volume and high biopsy rates, and community fear of cancer and clinician fear of error can also drive over-servicing. The potential non-financial costs of skin checks include patient anxiety, overdiagnosis and surgical burden.<span><sup>10</sup></span> Increasing government spending on skin checks and skin cancer treatments may
{"title":"Towards evidence-based skin checks","authors":"Linda K Martin, Pascale Guitera, Georgina V Long, Richard A Scolyer, Anne E Cust","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52443","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52443","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Melanoma is often referred to as Australia's national cancer, with the highest incidence per capita in the world due to the combination of high solar ultraviolet radiation levels, a temperate climate, outdoor lifestyle and genetically susceptible population.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Melanoma is our third most common invasive cancer, and two-thirds of Australians will be diagnosed with keratinocytic tumours (including basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas).<span><sup>2</sup></span> Despite advances in treatment and improved survival over the past decade, one Australian dies about every six hours from melanoma.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>Routine skin checks occur widely in Australia, with about one-third of Australian adults aged 45–69 years reporting having a whole-body skin check annually.<span><sup>4</sup></span> This form of ad-hoc screening is contrary to national and international recommendations, with both the Australian Government Standing Committee on Screening<span><sup>5</sup></span> and United States Preventive Services Taskforce<span><sup>6</sup></span> concluding insufficient information on the benefits and harms of skin cancer screening, and lack of data on cost-effectiveness. Herein, we discuss the need for evidence-based approaches to skin cancer detection in Australia. Risk factors and diagnostic techniques for melanoma and keratinocyte carcinoma overlap. This perspective article focuses on melanoma, which is most likely to be associated with mortality, and its detection and cost benefits from an organised screening program.</p><p>“Population screening” refers to an organised program to identify disease in asymptomatic populations.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Australian clinical practice guidelines recommend “opportunistic screening”, that is, patient-driven or clinician-initiated skin checks occurring outside an organised program, for patients at increased risk of melanoma, and six- to 12-monthly skin checks for anyone who has ever had a melanoma (targeted screening).<span><sup>7</sup></span> Detection and treatment of melanoma at an early stage is associated with an excellent prognosis, and increased mortality has been demonstrated with each 0.2 mm increment in Breslow thickness at diagnosis.<span><sup>8</sup></span></p><p>Skin cancer is Australia's most expensive cancer, with direct costs to the health care system of almost $2 billion per year.<span><sup>9</sup></span> The additional cost of skin checks that do not result in a diagnosis of skin cancer is difficult to accurately quantify, as there is no Medicare item or process to collect these data. Current reimbursement models reward high patient volume and high biopsy rates, and community fear of cancer and clinician fear of error can also drive over-servicing. The potential non-financial costs of skin checks include patient anxiety, overdiagnosis and surgical burden.<span><sup>10</sup></span> Increasing government spending on skin checks and skin cancer treatments may ","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"221 8","pages":"407-409"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52443","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142140493","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Gary D Zhang, Daniel Johnstone, Michael F Leahy, John K Olynyk
<p>Iron deficiency is the most common micronutrient deficiency worldwide<span><sup>1</sup></span> and the predominant cause of anaemia, which affects one-quarter of the global population.<span><sup>2</sup></span></p><p>In Australia, 22.3% of women have depleted iron stores (serum ferritin level < 30 μg/L), with pre-menopausal women disproportionately affected.<span><sup>3</sup></span> In contrast, 3.5% of men are iron deficient.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>The Australian Red Cross Lifeblood implemented routine ferritin level testing in August 2023 for new whole blood donors (105 069 in 2023),<span><sup>4</sup></span> with expanded testing to include returning blood donors in 2024.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Donors are formally advised if their ferritin result is outside the reference intervals of 15–400 μg/L for female donors and 30–500 μg/L for male donors.<span><sup>5</sup></span> This will identify a considerable number of iron deficient adults who will be directed to their primary care physician for management. In the context of this policy change and implications for primary care, this article provides a guide for investigating and managing absolute iron deficiency.</p><p>Iron stores inadequate to meet the demands of the body result in absolute iron deficiency, which is associated with a compensatory reduction in serum hepcidin concentration to stimulate an increase in gastrointestinal iron absorption and restore homeostasis.<span><sup>6-8</sup></span> Functional iron deficiency occurs when relatively normal iron stores are unable to be released for physiological requirements due to inappropriately elevated serum hepcidin levels, as may occur in chronic inflammatory conditions, including obesity, chronic disease and neoplasia.<span><sup>6-8</sup></span> Absolute and functional iron deficiency can also co-exist.<span><sup>7</sup></span> A ferritin level below the reference interval should always be interpreted as absolute iron deficiency.</p><p>The diagnosis of iron deficiency is based on routinely available blood biomarkers as described in Box 1. Serum ferritin level cut-offs to diagnose iron deficiency vary considerably,<span><sup>9</sup></span> from less than 15 μg/L used by the World Health Organization,<span><sup>10</sup></span> which predicts absent iron stores with very high specificity,<span><sup>7</sup></span> to less than 30 μg/L commonly used in Australia.<span><sup>7, 8, 11, 12</sup></span> Although the sex-based cut-offs adopted by the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood were reportedly derived from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia,<span><sup>12</sup></span> there is significant concern regarding inequalities using unconventional sex-based cut-offs, with underdiagnosis and undertreatment of iron deficient women. As an acute-phase reactant, ferritin may be falsely normal or elevated in iron deficient individuals when there is concurrent inflammation, obesity, steatotic liver disease, malignancy or other chronic dise
{"title":"Updating the diagnosis and management of iron deficiency in the era of routine ferritin testing of blood donors by Australian Red Cross Lifeblood","authors":"Gary D Zhang, Daniel Johnstone, Michael F Leahy, John K Olynyk","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52429","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52429","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Iron deficiency is the most common micronutrient deficiency worldwide<span><sup>1</sup></span> and the predominant cause of anaemia, which affects one-quarter of the global population.<span><sup>2</sup></span></p><p>In Australia, 22.3% of women have depleted iron stores (serum ferritin level < 30 μg/L), with pre-menopausal women disproportionately affected.<span><sup>3</sup></span> In contrast, 3.5% of men are iron deficient.<span><sup>3</sup></span></p><p>The Australian Red Cross Lifeblood implemented routine ferritin level testing in August 2023 for new whole blood donors (105 069 in 2023),<span><sup>4</sup></span> with expanded testing to include returning blood donors in 2024.<span><sup>5</sup></span> Donors are formally advised if their ferritin result is outside the reference intervals of 15–400 μg/L for female donors and 30–500 μg/L for male donors.<span><sup>5</sup></span> This will identify a considerable number of iron deficient adults who will be directed to their primary care physician for management. In the context of this policy change and implications for primary care, this article provides a guide for investigating and managing absolute iron deficiency.</p><p>Iron stores inadequate to meet the demands of the body result in absolute iron deficiency, which is associated with a compensatory reduction in serum hepcidin concentration to stimulate an increase in gastrointestinal iron absorption and restore homeostasis.<span><sup>6-8</sup></span> Functional iron deficiency occurs when relatively normal iron stores are unable to be released for physiological requirements due to inappropriately elevated serum hepcidin levels, as may occur in chronic inflammatory conditions, including obesity, chronic disease and neoplasia.<span><sup>6-8</sup></span> Absolute and functional iron deficiency can also co-exist.<span><sup>7</sup></span> A ferritin level below the reference interval should always be interpreted as absolute iron deficiency.</p><p>The diagnosis of iron deficiency is based on routinely available blood biomarkers as described in Box 1. Serum ferritin level cut-offs to diagnose iron deficiency vary considerably,<span><sup>9</sup></span> from less than 15 μg/L used by the World Health Organization,<span><sup>10</sup></span> which predicts absent iron stores with very high specificity,<span><sup>7</sup></span> to less than 30 μg/L commonly used in Australia.<span><sup>7, 8, 11, 12</sup></span> Although the sex-based cut-offs adopted by the Australian Red Cross Lifeblood were reportedly derived from the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia,<span><sup>12</sup></span> there is significant concern regarding inequalities using unconventional sex-based cut-offs, with underdiagnosis and undertreatment of iron deficient women. As an acute-phase reactant, ferritin may be falsely normal or elevated in iron deficient individuals when there is concurrent inflammation, obesity, steatotic liver disease, malignancy or other chronic dise","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"221 7","pages":"360-364"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52429","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142126132","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In November 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released its 2022–23 Patient Experience Survey data.<span><sup>1</sup></span> This latest release shows that many Australians struggle to afford the medicines they need and that cost barriers to access have increased compared with the previous year.</p><p>Women, younger people and those in poorer health are particularly affected. The data show that 9.4% of women compared with 5.5% of men reported cost-related non-adherence to medications (medication-CRNA) (ie, delaying or not filling scripts due to cost) prescribed by their general practitioner in the previous 12 months.<span><sup>2</sup></span> The proportion increases for younger women to 14.7% for 15–24-year-olds and to 13% for 25–34-year-olds (Box 1). However, considering that 8.4% of women (and as high as 11.3% for women aged 25–34 years) at least once delayed seeing or did not see a general practitioner,<span><sup>2</sup></span> and 12.2% (and as high as 20.3% for 25–34-year-olds) at least once delayed or did not see a specialist due to cost,<span><sup>3</sup></span> the proportion of women directly or indirectly affected by medication-CRNA would be even higher.</p><p>Younger Australians are more likely to experience cost barriers to care than older Australians. A 25–34-year-old is 2.7 times more likely to experience medication-CRNA than a 75–84-year-old, 3.1 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a general practitioner due to cost,<span><sup>2</sup></span> and 3.8 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a specialist due to cost.<span><sup>3</sup></span> For women, the discrepancy is much more pronounced, with 25–34-year-olds 3.5 times more likely to experience medication-CRNA than 75–84-year-olds, 3.8 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a general practitioner, and 4.8 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a specialist due to cost.</p><p>Health status also plays an important part, with 15% of individuals in fair or poor health experiencing medication-CRNA (2.3 times higher than those in good health) and 11.8% delay visiting or not visit a general practitioner due to cost (1.8 times higher).<span><sup>4</sup></span> For specialist visits the discrepancy was not as stark.<span><sup>5</sup></span> The most socio-economically disadvantaged people were also almost twice as likely to delay or not seek treatment than the most advantaged (Box 2).<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>The <i>de facto</i> rate of medication-CRNA is necessarily higher than what is reported in the ABS's survey. Their data are collected in the context of general practice visits only, so they would not include medicines prescribed by specialists. This is a significant lacuna since 42.2% of those surveyed needed to see a specialist,<span><sup>6</sup></span> and it is reasonable to assume many of these patients would be prescribed some medication. The Australians that miss out on seeing a general practitioner or specialist du
{"title":"Cost barriers to medication access in Australia: an analysis of the Patient Experience Survey in context","authors":"Narcyz Ghinea","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52427","DOIUrl":"10.5694/mja2.52427","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In November 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) released its 2022–23 Patient Experience Survey data.<span><sup>1</sup></span> This latest release shows that many Australians struggle to afford the medicines they need and that cost barriers to access have increased compared with the previous year.</p><p>Women, younger people and those in poorer health are particularly affected. The data show that 9.4% of women compared with 5.5% of men reported cost-related non-adherence to medications (medication-CRNA) (ie, delaying or not filling scripts due to cost) prescribed by their general practitioner in the previous 12 months.<span><sup>2</sup></span> The proportion increases for younger women to 14.7% for 15–24-year-olds and to 13% for 25–34-year-olds (Box 1). However, considering that 8.4% of women (and as high as 11.3% for women aged 25–34 years) at least once delayed seeing or did not see a general practitioner,<span><sup>2</sup></span> and 12.2% (and as high as 20.3% for 25–34-year-olds) at least once delayed or did not see a specialist due to cost,<span><sup>3</sup></span> the proportion of women directly or indirectly affected by medication-CRNA would be even higher.</p><p>Younger Australians are more likely to experience cost barriers to care than older Australians. A 25–34-year-old is 2.7 times more likely to experience medication-CRNA than a 75–84-year-old, 3.1 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a general practitioner due to cost,<span><sup>2</sup></span> and 3.8 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a specialist due to cost.<span><sup>3</sup></span> For women, the discrepancy is much more pronounced, with 25–34-year-olds 3.5 times more likely to experience medication-CRNA than 75–84-year-olds, 3.8 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a general practitioner, and 4.8 times more likely to delay visiting or not visit a specialist due to cost.</p><p>Health status also plays an important part, with 15% of individuals in fair or poor health experiencing medication-CRNA (2.3 times higher than those in good health) and 11.8% delay visiting or not visit a general practitioner due to cost (1.8 times higher).<span><sup>4</sup></span> For specialist visits the discrepancy was not as stark.<span><sup>5</sup></span> The most socio-economically disadvantaged people were also almost twice as likely to delay or not seek treatment than the most advantaged (Box 2).<span><sup>4</sup></span></p><p>The <i>de facto</i> rate of medication-CRNA is necessarily higher than what is reported in the ABS's survey. Their data are collected in the context of general practice visits only, so they would not include medicines prescribed by specialists. This is a significant lacuna since 42.2% of those surveyed needed to see a specialist,<span><sup>6</sup></span> and it is reasonable to assume many of these patients would be prescribed some medication. The Australians that miss out on seeing a general practitioner or specialist du","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"221 8","pages":"414-416"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52427","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142126131","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Helena J Teede, Aya Mousa, Chau T Tay, Michael F Costello, Leah Brennan, Robert J Norman, Alexia S Pena, Jacqueline A Boyle, Anju Joham, Lorna Berry, Lisa Moran