Survey finds more Australian cancer sufferers could benefit from chemotherapy

[spookyturtle 9,465]

JUST one in five Australians diagnosed with cancer go on to receive chemotherapy even though half of all sufferers are likely to benefit from it.

A national survey of oncology services has identified a major gap between those patients who were receiving the potentially life-saving therapy and the total number of cancer sufferers it could help.

Associate Professor Bogda Koczwara, from the Medical Oncology Group of Australia, conducted the survey which found just 19 per cent of all those diagnosed with cancer were receiving chemotherapy.

"Of all the cancer diagnosed in Australia, roughly half would derive a benefit from chemotherapy," Dr Koczwara said.

"What we've seen in our survey is less than half of those patients receive chemotherapy, so rather than one in two patients we're seeing about one in five patients."

Dr Koczwara said a scarcity of services plus a shortage of oncologists, and problems surrounding access and awareness, had culminated in Australia having a chemotherapy utilisation rate that was clearly "too low".

Some patients were known to forgo treatment because it was too hard to get to a medical oncologist, she said, such as rural patients who faced a long and regular drives to a population centre.

Some eligible patients were not referred to oncology services because either they, or their doctor, wrongly believed chemotherapy "didn't have much to offer" them.

"I don't think cost is a factor ... it may be a factor of access or awareness, or both," Dr Koczwara said.

"It means there are patients in Australia today who could benefit from cancer treatment and they're not getting it."

Her workforce survey took in 80 per cent of oncologists in Australia, and their reports of patients under treatment were compared to the number of people recorded on the national cancer register.

The survey also points to a current shortage of up to 157 full-time oncologists as services struggle to cope with demand, and Dr Koczwara said this shortfall could worsen in the future.

Her research comes after the federal government last week announced an additional $632 million in funding, over 10 years, to recruit medical trainees, including 680 medical specialists.

http://www.news.com.au/national/survey-finds-more-australian-cancer-sufferers-could-benefit-from-chemotherapy/story-e6frfkvr-1225844292261

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Isn't this strange, considering the superior health care?

[Ali G. 37]

Do you even read before you post something? Or do you actually believe an article or two somehow disproves me but proves you right?

A shortage of specialist is not something isolated to Australia. Anyone actually clued up and knowledgeable beyond 'America ** yeah' would know that. Though I am not surprised, since you have your head so far up your azz, it's not even funny anymore.

Might as well post and article about Australia being hit by global warming.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Ali G.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Do you even read before you post something? Or do you actually believe an article or two somehow disproves me but proves you right?

A shortage of specialist is not something isolated to Australia. Anyone actually clued up and knowledgeable beyond 'America ** yeah' would know that.

My as well post and article about Australia being hit by global warming.

Of course I read it. I am questioning why they are so far below average on treatment since they have the best health care in the world. Take off your rose colored glasses and read it again.

[Ali G. 37]

Of course I read it. I am questioning why they are so far below average on treatment since they have the best health care in the world. Take off your rose colored glasses and read it again.

Dude your responses are getting old and boring. I can pretty much cut an paste the same response from you in every single thread.

Your not interested in a discussion and never have been. It's no wonder I initially confused you for Eric. Furthermore, you have a knack for twisting what I say to mean what you want it to mean. For example, I could say 'Australia has a lower crime rate than the US'. Yet in your mind, I just said: 'Australia has no crime period'.

Thankfully the ignore feature in this new format works quite well.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Dude your responses are getting old and boring. I can pretty much cut an paste the same response from you in every single thread.

Your not interested in a discussion and never have been. It's no wonder I initially confused you for Eric. Furthermore, you have a knack for twisting what I say to mean what you want it to mean. For example, I could say 'Australia has a lower crime rate than the US'. Yet in your mind, I just said: 'Australia has no crime period'.

Thankfully the ignore feature in this new format works quite well.

Then why not use the ignore feature. You ignore the facts, you ignore it when you get owned in a discussion, you ignore everything that doesn't suit your needs, so ignore me. You read the same article I did, and you see it as a positive?