Adolescent oncology services: catching up with the kids
D. Thomson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01109.x
2006-07-01
Abstract:In the May issue of the Journal, there is a review by Thomas et al. of the special needs of adolescents and young adults (AYA) with cancer. The special needs include cancer-specific expertise and the need for a minimum caseload in uncommon cancers, outcomes, psychosocial support, communication, education and research. The article states that outcomes in AYA patients lag behind the advances in both childhood and adult cancer. It then proceeds to discuss the possible causes for this. Included are the possibilities of adult oncologists’ therapeutic nihilism, a small number of concentrated paediatric services versus a more dispersed adult service, leading to a reduction in expertise, minimum caseloads and multidisciplinary approach to cancer and the poor relative of adult services in the availability of psychosocial support services, especially needed in the management of the difficult adolescent. Althoughwholeheartedly endorsing this group’s special needs, one must not forget that for the general public, the diagnosis of cancer engenders a fear thatmarkedly exceeds any other diagnosis. Indeed, to many adults, such a personal or family diagnosis is like a large black hole opening up in front of them. All adult hospitals fall short of the NationalHealth andMedical ResearchCouncil ofAustralia guidelines for the psychosocial care of adults with cancer largely because of limited funding. There are several reasons why AYA patients present at adult hospitals, and these include the following:where the expert surgical services referral base are, the local medical and radiation oncology expertise in managing such cases, and often the ‘I am not a kid’ type of reply by a 13 year old in an adult hospital to an invitation to be managed by a paediatric oncology unit. Half of these AYA cases are adults presenting with paediatric-type malignancies, but the other half have adult-type tumours such as malignant melanoma, germcell tumours, epithelial cancerand lymphomas as evidenced by the pie graph (Figure 1) in the article by Thomas et al. Apart from better support services and concentration of expertise in paediatric oncology services, are there other reasons why AYA do not do as well? It is certainly easier to treat children more intensively and for longer periods compared with adults. As adult physicians, we struggle to keep AYA patients on prolonged paediatric protocols to time without dose reduction and without life-threatening toxicity. The review does not mention that several paediatric staging and prognostic systems include age as amajor prognostic variable. Examples, with the best age group in parenthesis, include acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (2– 4 years), neuroblastoma (<1 year), Ewing’s group tumours (<14 years), rhabdomyosarcoma (1–9 years). However, in adults, primary breast cancer under the age of 35 years is automatically poor prognosis independent of other prognostic factors. This does suggest some difference of cancer biology with age. There is ample evidence that outcomes in adult cancer are directly associated with caseload volume and the same applies to paediatric cancer. The less common the cancer, the better it is treated in a smaller cohort of larger hospitals. Counteracting this is the tyranny of distance in Australia and the ability to deliver therapy close to home and social supports. I would suggest that AYA oncology services should remain and be further developed and adequately resourced in a few adult hospitals that see a considerable caseload and have the surgical referral base and expertise. Ideally, they should have a significant input from paediatric oncologists, accessibility to clinical trials and also have the additional resources of the type and quantity of support available to paediatric services. However, one could make just as good a case for all adult cancer services receiving the same kind of resources as paediatric units in the first place.