Does the cost of cancer care for people in prison differ from those in the general population? Analysis of matched English cancer registry and hospital records.

Background: People in prison experience poorer mental and physical health compared to their peers in the general population. The causes are multi-dimensional ranging from lifestyle factors to poorer access to healthcare. Little is known about cancer in people in prison or how the cost of their care compares to the general population. Methods: Data on people diagnosed with cancer while in English prisons were identified in National Cancer Registration dataset and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) for the years 2012-2017. General population matched patients were identified using a 1-5 ratio, based on age, gender, year of diagnosis, cancer type and disease stage. Outpatient and inpatient HES data up to six-months from diagnosis were costed using NHS Reference costs and inflated to 2017/2018 costs. Findings: 879 prison and 4326 general population cancer diagnoses were identified in HES. The adjusted six-month cost of cancer care was significantly lower for people in prison (-£1216.95% confidence interval (CI) -1638 to -795), driven by fewer outpatient attendances. However, people diagnosed in prison had higher emergency care costs (£497.95% CI 375-619). Security escorts further increased the total cost of care. Interpretation: Following a cancer diagnosis, people in English prisons have significantly lower planned care costs, but higher emergency care costs and an overall higher cost due to security escorts. Further work is required to identify ways of improving cancer care for people in prisons to ensure it is equivalent to that received by the general population. Funding: National Institute for Health and Social Care Research 16/52/53.

Cancer in prison: barriers and enablers to diagnosis and treatment.

Background: Approximately 82,000 people are in prison annually in England and Wales. Limited research has investigated cancer in this population and none has explored experiences of imprisoned people with cancer. This study aimed to address this gap. Methods: We conducted 55 semi-structured, qualitative, audio-recorded interviews with: imprisoned people with cancer (n = 24), custodial staff (n = 6), prison healthcare staff (n = 16) and oncology specialists (n = 9). Data were collected 07/10/2019-20/03/2020. Patients were recruited by prison healthcare staff and interviews were conducted face-to-face. Professionals were recruited via professional networks and interviews were conducted face-to-face or via telephone. Transcribed interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. We also analysed relevant National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (NCPES) questions for those diagnosed in prison (n = 78) and in the general population (n = 390). Findings: Our findings highlight the complexities of cancer care for imprisoned people. We identified three core themes: control and choice, communication, and care and custody. Whilst people in prison follow a similar diagnostic pathway to those in the community, additional barriers to diagnosis exist including health literacy, the General Practitioner appointment booking system and communication between prison and oncology staff. Tensions between control and choice in prison impacted aspects of cancer care experience such as symptom management and accessing cancer information. NCPES results supported the qualitative findings and showed people in prison reported significantly poorer experiences than in the general population. Interpretation: Our findings demonstrate the complexity of cancer care in custodial settings, identifying barriers and enablers to equitable cancer care provision and offering insights on how to improve care for this population. Funding: National Institute for Health and Social Care Research Delivery Research Programme 16/52/53 and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 Research England via University of Surrey.

Cancer incidence, treatment, and survival in the prison population compared with the general population in England: a population-based, matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The growing and ageing prison population in England makes accurate cancer data of increasing importance for prison health policies. This study aimed to compare cancer incidence, treatment, and survival between patients diagnosed in prison and the general population. METHODS: In this population-based, matched cohort study, we used cancer registration data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to identify primary invasive cancers and cervical cancers in situ diagnosed in adults (aged ≥18 years) in the prison and general populations between Jan 1, 1998, and Dec 31, 2017. Ministry of Justice and Office for National Statistics population data for England were used to calculate age-standardised incidence rates (ASIR) per year and age-standardised incidence rate ratios (ASIRR) for the 20-year period. Patients diagnosed with primary invasive cancers (ie, excluding cervical cancers in situ) in prison between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017 were matched to individuals from the general population and linked to hospital and treatment datasets. Matching was done in a 1:5 ratio according to 5-year age group, gender, diagnosis year, cancer site, and disease stage. Our primary objectives were to compare the incidence of cancer (1998-2017); the receipt of treatment with curative intent (2012-17 matched cohort), using logistic regression adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis; and overall survival following cancer diagnosis (2012-17 matched cohort), using a Cox proportional hazards model adjusted for matching variables (excluding cancer site) and route to diagnosis, with stratification for the receipt of any treatment with curative intent. FINDINGS: We identified 2015 incident cancers among 1964 adults (1556 [77·2%] men and 459 [22·8%] women) in English prisons in the 20-year period up to Dec 31, 2017. The ASIR for cancer for men in prison was initially lower than for men in the general population (in 1998, ASIR 119·33 per 100 000 person-years [95% CI 48·59-219·16] vs 746·97 per 100 000 person-years [742·31-751·66]), but increased to a similar level towards the end of the study period (in 2017, 856·85 per 100 000 person-years [675·12-1060·44] vs 788·59 per 100 000 person-years [784·62-792·57]). For women, the invasive cancer incidence rate was low and so ASIR was not reported for this group. Over the 20-year period, the incidence of invasive cancer for men in prison increased (incidence rate ratio per year, 1·05 [95% CI 1·04-1·06], during 1999-2017 compared with 1998). ASIRRs showed that over the 20-year period, overall cancer incidence was lower in men in prison than in men in the general population (ASIRR 0·76 [95% CI 0·73-0·80]). The difference was not statistically significant for women (ASIRR 0·83 [0·68-1·00]). Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, patients diagnosed in prison were less likely to undergo curative treatment than matched patients in the general population (274 [32·3%] of 847 patients vs 1728 [41·5%] of 4165; adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·85]). Being diagnosed in prison was associated with a significantly increased risk of death on adjustment for matching variables (347 deaths during 2021·9 person-years in the prison cohort vs 1626 deaths during 10 944·2 person-years in the general population; adjusted HR 1·16 [95% CI 1·03-1·30]); this association was partly explained by stratification by curative treatment and further adjustment for diagnosis route (adjusted HR 1·05 [0·93-1·18]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer incidence increased in people in prisons in England between 1998 and 2017, with patients in prison less likely to receive curative treatments and having lower overall survival than the general population. The association with survival was partly explained by accounting for differences in receipt of curative treatment and adjustment for diagnosis route. Improved routine cancer surveillance is needed to inform prison cancer policies and decrease inequalities for this under-researched population. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, King's College London, and Strategic Priorities Fund 2019/20 of Research England via the University of Surrey.

Risks of second primary cancers among 584,965 female and male breast cancer survivors in England: a 25-year retrospective cohort study.

Background: Second primary cancers (SPCs) after breast cancer (BC) present an increasing public health burden, with little existing research on socio-demographic, tumour, and treatment effects. We addressed this in the largest BC survivor cohort to date, using a novel linkage of National Disease Registration Service datasets. Methods: The cohort included 581,403 female and 3562 male BC survivors diagnosed between 1995 and 2019. We estimated standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for combined and site-specific SPCs using incidences for England, overall and by age at BC and socioeconomic status. We estimated incidences and Kaplan-Meier cumulative risks stratified by age at BC, and assessed risk variation by socio-demographic, tumour, and treatment characteristics using Cox regression. Findings: Both genders were at elevated contralateral breast (SIR: 2.02 (95% CI: 1.99-2.06) females; 55.4 (35.5-82.4) males) and non-breast (1.10 (1.09-1.11) females, 1.10 (1.00-1.20) males) SPC risks. Non-breast SPC risks were higher for females younger at BC diagnosis (SIR: 1.34 (1.31-1.38) <50 y, 1.07 (1.06-1.09) ≥50 y) and more socioeconomically deprived (SIR: 1.00 (0.98-1.02) least deprived quintile, 1.34 (1.30-1.37) most). Interpretation: Enhanced SPC surveillance may benefit BC survivors, although specific recommendations require more detailed multifactorial risk and cost-benefit analyses. The associations between deprivation and SPC risks could provide clinical management insights. Funding: CRUK Catalyst Award CanGene-CanVar (C61296/A27223). Cancer Research UK grant: PPRPGM-Nov 20∖100,002. This work was supported by core funding from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312)]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Developments in predictive biomarker testing and targeted therapy in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer and their application across European countries.

In the past two decades, the treatment of metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), has undergone significant changes due to the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapy. These advancements have led to the need for predictive molecular tests to identify patients eligible for targeted therapy. This review provides an overview of the development and current application of targeted therapies and predictive biomarker testing in European patients with advanced stage NSCLC. Using data from eleven European countries, we conclude that recommendations for predictive testing are incorporated in national guidelines across Europe, although there are differences in their comprehensiveness. Moreover, the availability of recently EMA-approved targeted therapies varies between European countries. Unfortunately, routine assessment of national/regional molecular testing rates is limited. As a result, it remains uncertain which proportion of patients with metastatic NSCLC in Europe receive adequate predictive biomarker testing. Lastly, Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs) for discussion of molecular test results are widely implemented, but national guidelines for their composition and functioning are lacking. The establishment of MTB guidelines can provide a framework for interpreting rare or complex mutations, facilitating appropriate treatment decision-making, and ensuring quality control.

Identification of people with Lynch syndrome from those presenting with colorectal cancer in England: baseline analysis of the diagnostic pathway.

It is believed that >95% of people with Lynch syndrome (LS) remain undiagnosed. Within the National Health Service (NHS) in England, formal guidelines issued in 2017 state that all colorectal cancers (CRC) should be tested for DNA Mismatch Repair deficiency (dMMR). We used a comprehensive population-level national dataset to analyse implementation of the agreed diagnostic pathway at a baseline point 2 years post-publication of official guidelines. Using real-world data collected and curated by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), we retrospectively followed up all people diagnosed with CRC in England in 2019. Nationwide laboratory diagnostic data incorporated somatic (tumour) testing for dMMR (via immunohistochemistry or microsatellite instability), somatic testing for MLH1 promoter methylation and BRAF status, and constitutional (germline) testing of MMR genes. Only 44% of CRCs were screened for dMMR; these figures varied over four-fold with respect to geography. Of those CRCs identified as dMMR, only 51% underwent subsequent diagnostic testing. Overall, only 1.3% of patients with colorectal cancer had a germline MMR genetic test performed; up to 37% of these tests occurred outside of NICE guidelines. The low rates of molecular diagnostic testing in CRC support the premise that Lynch syndrome is underdiagnosed, with significant attrition at all stages of the testing pathway. Applying our methodology to subsequent years' data will allow ongoing monitoring and analysis of the impact of recent investment. If the diagnostic guidelines were fully implemented, we estimate that up to 700 additional people with LS could be identified each year.

Sebaceous carcinoma epidemiology, associated malignancies and Lynch/Muir-Torre syndrome screening in England from 2008 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: Sebaceous carcinomas (SC) may be associated with the cancer predisposition syndrome Muir-Torre/Lynch syndrome (MTS/LS), identifiable by SC mismatch repair (MMR) screening; however, there is limited data on MMR status of SC. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of SC, copresentation of other cancers, and population level frequency of MMR screening in SC. METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort study of SC patients in the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England. RESULTS: This study included 1077 SC cases (739 extraocular, 338 periocular). Age-standardized incidence rates (ASIR) were higher in men compared with women, 2.74 (95% CI, 2.52-9.69) per 1,000,000 person-years for men versus 1.47 person-years (95% CI, 1.4-1.62) for women. Of the patients, 19% (210/1077) developed at least one MTS/LS-associated malignancy. MMR immunohistochemical screening was performed in only 20% (220/1077) of SC tumors; of these, 32% (70/219) of tumors were MMR deficient. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of MMR screening into clinical practice guidelines for the management of SC will increase the opportunity for MTS/LS diagnoses, with implications for cancer surveillance, chemoprevention with aspirin, and immunotherapy treatment targeted to MTS/LS cancers.

Lung adenocarcinoma promotion by air pollutants.

A complete understanding of how exposure to environmental substances promotes cancer formation is lacking. More than 70 years ago, tumorigenesis was proposed to occur in a two-step process: an initiating step that induces mutations in healthy cells, followed by a promoter step that triggers cancer development1. Here we propose that environmental particulate matter measuring ≤2.5 µm (PM2.5), known to be associated with lung cancer risk, promotes lung cancer by acting on cells that harbour pre-existing oncogenic mutations in healthy lung tissue. Focusing on EGFR-driven lung cancer, which is more common in never-smokers or light smokers, we found a significant association between PM2.5 levels and the incidence of lung cancer for 32,957 EGFR-driven lung cancer cases in four within-country cohorts. Functional mouse models revealed that air pollutants cause an influx of macrophages into the lung and release of interleukin-1ß. This process results in a progenitor-like cell state within EGFR mutant lung alveolar type II epithelial cells that fuels tumorigenesis. Ultradeep mutational profiling of histologically normal lung tissue from 295 individuals across 3 clinical cohorts revealed oncogenic EGFR and KRAS driver mutations in 18% and 53% of healthy tissue samples, respectively. These findings collectively support a tumour-promoting role for  PM2.5 air pollutants  and provide impetus for public health policy initiatives to address air pollution to reduce disease burden.

Germline mismatch repair (MMR) gene analyses from English NHS regional molecular genomics laboratories 1996-2020: development of a national resource of patient-level genomics laboratory records.

OBJECTIVE: To describe national patterns of National Health Service (NHS) analysis of mismatch repair (MMR) genes in England using individual-level data submitted to the National Disease Registration Service (NDRS) by the NHS regional molecular genetics laboratories. DESIGN: Laboratories submitted individual-level patient data to NDRS against a prescribed data model, including (1) patient identifiers, (2) test episode data, (3) per-gene results and (4) detected sequence variants. Individualised per-laboratory algorithms were designed and applied in NDRS to extract and map the data to the common data model. Laboratory-level MMR activity audit data from the Clinical Molecular Genetics Society/Association of Clinical Genomic Science were used to assess early years' missing data. RESULTS: Individual-level data from patients undergoing NHS MMR germline genetic testing were submitted from all 13 English laboratories performing MMR analyses, comprising in total 16 722 patients (9649 full-gene, 7073 targeted), with the earliest submission from 2000. The NDRS dataset is estimated to comprise >60% of NHS MMR analyses performed since inception of NHS MMR analysis, with complete national data for full-gene analyses for 2016 onwards. Out of 9649 full-gene tests, 2724 had an abnormal result, approximately 70% of which were (likely) pathogenic. Data linkage to the National Cancer Registry demonstrated colorectal cancer was the most frequent cancer type in which full-gene analysis was performed. CONCLUSION: The NDRS MMR dataset is a unique national pan-laboratory amalgamation of individual-level clinical and genomic patient data with pseudonymised identifiers enabling linkage to other national datasets. This growing resource will enable longitudinal research and can form the basis of a live national genomic disease registry.

Clinical nurse specialists and survival in patients with cancer: the UK National Cancer Experience Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether having a better care experience with a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) is associated with better overall survival of patients with cancer in England. METHODS: We identified 99 371 patients with colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer who reported their care experience with CNS from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (2010-2014) and English cancer registration linked dataset. We categorised patients' experiences into three groups (excellent, non-excellent and no CNS name was given), across three aspects of CNS care: the ease of contacting their CNS, feeling that a CNS had listened to them and the degree to which explanations given by a CNS were understandable. We used univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses to estimate HRs with 95% CIs by patient experience for each cancer adjusting for patients' sociodemographic and disease stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: Among the three compared groups, patients who reported not being given a CNS name had the lowest survival. In the adjusted Cox regression analysis, the results show that among those who reported not being given a CNS name, the highest risk of death was in those with colorectal, breast and prostate cancers only (colorectal HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.32 to 1.84; breast HR: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.44; prostate HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.13). However, this association seemed reversed among patients with lung cancer, although attenuated when accounting for potential confounders. CONCLUSION: These findings provide new evidence of the vital contribution CNS may make to cancer survival and suggest CNS input and support should be available to all patients after the diagnosis.

Being assigned a clinical nurse specialist is associated with better experiences of cancer care: English population-based study using the linked National Cancer Patient Experience Survey and Cancer Registration Dataset.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine whether being given the name of a clinical nurse specialist (CNS) is associated with better cancer patients' experiences across different points along their cancer care pathway. METHODS: We identified 100,885 colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer patients who responded to the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey between 2010 and 2014. We compared experiences of four key aspects of cancer care among patients who reported being given a CNS name with those who did not, adjusting for age, sex, socio-economic deprivation, ethnicity, route to diagnosis and disease stage. RESULTS: Across all cancers, patients who reported being given the name of a CNS reported better experiences with involvement in treatment decisions, care coordination, treatment with more respect and dignity, and overall care experience. Experience of being involved in treatment decisions was the aspect of care most strongly associated with being given a CNS name (colorectal: OR 2.69, 95% CI: 2.45-2.96; lung: OR 2.41, 95% CI: 2.07-2.78; breast: OR 2.68, 95% CI: 2.47-2.92; and prostate: OR 2.11, 95% CI: 1.92-2.32). CONCLUSION: These findings may provide new evidence of the vital contribution CNS make to cancer care and suggest their input and support should be available to all patients after the diagnosis.

How representative are colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer patients responding to the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) of the cancer registry population in England? A population-based case control study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the representativeness of National Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) responders compared with the English cancer registry population in term of age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, disease stage and median survival. DESIGN: Population-based case-control study. SETTING: England. POPULATION: We identified 103 186 colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer patients responding to at least one survey during 2010-2014 and randomly selected one non-responder from the cancer registry matched on cancer type and yearly quarter of diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We compared age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity and disease stage between the two groups using logistic regression. We also compared survival (in years) using the Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Across all cancer types survey responders were younger, more likely to have a White ethnic background, to be resident in less deprived areas and diagnosed with earlier stage disease although they varied between cancers. Median survival for responders was also higher than for the cancer registry population (colorectal: 4.8 vs 3.2; lung: 2.0 vs 0.3; breast: 5.7 vs 5.4; and prostate: 5.7 vs 5.2 years; all p-values<0.001). CONCLUSION: CPES responders with the four most common cancers do not necessarily represent all patients with these cancers in terms of demographic characteristics and tumour stage at diagnosis. These limitations should be considered when interpreting findings. To capture the experiences of patients currently underrepresented in CPES, different approaches may need to be taken.

Variation in geographical treatment intensity affects survival of non-small cell lung cancer patients in England.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the geographical variation in the proportion of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients undergoing curative treatment and assess the relationship between treatment access rates and survival outcomes. METHODS: We extracted cancer registration data on 144,357 lung cancer (excluding small cell tumours) patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2013. Surgical and radiotherapy treatment intensity quintiles were based on patients' Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) of residence. We used logistic regression to assess the effect of travel time and case-mix on treatment use and Cox regression to analyse survival in relation to treatment intensity. RESULTS: There was wide variation in the use of curative treatment across CCGs, with the proportion undergoing surgery ranging from 8.9% to 20.2%, and 0.4% to 16.4% for radical radiotherapy. The odds of undergoing surgery decreased with socioeconomic deprivation (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97), whereas the opposite was observed for radiotherapy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.25). There was an overall effect of travel time to thoracic surgery centre on the odds of undergoing surgery (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.87 for travel time >55 min vs ≤15 min) which was amplified by the effect of deprivation. No clear association was observed for radiotherapy. Higher mortality rates were observed for the lower resection and radiotherapy quintiles (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.12 and HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10 for lowest vs. highest resection and radiotherapy quintile). CONCLUSION: There was wide geographical variation in the use of curative treatment and a higher frequency of treatment was associated with better survival.

Lung cancer stage-shift following a symptom awareness campaign.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer outcomes in the UK are worse than in many other developed nations. Symptom awareness campaigns aim to diagnose patients at an earlier stage to improve cancer outcomes. METHODS: An early diagnosis campaign for lung cancer commenced in Leeds, UK in 2011 comprising public and primary-care facing components. Rates of community referral for chest X-ray and lung cancer stage (TNM seventh edition) at presentation were collected from 2008 to 2015. Linear trends were assessed by χ2 test for trend in proportions. Headline figures are presented for the 3 years pre-campaign (2008-2010) and the three most recent years for which data are available during the campaign (2013-2015). FINDINGS: Community-ordered chest X-ray rates per year increased from 18 909 in 2008-2010 to 34 194 in 2013-2015 (80.8% increase). A significant stage shift towards earlier stage lung cancer was seen (χ2(1)=32.2, p<0.0001). There was an 8.8 percentage point increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with stage I/II lung cancer (26.5% pre-campaign vs 35.3% during campaign) and a 9.3% reduction in the absolute number of patients diagnosed with stage III/IV disease (1254 pre-campaign vs 1137 during campaign). INTERPRETATION: This is the largest described lung cancer stage-shift in association with a symptom awareness campaign. A causal link between the campaign and stage-shift cannot be proven but appears plausible. Limitations of the analysis include a lack of contemporary control population.

Investigation of the international comparability of population-based routine hospital data set derived comorbidity scores for patients with lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) identified significant international differences in lung cancer survival. Differing levels of comorbid disease across ICBP countries has been suggested as a potential explanation of this variation but, to date, no studies have quantified its impact. This study investigated whether comparable, robust comorbidity scores can be derived from the different routine population-based cancer data sets available in the ICBP jurisdictions and, if so, use them to quantify international variation in comorbidity and determine its influence on outcome. METHODS: Linked population-based lung cancer registry and hospital discharge data sets were acquired from nine ICBP jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Norway and the UK providing a study population of 233 981 individuals. For each person in this cohort Charlson, Elixhauser and inpatient bed day Comorbidity Scores were derived relating to the 4-36 months prior to their lung cancer diagnosis. The scores were then compared to assess their validity and feasibility of use in international survival comparisons. RESULTS: It was feasible to generate the three comorbidity scores for each jurisdiction, which were found to have good content, face and concurrent validity. Predictive validity was limited and there was evidence that the reliability was questionable. CONCLUSION: The results presented here indicate that interjurisdictional comparability of recorded comorbidity was limited due to probable differences in coding and hospital admission practices in each area. Before the contribution of comorbidity on international differences in cancer survival can be investigated an internationally harmonised comorbidity index is required.

Short-term breast cancer survival in relation to ethnicity, stage, grade and receptor status: national cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: In the re-organisation of cancer registration in England in 2012, a high priority was given to the recording of cancer stage and other prognostic clinical data items. METHODS: We extracted 86 852 breast cancer records for women resident in England and diagnosed during 2012-2013. Information on age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, comorbidity, tumour stage, grade, morphology and oestrogen, progesterone and HER2 receptor status was included. The two-year cumulative risk of death from any cause was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The follow-up ended on 31 December 2014. RESULTS: The completeness of registration for prognostic variables was generally high (around 80% or higher), but it was low for progesterone receptor status (41%). Women with negative receptor status for each of the oestrogen, progesterone and HER2 receptors (triple-negative cancers) had an adjusted HR for death of 2.00 (95%CI 1.84-2.17). Black women had an age-adjusted HR of 1.77 (1.48-2.13) compared with White women. CONCLUSIONS: The excess mortality of Black women with breast cancer has contributions from socio-economic factors, stage distribution and tumour biology. The study illustrates the richness of detail in the national cancer registration data. This allows for analysis of cancer outcomes at a high level of resolution, and may form the basis for risk stratification.

High lung cancer surgical procedure volume is associated with shorter length of stay and lower risks of re-admission and death: National cohort analysis in England.

It is debated whether treating cancer patients in high-volume surgical centres can lead to improvement in outcomes, such as shorter length of hospital stay, decreased frequency and severity of post-operative complications, decreased re-admission, and decreased mortality. The dataset for this analysis was based on cancer registration and hospital discharge data and comprised information on 15,738 non-small-cell lung cancer patients resident and diagnosed in England in 2006-2010 and treated by surgical resection. The number of lung cancer resections was computed for each hospital in each calendar year, and patients were assigned to a hospital volume quintile on the basis of the volume of their hospital. Hospitals with large lung cancer surgical resection volumes were less restrictive in their selection of patients for surgical management and provided a higher resection rate to their geographical population. Higher volume hospitals had shorter length of stay and the odds of re-admission were 15% lower in the highest hospital volume quintile compared with the lowest quintile. Mortality risks were 1% after 30 d and 3% after 90 d. Patients from hospitals in the highest volume quintile had about half the odds of death within 30 d than patients from the lowest quintile. Variations in outcomes were generally small, but in the same direction, with consistently better outcomes in the larger hospitals. This gives support to the ongoing trend towards centralisation of clinical services, but service re-organisation needs to take account of not only the size of hospitals but also referral routes and patient access.

Predicting death from surgery for lung cancer: A comparison of two scoring systems in two European countries.

OBJECTIVES: Current British guidelines advocate the use of risk prediction scores such as Thoracoscore to estimate mortality prior to radical surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A recent publication used the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) to produce a score to predict 90 day mortality (NLCA score). The aim of this study is to validate the NLCA score, and compare its performance with Thoracoscore. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed an internal validation using 2858 surgical patients from NLCA and an external validation using 3191 surgical patients from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). We calculated the proportion that died within 90 days of surgery. The discriminatory power of both scores was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and an area under the curve (AUC) calculation. RESULTS: Ninety day mortality was 5% in both groups. AUC values for internal and external validation of NLCA score and validation of Thoracoscore were 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.72), 0.60 (95% CI 0.56-0.65) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54-0.66) respectively. Post-hoc analysis was performed using NLCA records on 15554 surgical patients to derive summary tables for 30 and 90 day mortality, stratified by procedure type, age and performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Neither score performs well enough to be advocated for individual risk stratification prior to lung cancer surgery. It may be that additional physiological parameters are required; however this is a further project. In the interim we propose the use of our summary tables that provide the real-life range of mortality for lobectomy and pneumonectomy.

Progression of breast cancer following locoregional ipsilateral recurrence: importance of interval time.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing prognosis of breast cancer (BC) patients with and without locoregional recurrence (LR) present conflicting results. We aimed to improve our understanding of the impact of LR on prognosis by examining a large cohort of patients treated at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust. METHODS: Risk factors associated with BC-specific death were investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression in 5199 women diagnosed between 1975 and 2007. Breast cancer-specific death following LR was assessed with Poisson regression. RESULTS: Overall, 552 women (11%) developed LR, with a median follow-up time of 4.28 years. Known factors associated with BC-specific death (tumour stage, grade, and nodal status) were of significance in our data. Women with a shorter disease-free interval had a worse prognosis. For instance, the HR for BC-specific death among women undergoing mastectomy with an LR 0.5-1 year after diagnosis of their primary tumour was 6.67 (95% CI: 3.71-11.99), when compared with women who did not experience LR. CONCLUSIONS: It often remains difficult to distinguish between a genuine LR and a new primary. The HRs for risk of BC-specific death following a second lesion suggest that they may act as a marker of systemic disease, large tumour burden, or depleted host defence. The clinically highly relevant impairment in prognosis calls for further research into the underlying mechanisms. We showed that for at least 15 years of follow-up, the prognosis in women following the occurrence of an LR may benefit from careful diagnostic and therapeutic management.