Oral etoposide as a single agent in childhood and young adult cancer in England: Still a poorly evaluated palliative treatment.

BACKGROUND: Oral etoposide is commonly used in palliative treatment of childhood and young adult cancer without robust evidence. We describe a national, unselected cohort of young people in England treated with oral etoposide using routinely collected, population-level data. METHODS: Patients aged under 25 years at cancer diagnosis (1995-2017) with a treatment record of single-agent oral etoposide in the Systemic AntiCancer Dataset (SACT, 2012-2018) were identified, linked to national cancer registry data using NHS number and followed to 5 January 2019. Overall survival (OS) was estimated for all tumours combined and by tumour group. A Cox model was applied accounting for age, sex, tumour type, prior and subsequent chemotherapy. RESULTS: Total 115 patients were identified during the study period. Mean age was 11.8 years at cancer diagnosis and 15.5 years at treatment with oral etoposide. Median OS was 5.5 months from the start of etoposide; 13 patients survived beyond 2 years. Survival was shortest in patients with osteosarcoma (median survival 3.6 months) and longest in CNS embryonal tumours (15.5 months). Across the cohort, a median of one cycle (range one to nine) of etoposide was delivered. OS correlated significantly with tumour type and prior chemotherapy, but not with other variables. CONCLUSIONS: This report is the largest series to date of oral etoposide use in childhood and young adult cancer. Most patients treated in this real world setting died quickly. Despite decades of use, there are still no robust data demonstrating a clear benefit of oral etoposide for survival.

Establishing population-based surveillance of diagnostic timeliness using linked cancer registry and administrative data for patients with colorectal and lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic timeliness in cancer patients is important for clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction but, to-date, continuous monitoring of diagnostic intervals in nationwide incident cohorts has been impossible in England. METHODS: We developed a new methodology for measuring the secondary care diagnostic interval (SCDI - first relevant secondary care contact to diagnosis) using linked cancer registration and healthcare utilisation data. Using this method, we subsequently examined diagnostic timeliness in colorectal and lung cancer patients (2014-15) by socio-demographic characteristics, diagnostic route and stage at diagnosis. RESULTS: The approach assigned SCDIs to 94.4% of all incident colorectal cancer cases [median length (90th centile) of 25 (104) days] and 95.3% of lung cancer cases [36 (144) days]. Advanced stage patients had shorter intervals (median, colorectal: stage 1 vs 4 - 34 vs 19 days; lung stage 1&2 vs 3B&4 - 70 vs 27 days). Routinely referred patients had the longest (colorectal: 61, lung: 69 days) and emergency presenters the shortest intervals (colorectal: 3, lung: 14 days). Comorbidities and additional diagnostic tests were also associated with longer intervals. CONCLUSION: This new method can enable repeatable nationwide measurement of cancer diagnostic timeliness in England and identifies actionable variation to inform early diagnosis interventions and target future research.