Using patient experiences to evaluate care and expectations in lung cancer: analysis of the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey linked with the national cancer registry.

PURPOSE: Identification of unmet needs in person centred and supportive care could be limited by differences in experience across specific cancer populations. Using the experiences of people with lung cancer, we assess distinctions according to demographic and clinical characteristics. METHODS: The English Cancer Patient Experience Survey was linked to the national cancer registry. The primary outcome was experience of the lung cancer pathway when assessed in multi-question models developed with item response theory. Secondary outcomes were experience by treatment received and in separate dimensions of the care pathway: up to diagnosis, treatment information, and staff support. RESULTS: Responses from 15,967 adults with a lung cancer diagnosis between 2009 and 2015 were included. Positive experiences were more likely to be reported by people aged between 65 and 80 (adjusted coefficient 0.08, 95%CI 0.05;0.11), those living in the most deprived areas (adjusted coefficient 0.10, 95%CI 0.05;0.14), diagnosed at lung cancer stage IIA-B (adjusted coefficient 0.09, 95%CI 0.04;0.14), and those diagnosed through inpatient elective admissions (adjusted coefficient 0.17, 95%CI 0.07;0.28). Specific experiences differed across dimensions of care and within lung cancer treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Experiences differed according to gender and ethnicity, supporting previous observations in cancer. In contrast to previous studies, people with lung cancer were more likely to report positive pathway experiences at older ages, living in more deprived areas, or diagnosed after stage I, all frequently associated with worse clinical outcomes. The distinct observations in lung cancer specific analyses suggest potential unmet needs, such as in early stage disease and younger age groups.

Biomarker Testing for People With Advanced Lung Cancer in England.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal management of people with advanced NSCLC depends on accurate identification of predictive markers. Yet, real-world data in this setting are limited. We describe the impact, timeliness, and outcomes of molecular testing for patients with advanced NSCLC and good performance status in England. METHODS: In collaboration with Public Health England, patients with stages IIIB to IV NSCLC, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, in England, between June 2017 and December 2017, were identified. All English hospitals were invited to record information. RESULTS: A total of 60 of 142 invited hospitals in England participated in this study and submitted data on 1157 patients. During the study period, 83% of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma underwent molecular testing for three recommended predictive biomarkers (EGFR, ALK, and programmed death-ligand 1). A total of 80% of patients with nonsquamous carcinomas on whom biomarker testing was performed had adequate tissue for analysis on initial sampling. First-line treatment with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor was received by 71% of patients with adenocarcinoma and a sensitizing EGFR mutation and by 59% of those with an ALK translocation. Of patients with no driver mutation and a programmed death-ligand 1 expression of greater than or equal to 50%, 47% received immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: We present a comprehensive data set for molecular testing in England. Although molecular testing is well established in England, timeliness and uptake of targeted therapies should be improved.

Age-related treatment patterns for stage I NSCLC in three European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the preferred treatment for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) while stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) may be applied in patients with major comorbidity or high age. We evaluated the association between age and treatment utilization for early-stage NSCLC in patients diagnosed in 2015-2016 in three European countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Information was retrieved from population-based registries in England, Norway and the Netherlands. Treatment patterns and two-year overall survival rates for 105,124 patients with clinical stage I were analysed by age-group. RESULTS: Surgical resection rates were higher in Norway (55%) and England (53%) than in the Netherlands (47%), and decreased with increasing age. SBRT use was highest in the Netherlands (41%), followed by Norway (29%) and England (12%). In the Netherlands, SBRT was the prevailing treatment in patients aged 70 years or older. In octogenarians, the proportion not receiving curative intent treatment was 53% in England, versus 35% in Norway and 22% in the Netherlands. Two-year survival rates were better for surgery than for SBRT and slightly better in Norway. CONCLUSION: In patients aged 70 years or older, the proportion not receiving any curative treatment remains substantial, and differs significantly between countries. Measures to address these disparities are needed.

Factors associated with survival in small cell lung cancer: an analysis of real-world national audit, chemotherapy and radiotherapy data.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) involves platinum doublet chemotherapy but the optimal duration, 4 vs. 6 cycles, is not known. Concurrent thoracic radiotherapy followed by prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) is recommended for fit individuals with limited stage. However, outside of clinical trials, the efficacy of sequential thoracic radiotherapy and PCI for extensive stage is uncertain. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, cohort study used English national lung cancer data to determine the factors associated with survival for all people diagnosed with SCLC. More precisely, for individuals who received chemotherapy, we examined survival by the chemotherapy duration, thoracic radiotherapy dose and the use of PCI. RESULTS: In total 6,438 people were diagnosed with SCLC. We identified that male sex (OR 0.7; 95% CI: 0.62-0.80), increasing age (P=0.01) greater comorbidity (P≤0.01), extensive stage (OR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.19-0.25) and worse performance status (PS2 vs. PS0 adjusted OR 0.38 95% CI: 0.31-0.48) were associated with reduced 1-year survival. Receipt of chemotherapy augmented survival. We analysed data for 1,761 people who had received chemotherapy. Thoracic radiotherapy (≥30 Gy for extensive stage and ≥40 Gy for limited stage) and PCI were independently associated with better survival (P≤0.01 for each), but 6 cycles of chemotherapy instead of 4 was not (limited stage adjusted OR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.48-1.97) extensive stage adjusted OR 1.34; 95% CI: 0.81-2.21). CONCLUSIONS: Extending chemotherapy beyond 4 cycles to 6 does not augment survival. Appropriately prescribed thoracic radiotherapy and PCI can prolong survival in both limited and extensive stage SCLC.

Do working practices of cancer nurse specialists improve clinical outcomes? Retrospective cohort analysis from the English National Lung Cancer Audit.

BACKGROUND: Cancer nurse specialists are advanced practitioners who offer continuity of care and expert support for people diagnosed with specific cancers. Health Education England's Cancer Workforce Plan prioritises expansion of cancer nurse specialist numbers by 2021 as part of the Cancer Taskforce Strategy for England. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether working practices of advanced practice specialist nurses are associated with clinical outcomes for people with lung cancer. METHODS: Adults with non-small cell lung cancer followed from 30 days post-diagnosis in English secondary care were obtained from the English National Lung Cancer Audit, 2007 to 2011. A national survey of lung cancer nurse specialists provided information on self-reported working practices. Mortality and unplanned admissions from 30 days to 12 months post diagnosis were respectively analysed using Cox and Poisson regression. Outcomes were assessed according to patients' receipt of initial assessments by a lung cancer nurse specialist and according to trust-level reported working practices. Regression models were adjusted for individual sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, error adjusted for intracorrelations within regional cancer networks, and presented separately according to patients' treatment pathways (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or no anti-cancer therapy). RESULTS: Data for 108,115 people with lung cancer were analysed and associations with mortality and unplanned admissions were infrequent. Among people receiving only radiotherapy, however, the hazard for death was 17% lower among those who received an assessment by a lung cancer nurse specialist, compared with no assessment (hazard ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.94; p = 0.003). The hazard was also lower among those receiving surgery (hazard ratio = 0.91, 0.84-0.99; p = 0.028). Among those receiving radiotherapy, nurse specialists' reported confidence within multidisciplinary team settings was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio = 0.88, 0.78-1.00; p = 0.049) and a lower rate of unplanned cancer-related admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.83, 0.73-0.95; p = 0.007). Lung cancer nurse specialist assessments before/at diagnosis, were associated with a 5% lower rate of unplanned admissions, compared to when assessments occurred after diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The contribution of nurse specialist working practices was occasionally associated with better outcomes for people with lung cancer. These were not limited to a single treatment pathway, but do indicate discrete relationships within pathways. Our study provides initial measures of overall lung cancer nurse specialist working practices at trusts, however, more detailed studies with longitudinal measurement of lung cancer nurse specialist-patient interaction are needed to better ascertain impacts on long-term patient outcomes. The findings highlight opportunities for potential improvement in effectiveness of service and care management.

Is the English Cancer Patient Experience Survey representative? A comparative analysis with the National Lung Cancer Audit.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare systems increasingly recognise the importance of service users' perspectives for improving care organisation and delivery. The English Cancer Patient Experience Survey (CPES) is carried out annually, however, its representativeness within cancer types is unknown. We have explored if the CPES results are representative of people with lung cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We linked cancer registry data across multiple sources to assess how CPES represents sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the National Lung Cancer Audit population, accounting for post-sampling mortality bias. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare people included and not included in CPES. RESULTS: Of 240,375 people diagnosed (2009-2015), 15,967 (7 %) were included in CPES. Gender and ethnicity were reasonably represented, as were sociodemographic and clinical groupings, although more received anti-cancer treatment (96 % of CPES respondents vs. 56 % of patients nationally; adjusted odds ratio = 10.3, 95 % confidence interval 9.4-11.2 for any anti-cancer treatment) with chemotherapy most over-represented, followed by surgery and then radiotherapy. CPES under-represented older, more socioeconomically deprived, and certain clinical groups, including those with worse performance status, multiple comorbidities, and diagnosis via emergency presentation. CONCLUSION: CPES includes patients across the sociodemographic and clinical spectrum indicating its value for research and service planning. Unbalanced representation of incident lung cancer cases is a limitation that must be considered in context of using CPES findings to implement service changes. Although half the national lung cancer population who received no anti-cancer treatment do not have their experiences represented, the strength of this dataset is in providing detailed comparisons of patient experiences across different treatment groups.

Post-treatment survival difference between lobectomy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in stage I non-small cell lung cancer in England.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 15%-20% of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases present with stage I disease. Surgical resection traditionally offers the best chance of a cure but some patients will not have this treatment due to older age, comorbidities or personal choice. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established curative intent treatment option for patients who are not selected for or do not choose surgery. The aim of this study is to compare survival at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years for patients who received either lobectomy or SABR. METHODS: We used data from the 2015 National Lung Cancer Audit database and linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and the radiotherapy dataset to identify patients with NSCLC stage IA-IB and performance status (PS) 0-2 who underwent surgery or SABR treatment. We assessed the likelihood of death at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 year after diagnosis and procedure date to observe survival between two patient groups. RESULTS: We identified 2373 patients in our cohort, 476 of whom had SABR. The median difference between date of diagnosis and date of treatment for surgery patients was 17 days while for SABR patients it was 73 days. Increasing age and worsening PS were associated with having SABR rather than surgery. Survival between the two treatment modalities was similar early on but by 1-year people who had surgery did better than those who had SABR (adjusted ORs 2.12, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.31). This difference persisted at 2 years and when the analysis was restricted to patients aged <80 years and with PS 0 or 1 and stage IA only. CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggests that patients who have lobectomy have a better survival compared with SABR patients; however, we found considerable delays in patients receiving SABR which may contribute to poorer long-term outcomes with this treatment option. Reducing these delays should be a key focus in development and reorganisation of services.

Impact of organisation and specialist service delivery on lung cancer outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Data from the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) often show variation in outcomes between lung cancer units which are not entirely explained by case mix. We explore the association between the organisation of services and patient outcome. METHODS: Details of service provision were collected via an electronic survey in June 2017. An overall organisational score derived from eleven key service factors from national lung cancer commissioning guidance was calculated for each organisation. The results for each hospital were linked to their patient outcome results from the 2015 NLCA cases. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to link the organisational score to patient outcomes. RESULTS: Lung cancer unit organisational audit scores varied from 0 to 11. Thirty-eight (29%) units had a score of 0-4, 64 (50%) had a score of 5-7 and 27 (21%) had a score of 8-11. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, compared with an organisational score of 0-4, patients seen at units with a score of 8-11 had higher 1-year survival (adjusted OR (95% CI)=2.30 (1.04 to 5.08), p<0.001), higher curative-intent treatment rate (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.62 (1.26 to 2.09), p<0.001) and greater likelihood of receiving treatment within 62 days (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.49 (1.20 to 1.86), p<0.001). CONCLUSION: National variation in the provision of services and workforce remain. We provide evidence that adherence to the national lung commissioning guidance has the potential to improve patient outcomes within the current service structure.

Barriers to delivering advanced cancer nursing: A workload analysis of specialist nurse practice linked to the English National Lung Cancer Audit.

PURPOSE: Health services across the world utilise advanced practice in cancer care. In the UK, lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNS) are recognised as key components of quality care in national guidelines, yet access to LCNS contact is unequal and some responsibilities are reportedly left undone. We assess whether any variation in working practices of LCNS is attributable to factors of the lung cancer service at the hospital trust. METHOD: Nationwide workload analysis of LCNS working practices in England, linked at trust level to patient data from the National Lung Cancer Audit. Chi-squared tests were performed to assess whether patient contact, workload, involvement in multidisciplinary teams (MDT), and provision of key interventions were related to 1) the trust's lung cancer service size, 2) LCNS caseload, 3) anti-cancer treatment facilities and 4) lung cancer patient survival. RESULTS: Unpaid overtime was substantial for over 60% of nurses and not associated with particular service factors assessed; lack of administrative support was associated with large caseloads and chemotherapy facilities. LCNS at trusts with no specialty were more likely to challenge all MDT members (80%) compared with those at surgical (53%) or chemotherapy (58%) trusts. The most frequent specialist nursing intervention to not be routinely offered was proactive case management. CONCLUSION: Working practices of LCNS vary according to service factors, most frequently associated with trust anti-cancer treatment facilities. High workload pressures and limited ability to provide key interventions should be addressed across all services to ensure patients have access to recommended standards of care.

Factors influencing treatment selection and 30-day mortality after chemotherapy for people with small-cell lung cancer: An analysis of national audit data.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day mortality after treatment for lung cancer is a measure of unsuccessful outcome and where treatment should have been avoided. Guidelines recommend offering chemotherapy to individuals with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) who have poorer performance status (PS) because of its high initial response rate. However, this comes with an increased risk of toxicity and early death. We quantified real-world 30-day mortality in SCLC after chemotherapy, established the factors associated with this and compared these with the factors that influence receipt of chemotherapy. METHODS: We used linked national English data sets to define the factors associated with both receiving chemotherapy and 30-day mortality after chemotherapy. RESULTS: We identified 3715 people diagnosed with SCLC, of which 2235 (60.2%) received chemotherapy. There were 174 (7.8%) deaths within 30 days of chemotherapy. The adjusted odds of receiving chemotherapy decreased with older age, worsening PS and increasing comorbidities. Thirty-day mortality was independently associated with poor PS [PS 2 vs PS 0, adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71-8.25] and stage (extensive vs limited adjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.03-2.74) but in contrast was not associated with increasing age. Both chemotherapy administration and 30-day mortality varied by hospital network. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce variation in chemotherapy administration, predictors of 30-day mortality could be used as an adjunct to improve suboptimal patient selection. We have quantified 30-day mortality risk by the two independently associated factors, PS and stage, so that patients and clinicians can make better informed decisions about the potential risk of early death after chemotherapy.

Are working practices of lung cancer nurse specialists associated with variation in peoples' receipt of anticancer therapy?

OBJECTIVES: Treatment choices for people with lung cancer may be influenced by contact and engagement with lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNSs). We investigated how service factors, LCNS workload, and LCNS working practices may influence the receipt of anticancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English National Lung Cancer Audit data and inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics for 109,079 people with lung cancer surviving 30 days from diagnosis were linked along with LCNS workforce census data and a bespoke nationwide LCNS survey. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine adjusted relative risk ratios (RRRs) for receipt of anticancer therapies associated with LCNS assessment, LCNS workforce composition, caseload, LCNS reported working practices, treatment facilities at the patients' attending hospitals, and the size of the lung cancer service. RESULTS: Assessment by an LCNS was the strongest independent predictor for receipt of anticancer therapy, with early LCNS assessments being particularly associated with greater receipt of surgery (RRR 1.85, 95%CI 1.63-2.11). For people we considered clinically suitable for surgery, receipt was 55%. Large LCNS caseloads were associated with decreased receipt of surgery among suitable patients (RRR 0.71, 95%CI 0.51-0.97) for caseloads >250 compared to ≤150. Reported LCNS working practices were associated with receipt of surgery, particularly provision of psychological support (RRR 1.60, 95%CI 1.02-2.51) and social support (RRR 1.56, 95%CI 1.07-2.28). CONCLUSION: LCNS assessment, workload, and working practices are associated with the likelihood of patients receiving anticancer therapy. Enabling and supporting LCNSs to undertake key case management interventions offers an opportunity to improve treatment uptake and reduce the apparent gap in receipt of surgery for those suitable.

Apples and pears? A comparison of two sources of national lung cancer audit data in England.

In 2014, the method of data collection from NHS trusts in England for the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) was changed from a bespoke dataset called LUCADA (Lung Cancer Data). Under the new contract, data are submitted via the Cancer Outcome and Service Dataset (COSD) system and linked additional cancer registry datasets. In 2014, trusts were given opportunity to submit LUCADA data as well as registry data. 132 NHS trusts submitted LUCADA data, and all 151 trusts submitted COSD data. This transitional year therefore provided the opportunity to compare both datasets for data completeness and reliability. We linked the two datasets at the patient level to assess the completeness of key patient and treatment variables. We also assessed the interdata agreement of these variables using Cohen's kappa statistic, κ. We identified 26 001 patients in both datasets. Overall, the recording of sex, age, performance status and stage had more than 90% agreement between datasets, but there were more patients with missing performance status in the registry dataset. Although levels of agreement for surgery, chemotherapy and external-beam radiotherapy were high between datasets, the new COSD system identified more instances of active treatment. There seems to be a high agreement of data between the datasets, and the findings suggest that the registry dataset coupled with COSD provides a richer dataset than LUCADA. However, it lagged behind LUCADA in performance status recording, which needs to improve over time.

Which patients are assessed by lung cancer nurse specialists? A national lung cancer audit study of over 128,000 patients across england.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNS) are integral to the multidisciplinary clinical team, providing personalised physical and psycho-social interventions, and care management for people with lung cancer. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that all patients have access to a LCNS. We conducted a national study assessing whether there is variation in access to and timing of LCNS assessment. METHODS: The National Cancer Action Team's LCNS workforce census in England was linked with patient and hospital Trust data from the English National Lung Cancer Audit. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess features associated with LCNS assessment. RESULTS: 128,124 lung cancer patients were seen from 2007 to 2011. LCNS assessment confirmation was 'yes' in 62%, 'no' in 6% and 'missing' in 32%. Where (in clinic versus ward) and when (before versus after diagnosis) patients were assessed by a LCNS also varied. Older patients with poor performance status, early cancer stage, and comorbidities were less likely to be assessed; there was no difference with sex or socioeconomic group. Patients receiving any anti-cancer treatment were more likely to be assessed. Assessment was lower in Trusts with high annual patient numbers (odds ratio=0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.37-0.91) and where LCNS caseload>250 (0.69, 0.41-1.16, although not statistically significant), but increased where workload was conducted mostly by band 8 nurses (2.22, 1.22-4.02). CONCLUSION: LCNS assessment varied by patient and Trust features, which may indicate unmet need for some patients. The current workforce needs to expand as well as retain experienced LCNSs.

The impact of the 'hub and spoke' model of care for lung cancer and equitable access to surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the influence of where a patient is first seen (either surgical or non-surgical centre) and patient features on having surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study from individual patients, between 1January 2008 and 31March 2012. SETTING: Linked National Lung Cancer Audit and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. PARTICIPANTS: 95,818 English patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC, of whom 12,759 (13%) underwent surgical resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Odds of having surgery based on the empirical catchment population of the 30 thoracic surgical centres in England and whether the patient is first seen in a surgical centre or a non-surgical centre. RESULTS: Patients were more likely to be operated on if they were first seen at a surgical centre (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.45). This was most marked for surgical centres with the largest catchment populations. In these surgical centres with large catchment populations, the resection rate for local patients was 18% and for patients first seen in a non-surgical centre within catchment was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical centres that serve the largest catchment populations have high resection rates for patients first seen in their own centre but, in contrast, low resection rates for patients first seen at the surrounding centres they serve. Our findings demonstrate the importance of going further than relating resection rates to hospital volume or surgeon number, and show that there is a pressing need to design lung cancer services which enable all patients, including those first seen at non-surgical centres, to have equal access to lung cancer surgery.

Small-cell lung cancer in England: trends in survival and chemotherapy using the National Lung Cancer Audit.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify trends in survival and chemotherapy use for individuals with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in England using the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA). METHODS: We used data from the NLCA database to identify people with histologically proven SCLC from 2004-2011. We calculated the median survival by stage and assessed whether patient characteristics changed over time. We also assessed whether the proportion of patients with records of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy changed over time. RESULTS: 18,513 patients were diagnosed with SCLC in our cohort. The median survival was 6 months for all patients, 1 year for those with limited stage and 4 months for extensive stage. 69% received chemotherapy and this proportion changed very slightly over time (test for trends p = 0.055). Age and performance status of patients remained stable over the study period, but the proportion of patients staged increased (p-value<0.001), mainly because of improved data completeness. There has been an increase in the proportion of patients that had a record of receiving both chemotherapy and radiotherapy each year (from 19% to 40% in limited and from 9% to 21% in extensive stage from 2004 to 2011). Patients who received chemotherapy with radiotherapy had better survival compared with any other treatment (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.23-0.25). CONCLUSION: Since 2004, when the NLCA was established, the proportion of patients with SCLC having chemotherapy has remained static. We have found an upward trend in the proportion of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiotherapy which corresponded to a better survival in this group, but as it only applied for a small proportion of patients, it was not enough to change the overall survival.

Early mortality after surgical resection for lung cancer: an analysis of the English National Lung cancer audit.

INTRODUCTION: For appropriately staged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgical resection can dramatically improve survival, but some may not be offered this treatment because of concerns about perioperative mortality. METHODS: We used data from the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) to determine the proportions of English patients who died within 30 and 90 days after surgery for NSCLC. We quantified the predictors of early postoperative death and using these results devised a score to predict risk of death within 90 days of surgery. RESULTS: We analysed data on 10 991 patients operated on between 2004 and 2010. Three per cent (334) of patients died within 30 days of their procedure and 5.9% (647) within 90 days. Age was strongly associated with early postoperative death (adjusted OR within 90 days for 80-84 years vs 70-74 years: 1.46, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.98); significant associations were also observed with performance status (PS) (adjusted OR within 90 days for PS 2 vs PS 0: 2.40, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.41), as well as lung function, stage and procedure type. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that age is the most important predictor of death within both of these early postoperative periods. We used the data in the NLCA to develop a predictive score, based on an English population and specific to lung cancer surgery, which estimates risk of death within 90 days; this score should be tested in future cohorts.

The pathological confirmation rate of lung cancer in England using the NLCA database.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) recommends that trusts obtain pathology (histology or cytology) for 75% of their lung cancer patients, however this figure was arbitrarily chosen and the optimal pathological confirmation rate is unknown, and many countries report somewhat higher rates. The aims of this study were to provide a simple means of benchmarking appropriate pathological confirmation rates by stratifying patients into groups, and whether obtaining pathology based on those groups is associated with a survival benefit. METHODS: We calculated the proportion of patients with non-small cell or small cell lung cancer in the NLCA database, first seen between 1st January 2004 and 31st December 2010, who had pathological confirmation of their diagnosis. Using logistic we assessed the independent influence of patient factors on the likelihood of having histology or cytology, and the overall effect on survival. We also used bivariate analysis to identify the features which were most strongly associated with having pathology and performed Cox regression to identify any survival advantage. FINDINGS: We analysed data on 136,993 individuals. Age and performance status (PS) were the strongest predictors of pathological confirmation: age ≥ 85 odds ratio (OR) 0.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.22) compared with age<55; PS 4 OR 0.11 (95%CI 0.10-0.12) compared with PS 0. Pathological confirmation of diagnosis was associated with a small early survival advantage for groups 1 & 2 which represented younger patients with good PS, even after adjusting for other patient features: hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 & 0.89 respectively. CONCLUSION: Stratifying patients by age and performance status is useful and appropriate when benchmarking standards for pathological confirmation of the diagnosis of lung cancer. We have shown better survival at six months and one year for younger patients with better PS, even after adjusting for confounders. Much of the survival advantage was accounted for by adjusting for the use of chemotherapy.