26
|
Adizie JB, Tweedie J, Khakwani A, Peach E, Hubbard R, Wood N, Gosney JR, Harden SV, Beckett P, Popat S, Navani N. Biomarker Testing for People With Advanced Lung Cancer in England. JTO Clin Res Rep 2021; 2:100176. [PMID: 34590024 PMCID: PMC8474239 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtocrr.2021.100176] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2021] [Revised: 03/28/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
27
|
Round T, L'Esperance V, Bayly J, Brain K, Dallas L, Edwards JG, Haswell T, Hiley C, Lovell N, McAdam J, McCutchan G, Nair A, Newsom-Davis T, Sage EK, Navani N. COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary. Br J Cancer 2021; 125:629-640. [PMID: 33972746 PMCID: PMC8108433 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01361-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2020] [Revised: 02/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/11/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.
Collapse
|
28
|
Taylor S, Yorke J, Tsim S, Navani N, Baldwin D, Woolhouse I, Edwards J, Grundy S, Robson J, Rhodes S, Gomes F, Blackhall F, Faivre-Finn C, Evison M. Impact on quality of life from multimodality treatment for lung cancer: a randomised controlled feasibility trial of surgery versus no surgery as part of multimodality treatment in potentially resectable stage III-N2 NSCLC (the PIONEER trial). BMJ Open Respir Res 2021; 8:8/1/e000846. [PMID: 34266853 PMCID: PMC8286764 DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000846] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2020] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Optimal treatment for ‘potentially resectable’ stage III-N2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) requires multimodality treatment: local treatment (surgery or radiotherapy) and systemic anticancer therapy. There is no clear evidence of superiority for survival between the two approaches and little research has explored quality of life (QOL). This study will inform the design of a phase III randomised trial of surgery versus no surgery as part of multimodality treatment for stage III-N2 NSCLC with QOL as a primary outcome. Methods and analysis Patient participants will be randomised to receive multimodality treatment (1) with surgery OR (2) without surgery. The Quintet Recruitment Intervention will be used to maximise recruitment. Eligible patients will have ‘potentially resectable’ N2 NSCLC and have received a multidisciplinary team recommendation for multimodality treatment. Sixty-six patients and their carers will be recruited from 8 UK centres. Patient/carer QOL questionnaires will be administered at baseline, weeks 6, 9, 12 and month 6. Semistructured interviews will be conducted. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively and qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained. Results will be disseminated via publications, national bodies and networks, and patient and public involvement groups. Trial registration NCT04540757
Collapse
|
29
|
O’Dowd E, Succony L, Karahacioglu B, Rintoul R, Woolhouse I, Evison M, Fuller E, Bhamani A, Navani N, Janes S, Eccles S, Baldwin D. Quantifying the impact of Covid-19 on lung cancer: an urgent need for restoration. Lung Cancer 2021. [PMCID: PMC8159533 DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5002(21)00234-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022]
|
30
|
Navani N, O’Dowd E, Succony L, Karahacioglu B, Rintoul R, Woolhouse I, Evison M, Fuller E, Bhamani A, Janes S, Eccles S, Baldwin D. The impact of COVID-19 on lung cancer diagnostics – a multicentre comparison of 2019/2020 data. Lung Cancer 2021. [PMCID: PMC8159524 DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5002(21)00245-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
|
31
|
Aujayeb A, Maskell N, Peake M, Navani N, Blyth K, Attanoos R, Gavin A, Fitzpatrick D, Forde F, Morton J, Morgan S, Creech L, Darlison L. Mesothelioma UK national mesothelioma audit. Lung Cancer 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5002(21)00211-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
32
|
Perrotta F, Kerr KM, Navani N. Response. Chest 2021; 158:1787-1788. [PMID: 33036098 DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.07.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/07/2020] [Accepted: 07/10/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
33
|
Griesinger F, Choi YL, Chou TY, Gregg J, Hui R, Leighl N, Marchetti A, Navani N, Bailey T, Silvey M, Makin R, Kahangire D, Chau M, Taylor A, Subramanian J. 144P Delays in epidermal growth factor receptor mutation (EGFRm) testing in advanced (stage IIIb/ IIIc/ IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and their impact on the use of first line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKIs) in a real-world setting. J Thorac Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s1556-0864(21)01986-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
34
|
Subramanian J, Choi YL, Chou TY, Gregg J, Hui R, Leighl N, Marchetti A, Navani N, Bailey T, Silvey M, Makin R, Kahangire D, Chau M, Taylor A, Griesinger F. 135P The real-world use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) advanced (stage IIIb/IIIc/IV) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. J Thorac Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/s1556-0864(21)01977-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
35
|
Harden S, Peach E, Beckett P, Navani N. P09.22 Curative Intent Treatment for Small Cell Lung Cancer in England. J Thorac Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.01.450] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
36
|
Harden S, Darlison L, Tebay R, Ford F, Navani N, Beckett P. P25.08 National Organisational Audit of Specialist Mesothelioma Service and Support Provision for the United Kingdom. J Thorac Oncol 2021. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jtho.2021.01.626] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
37
|
Popat S, Navani N, Kerr KM, Smit EF, Batchelor TJ, Van Schil P, Senan S, McDonald F. Navigating Diagnostic and Treatment Decisions in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Expert Commentary on the Multidisciplinary Team Approach. Oncologist 2021; 26:e306-e315. [PMID: 33145902 PMCID: PMC7873339 DOI: 10.1002/onco.13586] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/17/2020] [Accepted: 10/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounts for approximately one in five cancer-related deaths, and management requires increasingly complex decision making by health care professionals. Many centers have therefore adopted a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, using the expertise of various specialists to provide the best evidence-based, personalized treatment. However, increasingly complex disease staging, as well as expanded biomarker testing and multimodality management algorithms with novel therapeutics, have driven the need for multifaceted, collaborative decision making to optimally guide the overall treatment process. To keep up with the rapidly evolving treatment landscape, national-level guidelines have been introduced to standardize patient pathways and ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment. Such strategies depend on efficient and effective communication between relevant multidisciplinary team members and have both improved adherence to treatment guidelines and extended patient survival. This article highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to diagnosis and staging, treatment decision making, and adverse event management in NSCLC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This review highlights the value of a multidisciplinary approach to the diagnosis and staging of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and makes practical suggestions as to how multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) can be best deployed at individual stages of the disease to improve patient outcomes and effectively manage common adverse events. The authors discuss how a collaborative approach, appropriately leveraging the diverse expertise of NSCLC MDT members (including specialist radiation and medical oncologists, chest physicians, pathologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, and nursing staff) can continue to ensure optimal per-patient decision making as treatment options become ever more specialized in the era of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies.
Collapse
|
38
|
Kalsi HS, Thakrar R, Gosling AF, Shaefi S, Navani N. Interventional Pulmonology: A Brave New World. Thorac Surg Clin 2020; 30:321-338. [PMID: 32593365 DOI: 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2020.04.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Interventional pulmonology is a dynamic and evolving field in respiratory medicine. Advances have improved the ability to diagnose and manage diseases of the airways. A shift toward early detection of malignant disease has generated a focus on innovative diagnostic techniques. With patient populations living longer with malignant and benign diseases, the role for interventional bronchoscopy has grown. In cancer groups, novel immunotherapies have improved the prospects of clinical outcomes and reignited a focus on optimizing patient performance status to enable access to anticancer therapy. This review discusses current and emerging diagnostic modalities and therapeutic approaches available to manage airway diseases.
Collapse
|
39
|
Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Dickson JL, Beeken RJ, McEwen A, Baldwin DR, Bhowmik A, Navani N, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Waller J, Janes SM. Reply to Wilson: Improving Lung Cancer Screening Uptake. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 202:1193-1194. [PMID: 32525401 PMCID: PMC7560797 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202005-1699le] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
40
|
Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL, Horst C, Tisi S, Hall H, Taylor M, Ahmed A, Shaw P, Burke S, Soo MJ, Nair A, Devaraj A, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Navani N, Bhowmik A, Baldwin DR, Janes SM. Lung Screen Uptake Trial: results from a single lung cancer screening round. Thorax 2020; 75:908-912. [PMID: 32759387 PMCID: PMC7509385 DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2020] [Revised: 05/22/2020] [Accepted: 06/03/2020] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
Abstract
The Lung Screen Uptake Trial tested a novel invitation strategy to improve uptake and reduce socioeconomic and smoking-related inequalities in lung cancer screening (LCS) participation. It provides one of the first UK-based 'real-world' LCS cohorts. Of 2012 invited, 1058 (52.6%) attended a 'lung health check'. 768/996 (77.1%) in the present analysis underwent a low-dose CT scan. 92 (11.9%) and 33 (4.3%) participants had indeterminate pulmonary nodules requiring 3-month and 12-month surveillance, respectively; 36 lung cancers (4.7%) were diagnosed (median follow-up: 1044 days). 72.2% of lung cancers were stage I/II and 79.4% of non-small cell lung cancer had curative-intent treatment.
Collapse
|
41
|
Miles A, Evans REC, Halligan S, Beare S, Bridgewater J, Goh V, Janes SM, Navani N, Oliver A, Morton A, Morris S, Rockall A, Taylor SA. Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2020; 64:537-545. [PMID: 32410378 PMCID: PMC8425331 DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2020] [Accepted: 03/27/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. METHODS Patients recruited prospectively to two multicentre trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients' beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT/ PET-CT was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients, respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006-2.284, P = 0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099-8.288, P = 0.032), although only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute. CONCLUSIONS A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionizing radiation, could influence preference.
Collapse
|
42
|
Sud A, Torr B, Jones ME, Broggio J, Scott S, Loveday C, Garrett A, Gronthoud F, Nicol DL, Jhanji S, Boyce SA, Williams M, Riboli E, Muller DC, Kipps E, Larkin J, Navani N, Swanton C, Lyratzopoulos G, McFerran E, Lawler M, Houlston R, Turnbull C. Effect of delays in the 2-week-wait cancer referral pathway during the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer survival in the UK: a modelling study. Lancet Oncol 2020; 21:1035-1044. [PMID: 32702311 PMCID: PMC7116538 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30392-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 306] [Impact Index Per Article: 76.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2020] [Revised: 06/24/2020] [Accepted: 06/25/2020] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND During the COVID-19 lockdown, referrals via the 2-week-wait urgent pathway for suspected cancer in England, UK, are reported to have decreased by up to 84%. We aimed to examine the impact of different scenarios of lockdown-accumulated backlog in cancer referrals on cancer survival, and the impact on survival per referred patient due to delayed referral versus risk of death from nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. METHODS In this modelling study, we used age-stratified and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England, UK, for 20 common tumour types diagnosed in 2008-17 at age 30 years and older from Public Health England. We also used data for cancer diagnoses made via the 2-week-wait referral pathway in 2013-16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital. We applied per-day hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer progression that we generated from observational studies of delay to treatment. We quantified the annual numbers of cancers at stage I-III diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway using 2-week-wait age-specific and stage-specific breakdowns. From these numbers, we estimated the aggregate number of lives and life-years lost in England for per-patient delays of 1-6 months in presentation, diagnosis, or cancer treatment, or a combination of these. We assessed three scenarios of a 3-month period of lockdown during which 25%, 50%, and 75% of the normal monthly volumes of symptomatic patients delayed their presentation until after lockdown. Using referral-to-diagnosis conversion rates and COVID-19 case-fatality rates, we also estimated the survival increment per patient referred. FINDINGS Across England in 2013-16, an average of 6281 patients with stage I-III cancer were diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway per month, of whom 1691 (27%) would be predicted to die within 10 years from their disease. Delays in presentation via the 2-week-wait pathway over a 3-month lockdown period (with an average presentational delay of 2 months per patient) would result in 181 additional lives and 3316 life-years lost as a result of a backlog of referrals of 25%, 361 additional lives and 6632 life-years lost for a 50% backlog of referrals, and 542 additional lives and 9948 life-years lost for a 75% backlog in referrals. Compared with all diagnostics for the backlog being done in month 1 after lockdown, additional capacity across months 1-3 would result in 90 additional lives and 1662 live-years lost due to diagnostic delays for the 25% backlog scenario, 183 additional lives and 3362 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 276 additional lives and 5075 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. However, a delay in additional diagnostic capacity with provision spread across months 3-8 after lockdown would result in 401 additional lives and 7332 life-years lost due to diagnostic delays under the 25% backlog scenario, 811 additional lives and 14 873 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 1231 additional lives and 22 635 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. A 2-month delay in 2-week-wait investigatory referrals results in an estimated loss of between 0·0 and 0·7 life-years per referred patient, depending on age and tumour type. INTERPRETATION Prompt provision of additional capacity to address the backlog of diagnostics will minimise deaths as a result of diagnostic delays that could add to those predicted due to expected presentational delays. Prioritisation of patient groups for whom delay would result in most life-years lost warrants consideration as an option for mitigating the aggregate burden of mortality in patients with cancer. FUNDING None.
Collapse
|
43
|
Ruparel M, Quaife SL, Dickson JL, Horst C, Tisi S, Hall H, Taylor MN, Ahmed A, Shaw PJ, Burke S, Soo MJ, Nair A, Devaraj A, Sennett K, Hurst JR, Duffy SW, Navani N, Bhowmik A, Baldwin DR, Janes SM. Prevalence, Symptom Burden, and Underdiagnosis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in a Lung Cancer Screening Cohort. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2020; 17:869-878. [PMID: 32164439 PMCID: PMC7328177 DOI: 10.1513/annalsats.201911-857oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2019] [Accepted: 03/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Rationale: Individuals eligible for lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) are also at risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) due to age and smoking exposure. Whether the LCS episode is useful for early detection of COPD is not well established.Objectives: To explore associations between symptoms, comorbidities, spirometry, and emphysema in participants enrolled in the Lung Screen Uptake Trial.Methods: This cross-sectional study was a prespecified analysis nested within Lung Screen Uptake Trial, which was a randomized study testing the impact of differing invitation materials on attendance of 60- to 75-year-old smokers and ex-smokers to a "lung health check" between November 2015 and July 2017. Participants with a smoking history ≥30 pack-years and who quit ≤15 years ago, or meeting a lung cancer risk of ≥1.51% via the Prostate Lung Colorectal Ovarian model or ≥2.5% via the Liverpool Lung Project model, were offered LDCT. COPD was defined and classified according to the GOLD (Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease) criteria using prebronchodilator spirometry. Analyses included the use of descriptive statistics, chi-square tests to examine group differences, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression to explore associations between symptom prevalence, airflow limitation, and visually graded emphysema.Results: A total of 560 of 986 individuals included in the analysis (57%) had prebronchodilator spirometry consistent with COPD; 67% did not have a prior history of COPD and were termed "undiagnosed." Emphysema prevalence in those with known and "undiagnosed" COPD was 73% and 68%, respectively. A total of 32% of those with "undiagnosed COPD" had no emphysema on LDCT. Inhaler use and symptoms were more common in the "known" than the "undiagnosed" COPD group (63% vs. 33% with persistent cough [P < 0.001]; 73% vs. 33% with dyspnea [P < 0.001]). Comorbidities were common in all groups. Adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of respiratory symptoms were more significant for airflow obstruction (aOR GOLD 1 and 2, 1.57; confidence interval [CI], 1.14-2.17; aOR GOLD 3 and 4, 4.6; CI, 2.17-9.77) than emphysema (aOR mild, 1.12; CI, 0.81-1.55; aOR moderate, 1.33; CI, 0.85-2.09; aOR severe, 4.00; CI, 1.57-10.2).Conclusions: There is high burden of "undiagnosed COPD" and emphysema in LCS participants. Adding spirometry findings to the LDCT enhances identification of individuals with COPD.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).
Collapse
|
44
|
Harden SV, Adizie JB, Navani N, Beckett P. Authors' Response to Young et al: Re Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Management in England. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2020; 32:e210. [PMID: 32591172 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2020.05.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2020] [Accepted: 05/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
45
|
DiBardino DM, Navani N. Hitting a HOMER: Epidemiology to the Bedside when Evaluating for Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201:136-138. [PMID: 31658428 PMCID: PMC6961734 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201910-1933ed] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
|
46
|
Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Dickson JL, Beeken RJ, McEwen A, Baldwin DR, Bhowmik A, Navani N, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Wardle J, Waller J, Janes SM. Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201:965-975. [PMID: 31825647 PMCID: PMC7159423 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0946oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2019] [Accepted: 12/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).
Collapse
|
47
|
Evans R, Taylor S, Kalasthry J, Sakai N, Miles A, Aboagye A, Agoramoorthy L, Ahmed S, Amadi A, Anand G, Atkin G, Austria A, Ball S, Bazari F, Beable R, Beare S, Beedham H, Beeston T, Bharwani N, Bhatnagar G, Bhowmik A, Blakeway L, Blunt D, Boavida P, Boisfer D, Breen D, Bridgewater J, Burke S, Butawan R, Campbell Y, Chang E, Chao D, Chukundah S, Clarke C, Collins B, Collins C, Conteh V, Couture J, Crosbie J, Curtis H, Daniel A, Davis L, Desai K, Duggan M, Ellis S, Elton C, Engledow A, Everitt C, Ferdous S, Frow A, Furneaux M, Gibbons N, Glynne-Jones R, Gogbashian A, Goh V, Gourtsoyianni S, Green A, Green L, Green L, Groves A, Guthrie A, Hadley E, Halligan S, Hameeduddin A, Hanid G, Hans S, Hans B, Higginson A, Honeyfield L, Hughes H, Hughes J, Hurl L, Isaac E, Jackson M, Jalloh A, Janes S, Jannapureddy R, Jayme A, Johnson A, Johnson E, Julka P, Kalasthry J, Karapanagiotou E, Karp S, Kay C, Kellaway J, Khan S, Koh D, Light T, Limbu P, Lock S, Locke I, Loke T, Lowe A, Lucas N, Maheswaran S, Mallett S, Marwood E, McGowan J, Mckirdy F, Mills-Baldock T, Moon T, Morgan V, Morris S, Morton A, Nasseri S, Navani N, Nichols P, Norman C, Ntala E, Nunes A, Obichere A, O'Donohue J, Olaleye I, Oliver A, Onajobi A, O'Shaughnessy T, Padhani A, Pardoe H, Partridge W, Patel U, Perry K, Piga W, Prezzi D, Prior K, Punwani S, Pyers J, Rafiee H, Rahman F, Rajanpandian I, Ramesh S, Raouf S, Reczko K, Reinhardt A, Robinson D, Rockall A, Russell P, Sargus K, Scurr E, Shahabuddin K, Sharp A, Shepherd B, Shiu K, Sidhu H, Simcock I, Simeon C, Smith A, Smith D, Snell D, Spence J, Srirajaskanthan R, Stachini V, Stegner S, Stirling J, Strickland N, Tarver K, Teague J, Thaha M, Train M, Tulmuntaha S, Tunariu N, van Ree K, Verjee A, Wanstall C, Weir S, Wijeyekoon S, Wilson J, Wilson S, Win T, Woodrow L, Yu D. Patient deprivation and perceived scan burden negatively impact the quality of whole-body MRI. Clin Radiol 2020; 75:308-315. [PMID: 31836179 DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.10.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/27/2019] [Accepted: 10/30/2019] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
AIM To evaluate the association between the image quality of cancer staging whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) and patient demographics, distress, and perceived scan burden. MATERIALS AND METHODS A sample of patients recruited prospectively to multicentre trials comparing WB-MRI with standard scans for staging lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete two questionnaires. The baseline questionnaire, administered at recruitment, collated data on demographics, distress and co-morbidity. The follow-up questionnaire, completed after staging investigations, measured perceived WB-MRI scan burden (scored 1 low to 7 high). WB-MRI anatomical coverage, and technical quality was graded by a radiographic technician and grading combined to categorise the scan as "optimal", "sub-optimal" or "degraded". A radiologist categorised 30 scans to test interobserver agreement. Data were analysed using the chi-square, Fisher's exact, t-tests, and multinomial regression. RESULTS One hundred and fourteen patients were included in the study (53 lung, 61 colorectal; average age 65.3 years, SD=11.8; 66 men [57.9%]). Overall, 45.6% (n=52), scans were classified as "optimal" quality, 39.5% (n=45) "sub-optimal", and 14.9% (n=17) as "degraded". In adjusted analyses, greater deprivation level and higher patient-reported scan burden were both associated with a higher likelihood of having a sub-optimal versus an optimal scan (odds ratio [OR]: 4.465, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.454 to 13.709, p=0.009; OR: 1.987, CI: 1.153 to 3.425, p=0.013, respectively). None of the variables predicted the likelihood of having a degraded scan. CONCLUSIONS Deprivation and patients' perceived experience of the WB-MRI are related to image quality. Tailored protocols and individualised patient management before and during WB-MRI may improve image quality.
Collapse
|
48
|
Fowler H, Belot A, Ellis L, Maringe C, Luque-Fernandez MA, Njagi EN, Navani N, Sarfati D, Rachet B. Comorbidity prevalence among cancer patients: a population-based cohort study of four cancers. BMC Cancer 2020; 20:2. [PMID: 31987032 PMCID: PMC6986047 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-019-6472-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/08/2019] [Accepted: 12/17/2019] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The presence of comorbidity affects the care of cancer patients, many of whom are living with multiple comorbidities. The prevalence of cancer comorbidity, beyond summary metrics, is not well known. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of comorbid conditions among cancer patients in England, and describe the association between cancer comorbidity and socio-economic position, using population-based electronic health records. METHODS We linked England cancer registry records of patients diagnosed with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung or Hodgkin lymphoma between 2009 and 2013, with hospital admissions records. A comorbidity was any one of fourteen specific conditions, diagnosed during hospital admission up to 6 years prior to cancer diagnosis. We calculated the crude and age-sex adjusted prevalence of each condition, the frequency of multiple comorbidity combinations, and used logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of having each condition and the probability of having each condition as a single or one of multiple comorbidities, respectively, by cancer type. RESULTS Comorbidity was most prevalent in patients with lung cancer and least prevalent in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Up to two-thirds of patients within each of the four cancer patient cohorts we studied had at least one comorbidity, and around half of the comorbid patients had multiple comorbidities. Our study highlighted common comorbid conditions among the cancer patient cohorts. In all four cohorts, the odds of having a comorbidity and the probability of multiple comorbidity were consistently highest in the most deprived cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS Cancer healthcare guidelines may need to consider prominent comorbid conditions, particularly to benefit the prognosis of the most deprived patients who carry the greater burden of comorbidity. Insight into patterns of cancer comorbidity may inform further research into the influence of specific comorbidities on socio-economic inequalities in receipt of cancer treatment and in short-term mortality.
Collapse
|
49
|
Navani N, Tweedie J, Khakwani A, Hubbard R, Wood N, Harden S, Popat S, Beckett P. Molecular testing for patients with advanced lung cancer in England: real-world evidence from the National Lung Cancer Audit. Lung Cancer 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5002(20)30170-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
|
50
|
Hall H, Tocock A, Ricketts W, Robson J, Round T, Gorolay S, Chung D, Janes S, Møller H, Peake M, Navani N. Association between time-to-treatment and outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Lung Cancer 2020. [DOI: 10.1016/s0169-5002(20)30233-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|