Development and validation of a coding framework to identify severe acute toxicity from systemic anti-cancer therapy using hospital administrative data

Hospital Factors Influencing the Mobility of Patients for Systemic Therapies in Breast and Bowel Cancer in the Metastatic Setting: A National Population-based Evaluation

AIMS

This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) in patients with metastatic cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using linked administrative datasets from the English NHS, we identified all patients diagnosed with metastatic breast and bowel cancer between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2018, who subsequently received SACT within 4 months from diagnosis. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regression models were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality and patient characteristics on where patients underwent SACT.

RESULTS

541 of 2,364 women (22.9%) diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer, and 2,809 of 10,050 (28.0%) patients diagnosed with metastatic bowel cancer bypassed their nearest hospital providing SACT. There was a strong preference for receiving treatment at hospitals near where patients lived (p < 0.001). However, patients who were younger (p = 0.043 for breast cancer; p < 0.001 for bowel cancer) or from rural areas (p = 0.001 for breast cancer; p < 0.001 for bowel cancer) were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals. Patients diagnosed with rectal cancer were more likely to travel further for SACT than patients with colon cancer (p = 0.002). Patients were more likely to travel to comprehensive cancer centres (p = 0.019 for bowel cancer) and designated Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres (ECMCs) although the latter association was not significant. Patients were less likely to receive SACT in hospitals with the highest readmission rates (p = 0.046 for bowel cancer).

CONCLUSION

Patients with metastatic cancer receiving primary SACT are prepared to travel to alternative more distant hospitals for treatment with a preference for larger comprehensive centres providing multimodal care or hospitals which offer early phase cancer clinical trials.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

The Association Between Survival and Receipt of Post-mastectomy Radiotherapy According to Age at Diagnosis Among Women With Early Invasive Breast Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study

AIMS

Clinical trials of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for early invasive breast cancer (EIBC) have included few older women. This study examined whether the association between overall survival or breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and receipt of PMRT for EIBC altered with age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study used patient-level linked cancer registration, routine hospital and radiotherapy data for England and Wales. It included 31 243 women aged ≥50 years diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 with low- (T1-2N0), intermediate- (T3N0/T1-2N1) or high-risk (T1-2N2/T3N1-2) EIBC who received a mastectomy within 12 months from diagnosis. Patterns of survival were analysed using a landmark approach. Associations between overall survival/BCSS and PMRT in each risk group were analysed with flexible parametric survival models, which included patient and tumour factors; whether the association between PMRT and overall survival/BCSS varied by age was assessed using interaction terms.

RESULTS

Among 4711 women with high-risk EIBC, 86% had PMRT. Five-year overall survival was 70.5% and BCSS was 79.3%. Receipt of PMRT was associated with improved overall survival [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.87] and BCSS (aHR 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.65-0.95) compared with women who did not have PMRT; associations did not vary by age (overall survival, P-value for interaction term = 0.141; BCSS, P = 0.077). Among 10 814 women with intermediate-risk EIBC, 59% had PMRT; 5-year overall survival was 78.4% and BCSS was 88.0%. No association was found between overall survival (aHR 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.11) or BCSS (aHR 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.32) and PMRT. There was statistical evidence of a small change in the association with age for overall survival (P = 0.007), although differences in relative survival were minimal, but not for BCSS (P = 0.362).

CONCLUSIONS

The association between PMRT and overall survival/BCSS does not appear to be modified by age among women with high- or intermediate-risk EIBC and, thus, treatment recommendations should not be modified on the basis of age alone.

Measuring variation in the quality of systemic anti-cancer therapy delivery across hospitals: A national population-based evaluation

AIM

To date, there has been little systematic assessment of the quality of care associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) delivery across national healthcare systems. We evaluated hospital-level toxicity rates during SACT treatment as a means of identifying variation in care quality.

METHODS

All colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving SACT within 106 English National Health Service (NHS) hospitals between 2016 and 2019 were included. Severe acute toxicity rates were derived from hospital administrative data using a validated coding framework. Variation in hospital-level toxicity rates was assessed separately in the adjuvant and metastatic settings. Toxicity rates were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, performance status, tumour site, and TNM staging.

RESULTS

Eight thousand one hundred and seventy three patients received SACT in the adjuvant setting, and 7,683 patients in the metastatic setting. Adjusted severe acute toxicity rates varied between hospitals from 11% to 49% for the adjuvant cohort, and from 25% to 67% for the metastatic cohort. Compared to the national mean toxicity rate in the adjuvant cohort, six hospitals were more than two standard deviations (2SD) above, and four hospitals were more than 2SD below. In the metastatic cohort, six hospitals were more than 2SD above, and seven hospitals were more than 2SD below the national mean toxicity rate. Overall, 12 hospitals (12%) had toxicity rates more than 2SD above the national mean, and 11 (10%) had rates more than 2SD below.

CONCLUSION

There is substantial variation in hospital-level severe acute toxicity rates in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings, despite risk-adjustment. Ongoing reporting of this performance indicator can be used to focus further investigation of toxicity rates and stimulate quality improvement initiatives to improve care.