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

European Respiratory Society guideline on various aspects of quality in lung cancer care

This European Respiratory Society guideline is dedicated to the provision of good quality recommendations in lung cancer care. All the clinical recommendations contained were based on a comprehensive systematic review and evidence syntheses based on eight PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes) questions. The evidence was appraised in compliance with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence profiles and the GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to summarise results and to make the decision-making process transparent. A multidisciplinary Task Force panel of lung cancer experts formulated and consented the clinical recommendations following thorough discussions of the systematic review results. In particular, we have made recommendations relating to the following quality improvement measures deemed applicable to routine lung cancer care: 1) avoidance of delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic period, 2) integration of multidisciplinary teams and multidisciplinary consultations, 3) implementation of and adherence to lung cancer guidelines, 4) benefit of higher institutional/individual volume and advanced specialisation in lung cancer surgery and other procedures, 5) need for pathological confirmation of lesions in patients with pulmonary lesions and suspected lung cancer, and histological subtyping and molecular characterisation for actionable targets or response to treatment of confirmed lung cancers, 6) added value of early integration of palliative care teams or specialists, 7) advantage of integrating specific quality improvement measures, and 8) benefit of using patient decision tools. These recommendations should be reconsidered and updated, as appropriate, as new evidence becomes available.

Surgery without preoperative histological confirmation of lung cancer: what is the current clinical practice?

Background

There are discordances in the guidelines regarding the need to acquire histological diagnosis before surgical treatment of (presumed) lung cancer. Preoperative histological confirmation is always encouraged in this setting to prevent unnecessary surgery or when sublobar resection for small-sized tumors is considered. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the proportion of patients undergoing lung cancer resection in the Netherlands without preoperative pathological confirmation, based on the intraoperative pathological diagnosis (IOD) rate, and to determine characteristics that may influence IOD frequency.

Methods

Data on 10,226 patients, who underwent surgical treatment for lung cancer from 2010 to 2015, were retrieved from the Netherlands National Cancer Registry. We registered an IOD when the date of diagnosis equaled the date of the first surgical intervention. Tabulations and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify predictive parameters for IOD.

Results

36% of surgical procedures were classified as IOD, and decreased with increasing tumor size and extent of surgery (57% for segmentectomy, 39% for lobectomy and 11% for pneumonectomy). IOD was more frequently observed in adenocarcinoma (41%), varied between hospitals from 13% to 66% and was less common when patients were referred from a hospital where thoracic surgery was not performed. Previous history of cancer did not affect IOD.

Conclusions

More than one-third of patients with suspected lung cancer in the Netherlands was operated without preoperative histological confirmation. There was significant variation in IOD rates between different hospitals, which deserves further detailed analysis when striving for uniform surgical quality of care for patients with lung cancer.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

BACKGROUND

A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire.

METHODS

Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months.

RESULTS

Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses.

CONCLUSION

Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research.

ERS statement on harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe

The European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force for harmonised standards for lung cancer registration and lung cancer services in Europe recognised the need to create a single dataset for use in pan-European data collection and a manual of standards for European lung cancer services.

The multidisciplinary task force considered evidence from two different sources, reviewing existing national and international datasets alongside the results of a survey of clinical data collection on lung cancer in 35 European countries. A similar process was followed for the manual of lung cancer services, with the task force using existing guidelines and national or international recommendations for lung cancer services to develop a manual of standards for services in Europe.

The task force developed essential and minimum datasets for lung cancer registration to enable all countries to collect the same essential data and some to collect data with greater detail. The task force also developed a manual specifying standards for lung cancer services in Europe.

Despite the wide variation in the sociopolitical landscape across Europe, the ERS is determined to encourage the delivery of high-quality lung cancer care. Both the manual of lung cancer services and the minimum dataset for lung cancer registration will support this aspiration.

Obtaining tissue diagnosis in lung cancer patients with poor performance status and its influence on treatment and survival

INTRODUCTION

25% of patients with lung cancer have performance status 3 or 4. A pragmatic approach to investigative procedures is often adopted based on the risks and benefits in these patients and whether tissue diagnosis is necessary for anticipated future treatment. This cohort study investigated factors influencing a clinician's decision to pursue a tissue diagnosis in patients with lung cancer and performance status 3 and 4 and to examine the association of tissue diagnosis with subsequent management and survival.

METHODS

All patients with lung cancer diagnosed in North Glasgow from 2009 to 2012 were prospectively recorded in a registry. We investigated the relationships between achieving a tissue diagnosis, treatment and survival.

RESULTS

Of 2493 patients diagnosed with lung cancer, 490 patients (20%) were PS 3 and 122 patients (5%) were PS 4. Tissue diagnosis was attempted in 60% and 35% patients with PS 3 and PS 4 respectively. Younger age, better performance status and having stage 4 disease were independently associated with a diagnostic procedure being performed. Only 5% of patients with poor performance status received treatment conventionally requiring a tissue diagnosis. Age, stage and performance status were independent predictors of mortality. Achieving a tissue diagnosis was not associated with mortality. Receiving treatment requiring tissue diagnosis is associated with survival benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with poor fitness undergo a diagnostic procedure which does not influence further treatment or affect survival. However, the cohort of patients who do undergo therapy determined by tissue diagnosis have improved survival.

Non-small cell lung cancer in young adults: presentation and survival in the English National Lung Cancer Audit

BACKGROUND

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in young adults is a rare but devastating illness with significant socioeconomic implications, and studies of this patient subgroup are limited.

AIM

This study employed the National Lung Cancer Audit to compare the clinical features and survival of young adults with NSCLC with the older age groups.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort review using a validated national audit dataset.

METHODS

Data were analysed for the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2011. Young adults were defined as between 18 and 39 years, and all others were divided into decade age groups, up to the 80 years and above group. We performed logistic and Cox regression analyses to assess clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Of a total of 1 46 422 patients, 651 (0.5%) were young adults, of whom a higher proportion had adenocarcinoma (48%) than in any other age group. Stage distribution of NSCLC was similar across the age groups and 71% of young patients had stage IIIb/IV. Performance status (PS) was 0-1 for 85%. Young adults were more likely to have surgery and chemotherapy compared with the older age groups and had better overall and post-operative survival. The proportion with adenocarcinoma, better PS and that receiving surgery or chemotherapy diminished progressively with advancing decade age groups.

CONCLUSION

In our cohort of young adults with NSCLC, the majority had good PS despite the same late-stage disease as older patients. They were more likely to have treatment and survive longer than older patients.

Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival?

BACKGROUND

We provide an up-to-date international comparison of cancer survival, assessing whether England is 'closing the gap' compared with other high-income countries.

METHODS

Net survival was estimated using national, population-based, cancer registrations for 1.9 million patients diagnosed with a cancer of the stomach, colon, rectum, lung, breast (women) or ovary in England during 1995-2012. Trends during 1995-2009 were compared with estimates for Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Clinicians were interviewed to help interpret trends.

RESULTS

Survival from all cancers remained lower in England than in Australia, Canada, Norway and Sweden by 2005-2009. For some cancers, survival improved more in England than in other countries between 1995-1999 and 2005-2009; for example, 1-year survival from stomach, rectal, lung, breast and ovarian cancers improved more than in Australia and Canada. There has been acceleration in lung cancer survival improvement in England recently, with average annual improvement in 1-year survival rising to 2% during 2010-2012. Survival improved more in Denmark than in England for rectal and lung cancers between 1995-1999 and 2005-2009.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival has increased in England since the mid-1990s in the context of strategic reform in cancer control, however, survival remains lower than in comparable developed countries and continued investment is needed to close the international survival gap.

EBUS-TBNA in elderly patients with lung cancer: safety and performance outcomes

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) enables minimally invasive lymph node sampling during bronchoscopy under conscious sedation. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the safety profile of EBUS-TBNA in an elderly population. The secondary aim was to assess the efficacy of EBUS-TBNA for nodal staging and pathological diagnosis in elderly patients with primary lung cancer.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing EBUS-TBNA, between March 2010 and August 2012, at a single U.K. hospital site. Procedure and outcome data including 6-month follow-up were collected prospectively. Patients were divided into less than 70 (<70yrs) or 70 and older (≥70yrs) age categories for analysis.

RESULTS

Four hundred and fifty-one patients underwent EBUS-TBNA during the study period. Mean age of the patients was 66.9 ± 11.9 years, 43.9% (n=198) of them were aged ≥70yrs. Older patients (≥70yrs) had a worse performance status (p=0.0001) and required significantly lower levels of sedation (p<0.000001) but had similar overall complication rates (<70yrs 8.7% versus ≥70yrs 5.1%; p=0.13) and tolerated the procedure better than younger patients (p=0.036). Sensitivity (92.9% versus 86.4%; p=0.12) was equivalent, but negative predictive value (91.8% versus 73.9%; p=0.001) and diagnostic accuracy (96.0% versus 90.2%; p=0.02) of nodal sampling in patients with confirmed or suspected lung cancer (n=273) was higher in the ≥70yrs cohort (n=131, 48.0%). However, the prevalence of nodal malignancy was significantly different between the two groups as was the proportion of patients subject to surgical lymph node sampling after negative EBUS-TBNA. EBUS-TBNA samples produced low non-small-cell lung cancer-not otherwise specified rates (6.9%) and high levels of successful epidermal growth factor receptor mutation analysis (97.5%) irrespective of age category.

CONCLUSION

EBUS is a safe and well-tolerated procedure in elderly patients, which facilitates accurate pathological diagnosis and minimally invasive staging in patients with lung cancer.

2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer: early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer consensus on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The 2nd ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, first-line/second and further lines in advanced disease, early-stage disease and locally advanced disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on early-stage disease.

Treatment decisions and survival for people with small-cell lung cancer

Background:

Chemotherapy improves survival for many patients with SCLC, and hence it is important to understand variations in practice and outcomes for this treatment strategy.

Methods:

We used the National Lung Cancer Audit and Hospital Episodes Statistics to determine the proportion of patients who received chemotherapy for SCLC, and assess the effects of patient and organisational factors on the odds of receiving chemotherapy and of completing four cycles. We calculated median survival and used Cox regression to determine factors that predicted survival.

Results:

Of 15 091 cases of SCLC, 70% received at least one cycle of chemotherapy. More deprived people were less likely to receive chemotherapy, but patients were more likely to receive chemotherapy, and to complete ⩾four cycles, if they were referred to the lung cancer team by their GP. Median survival for those treated with chemotherapy was 12.9 months for limited and 7.3 months for extensive stage disease.

Conclusions:

The Linked NLCA and HES data provide real-life measures of survival in people treated with chemotherapy and show how this is influenced by patient and tumour characteristics. These data show the characteristics of patients who are less likely to complete a full course of treatment, an adverse predictor of survival.