Patterns of care and emergency presentations for people with non-small cell lung cancer in New South Wales, Australia: A population-based study

Survival of patients who had cancer diagnosed through an emergency hospital admission: A retrospective matched case-comparison study in Australia

BACKGROUND

Individuals diagnosed with cancer via emergency admission are likely to have poor outcomes. This study aims to identify cancer diagnosed through an emergency hospital admission and examine predictors associated with mortality within 12-months.

METHOD

A population-based retrospective 1:1 propensity-matched case-comparison study of people who had an emergency versus a planned hospital admission with a principal diagnosis of cancer during 2013-2020 in New South Wales, Australia using linked hospital, cancer registry and mortality records. Conditional logistic regression examined predictors of mortality at 12-months.

RESULTS

There were 28,502 matched case-comparisons. Individuals who had an emergency admission were four times more likely to die within 12-months (Odds Ratio (OR) 3.93; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 3.75-4.13) compared to individuals who had a planned admission for cancer. Older individuals, diagnosed with lung (OR 1.89; 95 %CI 1.36-2.63) or digestive organ, excluding colorectal (OR1.78; 95 %CI 1.30-2.43) cancers, where the degree of spread was metastatic (OR 3.61; 95 %CI 2.62-4.50), who had a mental disorder diagnosis (OR 2.08; 95 %CI 1.89-2.30), lived in rural (OR 1.27; 95 %CI 1.17-1.37) or more disadvantaged neighbourhoods had a higher likelihood of death within 12-months following an unplanned admission compared to referent groups. Females (OR 0.87; 95 %CI 0.81-0.93) had an 13 % lower likelihood of mortality within 12-months compared to males.

CONCLUSIONS

While some emergency cancer admissions are not avoidable, the importance of preventive screening and promotion of help-seeking for early cancer symptoms should not be overlooked as mechanisms to reduce emergency admissions related to cancer and to improve cancer survival.

Diagnosis of lung cancer following emergency admission: Examining care pathways, clinical outcomes, and advanced NSCLC treatment in an Italian cancer Center

Background

Lung cancer patients diagnosed following emergency admission often present with advanced disease and poor performance status, leading to suboptimal treatment options and outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the clinical and molecular characteristics, treatment initiation, and survival outcomes of these patients.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data from 124 patients diagnosed with lung cancer following emergency admission at a single institution. Clinical characteristics, results of molecular analyses for therapeutic purpose, systemic treatment initiation, and survival outcomes were assessed. Correlations between patients' characteristics and treatment initiation were analyzed.

Results

Median age at admission was 73 years, and 79.0 % had at least one comorbidity. Most patients (87.1 %) were admitted due to cancer-related symptoms. Molecular analyses were performed in 89.5 % of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases. In this subgroup, two-thirds (66.2 %) received first-line therapy. Median overall survival (OS) was 3.9 months for the entire cohort, and 2.9 months for patients with metastatic lung cancer. Among patients with advanced NSCLC, OS was significantly longer for those with actionable oncogenic drivers and those who received first-line therapy. Improvement of performance status during hospitalization resulted in increased probability of receiving first-line systemic therapy.

Discussion

Patients diagnosed with lung cancer following emergency admission demonstrated poor survival outcomes. Treatment initiation, particularly for patients with actionable oncogenic drivers, was associated with longer OS. These findings highlight the need for proactive medical approaches, including improving access to molecular diagnostics and targeted treatments, to optimize outcomes in this patient population.

Patient outcomes associated with cancer diagnosis through the emergency department: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Many patients are initially diagnosed with a new suspected cancer through the emergency department (ED). The objective of this systematic review was to compare stage of cancer and survival of patients diagnosed with cancer through the ED to patients diagnosed elsewhere.

METHODS

Electronic searches of Medline and EMBASE were conducted and reference lists were hand-searched. Studies comparing adult patients diagnosed with any type of cancer through the ED (ED diagnosis) to patients diagnosed elsewhere (non-ED diagnosis) were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed quality of the studies, and extracted data. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data pertaining to patient outcomes were summarized and pooled using random-effects models and reported as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), where applicable.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. There was an increased risk of more advanced/later stage cancer (Stage III/IV or late-stage vs. earlier stage) among patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer compared to a non-ED diagnosis of cancer (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.39-1.58). Survival was lower for patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer compared to those diagnosed elsewhere (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.49-0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with an ED diagnosis of cancer had more advanced/late stage of cancer at diagnosis and worse survival compared to patients diagnosed elsewhere. Future research examining patients diagnosed with cancer through the ED is required.

Lung cancer in the emergency department

Background

Though decreasing in incidence and mortality in the USA, lung cancer remains the deadliest of all cancers. For a significant number of patients, the emergency department (ED) provides the first pivotal step in lung cancer prevention, diagnosis, and management. As screening recommendations and treatments advance, ED providers must stay up-to-date with the latest lung cancer recommendations. The purpose of this review is to identify the many ways that emergency providers may intersect with the disease spectrum of lung cancer and provide an updated array of knowledge regarding detection, management, complications, and interdisciplinary care.

Findings

Lung cancer, encompassing 10-12% of cancer-related emergency department visits and a 66% admission rate, is the most fatal malignancy in both men and women. Most patients presenting to the ED have not seen a primary care provider or undergone screening. Ultimately, half of those with a new lung cancer diagnosis in the ED die within 1 year. Incidental findings on computed tomography are mostly benign, but emergency staff must be aware of the factors that make them high risk. Radiologic presentations range from asymptomatic nodules to diffuse metastatic lesions with predominately pulmonary symptoms, and some may present with extra-thoracic manifestations including neurologic. The short-term prognosis for ED lung cancer patients is worse than that of other malignancies. Screening offers new hope through earlier diagnosis but is underutilized which may be due to racial and socioeconomic disparities. New treatments provide optimism but lead to new complications, some long-term. Multidisciplinary care is essential, and emergency medicine is responsible for the disposition of patients to the appropriate specialists at inpatient and outpatient centers.

Conclusion

ED providers are intimately involved in all aspects of lung cancer care. Risk factor modification and referral for lung cancer screening are opportunities to further enhance patient care. In addition, with the advent of newer cancer therapies, ED providers must stay vigilant and up-to-date with all aspects of lung cancer including disparities, staging, symptoms of disease, prognosis, treatment, and therapy-related complications.

Measuring Health Equity in Emergency Care Using Routinely Collected Data: A Systematic Review

Introduction: Achieving equity in health care remains a challenge for health care systems worldwide and marked inequities in access and quality of care persist. Identifying health care equity indicators is an important first step in integrating the concept of equity into assessments of health care system performance, particularly in emergency care.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of administrative data-derived health care equity indicators and their association with socioeconomic determinants of health (SEDH) in emergency care settings. Following PRISMA-Equity reporting guidelines, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for relevant studies. The outcomes of interest were indicators of health care equity and the associated SEDH they examine.

Results: Among 29 studies identified, 14 equity indicators were identified and grouped into four categories that reflect the patient emergency care pathway. Total emergency department (ED) visits and ambulatory care-sensitive condition-related ED visits were the two most frequently used equity indicators. The studies analyzed equity based on seven SEDH: social deprivation, income, education level, social class, insurance coverage, health literacy, and financial and nonfinancial barriers. Despite some conflicting results, all identified SEDH are associated with inequalities in access to and use of emergency care.

Conclusion: The use of administrative data-derived indicators in combination with identified SEDH could improve the measurement of health care equity in emergency care settings across health care systems worldwide. Using a combination of indicators is likely to lead to a more comprehensive, well-rounded measurement of health care equity than using any one indicator in isolation. Although studies analyzed focused on emergency care settings, it seems possible to extrapolate these indicators to measure equity in other areas of the health care system. Further studies elucidating root causes of health inequities in and outside the health care system are needed.

Socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer survival: contributions of prognostic factors in a large Australian cohort

Purpose

We quantified the contributions of prognostic factors to socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer survival in a large Australian cohort.

Methods

The sample comprised 45 and Up Study participants (recruited 2006–2009) who were subsequently diagnosed with colorectal cancer. Both individual (education attained) and neighbourhood socioeconomic measures were used. Questionnaire responses were linked with cancer registrations (to December 2013), records for hospital inpatient stays, emergency department presentations, death information (to December 2015), and Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits claims for subsidised procedures and medicines. Proportions of socioeconomic survival differences explained by prognostic factors were quantified using multiple Cox proportional hazards regression.

Results

1720 eligible participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer after recruitment: 1174 colon and 546 rectal cancers. Significant colon cancer survival differences were only observed for neighbourhood socioeconomic measure (p = 0.033): HR = 1.55; 95% CI 1.09–2.19 for lowest versus highest quartile, and disease-related factors explained 95% of this difference. For rectal cancer, patient- and disease-related factors were the main drivers of neighbourhood survival differences (28–36%), while these factors and treatment-related factors explained 24–41% of individual socioeconomic differences. However, differences remained significant for rectal cancer after adjusting for all these factors.

Conclusion

In this large contemporary Australian cohort, we identified several drivers of socioeconomic disparities in colorectal cancer survival. Understanding of the role these contributors play remains incomplete, but these findings suggest that improving access to optimal care may significantly reduce these survival disparities.

Lung cancer treatment patterns and factors relating to systemic therapy use in Australia

AIM

Systemic therapies for lung cancer are rapidly evolving. This study aimed to describe lung cancer treatment patterns in New South Wales, Australia, prior to the introduction of immunotherapy and latest-generation targeted therapies.

METHODS

Systemic therapy utilization and treatment-related factors were examined for participants in the New South Wales 45 and Up Study with incident lung cancer ascertained by record linkage to the New South Wales Cancer Registry (2006-2013). Systemic therapy receipt to June 2016 was determined using medical and pharmaceutical claims data from Services Australia, and in-patient hospital records. Factors related to treatment were identified using competing risks regressions.

RESULTS

A total of 1,116 lung cancer cases were identified with a mean age at diagnosis of 72 years and median survival of 10.6 months. Systemic therapy was received by 45% of cases. Among 400 cases with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer, 51% and 28% received first- and second-line systemic therapy, respectively. Among 112 diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer, 79% and 29% received first- and second-line systemic therapy. The incidence of systemic therapy was lower for participants with indicators of poor performance status, lower educational attainment, and those who lived in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage; and was higher for participants with small-cell lung cancer histology or higher body mass index.

CONCLUSION

This population-based Australian study identified patterns of systemic therapy use for lung cancer, particularly small-cell lung cancer. Despite a universal healthcare system, the analysis revealed socioeconomic disparities in health service utilization and relatively low utilization of systemic therapy overall.

Factors associated with emergency-related diagnosis, time to treatment and type of treatment in 5713 lung cancer patients

Background

International and national differences exist in survival among lung cancer patients. Possible explanations include varying proportions of emergency presentations (EPs), unwanted differences in waiting time to treatment and unequal access to treatment.

Methods

Case-mix-adjusted multivariable logistic regressions the odds of EP and access to surgery, radiotherapy and systemic anticancer treatment (SACT). Multivariable quantile regression analyzed time from diagnosis to first treatment.

Results

Of 5713 lung cancer patients diagnosed in Norway in 2015–16, 37.9% (n = 2164) had an EP before diagnosis. Higher age, more advanced stage and more comorbidities were associated with increasing odds of having an EP (P < 0.001) and a lower odds of receiving any treatment (P < 0.001). After adjusting for case-mix, waiting times to curative radiotherapy and SACT were 12.1 days longer [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.2, 14.0] and 5.6 days shorter (95% CI: −7.3, −3.9), respectively, compared with waiting time to surgery. Patients with regional disease experienced a 4.7-day shorter (Coeff: −4.7, 95% CI:−9.4, 0.0) waiting time to curative radiotherapy when compared with patients with localized disease. Patients with a high income had a 22% reduced odds [odds ratio (OR) = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63, 0.97] of having an EP, and a 63% (OR = 1.63, 95% CI: 1.20, 2.21) and a 40% (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.12, 1.76) increased odds of receiving surgery and SACT, respectively.

Conclusion

Patients who were older, had advanced disease or increased comorbidities were more likely to have an EP and less likely to receive treatment. While income did not affect the waiting time for lung cancer treatment in Norway, it did affect the likelihood of receiving surgery and SACT.

Lung Cancer Pre-Diagnostic Pathways from First Presentation to Specialist Referral

Background: Lung cancer is often diagnosed at a late stage with high associated mortality. Timely diagnosis depends on timely referral to a respiratory specialist; however, in Canada, little is known about how patients move through primary care to get to a respiratory specialist. Accordingly, we aimed to identify and describe lung cancer pre-diagnostic pathways in primary care from first presentation to referral. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patients with primary lung cancer were recruited using consecutive sampling (n = 50) from a lung cancer center in Montréal, Québec. Data on healthcare service utilization in primary care were collected from chart reviews and structured patient interviews and analyzed using latent class analysis to identify groups of patients with similar pre-diagnostic pathways. Each group was described based on patient- and tumor-related characteristics and the sequence of utilization activities. Results: 68% of the patients followed a pathway where family physician (FP) visits were dominant (“FP-centric”) and 32% followed a pathway where walk-in clinic and emergency department (ED) visits were dominant (“ED-centric”). Time to referral in the FP group was double that of the ED group (45 days (IQR: 12–111) vs. 22 (IQR: 5–69)) with more advanced disease (65% vs. 50%). In the FP group, 29% of the patients saw their FP three times or more before being referred and 41% had an ED visit. Conclusions: Our findings may reflect the challenge of diagnosing lung cancer in primary care, missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis, and a lack of integration between primary and specialist care.

Health services costs for lung cancer care in Australia: Estimates from the 45 and Up Study

Background

Of all cancer types, healthcare for lung cancer is the third most costly in Australia, but there is little detailed information about these costs. Our aim was to provide detailed population-based estimates of health system costs for lung cancer care, as a benchmark prior to wider availability of targeted therapies/immunotherapy and to inform cost-effectiveness analyses of lung cancer screening and other interventions in Australia.

Methods

Health system costs were estimated for incident lung cancers in the Australian 45 and Up Study cohort, diagnosed between recruitment (2006–2009) and 2013. Costs to June 2016 included services reimbursed via the Medicare Benefits Schedule, medicines reimbursed via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, inpatient hospitalisations, and emergency department presentations. Costs for cases and matched, cancer-free controls were compared to derive excess costs of care. Costs were disaggregated by patient and tumour characteristics. Data for more recent cases identified in hospital records provided preliminary information on targeted therapy/immunotherapy.

Results

994 eligible cases were diagnosed with lung cancer 2006–2013; 51% and 74% died within one and three years respectively. Excess costs from one-year pre-diagnosis to three years post-diagnosis averaged ~$51,900 per case. Observed costs were higher for cases diagnosed at age 45–59 ($67,700) or 60–69 ($63,500), and lower for cases aged ≥80 ($29,500) and those with unspecified histology ($31,700) or unknown stage ($36,500). Factors associated with lower costs generally related to shorter survival: older age (p<0.0001), smoking (p<0.0001) and unknown stage (p = 0.002). There was no evidence of differences by year of diagnosis or sex (both p>0.50). For 465 cases diagnosed 2014–2015, 29% had subsidised molecular testing for targeted therapy/immunotherapy and 4% had subsidised targeted therapies.

Conclusions

Lung cancer healthcare costs are strongly associated with survival-related factors. Costs appeared stable over the period 2006–2013. This study provides a framework for evaluating the health/economic impact of introducing lung cancer screening and other interventions in Australia.

Why do delays to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer occur? A mixed methods study of insights from Australian clinicians

AIMS

Delays in lung cancer diagnosis and treatment can impact survival. We explored reasons for delays experienced by patients with lung cancer to identify themes and strategies for improvement.

METHODS

We used national timeframe recommendations and standardized definitions to identify General Practitioners and specialists caring for 34 patients who experienced delays in our previous Medicare data linkage study. Clinicians participated in a survey and interview, including qualitative (exploratory, open-ended questions) and quantitative (rating scales) components. Exploratory content analysis, cross-case triangulation, and descriptive statistics were performed. Krippendorff's coefficient was used to assess level of agreement between clinicians and patients, and among clinicians, on perceived delays.

RESULTS

Overall, 27 out of 50 (54%) eligible clinicians participated (including 11 respiratory physicians and seven medical oncologists). Dominant themes for perceived causes of delay included referral barriers, limited General Practitioner (GP) awareness of subtle clinical presentations, insufficient radiology interpretation, and lack of cancer coordinators. "Unavoidable" delays may occur due to clinical circumstances. Awareness and uptake of referral and timeframe guidelines were low, with clinicians using professional networks over guidelines. There was no consistent agreement on perceived delays between patients and clinicians, and among clinicians (Krippendorff's coefficient .03 [P = .8]).

CONCLUSIONS

Strategies for minimizing avoidable delays include efficient GP to specialist referral and more lung cancer coordinators to assist with patient expectations and waitlist management. Clinicians' reliance on experience, rather than guidelines, indicates need to review guideline utility. Raising awareness of benchmarks and unavoidable barriers may recalibrate perceptions of "delays" to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer.

Contributions of prognostic factors to socioeconomic disparities in cancer survival: protocol for analysis of a cohort with linked data

INTRODUCTION

Socioeconomic disparities in cancer survival have been reported in many developed countries, including Australia. Although some international studies have investigated the determinants of these socioeconomic disparities, most previous Australian studies have been descriptive, as only limited relevant data are generally available. Here, we describe a protocol for a study to use data from a large-scale Australian cohort linked with several other health-related databases to investigate several groups of factors associated with socioeconomic disparities in cancer survival in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and quantify their contributions to the survival disparities.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study participants completed a baseline questionnaire during 2006-2009. Those who were subsequently diagnosed with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung or female breast will be included. This study sample will be identified by linkage with NSW Cancer Registry data for 2006-2013, and their vital status will be determined by linking with cause of death records up to 31 December 2015. The study cohort will be divided into four groups based on each of the individual education level and an area-based socioeconomic measure. The treatment received will be obtained through linking with hospital records and Medicare and pharmaceutical claims data. Cox proportional hazards models will be fitted sequentially to estimate the percentage contributions to overall socioeconomic survival disparities of patient factors, tumour and diagnosis factors, and treatment variables.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research is covered by ethical approval from the NSW Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee. Results of the study will be disseminated to different interest groups and organisations through scientific conferences, social media and peer-reviewed articles.

Cost of screening for lung cancer in Australia

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening can reduce lung cancer mortality. Australian cost estimates are important to inform policy but remain uncertain.

AIM

To describe the first direct medical costs associated with lung cancer screening in Australia.

METHODS

Single-centre prospective screening cohort. Healthy volunteers (age 60-74 years, current or former smokers quit <15 years prior to enrolment, ≥30 pack-years exposure) underwent baseline and two annual incidence computed tomography (CT) screening scans. Health status and healthcare usage data were collated for 5 years. The main outcome measures were: rates of lung cancer; individual healthcare resource use derived from multiple data sources adjusted to 2018 Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule values.

RESULTS

A total of 256, 239, 233 participants was screened at each round respectively; 12 participants were diagnosed with lung cancer during screening and 2 during follow-up: 9 underwent surgery, 4 received concurrent chemoradiation, 1 received palliative chemotherapy. One surgical case died from lymphoma 1407 days after diagnosis, all other surgical cases survived >5 years. Non-surgical median survival post-diagnosis was 654 days. Gross trial cost was Australian dollar (AU$) 965 665 (AU$397 396 CT scans; AU$29 303 false-positive scan work-up; AU$96 340 true-positive scan workup; AU$336 914 lung cancer treatment; AU$104 712 lung cancer follow-up post-treatment). Average total direct medical cost per participant was AU$3 768. Average direct cost of surgery was AU$22 659; average non-surgical cost was AU$47 395 (radiotherapy, chemotherapy, palliative care).

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced cancer cost more to treat and had worse survival than early cancer. Screening costs are similar to international studies and suggest that lung cancer early detection could limit treatment costs and improve outcomes.

Patterns of care for stage III non-small cell lung cancer in Australia

Stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) makes up a third of all NSCLC cases and is potentially curable. Despite this 5-year survival rates remain between 15% and 20% with chemoradiation treatment alone given with curative intent. With the recent exciting breakthroughs in immunotherapy use (durvalumab) for stage III NSCLC, further improvements in patient survival can be expected. Most patients with stage III NSCLC present initially to their general practitioner (GP). The recommended time from GP referral to first specialist appointment is less than 14 days with treatment initiated within 42 days. Our review found that there is a shortfall in meeting these recommendations, however a number of initiatives have been established in Australia to improve timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment patterns. The lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) is critical to consistency of evidence-based diagnosis and treatment and can improve patient survival. We aimed to review current patterns of care and clinical practice recommendations for stage III NSCLC across Australia and identify opportunities to improve practice in referral, diagnosis and treatment pathways.

Pathways to diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer: a descriptive cohort study

Little has been published on the diagnostic and referral pathway for lung cancer in Australia. This study set out to quantify general practitioner (GP) and lung specialist attendance and diagnostic imaging in the lead-up to a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and identify common pathways to diagnosis in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. We used linked health data for participants of the 45 and Up Study (a NSW population-based cohort study) diagnosed with NSCLC between 2006 and 2012. Our main outcome measures were GP and specialist attendances, X-rays and computed tomography (CT) scans of the chest and lung cancer-related hospital admissions. Among our study cohort (N = 894), 60% (n = 536) had ≥4 GP attendances in the 3 months prior to diagnosis of NSCLC, 56% (n = 505) had GP-ordered imaging (chest X-ray or CT scan), 39% (N = 349) attended a respiratory physician and 11% (N = 102) attended a cardiothoracic surgeon. The two most common pathways to diagnosis, accounting for one in three people, included GP and lung specialist (respiratory physician or cardiothoracic surgeon) involvement. Overall, 25% of people (n = 223) had an emergency hospital admission. For 14% of people (N = 129), an emergency hospital admission was the only event identified on the pathway to diagnosis. We found little effect of remoteness of residence on access to services. This study identified a substantial proportion of people with NSCLC being diagnosed in an emergency setting. Further research is needed to establish whether there were barriers to the timely diagnosis of these cases.

Examining events leading to the diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Australia yields insights to guide further research and perhaps improve the pathways to diagnosis. NSCLC is by far the most common form of lung cancer. Researchers, led by the Cancer Institute New South Wales, investigated clinical care contacts leading to diagnosis, using a descriptive cohort study of 894 patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2012. The researchers quantified contact with GPs and lung specialists, hospital admissions and diagnostic imaging procedures. Living in remote locations had little influence on access to services. More than half of the patients did not see a lung specialist during the pathway to diagnosis, while a quarter received their diagnosis in an emergency setting. Further research should investigate whether there are barriers preventing timely diagnosis.