Cancer diagnosis in Scottish primary care: results from the National Cancer Diagnosis Audit

The National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (NCDA) in Scotland received enabling support from Cancer Research UK and the Scottish Government. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSThis audit used data provided by patients and collected by the NHS as part of their care and support. The authors would like to thank all GPs and health professionals who participated in the NCDA in Scotland and England, the members of the NCDA Steering Group (National Cancer Diagnosis Audit (2014) Steering Group: Sue Ballard (patient †), Patricia Barnett, David H Brewster, Cathy Burton, Anthony Cunliffe, Jane Fenton-May,Anna Gavin, Sara Hiom(chair),Peter Hutchison, Dyfed Huws, Maggie Kemmner, Rosie Loftus, Georgios Lyratzopoulos,Emma McNair, John Marsh (patient), Jodie Moffat, Sean McPhail, Peter Murchie, Andy Murphy, Sophia Nicola, Imran Rafi, Jem Rashbass, Richard Roope, Greg Rubin, Brian Shand, Ruth Swann, Janet Warlow, David Weller and Jana Witt.) and contributing staff at Cancer Research UK; Information Services Division (NHS Scotland); Scottish Government; the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (Public Health England); NHS England; the Royal College of General Practitioners; and Macmillan Cancer SupportPeer reviewedPostprin

The cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies after cancer treatment: a systematic literature review

Introduction: The cost of treatment and follow-up of cancer patients in the UK is substantial. In a budget-constrained system such as the NHS, it is necessary to consider the cost-effectiveness of the range of management strategies at different points on cancer patients' care pathways to ensure that they provide adequate value for money. Sources of data: We conducted a systematic literature review to explore the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies of patients previously treated for cancer with the aim of informing UK policy. All papers that were considered to be economic evaluations in the subject areas described above were extracted. Areas of agreement: The existing literature suggests that intensive follow-up of patients with colorectal disease is likely to be cost-effective, but the opposite holds for breast cancer. Areas of controversy: Interventions and strategies for follow-up in cancer patients were variable across type of cancer and setting. Drawing general conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of these interventions/strategies is difficult. Growing points: The search identified 2036 references but applying inclusion/exclusion criteria a total of 44 articles were included in the analysis. Breast cancer was the most common (n = 11) cancer type followed by colorectal (n = 10) cancer. In general, there were relatively few studies of cost-effectiveness of follow-up that could influence UK guidance. Where there was evidence, in the most part, NICE guidance broadly reflected this evidence. Areas timely to develop research: In terms of future research around the timing, frequency and composition of follow-ups, this is dependent on the type of cancer being considered. Nevertheless, across most cancers, the possibility of remote follow-up (or testing) by health professionals other than hospital consultants in other settings appears to warrant further work

Trends in lung cancer emergency presentation in England, 2006–2013: is there a pattern by general practice?

Supplementary material to a paper on trends in lung cancer emergency presentation in England, 2006–2013. Five files are contained: a description of practice level characteristics considered in the analyses (Table S1), characteristics of lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2006 to 2013 by emergency presentation type and for non-emergency presentations (Table S2), a comparison of logistic models and mixed logistic models for the modelling of emergency presentation by patient and practice variables, lung cancer patients diagnosed in 2010 (Table S3), Odds Ratio for the models presented in Table S2 and Additional file 5 (Table S4), and ROC curves associated with two sets of models defined in Table S1 (Figure S1