Which patients are assessed by lung cancer nurse specialists? A national lung cancer audit study of over 128,000 patients across England

Background: Lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNS) are integral to the multidisciplinary clinical team, providing personalised physical and psycho-social interventions, and care management for people with lung cancer. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend that all patients have access to a LCNS. We conducted a national study assessing whether there is variation in access to and timing of LCNS assessment. Methods: The National Cancer Action Team’s LCNS workforce census in England was linked with patient and hospital Trust data from the English National Lung Cancer Audit. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess features associated with LCNS assessment. Results: 128,124 lung cancer patients were seen from 2007 to 2011. LCNS assessment confirmation was ‘yes’ in 62%, ‘no’ in 6% and ‘missing’ in 32%. Where (in clinic versus ward) and when (before versus after diagnosis) patients were assessed by a LCNS also varied. Older patients with poor performance status, early cancer stage, and comorbidities were less likely to be assessed; there was no difference with sex or socioeconomic group. Patients receiving any anti-cancer treatment were more likely to be assessed. Assessment was lower in Trusts with high annual patient numbers (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.37–0.91) and where LCNS caseload > 250 (0.69, 0.41–1.16, although not statistically significant), but increased where workload was conducted mostly by band 8 nurses (2.22, 1.22–4.02). Conclusion: LCNS assessment varied by patient and Trust features, which may indicate unmet need for some patients. The current workforce needs to expand as well as retain experienced LCNSs

The impact of the ‘hub and spoke’ model of care for lung cancer and equitable access to surgery

Objectives: To determine the influence of where a patient is first seen (either surgical or non-surgical centre) and patient features on having surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Design: Cross-sectional study from individual patients, between 1January 2008 and 31March 2012. Setting: Linked National Lung Cancer Audit and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Participants: 95 818 English patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC, of whom 12 759 (13%) underwent surgical resection. Main outcome measure: Odds of having surgery based on the empirical catchment population of the 30 thoracic surgical centres in England and whether the patient is first seen in a surgical centre or a non-surgical centre. Results: Patients were more likely to be operated on if they were first seen at a surgical centre (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.45). This was most marked for surgical centres with the largest catchment populations. In these surgical centres with large catchment populations, the resection rate for local patients was 18% and for patients first seen in a non-surgical centre within catchment was 12%. Conclusions: Surgical centres that serve the largest catchment populations have high resection rates for patients first seen in their own centre but, in contrast, low resection rates for patients first seen at the surrounding centres they serve. Our findings demonstrate the importance of going further than relating resection rates to hospital volume or surgeon number, and show that there is a pressing need to design lung cancer services which enable all patients, including those first seen at non-surgical centres, to have equal access to lung cancer surgery

Do working practices of cancer nurse specialists improve clinical outcomes? Retrospective cohort analysis from the English National Lung Cancer Audit

Background Cancer nurse specialists are advanced practitioners who offer continuity of care and expert support for people diagnosed with specific cancers. Health Education England's Cancer Workforce Plan prioritises expansion of cancer nurse specialist numbers by 2021 as part of the Cancer Taskforce Strategy for England. Objective To assess whether working practices of advanced practice specialist nurses are associated with clinical outcomes for people with lung cancer. Methods Adults with non-small cell lung cancer followed from 30 days post-diagnosis in English secondary care were obtained from the English National Lung Cancer Audit, 2007 to 2011. A national survey of lung cancer nurse specialists provided information on self-reported working practices. Mortality and unplanned admissions from 30 days to 12 months post diagnosis were respectively analysed using Cox and Poisson regression. Outcomes were assessed according to patients’ receipt of initial assessments by a lung cancer nurse specialist and according to trust-level reported working practices. Regression models were adjusted for individual sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, error adjusted for intracorrelations within regional cancer networks, and presented separately according to patients’ treatment pathways (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or no anti-cancer therapy). Results Data for 108,115 people with lung cancer were analysed and associations with mortality and unplanned admissions were infrequent. Among people receiving only radiotherapy, however, the hazard for death was 17% lower among those who received an assessment by a lung cancer nurse specialist, compared with no assessment (hazard ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.73–0.94; p = 0.003). The hazard was also lower among those receiving surgery (hazard ratio = 0.91, 0.84–0.99; p = 0.028). Among those receiving radiotherapy, nurse specialists’ reported confidence within multidisciplinary team settings was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio = 0.88, 0.78–1.00; p = 0.049) and a lower rate of unplanned cancer-related admissions (incidence rate ratio = 0.83, 0.73–0.95; p = 0.007). Lung cancer nurse specialist assessments before/at diagnosis, were associated with a 5% lower rate of unplanned admissions, compared to when assessments occurred after diagnosis. Conclusion The contribution of nurse specialist working practices was occasionally associated with better outcomes for people with lung cancer. These were not limited to a single treatment pathway, but do indicate discrete relationships within pathways. Our study provides initial measures of overall lung cancer nurse specialist working practices at trusts, however, more detailed studies with longitudinal measurement of lung cancer nurse specialist-patient interaction are needed to better ascertain impacts on long-term patient outcomes. The findings highlight opportunities for potential improvement in effectiveness of service and care management

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 Xfour 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

Are working practices of lung cancer nurse specialists associated with variation in peoples' receipt of anticancer therapy?

OBJECTIVES: Treatment choices for people with lung cancer may be influenced by contact and engagement with lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNSs). We investigated how service factors, LCNS workload, and LCNS working practices may influence the receipt of anticancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: English National Lung Cancer Audit data and inpatient Hospital Episode Statistics for 109,079 people with lung cancer surviving 30 days from diagnosis were linked along with LCNS workforce census data and a bespoke nationwide LCNS survey. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine adjusted relative risk ratios (RRRs) for receipt of anticancer therapies associated with LCNS assessment, LCNS workforce composition, caseload, LCNS reported working practices, treatment facilities at the patients' attending hospitals, and the size of the lung cancer service. RESULTS: Assessment by an LCNS was the strongest independent predictor for receipt of anticancer therapy, with early LCNS assessments being particularly associated with greater receipt of surgery (RRR 1.85, 95%CI 1.63-2.11). For people we considered clinically suitable for surgery, receipt was 55%. Large LCNS caseloads were associated with decreased receipt of surgery among suitable patients (RRR 0.71, 95%CI 0.51-0.97) for caseloads >250 compared to ≤150. Reported LCNS working practices were associated with receipt of surgery, particularly provision of psychological support (RRR 1.60, 95%CI 1.02-2.51) and social support (RRR 1.56, 95%CI 1.07-2.28). CONCLUSION: LCNS assessment, workload, and working practices are associated with the likelihood of patients receiving anticancer therapy. Enabling and supporting LCNSs to undertake key case management interventions offers an opportunity to improve treatment uptake and reduce the apparent gap in receipt of surgery for those suitable

Biomarker Testing for People With Advanced Lung Cancer in England

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

Small-cell lung cancer in England: trends in survival and chemotherapy using the National Lung Cancer Audit

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify trends in survival and chemotherapy use for individuals with smallcell lung cancer (SCLC) in England using the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA). Methods: We used data from the NLCA database to identify people with histologically proven SCLC from 2004–2011. We calculated the median survival by stage and assessed whether patient characteristics changed over time. We also assessed whether the proportion of patients with records of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy changed over time. Results: 18,513 patients were diagnosed with SCLC in our cohort. The median survival was 6 months for all patients, 1 year for those with limited stage and 4 months for extensive stage. 69% received chemotherapy and this proportion changed very slightly over time (test for trends p = 0.055). Age and performance status of patients remained stable over the study period, but the proportion of patients staged increased (p-value,0.001), mainly because of improved data completeness. There has been an increase in the proportion of patients that had a record of receiving both chemotherapy and radiotherapy each year (from 19% to 40% in limited and from 9% to 21% in extensive stage from 2004 to 2011). Patients who received chemotherapy with radiotherapy had better survival compared with any other treatment (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.23–0.25). Conclusion: Since 2004, when the NLCA was established, the proportion of patients with SCLC having chemotherapy has remained static. We have found an upward trend in the proportion of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiotherapy which corresponded to a better survival in this group, but as it only applied for a small proportion of patients, it was not enough to change the overall survival

Genomic-based-breeding tools for tropical maize improvement

Maize has traditionally been the main staple diet in the Southern Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and widely grown by millions of resource poor small scale farmers. Approximately, 35.4 million hectares are sown to tropical maize, constituting around 59% of the developing worlds. Tropical maize encounters tremendous challenges besides poor agro-climatic situations with average yields recorded <3 tones/hectare that is far less than the average of developed countries. On the contrary to poor yields, the demand for maize as food, feed, and fuel is continuously increasing in these regions. Heterosis breeding introduced in early 90 s improved maize yields significantly, but genetic gains is still a mirage, particularly for crop growing under marginal environments. Application of molecular markers has accelerated the pace of maize breeding to some extent. The availability of array of sequencing and genotyping technologies offers unrivalled service to improve precision in maize-breeding programs through modern approaches such as genomic selection, genome-wide association studies, bulk segregant analysis-based sequencing approaches, etc. Superior alleles underlying complex traits can easily be identified and introgressed efficiently using these sequence-based approaches. Integration of genomic tools and techniques with advanced genetic resources such as nested association mapping and backcross nested association mapping could certainly address the genetic issues in maize improvement programs in developing countries. Huge diversity in tropical maize and its inherent capacity for doubled haploid technology offers advantage to apply the next generation genomic tools for accelerating production in marginal environments of tropical and subtropical world. Precision in phenotyping is the key for success of any molecular-breeding approach. This article reviews genomic technologies and their application to improve agronomic traits in tropical maize breeding has been reviewed in detail

Barriers to delivering advanced cancer nursing : a workload analysis of specialist nurse practice linked to the English National Lung Cancer Audit

Purpose Health services across the world utilise advanced practice in cancer care. In the UK, lung cancer nurse specialists (LCNS) are recognised as key components of quality care in national guidelines, yet access to LCNS contact is unequal and some responsibilities are reportedly left undone. We assess whether any variation in working practices of LCNS is attributable to factors of the lung cancer service at the hospital trust. Method Nationwide workload analysis of LCNS working practices in England, linked at trust level to patient data from the National Lung Cancer Audit. Chi-squared tests were performed to assess whether patient contact, workload, involvement in multidisciplinary teams (MDT), and provision of key interventions were related to 1) the trust's lung cancer service size, 2) LCNS caseload, 3) anti-cancer treatment facilities and 4) lung cancer patient survival. Results Unpaid overtime was substantial for over 60% of nurses and not associated with particular service factors assessed; lack of administrative support was associated with large caseloads and chemotherapy facilities. LCNS at trusts with no specialty were more likely to challenge all MDT members (80%) compared with those at surgical (53%) or chemotherapy (58%) trusts. The most frequent specialist nursing intervention to not be routinely offered was proactive case management. Conclusion Working practices of LCNS vary according to service factors, most frequently associated with trust anti-cancer treatment facilities. High workload pressures and limited ability to provide key interventions should be addressed across all services to ensure patients have access to recommended standards of care