How have Patients\u27 Experiences of Cancer Care Been Linked to Survival? A Systematic Review

Patient experience of care remains an important indicator of health care quality. Although studies show care experiences are associated with health outcomes for some conditions, the situation for cancer is unclear. New datasets on cancer patients in the US, Canada, and UK linking information on experiences and survival may enable an exploration of any association. This review aimed to identify studies linking any aspect of cancer patients’ experiences to their survival, to inform future analyses. We performed a systematic review using Medline database from January 1998 until March 2018. The settings included outpatient oncology clinics, primary care, hospitals, and cancer centres. The participants included adult patients from different demographic groups. 16 Studies (ten observational, two clinical trials, two qualitative, and two consecutive case series) describing a wide range of settings, populations and methods met our inclusion criteria. Patients’ experiences were mostly linked to survival in quantitative studies. Satisfaction with care and psychosocial support were the aspects of experience associated with survival. Although positive associations between experience and survival were more common, negative and lack of association findings were also reported. Overall, there was no agreement on the strength, direction of the association, and the type of measurements to use. In conclusion, a wide range of studies suggest a relationship may exist between patients’ experiences of cancer care and their survival. However, this relationship is complex and methodological challenging to study. Future research should carefully consider different aspects of patient experience and care and the way in which they may affect cancer survival

Role of Comorbidity on Survival after Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy for Nonsurgically Treated Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity, such as diseases of the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and other systems, may influence prognosis in lung cancer and complicate its treatment. The performance status of patients, which is a known prognostic marker, may also be influenced by comorbidity. Due to the close link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer, and because lung cancer is often diagnosed in advanced ages (median age at diagnosis in Denmark is 70 years), comorbidity is present in a large proportion of lung cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with any stage lung cancer who did not have surgical treatment were identified in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry. Danish Lung Cancer Registry collects data from clinical departments, the Danish Cancer Registry, Danish National Patient Registry, and the Central Population Register. A total of 20,552 patients diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005 to 2011 were identified. Comorbidity data were extracted from the Danish National Patient Registry, which is a register of all in- and outpatient visits to hospitals in Denmark. By record linkage, lung cancer patients who had previously been diagnosed with comorbid conditions were assigned a Charlson comorbidity index. Initial cancer treatment was categorized as chemotherapy, chemoradiation, radiotherapy, or no therapy. Data on Charlson comorbidity index, performance status, age, sex, stage, pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), histology, and type of initial treatment (if any) were included in univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. RESULTS: Treatment rates for chemotherapy and chemoradiation declined with increasing comorbidity and in particular increasing age. Women received treatment more often than men. In a univariable analysis of all patients combined, stage, performance status, age, sex, lung function, and comorbidity were all associated with survival. Apart from excess mortality among patients with unspecified histological subtypes (hazard ratio), there was no clear difference between the specified subtypes. When adjusting for the other factors, particularly age, sex, performance status, and stage proved to be robust while risk estimates for comorbidity were attenuated somewhat. When grouped by the three types of cancer treatment or no treatment, there was no influence of comorbidity on radiation therapy and modest influence on survival after chemotherapy and chemoradiation. In contrast, age remained a strong negative prognosticator after multivariate adjustment as did stage and performance status. CONCLUSION: Comorbidity has a limited effect on survival and only for patients treated with chemotherapy. It is rather the performance of the patient at diagnosis than the medical history that prognosticates survival in this patient group

Social differences in lung cancer management and survival in South East England: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE: To examine possible social variations in lung cancer survival and assess if any such gradients can be attributed to social differences in comorbidity, stage at diagnosis or treatment. DESIGN: Population-based cohort identified in the Thames Cancer Registry. SETTING: South East England. PARTICIPANTS: 15 582 lung cancer patients diagnosed between 2006 and 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Stage at diagnosis, surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and survival. RESULTS: The likelihood of being diagnosed as having early-stage disease did not vary by socioeconomic quintiles (p=0.58). In early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer, the likelihood of undergoing surgery was lowest in the most deprived group. There were no socioeconomic differences in the likelihood of receiving radiotherapy in stage III disease, while in advanced disease and in small-cell lung cancer, receipt of chemotherapy differed over socioeconomic quintiles (p<0.01). In early-stage disease and following adjustment for confounders, the HR between the most deprived and the most affluent group was 1.24 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.56). Corresponding estimates in stage III and advanced disease or small-cell lung cancer were 1.16 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.34) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.05 to 1.20), respectively. In early-stage disease, the crude HR between the most deprived and the most affluent group was approximately 1.4 and constant through follow-up, while in patients with advanced disease or small-cell lung cancer, no difference was detectable after 3 months. CONCLUSION: We observed socioeconomic variations in management and survival in patients diagnosed as having lung cancer in South East England between 2006 and 2008, differences which could not fully be explained by social differences in stage at diagnosis, co-morbidity and treatment. The survival observed in the most affluent group should set the target for what is achievable for all lung cancer patients, managed in the same healthcare system

Survival of patients with small cell lung cancer undergoing lung resection in England, 1998–2009

Introduction: Chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy is the recommended treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC), except in stage I disease where clinical guidelines state there may be a role for surgery based on favourable outcomes in case series. Evidence supporting adjuvant chemotherapy in resected SCLC is limited but this is widely offered. Methods: Data on 359 873 patients who were diagnosed with a first primary lung cancer in England between 1998 and 2009 were grouped according to histology (SCLC or non-SCLC (NSCLC)) and whether they underwent a surgical resection. We explored their survival using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity and socioeconomic status. Results: The survival of 465 patients with resected SCLC was lower than patients with resected NSCLC (5-year survival 31% and 45%, respectively), but much higher than patients of either group who were not resected (3%). The difference between resected SCLC and NSCLC diminished with time after surgery. Survival was superior for the subgroup of 198 'elective' SCLC cases where the diagnosis was most likely known before resection than for the subgroup of 267 'incidental' cases where the SCLC diagnosis was likely to have been made after resection. Conclusions: These data serve as a natural experiment testing the survival after surgical management of SCLC according to NSCLC principles. Patients with SCLC treated surgically for early stage disease may have survival outcomes that approach those of NSCLC, supporting the emerging clinical practice of offering surgical resection to selected patients with SCLC

High procedure volume is strongly associated with improved survival after lung cancer surgery

PurposeStudies have reported an association between hospital volume and survival for non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We explored this association in England, accounting for case mix and propensity to resect.MethodsWe analyzed data on 134,293 patients with NSCLC diagnosed in England between 2004 and 2008, of whom 12,862 (9.6%) underwent surgical resection. Hospital volume was defined according to number of patients with resected lung cancer in each hospital in each year of diagnosis. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for death in three predefined periods according to hospital volume, sex, age, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity, and propensity to resect.ResultsThere was increased survival in hospitals performing > 150 surgical resections compared with those carrying out < 70 (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.90; Ptrend < .01). The association between hospital volume and survival was present in all three periods of follow-up, but the magnitude of association was greatest in the early postoperative period.ConclusionHigh-volume hospitals have higher resection rates and perform surgery among patients who are older, have lower socioeconomic status, and have more comorbidities; despite this, they achieve better survival, most notably in the early postoperative period

Predicting death from surgery for lung cancer: a comparison of two scoring systems in two European countries

Objectives: Current British guidelines advocate the use of risk prediction scores such as Thoracoscore to estimate mortality prior to radical surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A recent publication used the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) to produce a score to predict 90 day mortality (NLCA score). The aim of this study is to validate the NLCA score, and compare its performance with Thoracoscore. Materials and methods: We performed an internal validation using 2858 surgical patients from NLCA and an external validation using 3191 surgical patients from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). We calculated the proportion that died within 90 days of surgery. The discriminatory power of both scores was assessed by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and an area under the curve (AUC) calculation. Results: Ninety day mortality was 5% in both groups. AUC values for internal and external validation of NLCA score and validation of Thoracoscore were 0.68 (95% CI 0.63–0.72), 0.60 (95% CI 0.56–0.65) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.54–0.66) respectively. Post-hoc analysis was performed using NLCA records on 15554 surgical patients to derive summary tables for 30 and 90 day mortality, stratified by procedure type, age and performance status. Conclusions: Neither score performs well enough to be advocated for individual risk stratification prior to lung cancer surgery. It may be that additional physiological parameters are required; however this is a further project. In the interim we propose the use of our summary tables that provide the real-life range of mortality for lobectomy and pneumonectomy

Lung cancer stage-shift following a symptom awareness campaign

Background: Lung cancer outcomes in the UK are worse than in many other developed nations. Symptom awareness campaigns aim to diagnose patients at an earlier stage to improve cancer outcomes. Methods: An early diagnosis campaign for lung cancer commenced in Leeds, UK in 2011 comprising public and primary-care facing components. Rates of community referral for chest X-ray and lung cancer stage (TNM seventh edition) at presentation were collected from 2008 to 2015. Linear trends were assessed by χ2 test for trend in proportions. Headline figures are presented for the 3 years pre-campaign (2008–2010) and the three most recent years for which data are available during the campaign (2013–2015). Findings: Community-ordered chest X-ray rates per year increased from 18 909 in 2008–2010 to 34 194 in 2013–2015 (80.8% increase). A significant stage shift towards earlier stage lung cancer was seen (χ2(1)=32.2, p<0.0001). There was an 8.8 percentage point increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with stage I/II lung cancer (26.5% pre-campaign vs 35.3% during campaign) and a 9.3% reduction in the absolute number of patients diagnosed with stage III/IV disease (1254 pre-campaign vs 1137 during campaign). Interpretation: This is the largest described lung cancer stage-shift in association with a symptom awareness campaign. A causal link between the campaign and stage-shift cannot be proven but appears plausible. Limitations of the analysis include a lack of contemporary control population

Short-term breast cancer survival in relation to ethnicity, stage, grade and receptor status: national cohort study in England.

BACKGROUND: In the re-organisation of cancer registration in England in 2012, a high priority was given to the recording of cancer stage and other prognostic clinical data items. METHODS: We extracted 86 852 breast cancer records for women resident in England and diagnosed during 2012-2013. Information on age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, comorbidity, tumour stage, grade, morphology and oestrogen, progesterone and HER2 receptor status was included. The two-year cumulative risk of death from any cause was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The follow-up ended on 31 December 2014. RESULTS: The completeness of registration for prognostic variables was generally high (around 80% or higher), but it was low for progesterone receptor status (41%). Women with negative receptor status for each of the oestrogen, progesterone and HER2 receptors (triple-negative cancers) had an adjusted HR for death of 2.00 (95%CI 1.84-2.17). Black women had an age-adjusted HR of 1.77 (1.48-2.13) compared with White women. CONCLUSIONS: The excess mortality of Black women with breast cancer has contributions from socio-economic factors, stage distribution and tumour biology. The study illustrates the richness of detail in the national cancer registration data. This allows for analysis of cancer outcomes at a high level of resolution, and may form the basis for risk stratification

Investigation of the international comparability of population-based routine hospital data set derived comorbidity scores for patients with lung cancer

Introduction: The International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) identified significant international differences in lung cancer survival. Differing levels of comorbid disease across ICBP countries has been suggested as a potential explanation of this variation but, to date, no studies have quantified its impact. This study investigated whether comparable, robust comorbidity scores can be derived from the different routine population-based cancer data sets available in the ICBP jurisdictions and, if so, use them to quantify international variation in comorbidity and determine its influence on outcome. Methods: Linked population-based lung cancer registry and hospital discharge data sets were acquired from nine ICBP jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Norway and the UK providing a study population of 233 981 individuals. For each person in this cohort Charlson, Elixhauser and inpatient bed day Comorbidity Scores were derived relating to the 4–36 months prior to their lung cancer diagnosis. The scores were then compared to assess their validity and feasibility of use in international survival comparisons. Results: It was feasible to generate the three comorbidity scores for each jurisdiction, which were found to have good content, face and concurrent validity. Predictive validity was limited and there was evidence that the reliability was questionable. Conclusion: The results presented here indicate that interjurisdictional comparability of recorded comorbidity was limited due to probable differences in coding and hospital admission practices in each area. Before the contribution of comorbidity on international differences in cancer survival can be investigated an internationally harmonised comorbidity index is required