Incidence and survival of oesophageal and gastric cancer in England between 1998 and 2007, a population-based study

BACKGROUND: Major changes in the incidence of oesophageal and gastric cancers have been reported internationally. This study describes recent trends in incidence and survival of subgroups of oesophageal and gastric cancer in England between 1998 and 2007 and considers the implications for cancer services and policy. METHODS: Data on 133,804 English patients diagnosed with oesophageal and gastric cancer between 1998 and 2007 were extracted from the National Cancer Data Repository. Using information on anatomical site and tumour morphology, data were divided into six groups; upper and middle oesophagus, lower oesophagus, oesophagus with an unspecified anatomical site, cardia, non-cardia stomach, and stomach with an unspecified anatomical site. Age-standardised incidence rates (per 100,000 European standard population) were calculated for each group by year of diagnosis and by socioeconomic deprivation. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The majority of oesophageal cancers were in the lower third of the oesophagus (58%). Stomach with an unspecified anatomical site was the largest gastric cancer group (53%). The incidence of lower oesophageal cancer increased between 1998 and 2002 and remained stable thereafter. The incidence of cancer of the cardia, non-cardia stomach, and stomach with an unspecified anatomical site declined over the 10 year period. Both lower oesophageal and cardia cancers had a much higher incidence in males compared with females (M:F 4:1). The incidence was also higher in the most deprived quintiles for all six cancer groups. Survival was poor in all sub-groups with 1 year survival ranging from 14.8-40.8% and 5 year survival ranging from 3.7-15.6%. CONCLUSIONS: An increased focus on prevention and early diagnosis, especially in deprived areas and in males, is required to improve outcomes for these cancers. Improved recording of tumour site, stage and morphology and the evaluation of focused early diagnosis programmes are also needed. The poor long-term survival reinforces the need for early detection and multidisciplinary care

Lung cancer diagnosed following emergency admission: a mixed methods study protocol to improve understanding of patients’ characteristics, needs, experiences and outcomes

Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer in England. About 40% of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed following an emergency admission (DFEA) to hospital. DFEA is more common in women, and more likely with increasing age and deprivation. Most have advanced disease and survival is poor, but little else is known about this group. The aim of this study is to obtain a detailed understanding of the characteristics, needs, experiences and outcomes of this group. Methods/Design This is a single centre study with quantitative and qualitative work packages (WP). WP1 gathers basic details about all patients diagnosed with lung cancer during a 12 month period, focusing on demographics, diagnostic and treatment pathways and selected outcomes. WP2 obtains information from those patients DFEA or, when unable, their carers, about their holistic needs and experiences, using the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral to Care questionnaire and selected questions from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. WP3 uses in-depth qualitative interviews with patients and carers to obtain detailed accounts of their symptoms, help-seeking behaviours prior to admission and subsequent experiences of care. Discussion Relatively little is known about the experiences of lung cancer patients DFEA and this study will provide detailed information about their needs, characteristics, experiences and outcomes. It should identify areas in the diagnostic and treatment pathway where there is scope to improve the care provided to this group of patients and their carers. The findings will also inform the need for further focused research

Data Resource Profile: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

The Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) is an ongoing primary care database of anonymised medical records from general practitioners, with coverage of over 11.3 million patients from 674 practices in the UK. With 4.4 million active (alive, currently registered) patients meeting quality criteria, approximately 6.9% of the UK population are included and patients are broadly representative of the UK general population in terms of age, sex and ethnicity. General practitioners are the gatekeepers of primary care and specialist referrals in the UK. The CPRD primary care database is therefore a rich source of health data for research, including data on demographics, symptoms, tests, diagnoses, therapies, health-related behaviours and referrals to secondary care. For over half of patients, linkage with datasets from secondary care, disease-specific cohorts and mortality records enhance the range of data available for research. The CPRD is very widely used internationally for epidemiological research and has been used to produce over 1000 research studies, published in peer-reviewed journals across a broad range of health outcomes. However, researchers must be aware of the complexity of routinely collected electronic health records, including ways to manage variable completeness, misclassification and development of disease definitions for research.LS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Senior Research Fellowship in Clinical Science grant number 098504/Z/12/Z

Use of name recognition software, census data and multiple imputation to predict missing data on ethnicity: application to cancer registry records

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Information on ethnicity is commonly used by health services and researchers to plan services, ensure equality of access, and for epidemiological studies. In common with other important demographic and clinical data it is often incompletely recorded. This paper presents a method for imputing missing data on the ethnicity of cancer patients, developed for a regional cancer registry in the UK.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Routine records from cancer screening services, name recognition software (Nam Pehchan and Onomap), 2001 national Census data, and multiple imputation were used to predict the ethnicity of the 23% of cases that were still missing following linkage with self-reported ethnicity from inpatient hospital records.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The name recognition software were good predictors of ethnicity for South Asian cancer cases when compared with data on ethnicity derived from hospital inpatient records, especially when combined (sensitivity 90.5%; specificity 99.9%; PPV 93.3%). Onomap was a poor predictor of ethnicity for other minority ethnic groups (sensitivity 4.4% for Black cases and 0.0% for Chinese/Other ethnic groups). Area-based data derived from the national Census was also a poor predictor non-White ethnicity (sensitivity: South Asian 7.4%; Black 2.3%; Chinese/Other 0.0%; Mixed 0.0%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Currently, neither method for assigning individuals to an ethnic group (name recognition and ethnic distribution of area of residence) performs well across all ethnic groups. We recommend further development of name recognition applications and the identification of additional methods for predicting ethnicity to improve their precision and accuracy for comparisons of health outcomes. However, real improvements can only come from better recording of ethnicity by health services.</p

Systematic Review of topotecan (Hycamtin) in relapsed small cell lung cancer

Background: To undertake a systematic review of the available data for oral and intravenous topotecan in adults with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) for whom re-treatment with the first line regimen is not considered appropriate. Methods: We searched six databases from 1980 up to March 2009 for relevant trials regardless of language or publication status. Relevant studies included any randomised trial of any chemotherapeutic treatment against any comparator in this licensed indication. Where possible we used apposite quantitative methods. Where meta-analysis was considered unsuitable for some or all of the data, we employed a narrative synthesis method. For indirect comparisons we used the method of Bucher et al., where available data allowed it, otherwise we used narrative descriptions. Results: Seven unique studies met the inclusion criteria, four of which could be used in our analyses. These included one study comparing oral topotecan plus best supportive care (BSC) to BSC alone, one study comparing intravenous topotecan to cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and vincristine (CAV), and two studies comparing oral topotecan with intravenous topotecan. All four studies appear to be well conducted and with low risk of bias. Oral topotecan plus BSC has advantages over BSC alone in terms of survival (hazard ratio = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87) and quality of life (EQ-5 D difference: 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.25). Intravenous topotecan was at least as effective as CAV in the treatment of patients with recurrent small-cell lung cancer and resulted in improved quality-of-life with respect to several symptoms. CAV was associated with significantly less grade 4 thrombocytopenia compared with IV topotecan (risk ratio = 5.83; 95% CI, 2.35 to 14.42). Survival (hazard ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25) and response (pooled risk ratio = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.85) data were similar for the oral and IV topotecan groups. Symptom control was also very similar between the trials and between the oral and IV groups. Toxicity data showed a significant difference in favour of oral topotecan for neutropenia (pooled risk ratio = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.89). Indirect evidence showed that oral topotecan was at least as good as or better than CAV on all outcomes (survival, response rates, toxicities, and symptoms) that allowed indirect comparisons, with the only exception being grade four thrombocytopenia which occurred less often on CAV treatment. Conclusions: Concerning topotecan both the oral and intravenous options have similar efficacy, and patient preference may be a decisive factor if the choice would be between the two formulations. The best trial evidence for decision making, because it was tested versus best supportive care, exists for oral topotecan. Indirectly, because we have two head-to-head comparisons of oral versus intravenous topotecan, and one comparison of intravenous topotecan versus CAV in similar patients as in the trial against best supportive care, one might infer that IV topotecan and CAV could also be superior to best supportive care, and that oral topotecan has similar effects to CAV with possibly better symptom control. From the evidence discussed above, it is evident that oral topotecan has similar efficacy to IV topotecan (direct comparison) and CAV (indirect comparison). There is no further evidence base of direct or possible indirect comparisons for other comparators than CAV of either oral or IV topotecan

Molecular testing for Lynch syndrome in people with colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: Inherited mutations in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) mismatch repair (MMR) genes lead to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC), gynaecological cancers and other cancers, known as Lynch syndrome (LS). Risk-reducing interventions can be offered to individuals with known LS-causing mutations. The mutations can be identified by comprehensive testing of the MMR genes, but this would be prohibitively expensive in the general population. Tumour-based tests - microsatellite instability (MSI) and MMR immunohistochemistry (IHC) - are used in CRC patients to identify individuals at high risk of LS for genetic testing. MLH1 (MutL homologue 1) promoter methylation and BRAF V600E testing can be conducted on tumour material to rule out certain sporadic cancers. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether testing for LS in CRC patients using MSI or IHC (with or without MLH1 promoter methylation testing and BRAF V600E testing) is clinically effective (in terms of identifying Lynch syndrome and improving outcomes for patients) and represents a cost-effective use of NHS resources. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews were conducted of the published literature on diagnostic test accuracy studies of MSI and/or IHC testing for LS, end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients and economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC patients. A model-based economic evaluation was conducted to extrapolate long-term outcomes from the results of the diagnostic test accuracy review. The model was extended from a model previously developed by the authors. RESULTS: Ten studies were identified that evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of MSI and/or IHC testing for identifying LS in CRC patients. For MSI testing, sensitivity ranged from 66.7% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 61.1% to 92.5%. For IHC, sensitivity ranged from 80.8% to 100.0% and specificity ranged from 80.5% to 91.9%. When tumours showing low levels of MSI were treated as a positive result, the sensitivity of MSI testing increased but specificity fell. No end-to-end studies of screening for LS in CRC patients were identified. Nine economic evaluations of screening for LS in CRC were identified. None of the included studies fully matched the decision problem and hence a new economic evaluation was required. The base-case results in the economic evaluation suggest that screening for LS in CRC patients using IHC, BRAF V600E and MLH1 promoter methylation testing would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for this strategy was £11,008 per QALY compared with no screening. Screening without tumour tests is not predicted to be cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: Most of the diagnostic test accuracy studies identified were rated as having a risk of bias or were conducted in unrepresentative samples. There was no direct evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes. No probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic review evidence suggests that MSI- and IHC-based testing can be used to identify LS in CRC patients, although there was heterogeneity in the methods used in the studies identified and the results of the studies. There was no high-quality empirical evidence that screening improves long-term outcomes and so an evidence linkage approach using modelling was necessary. Key determinants of whether or not screening is cost-effective are the accuracy of tumour-based tests, CRC risk without surveillance, the number of relatives identified for cascade testing, colonoscopic surveillance effectiveness and the acceptance of genetic testing. Future work should investigate screening for more causes of hereditary CRC and screening for LS in endometrial cancer patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016033879. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.Funding for this study was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Researc

Wide Variation in the Use of Radiotherapy in the Management of Surgically Treated Rectal Cancer Across the English National Health Service

Aims: Radiotherapy is an important treatment modality in the multidisciplinary management of rectal cancer. It is delivered both in the neoadjuvant setting and postoperatively, but, although it reduces local recurrence, it does not influence overall survival and increases the risk of long-term complications. This has led to a variety of international practice patterns. These variations can have a significant effect on commissioning, but also future clinical research. This study explores its use within the large English National Health Service (NHS). Materials and methods: Information on all individuals diagnosed with a surgically treated rectal cancer between April 2009 and December 2010 were extracted from the Radiotherapy Dataset linked to the National Cancer Data Repository. Individuals were grouped into those receiving no radiotherapy, short-course radiotherapy with immediate surgery (SCRT-I), short-course radiotherapy with delayed surgery (SCRT-D), long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT), other radiotherapy (ORT) and postoperative radiotherapy (PORT). Patterns of use were then investigated. Results: The study consisted of 9201 individuals; 4585 (49.3%) received some form of radiotherapy. SCRT-I was used in 12.1%, SCRT-D in 1.2%, LCCRT in 29.5%, ORT in 4.7% and PORT in 2.3%. Radiotherapy was used more commonly in men and in those receiving an abdominoperineal excision and less commonly in the elderly and those with comorbidity. Significant and substantial variations were also seen in its use across all the multidisciplinary teams managing this disease. Conclusion: Despite the same evidence base, wide variation exists in both the use of and type of radiotherapy delivered in the management of rectal cancer across the English NHS. Prospective population-based collection of local recurrence and patient-reported early and late toxicity information is required to further improve patient selection for preoperative radiotherapy

Care and communication between health professionals and patients affected by severe or chronic illness in community care settings: a qualitative study of care at the end of life

Background: Advance care planning (ACP) enables patients to consider, discuss and, if they wish, document their wishes and preferences for future care, including decisions to refuse treatment, in the event that they lose capacity to make decisions for themselves. ACP is a key component of UK health policy to improve the experience of death and dying for patients and their families. There is limited evidence about how patients and health professionals understand ACP, or when and how this is initiated. It is evident that many people find discussion of and planning for end of life care difficult, and tend to avoid the topic. Aim: To investigate how patients, their relatives and health professionals initiate and experience discussion of ACP and the outcomes of advance discussions in shaping care at the end of life. Design and data collection: Qualitative study with two workstreams: (1) interviews with 37 health professionals (general practitioners, specialist nurses and community nurses) about their experiences of ACP; and (2) longitudinal case studies of 21 patients with 6-month follow-up. Cases included a patient and, where possible, a nominated key relative and/or health professional as well as a review of medical records. Complete case triads were obtained for 11 patients. Four cases comprised the patient alone, where respondents were unable or unwilling to nominate either a family member or a professional carer they wished to include in the study. Patients were identified as likely to be within the last 6 months of life. Ninety-seven interviews were completed in total. Setting: General practices and community care settings in the East Midlands of England. Findings: The study found ACP to be uncommon and focused primarily on specific documented tasks involving decisions about preferred place of death and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, supporting earlier research. There was no evidence of ACP in nearly half (9 of 21) of patient cases. Professionals reported ACP discussions to be challenging. It was difficult to recognise when patients had entered the last year of life, or to identify their readiness to consider future planning. Patients often did not wish to do so before they had become gravely ill. Consequently, ACP discussions tended to be reactive, rather than pre-emptive, occurring in response to critical events or evidence of marked deterioration. ACP discussions intersected two parallel strands of planning: professional organisation and co-ordination of care; and the practical and emotional preparatory work that patients and families undertook to prepare themselves for death. Reference to ACP as a means of guiding decisions for patients who had lost capacity was rare. Conclusions: Advance care planning remains uncommon, is often limited to documentation of a few key decisions, is reported to be challenging by many health professionals, is not welcomed by a substantial number of patients and tends to be postponed until death is clearly imminent. Current implementation largely ignores the purpose of ACP as a means of extending personal autonomy in the event of lost capacity. Future work: Attention should be paid to public attitudes to death and dying (including those of culturally diverse and ethnic minority groups), place of death, resuscitation and the value of anticipatory planning. In addition the experiences and needs of two under-researched groups should be explored: the frail elderly, including those who manage complex comorbid conditions, unrecognised as vulnerable cases; and those patients affected by stigmatised conditions, such as substance abuse or serious mental illness who fail to engage constructively with services and are not recognised as suitable referrals for palliative and end of life care. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme