STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study investigates variation in management and treatment of lung cancer patients and determines the impact of any variation in treatment on survival. DESIGN: A retrospective study of population based data held by the Northern & Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service (NYCRIS), comparing active treatment rates for lung cancer with survival by districts. SETTING The then 17 districts in Yorkshire and South Humber, England. PATIENTS: 22 654 patients registered with lung cancer between 1986 and 1994 and followed up until end of 1996. RESULTS: The overall rates of active treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) varied between districts from 37% to 56%. One year survival (with 95% CI) was significantly better in the districts with highest rates of active treatment 23% (22% to 24%) compared with 19% (17% to 20%) for those with lowest treatment rates. Non-small cell lung cancer patients (55%) in the districts with highest active treatment rates had an age adjusted relative risk of death during the follow up period, relative to risk of death in the districts with the lower treatment rates of 0.88 (0.83 to 0.92). Clinically diagnosed patients (34%) had an age adjusted RR of 0.92 (0.86 to 0.96). RR in small cell cancer (11%) was not significant. CONCLUSION: This study has shown wide variations in the rates of active treatment for lung cancer patients within districts across one large region of England. Active treatment was strongly associated with improved survival, especially in non-small cell lung cancer.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study investigates variation in management and treatment of lung cancerpatients and determines the impact of any variation in treatment on survival. DESIGN: A retrospective study of population based data held by the Northern & Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service (NYCRIS), comparing active treatment rates for lung cancer with survival by districts. SETTING The then 17 districts in Yorkshire and South Humber, England. PATIENTS: 22 654 patients registered with lung cancer between 1986 and 1994 and followed up until end of 1996. RESULTS: The overall rates of active treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy) varied between districts from 37% to 56%. One year survival (with 95% CI) was significantly better in the districts with highest rates of active treatment 23% (22% to 24%) compared with 19% (17% to 20%) for those with lowest treatment rates. Non-small cell lung cancerpatients (55%) in the districts with highest active treatment rates had an age adjusted relative risk of death during the follow up period, relative to risk of death in the districts with the lower treatment rates of 0.88 (0.83 to 0.92). Clinically diagnosed patients (34%) had an age adjusted RR of 0.92 (0.86 to 0.96). RR in small cell cancer (11%) was not significant. CONCLUSION: This study has shown wide variations in the rates of active treatment for lung cancerpatients within districts across one large region of England. Active treatment was strongly associated with improved survival, especially in non-small cell lung cancer.
Authors: J A Langendijk; G P ten Velde; N K Aaronson; J M de Jong; M J Muller; E F Wouters Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2000-04-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: P P Melling; A C Hatfield; M F Muers; M D Peake; C J Storer; C E Round; R A Haward; S M Crawford Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2002-01-07 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: A Imperatori; R N Harrison; D N Leitch; F Rovera; G Lepore; G Dionigi; P Sutton; L Dominioni Journal: Thorax Date: 2005-11-11 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Ula Nur; Manuela Quaresma; Bianca De Stavola; Michael Peake; Bernard Rachet Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 3.710