K J Duggan1, J Descallar2, S K Vinod3. 1. South West Sydney & Sydney Local Health Districts Clinical Cancer Registry, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: kirsten.duggan@sswahs.nsw.gov.au. 2. Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; South West Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. South West Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: The application of guideline recommended treatment (GRT) in routine clinical practice can be difficult due to differences between the clinic population and the clinical trial populations on which evidence is based. The study aims were to measure receipt of GRT in stage I-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, identify factors associated with GRT and its impact on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: New diagnoses of stage I-IIIB NSCLC from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2011 in South West Sydney residents were identified from the district Clinical Cancer Registry. Treatment received was assigned as GRT or not based on Australian guidelines (using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status and TNM stage). Multivariate Poisson regression models with robust variance identified predictors of GRT receipt. Cox regression models identified multivariate predictors of patient survival. RESULTS: In total, 592 eligible cases were identified, of whom 66% (n = 389) received GRT. This ranged from 81% of stage I to 39% of stage IIIB (relative risk 0.48, 0.38-0.60, P < 0.0001). Stage I-IIIA patients who were ECOG 2 and stage III patients aged 70 years and older were less likely to receive GRT. The median survival was 30 months in the GRT group and 16 months in the non-GRT group (P < 0.001). GRT receipt was associated with improved survival in stage I-II disease only (hazard ratio 0.41, P < 0.001; and hazard ratio 0.43, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: One-third of NSCLC patients did not receive GRT. Stage and performance status were key predictors for GRT receipt. Patients with early stage NSCLC were associated with improved survival with the receipt of GRT.
AIMS: The application of guideline recommended treatment (GRT) in routine clinical practice can be difficult due to differences between the clinic population and the clinical trial populations on which evidence is based. The study aims were to measure receipt of GRT in stage I-IIIB non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, identify factors associated with GRT and its impact on survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: New diagnoses of stage I-IIIB NSCLC from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2011 in South West Sydney residents were identified from the district Clinical Cancer Registry. Treatment received was assigned as GRT or not based on Australian guidelines (using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status and TNM stage). Multivariate Poisson regression models with robust variance identified predictors of GRT receipt. Cox regression models identified multivariate predictors of patient survival. RESULTS: In total, 592 eligible cases were identified, of whom 66% (n = 389) received GRT. This ranged from 81% of stage I to 39% of stage IIIB (relative risk 0.48, 0.38-0.60, P < 0.0001). Stage I-IIIA patients who were ECOG 2 and stage III patients aged 70 years and older were less likely to receive GRT. The median survival was 30 months in the GRT group and 16 months in the non-GRT group (P < 0.001). GRT receipt was associated with improved survival in stage I-II disease only (hazard ratio 0.41, P < 0.001; and hazard ratio 0.43, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: One-third of NSCLCpatients did not receive GRT. Stage and performance status were key predictors for GRT receipt. Patients with early stage NSCLC were associated with improved survival with the receipt of GRT.
Authors: Penny Fang; Weiguo He; Daniel R Gomez; Karen E Hoffman; Benjamin D Smith; Sharon H Giordano; Reshma Jagsi; Grace L Smith Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jennifer C Wang; Li Ding; Elizabeth A David; Scott M Atay; Sean C Wightman; P Michael McFadden; Takashi Harano; Anthony W Kim Journal: JTCVS Open Date: 2022-02-15
Authors: Abdul Rahman Jazieh; Khaled Al Kattan; Ahmed Bamousa; Ashwaq Al Olayan; Ahmed Abdelwarith; Jawaher Ansari; Abdullah Al Twairqi; Turki Al Fayea; Khalid Al Saleh; Hamed Al Husaini; Nafisa Abdelhafiez; Mervat Mahrous; Medhat Faris; Ameen Al Omair; Adnan Hebshi; Salem Al Shehri; Foad Al Dayel; Hanaa Bamefleh; Walid Khalbuss; Sarah Al Ghanem; Shukri Loutfi; Azzam Khankan; Meshael Al Rujaib; Majed Al Ghamdi; Nagwa Ibrahim; Abdulmonem Swied; Mohammad Al Kayait; Marie Datario Journal: Ann Thorac Med Date: 2017 Oct-Dec Impact factor: 2.219
Authors: Mia Bierbaum; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Gaston Arnolda; Geoffrey P Delaney; Winston Liauw; Richard Kefford; Yvonne Tran; Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig; Frances Rapport Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-03-23 Impact factor: 2.692