Search

Background: A two-phase 'respiratory symptoms' mass media campaign was conducted in 2016 and 2017 in England raising awareness of cough and worsening shortness of breath as symptoms warranting a general practitioner (GP) visit.Method: A prospectively planned pre-post evaluation was done using routinely collected data on 15 metrics, including GP attendance, GP referral, emergency presentations, cancers diagnosed (five metrics), cancer stage, investigations (two metrics), outpatient attendances, inpatient admissions, major lung resections and 1-year survival. The primary analysis compared 2015 with 2017. Trends in metrics over the whole period were also considered. The effects of the campaign on awareness of lung cancer symptoms were evaluated using bespoke surveys.Results: There were small favourable statistically significant and clinically important changes over 2 years in 11 of the 15 metrics measured, including a 2.11% (95% confidence interval 1.02-3.20, p < 0.001) improvement in the percentage of lung cancers diagnosed at an early stage. However, these changes were not accompanied by increases in GP attendances. Furthermore, the time trends showed a gradual change in the metrics rather than steep changes occurring during or after the campaigns.Conclusion: There were small positive changes in most metrics relating to lung cancer diagnosis after this campaign. However, the pattern over time challenges whether the improvements are wholly attributable to the campaign. Given the importance of education on cancer in its own right, raising awareness of symptoms should remain important. However further research is needed to maximise the effect on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is often delayed. This first UK population-based epidemiological study of NENs compares outcomes with non-NENs to identify any inequalities.Methods: Age-standardised incidence rate (ASR), 1-year overall survival, hazard ratios and standardised mortality rates (SMRs) were calculated for all malignant NENs diagnosed 2013-2015 from UK national Public Health records. Comparison with non-NENs assessed 1-year overall survival (1YS) and association between diagnosis at stage IV and morphology.Results: A total of 15,222 NENs were identified, with an ASR (2013-2015 combined) of 8.6 per 100,000 (95% CI 8.5-8.7); 4.6 per 100 000 (95% CI, 4.5-4.7) for gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) NENs. The 1YS was 75% (95% CI, 73.9-75.4) varying significantly by sex. Site and morphology were prognostic. NENs (predominantly small cell carcinomas) in the oesophagus, bladder, prostate, and female reproductive organs had a poorer outcome and were three times more likely to be diagnosed at stage IV than non-NENs.Conclusion: Advanced stage at diagnosis with significantly poorer outcomes of some NENs compared with non-NENs at the same anatomical site, highlight the need for improved access to specialist services and targeted service improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer survival statistics are typically reported by using measures discounting the impact of other-cause mortality, such as net survival. This is a hypothetical measure and is interpreted as excluding the possibility of cancer patients dying from other causes. Crude probability of death partitions the all-cause probability of death into deaths from cancer and other causes.Methods: The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service is the single cancer registry for England. In 2006-2015, 1,590,477 malignant tumours were diagnosed for breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma and prostate cancer in adults. We used a relative survival framework, with a period approach, providing estimates for up to 10-year survival. Mortality was partitioned into deaths due to cancer or other causes. Unconditional and conditional (on surviving 1-years and 5-years) crude probability of death were estimated for the five cancers.Results: Elderly patients who survived for a longer period before dying were more likely to die from other causes of death (except for lung cancer). For younger patients, deaths were almost entirely due to the cancer.Conclusion: There are different measures of survival, each with their own strengths and limitations. Careful choices of survival measures are needed for specific scenarios to maximise the understanding of the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]