Search

Backgrounds: Victoria (Australia) and Denmark have comparable population sizes and high‐quality healthcare systems. Lung cancer surgery, however, is performed in more than 20 Victorian hospitals compared to four in Denmark. Such differences in centralization may influence outcomes. We engaged clinical quality registries to enable international benchmarking by exploring patterns of lung cancer surgery including mortality and survival. Methods: All patients undergoing lung cancer surgery between 2015 and 2018 registered in the Victorian Lung Cancer Registry and the Danish Lung Cancer Registry were included. Analyses on stage concordance, 30 and 90‐day mortality, and overall survival were restricted to a selected subgroup with NSCLC and no neo‐adjuvant therapy or metastatic disease and only one operation. Results: We included 1554 Victorian and 4319 Danish patients. The resection rate was 26.3% in Victoria and 28% in Denmark, but a higher proportion of Victorian patients underwent wedge resection (19.1% versus 8.8%). Stage concordance was 59.6% and 54.9% in Victoria and Denmark, respectively. The 30‐ and 90‐day mortality was 1.3% and 2.6% in Victoria, compared to 1.4% and 2.8% in Denmark with no difference in overall survival (p = 0.28) or risk‐adjusted survival (HR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.89–1.37); p = 0.38). Conclusion: High‐quality surgical lung cancer care was confirmed by similar high resection and low mortality rates including no overall survival difference. The drivers and consequences of stage discordance and differences in patterns of resection deserve further exploration. This study provides a model for international benchmarking using clinical quality registries, although caution remains in the interpretation given disparities in data completeness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Lung cancer outcomes in England are inferior to comparable countries. Patient or disease characteristics, healthcare-seeking behaviour, diagnostic pathways, and oncology service provision may contribute. We aimed to quantify associations between geographic variations in treatment and survival of patients in England.Methods: We retrieved detailed cancer registration data to analyse the variation in survival of 176,225 lung cancer patients, diagnosed 2010-2014. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate survival in the two-year period following diagnosis.Results: Survival improved over the period studied. The use of active treatment varied between geographical areas, with inter-quintile ranges of 9%-17% for surgical resection, 4%-13% for radical radiotherapy, and 22%-35% for chemotherapy. At 2 years, there were 188 potentially avoidable deaths annually for surgical resection, and 373 for radical radiotherapy, if all treated proportions were the same as in the highest quintiles. At the 6 month time-point, 318 deaths per year could be postponed if chemotherapy use for all patients was as in the highest quintile. The results were robust to statistical adjustments for age, sex, socio-economic status, performance status and co-morbidity.Conclusion: The extent of use of different treatment modalities varies between geographical areas in England. These variations are not attributable to measurable patient and tumour characteristics, and more likely reflect differences in clinical management between local multi-disciplinary teams. The data suggest improvement over time, but there is potential for further survival gains if the use of active treatments in all areas could be increased towards the highest current regional rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lung cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis in Denmark. Although improved during the last decade, the prognosis of lung cancer is still poor with an overall 5-year survival rate of approximately 12%. Delay in diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer has been suggested as a potential cause of the poor prognosis and as consequence, fast track cancer care pathways were implemented describing maximum acceptable time thresholds from referral to treatment. In Denmark, patients with lung cancer are often transferred between hospitals with diagnostic facilities to hospitals with treatment facilities during the care pathway. We wanted to investigate whether this organizational set-up influenced the time that patients wait for the diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, the objective of this study was to uncover the impact of transfer between hospitals on the delay in the diagnosis and treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC).Methods: We performed a historical prospective cohort study using data from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). All patients diagnosed with primary NSCLC from January 1st 2008 to December 31st 2012 were included. Patients with unresolved pathology and incomplete data on the dates of referral, diagnosis and treatment were excluded.Results: A total of 11 273 patients were included for further analyses. Transfer patients waited longer for treatment after the diagnosis, (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.81 (0.68-0.96)) and in total time from referral to treatment (HR 0.84 (0.77-0.92)), than no-transfer patients. Transfer patients had lower odds of being diagnosed (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.82 (0.74-0.94) and treated (OR 0.66 (0.61-0.72) within the acceptable time thresholds described in the care pathway.Conclusion: Fast track cancer care pathways were implemented to unify and accelerate the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. We found that the transfer between hospitals during the care pathway might cause delay from diagnosis to treatment as well as in the total time from referral to treatment in patients with Non Small-Cell Lung Cancer. The difference between no-transfer and transfer patients persists after adjusting for known predictors of delay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patterns of general practice utilization in the period before lung cancer ( LC) diagnosis may provide new knowledge to ensure timelier and earlier diagnosis of LC. This study aimed to explore the prediagnostic activity in general practice in the year preceding LC diagnosis. The activity was compared to a matched comparison group. We compared LC patients with different stage, and patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ( COPD). Using Danish registers, we performed a population-based matched cohort study including lung cancer patients ( n = 34,017) and matched comparison subjects ( n = 340,170). During months 12 to 1 prior to diagnosis, 92.6% of LC patients and 88.4% of comparison subjects had one or more contacts with general practice. 13.0% of LC patients and 3.3% of comparison subjects had two or more X-rays. 20.8% of LC patients and 8.5% of comparison subjects had two or more first-time antibiotics prescriptions. The incidence rate ratio for having a contact to general practice was similar for LC patients with localized disease compared to LC patients with metastatic disease. LC patients with COPD had more frequent contacts, lung functions tests, X-rays, and prescriptions than COPD patients without lung cancer, but not as pronounced as compared to patients without COPD. There was a significant increase in healthcare seeking and diagnostic activity in the year prior to a LC diagnosis, regardless of stage at diagnosis. COPD may mask the symptoms of LC. This indicates the presence of a 'diagnostic time window' and a potential for more timely diagnosis of LC based on clinical signs and symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim of database: The Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR) was established by the Danish Lung Cancer Group. The primary and first goal of the DLCR was to improve survival and the overall clinical management of Danish lung cancer patients. Study population: All Danish primary lung cancer patients since 2000 are included into the registry and the database today contains information on more than 50,000 cases of lung cancer. Main variables: The database contains information on patient characteristics such as age, sex, diagnostic procedures, histology, tumor stage, lung function, performance, comorbidities, type of surgery, and/or oncological treatment and complications. Since November 2013, DLCR data on Patient -Reported Outcome Measures is also included. Descriptive data: Results are primarily reported as quality indicators, which are published online monthly, and in an annual report where the results are commented for local, regional, and national audits. Indicator results are supported by descriptive reports with details on diagnostics and treatment. Conclusion: DLCR has since its creation been used to improve the quality of treatment of lung cancer in Denmark and it is increasingly used as a source for research regarding lung cancer in Denmark and in comparisons with other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: The study has been performed to investigate the mortality within the first year after resection in patients with primary lung cancer, together with associated prognostic factors including gender, age, tumour stage, comorbidity, alcohol abuse, type of surgery and post-surgical complications. METHODS: All patients (n = 3363) from the nationwide Danish Lung Cancer Registry with first resection performed between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011 were analysed by Kaplan–Meier techniques and Cox-regression analysis concerning death within the first year after resection. Covariates included gender, age, comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity index), perioperative stage, type of resection, registered complications to surgery and alcohol abuse. RESULTS: The cumulative deaths after 30 days, 90 days, 180 days and 360 days were 72 (2.1%), 154 (4.6%), 239 (7.1%) and 478 (14.2%), respectively. Low stage, female gender, young age, no comorbidity, no postoperative complications, no alcohol abuse and lobectomy as type of resection were favourable for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that resection in primary lung cancer impacts mortality far beyond the initial 30 days after resection, which is conventionally considered a time window of relevance for the adverse outcome of surgery. Increased efforts should be made for optimizing the selection of patients suited for resection and for identifying patients at increased risk of death after resection. Furthermore, patients should be monitored more closely and more frequently, in particular those patients with high risk of death after resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Aim: To quantify the effect of comorbidity on stage-specific survival in resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods: From the Danish Lung Cancer Registry, 20,461 patients diagnosed with lung cancer between 1st January 2005 and 31st December 2010 were identified. Among 3152 NSCLC patients who underwent surgical resection, mortality hazard ratios were calculated during three consecutive time periods following surgery (0–1month, 1month–1year and >1year) according to Charlson comorbidity score (CCS 0, 1, 2, 3+), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, lung function, age, sex, pathological T (pT) and N (pN) stage using Cox proportional hazard modelling. The Kaplan Meier method was used to describe stage-specific survival according to the CCS. Results: Severe comorbidity (CCS 3+) was independently associated with significantly higher death rates throughout the three periods of follow-up [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.06 (1.13–3.75) for CCS 3+ in 0–1month, 1.57 (1.17–2.12) 3+ during1month–1year and 1.84 (1.42–2.37) after 1year]. Stage-specific 5-year survival in patients with severe comorbidity was significantly lower than in patients without comorbid disease [e.g. 38% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23–53%) for pT1 and CCS 3+ versus 69% (62–75%) for pT1 and CCS 0]. Conclusion: Severe comorbidity affects survival of NSCLC patients who undergo surgical resection by as much as a single stage increment and this effect persists throughout follow-up. Further research may be necessary to help identify which patients are most likely to benefit from surgery. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: In 1998 The Danish Lung Cancer Group published the first edition of guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. A national registry was implemented in the year 2000 with the primary objective to monitor the implementation of these guidelines and nationwide to secure and improve the quality of the clinical management of lung cancer. The results of this effort are reported with special focus on surgery. Methods: Through systematic nationwide registration a total of 24,153 patients have been included in the period 2000–2007. Indicators describing staging, surgical procedures, complications and survival have been registered in those 5007 patients who underwent surgery. Using an Internet based closed circle with a safe program (firewall and encryptation) more than 95% of this subgroup of patients have been notified. Each year the results have been audited locally, regionally and nationally and improvements have been proposed, implemented, monitored and consecutively evaluated by the audit-plenary. Results: This strategy has been a contributory factor to significantly improve the results in mortality, survival and surgical procedures. Thus, the 30-days mortality following surgery has decreased from 5.2% to 3.6% and survival has increased from an overall 1- and 2-year survival of 69% and 50% in 2000 to 77% and 60% in 2007, respectively. A number of other key indicators were also improved: the lobectomy rate has increased from 54% to 73% and the pneumonectomy rate has decreased from 23% to 11%. The proportion of patients having surgery within 14 days from referral has increased from 69% to 87%. Conclusions: Establishment of a national lung cancer group with the primary tasks to implement updated national guidelines and to secure valid registration of clinical baseline data and quality parameters has been a contributory factor to significantly improve the quality of lung cancer surgery. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• The Danish Lung Cancer Registry monitors interventions and outcomes for all Danish citizens diagnosed with lung cancer going back to the year 2000. • Data from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry is frequently used for research purposes. • The data in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry are highly accurate compared to information found in medical records. This study evaluates the validity of the information in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). Since 2000, the DLCR has been a tool for monitoring interventions and outcome of all Danish lung cancer patients with the intent to streamline and improve treatment and survival. The DLCR receives information from the Danish Patient Registries in addition to clinical information from the treating physicians. In the year 2022, more than 50 papers have been published using DLCR as a data source. However, the DLCR has not previously been validated. A random sample of 1000 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer from 2014 to 2016 and recorded in the DLCR were included for validation. Medical records were reviewed and were considered as the "gold standard" to which data listed in the DLCR were compared. Information was retrieved from medical charts for all patients. Agreement on stage at diagnosis was 90.1 % (95 % CI 88.0–91.9) and on date of diagnoses was 93.8 (95 % CI 92.1–93.2). Agreement on smoking status in pack years (+/- 10 pack years) was 91.2 % (95 % CI 88.6–93.2). The positive predictive value of treatment intent was 87.4 (95 % CI 85.1–89.6). The data in the DLCR are complete, detailed and accurate. The comparison of data from the DLCR with the medical records revealed overall high validity of the data in the registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Two thirds of Danish stage I lung cancer patients are surgically treated. • Differences in outcome according to curative treatment were due to age and performance status. • Treatment registration in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry can be improved. • Histology, high-risk alcohol and comorbidity were associated with not undergoing treatment. Stage I lung cancer is curable with surgery as the treatment of choice. Other effective and curative treatments exist. Nevertheless, some patients only receive palliative treatment and some receive no treatment at all. Using the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR), we assessed treatment distribution for a population-based Danish cohort of stage I lung cancer patients diagnosed from 2011 to 2014. We assessed one-year mortality according to treatment. Furthermore, in a nested case-control study based on data from medical records, we assessed the reason for not undergoing treatment among patients in favourable performance status (PS) with no treatment registration in the DLCR. We identified 2985 patients, 68% (n = 2021) were treated surgically and 17% (n = 508) were managed with curative oncological therapy. The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for death within one year was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.8–3.3) for the oncologically managed vs. the surgically treated. After adjusting for age, lung function and PS, the OR was 1.2 (95% CI, 0.8–1.9). Among 129 patients with a PS of 0–1 and no treatment registration, we established the reason for not undergoing treatment in 122 (95%). The majority (70%) were misclassified and did either not have lung cancer, had more advanced disease or were curatively treated. The 36 (30%) patients that did not undergo treatment, had a lower prevalence of adenocarcinomas (17 vs. 51%, p = 0.003), more comorbidites (median Charlson comorbidity index score 2 vs. 1, p < 0.001) and high alcohol intake (19 vs. 7%, p = 0.04) as compared to surgically treated controls. The primary reasons for no treatment were; comorbidity, patient decision and disease progression. Difference in outcome between the two major treatment groups was confounded by age, lung function and PS. Comorbidity, high alcohol intake and histology were associated with not undergoing curative treatment in spite of a favourable PS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Even in a small country, large differences between subpopulations are present. • Surgical resection extent is not associated with postoperative Global Health Status. • Surgical access type is not associated with postoperative Role Function. • It is feasible to use PROs as outcome indicators after lung cancer surgery. Abstract Objective Quality in lung cancer care is in Denmark routinely evaluated using quality indicators. The indicators are reported from national registries and are based on data from health care professionals. However, data based on the patients' perspective are rarely reported. The aim of this study was to propose a model for the use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) as quality indicators, enabling us to compare PROs across the surgical departments in Denmark. Methods All patients registered in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR) from 1 October 2013 until 30 September 2015 who received surgical treatment were eligible (N = 1718). They were asked to complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire six months after surgery. From QLQ-C30 we chose global health status (GHS) and role function (RF) as indicators to be tested. An indicator threshold for good performance was set to ≥ 65 points (on a scale 0–100 where 100 was the best). Results were compared between the four thoracic surgical departments in Denmark. Results Of 1615 patients alive six months after surgery, questionnaires were completed by 1002 patients (62.0%). The patients from the four departments differed significantly in clinical variables at diagnosis, and the departments differed significantly in the surgical procedures performed. After adjustment for case-mix, the patients in Department 2 had a better RF than patients from the other departments. Conclusion Significant differences in RF and in the fulfilment of the indicator requirement for RF were observed. Since these findings might indicate differences in the quality of performance between participating departments, subsequent audit is recommended. The analyses and results indicate that it is feasible to use PROs as supplementary outcome indicators in the evaluation of the quality of surgical treatment for lung cancer. Our model could serve as a useful foundation for further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights • Electronic PRO administration was feasible in a national lung cancer population. • A decentralised model for delivery of PROs might have decreased response rates. • Lung cancer PRO responders had significantly better health than non-responders. • Patients with a partner and a high socioeconomic position were better responders. • Response rates were higher for patients treated with surgery than with oncology. Abstract Objectives Our objectives were to examine the feasibility of a nationwide collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a lung cancer population as well as in various sub-populations, and to describe the characteristics of responders compared to non-responders. Materials and methods All patients diagnosed with lung cancer in Denmark are registered in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). The 7,295 patients registered in DLCR from 1 October 2013 until 30 September 2015 who had received treatment were eligible. Using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 questionnaires, we employed two different methods of delivery, resulting in two different project parts. In project part 1, the baseline questionnaire was handed out at the hospital departments before treatment. The following questionnaires were sent out as paper versions three times within one year. In project part 2, all questionnaires were electronic versions delivered in association with planned hospital visits. Results Of the 7,295 lung cancer patients 4,229 (58%) completed at least one questionnaire, and 2,459 completed two or more. Only 562 baseline questionnaires were returned before treatment (7.7%), whereas 43.4%–57.4% of the potential responders completed the following questionnaires. The best response rates were achieved among patients treated with surgery and among patients who discussed their questionnaires with health care personnel. When comparing patient characteristics, responders had a significantly better health and a higher socioeconomic position than non-responders. Conclusion A decentralised model used for delivering the initial questionnaire to the patients was insufficient. It is our estimation that sending out electronic versions of the baseline questionnaires, as was done with the following questionnaires, would result in a significantly better patient coverage. Despite the severe morbidity and high mortality rate in lung cancer, reasonable response rates were achieved at follow-ups to this method, and PRO collection in this population was feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is debated whether treating cancer patients in high-volume surgical centres can lead to improvement in outcomes, such as shorter length of hospital stay, decreased frequency and severity of post-operative complications, decreased re-admission, and decreased mortality. The dataset for this analysis was based on cancer registration and hospital discharge data and comprised information on 15,738 non-small-cell lung cancer patients resident and diagnosed in England in 2006–2010 and treated by surgical resection. The number of lung cancer resections was computed for each hospital in each calendar year, and patients were assigned to a hospital volume quintile on the basis of the volume of their hospital. Hospitals with large lung cancer surgical resection volumes were less restrictive in their selection of patients for surgical management and provided a higher resection rate to their geographical population. Higher volume hospitals had shorter length of stay and the odds of re-admission were 15% lower in the highest hospital volume quintile compared with the lowest quintile. Mortality risks were 1% after 30 d and 3% after 90 d. Patients from hospitals in the highest volume quintile had about half the odds of death within 30 d than patients from the lowest quintile. Variations in outcomes were generally small, but in the same direction, with consistently better outcomes in the larger hospitals. This gives support to the ongoing trend towards centralisation of clinical services, but service re-organisation needs to take account of not only the size of hospitals but also referral routes and patient access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]