Virtual Library
Start Your Search
M.D. Peake
Author of
-
+
G02 - Global Lung Cancer Coalition (GLCC) Session: Deserve Better - Expect Better: Advocating for Better Outcomes for Lung Cancer Patients (ID 15)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Other Sessions
- Track: Nurses
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:P. Goldstraw, M. Peters
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 16:15 - 17:45, Bayside 105, Level 1
-
+
G02.5 - How Clinicians and Patients Can Benefit From Better Data on Lung Cancer (ID 443)
16:15 - 17:45 | Author(s): M.D. Peake
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract
Background There is evidence from a variety of sources that lung cancer outcomes in the UK are worse than in many other parts of the developed world [1,2]. Part of this ‘survival gap’ can be explained by late diagnosis as evidenced by an excess of deaths within the first few months of diagnosis [3] and a high rate of patients (~40%) being first diagnosed during emergency hospital admissions [4]. However stage-for-stage survival is also worse in the UK [2], surgical resection rates are [5] and there is a clear relationship between these rates and survival [6].Methods The National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) had its first full year of data collection in 2005. Its aim was to collect a core dataset of around 140 items on all patients newly diagnosed and with lung cancer and mesothelioma in all hospitals in England expanding to cover the entire UK from 2008. Data is collected by the Multi-disciplinary teams and entered onto a secure national database. As of May 2013 there are almost 220,000 patient records for England alone in the database and all hospitals in the UK regularly report data for their patients. Annual reports contain a wide range of indicators including: numbers of patients diagnosed; treatment rates for surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, case mix factors such as age, stage, performance status, co-morbidity and socio-economic status. Median and one-year survival rates are also reported. Data are presented both in terms of crude percentages and case-mix adjusted odds ratios. These reports, including the identification of hospitals, are available to the public. The programme has been backed up by a series of meetings with hospital teams to identify their particular strengths and weaknesses, to support them in service improvement and to share examples of best practice.Results The table below shows some examples of data completeness and the ‘headline indicators’ from England and Wales between 2005 and 2011 (the latest period for which data are available). It will be seen that data quality and completeness has improved as have all the process and outcome indicators.Figure 1 We have demonstrated that there is wide variation in treatment and survival within the UK [7,8]. One of the most dramatic and important impacts of the audit has been the realisation of just how low surgical resection rates were in some parts of the UK and that this was related to a serious shortage of specialist thoracic surgeons in many areas [9]. The number of thoracic surgeons has almost doubled since the publication of the first audit report and the overall resection rate has increased by almost 50%. In addition, we have many examples of where local practice and service configuration have been significantly improved as a result of this process. We are now assessing the extent to which these changes have been translated into improvements in survival. The Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation has developed a web-based system called the ‘Lung Cancer Smart Map’ [10] which allows patients to search how treatment in their area compares both with other hospitals and against national standards. Patient empowerment of this sort is potentially one of the most effective ways to drive up standards of care.Conclusions In summary, we have demonstrated that population-based data collection is feasible and as a result, the NLCA database is one of the largest and most detailed lung cancer databases in the world. The regular feedback and support that we have given to clinical teams and to patients has had a significant impact on the quality of care for patients in the UK and is now incorporated into our Cancer registration systems, with its potential value being enhanced by linkage to a wide variety of other data sources.References 1. Lung cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom: a population-based study, 2004-2007. Walters S, Maringe C, Coleman MP, et al. Thorax, 2013;68:551-564 2. Coleman MP, Forman D, Bryant H, et al.; ICBP Module 1 Working Group. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995-2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data. Lancet,2011;377:127–138 3. National comparisons of lung cancer survival in England, Norway and Sweden 2001- 2004: differences occur early in follow-up Holmberg L, Sandin F, Bray F, et al. Thorax, 2010;65:436-441. 4. Elliss-Brookes L, McPhail S, Ives A, et al. Routes to diagnosis for cancer – determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer 2012;107(8):1220-6. 5. Recent trends in resection rates among non-small cell lung cancer patients in England. Riaz SP, Linklater KM, Page R, et al. Thorax, 2012;67(9):811-4. 6. Variation in radical resection for lung cancer in relation to survival: population-based study in England 2004-2006. Riaz SP, Lüchtenborg M, Jack R, et al.Eur J Cancer 2012;48:54-60 7. Exploring Variations in Lung Cancer Care Across the UK - The “Story So Far” for the National Lung Cancer Audit. P Beckett, I Woolhouse, R A Stanley, M D Peake. Clinical Medicine, 2012; 12:4-8 8. Health & Social Care Information Centre. The National Lung Cancer Audit Report 2012. Available at: https://catalogue.ic.nhs.uk/publications/clinical/lung/nati-clin-audi-supp-prog-lung-canc-coho-2011/clin-audi-supp-prog-lung-nlca-lap-2012-rep.pdf 9. The effects of increased provision of Thoracic Surgical Specialists on the variation in lung cancer resection rate in England. Lau KK, Rathinam S, Waller DA & Peake M.D. J Thoracic Oncology, 2013;8(1):68-72 10. Lung Cancer Smart Map, available at: www.roycastle.org/lungcancermapOnly Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MO09 - Mesothelioma I (ID 120)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track:
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:K. Suzuki, S.G. Armato III
- Coordinates: 10/28/2013, 16:15 - 17:45, Bayside 204 A+B, Level 2
-
+
MO09.06 - Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma in the UK National Lung Cancer Audit: An analysis of 8503 cases (ID 916)
16:15 - 17:45 | Author(s): M.D. Peake
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
The National Lung Cancer Audit is run jointly by the Royal College of Physicians and The Information Centre for health and social care with the aim of recording outcomes in lung cancer (and mesothelioma) on a population scale, explaining the wide variations seen within the UK and between the UK and other countries and ultimately improving outcomes. This abstract presents results for England only, focusing on mesothelioma.Methods
All patients with mesothelioma seen in in secondary care 2006-2011 were analysed. A hierarchy of diagnosis from surgical histology to non-surgical histology to clinical diagnosis was used to exclude patients with potentially conflicting diagnoses. These records were further analysed to extract data on age/sex distribution, referral source, histological subtype, treatment regime and survival rates.Results
There were 8,503 patients with mean age 72yrs (83% male), representing around 65% of expected incident cases (a substantial number diagnosed at autopsy and not included in the audit). 45% have right-sided disease, 28% were left-sided, and 1% were bilateral (data missing in 26%). The majority of patients (47%) were referred by their primary care physician, but at least 20% present to secondary care as emergencies. Overall, 89% of cases were histo-cytologically confirmed with that figure appearing to rise slowly over the audit period from 81% (2006) to 92% (2011). Survival data is shown below.
37% of patients received no anti-cancer treatment, but 28%, 26% and 30% of patients received “surgery”, chemotherapy or radiotherapy at any time. Most surgical operations (60%) were pleurodesis. Median survival varied by first treatment modality: surgery 378 days, chemotherapy 399 days, radiotherapy 308 days, no anti-treatment 140 days. Survival was highest in patients having “surgery” and chemotherapy (491 days). Use of chemotherapy varied across 28 regional cancer networks from 14% to 41% of patients, but overall increased over the audit period from 13% to 34%.n (%) Median survival (days) 1 year survival (%) All patients 8,503 (100%) 278 41 Survival was slightly better in females (median 304 days vs 274 days HR 0.91, p=0.002) Subtype n (%) Median survival (days) 1 year survival (%) Unspecified 3,798 276 39.5 Epithelioid 2,300 388 53.2 Sarcomatoid 439 123 16.4 Biphasic 268 274 36.0 Conclusion
Mesothelioma is predominantly a cancer of elderly males, with a striking tendency for right-sided disease. Only 11% have no histological confirmation, but where this is obtained, the epithelioid subtype has best prognosis. Low rates of anti-cancer treatment may reflect therapeutic nihilism as well as patient fitness, but there is an encouraging trend towards wider use of chemotherapy which was associated with a greater than doubling in survival compared with no treatment.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MO13 - SCLC I (ID 118)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Medical Oncology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:C.K. Liam, E.S. Santos
- Coordinates: 10/29/2013, 10:30 - 12:00, Bayside 201 - 203, Level 2
-
+
MO13.07 - Survival of small cell lung cancer patients undergoing lung resection in England 1998-2009 (ID 1691)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): M.D. Peake
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy is the recommended treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) except in stage I disease where clinical guidelines state there may be a role for surgery based on favourable outcomes in case series. Evidence supporting adjuvant chemotherapy in resected small cell lung cancer is limited but this is widely offered.Methods
Data on 359,873 patients who were diagnosed with a first primary lung cancer in England between 1998 and 2009 were grouped according to histology (SCLC; non-SCLC [NSCLC]) and whether they underwent a surgical resection. We explored their survival using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity and socio-economic status.Results
The survival of 465 resected SCLC patients was lower than resected NSCLC patients (five-year survival 31% and 45%, respectively), but much higher than patients of either group who were not resected (3%). The difference between resected SCLC and NSCLC diminished with time after surgery. Survival was superior for the subgroup of 198 “elective” SCLC where the diagnosis was most likely known before resection than for the subgroup of 267 “incidental” cases, where the SCLC diagnosis was likely to have been made after resection.Conclusion
These data serve as a natural experiment testing the survival after surgical management of SCLC according to NSCLC principles. SCLC patients treated surgically for early stage disease may have survival outcomes that approach those of NSCLC, supporting the emerging clinical practice of offering surgical resection to selected SCLC patients.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
MO22 - Advanced Disease and Outcomes (ID 103)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Mini Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Surgery
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:T. Yano, J. Roth
- Coordinates: 10/30/2013, 10:30 - 12:00, Parkside 110 A+B, Level 1
-
+
MO22.01 - High procedure volume is strongly associated with improved survival after lung cancer surgery (ID 1704)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): M.D. Peake
- Abstract
- Presentation
Background
Surgical resection is the first line treatment offered to patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are considered medically fit. Many studies have shown that patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer benefit from receiving treatment in hospitals where high numbers of lung cancer resections are carried out. This study explores the association between hospital volume and survival among all NSCLC patients diagnosed in England who underwent surgical resection and takes into account the differences in case selection and propensity to resect.Methods
We analysed data on 134,293 patients with NSCLC diagnosed in England between 2004 and 2008 of whom 12,862 (9·6%) underwent surgical resection. Hospital volume was defined according to the number of patients with resected lung cancer in each hospital in each year of diagnosis. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to assess the association between hospital volume and survival among resected patients. We calculated multivariable hazard ratios according to hospital volume, with adjustment for potential confounders (sex, age, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity and resection quintile). In addition, to account for the risk of death potentially varying between groups of patients treated within a given hospital, a shared frailty Cox model was used, with hospital as a random effect. The follow-up period was divided into three pre-defined periods: 0-30 days, 31-365 days and >365 days post-surgery.Results
There was increased survival in hospitals performing more than 150 surgical resections compared with those carrying out less than 70 [HR 0·78 (95% CI 0·67-0·90), p~trend~ <0·01]. The association between hospital volume and survival was present in all three periods of follow-up, but the magnitude of the association was greatest in the period 0-30 days (HR for the 150+ hospital volume group compared with less than 70: 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89) and smallest in the period after 365 days (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·71-0·99).Conclusion
High volume hospitals have higher resection rates, operate on patients who are older, have lower socioeconomic status, more comorbidities and despite that they achieve better survival, most notably in the early post-operative period.Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
O29 - Cancer Control & Epidemiology IV (ID 132)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Oral Abstract Session
- Track: Prevention & Epidemiology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:P. Zimmerman, N. Kurimoto
- Coordinates: 10/30/2013, 10:30 - 12:00, Bayside 103, Level 1
-
+
O29.03 - DISCUSSANT (ID 3996)
10:30 - 12:00 | Author(s): M.D. Peake
- Abstract
- Presentation
Abstract not provided
Only Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login, select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout. If you would like to become a member of IASLC, please click here.
-
+
P2.18 - Poster Session 2 - Pathology (ID 176)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Poster Session
- Track: Pathology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/29/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level
-
+
P2.18-005 - Morphological and genetic classification of lung cancer: variation in practice and implications for tailored treatment (ID 956)
09:30 - 16:30 | Author(s): M.D. Peake
- Abstract
Background
The rational use of tailored therapy for lung cancer depends crucially on high quality pathology. Not only must subtyping of the tumour be achieved consistently and with accuracy, but as much material as possible from increasingly small specimens must be preserved for the genetic analysis upon which such treatment is increasingly predicated. Although there is a general presumption that pathologists have risen to this challenge, reliable data is sparse and the nature and degree of variation in practice and quality is unknown.Methods
We collected and scrutinised anonymised information, including pathology reports, on all consecutive, newly-diagnosed patients with lung cancer referred to 19 lung cancer units across the UK for a period of 6 months commencing late 2011, a total of 1507 cases. Centres surveyed ranged from district general hospitals to specialist regional cardiothoracic units.Results
Achievement of a positive tissue diagnosis of malignancy ranged from 53 to 88%, figures accompanied by ‘suspicious but non-diagnostic’ rates of 10 and 2% respectively. Despite apparent adherence to the diagnostic criteria and terminology of the WHO classification of tumours of the lung, variation in proportions of tumour subtypes was wide, the prevalence of squamous carcinoma, for example, varying from less than 10 to greater than 50%. The proportion of tumours unclassified beyond ‘non-small cell lung cancer not otherwise specified’ varied from 3 to 20% despite the almost universal use of immunochemistry (most often TTF-1, class 7 cytokeratins and p63) to aid in this differential diagnosis. Testing for EGFR gene mutations was directly instigated by the pathologist at diagnosis in only 4 of the 19 centres and the proportion of tumours tested ranged from 12 to 92%.Conclusion
Variations in practice amongst pathologists and arguably in the quality of pathology ranged widely across the centres surveyed, raising important questions about variable expertise of pathologists, adherence to guidelines, applicability and rigour of external quality assessment and, ultimately, the reliability of the pathology that crucially underpins the management of lung cancer.
-
+
P3.21 - Poster Session 3 - Diagnosis and Staging (ID 171)
- Event: WCLC 2013
- Type: Poster Session
- Track: Prevention & Epidemiology
- Presentations: 1
- Moderators:
- Coordinates: 10/30/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level
-
+
P3.21-003 - The LungPath Study: Variation in lung cancer diagnostics in England. Does the availability of PET scanning and EBUS affect patient care? (ID 1429)
09:30 - 16:30 | Author(s): M.D. Peake
- Abstract
Background
The LungPath study is a national multi-centre survey of lung cancer diagnosis and staging practice in England. As part of the project, we looked for variation in access to key investigations such as EBUS and PET-CT scanning and linked this to how likely these studies were used to be in different centres and the impact these differences may have on patient care.Methods
Twenty willing English lung cancer centres were randomly selected to participate in the LungPath study. Participating centres agreed to submit data on each new lung cancer patient seen during the study period of six months from January to June 2012. Data collected included clinical information such as age, gender and performance status, the dates of all radiological investigations performed and anonymised pathology reports from all other investigations performed. The data collected was used to map each individual patient’s diagnostic pathway. In addition, we collected information about typical waiting times for key investigations and whether these investigations were available on-site or at other institutions. We analysed the patient data to see if the availability of investigations such as EBUS and PET-CT impacted the patient pathways in each centre.Results
There were significant differences between centres in the availability of EBUS and PET-scanning. Approximately half of the units surveyed reported waiting times for EBUS and PET-scanning of one week or less while the other half reported longer waits, typically two weeks and sometimes longer. There were large differences in the proportions of patients that underwent EBUS or PET-scanning from centre to centre with patients up to six times more likely to receive an EBUS and four times more likely to receive a PET-scan in some centres than others. There was a clear relationship between the use of the investiagtion and the waiting time. We also found that the point in the diagnostic pathways that these investigations were used varied and in many cases differed from best practice guidelines; several centres routinely performed EBUS as a separate procedure after a bronchoscopy had already been performed.Conclusion
There are marked differences in the availability and use of EBUS and PET-scanning within different lung cancer units involved in diagnosing and staging lung cancer in England. There is a need for commissioners to ensure fairer service provision across England and opportunities for education of clinicians to make best use of the available resources.
