4.6 Article

What characteristics of primary care and patients are associated with early death in patients with lung cancer in the UK?

Journal

THORAX
Volume 70, Issue 2, Pages 161-168

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-205692

Keywords

Lung Cancer; Clinical Epidemiology

Funding

  1. Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation [RB08F1]
  2. British Lung Foundation [C05/01] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The UK has poor lung cancer survival rates and high early mortality, compared to other countries. We aimed to identify factors associated with early death, and features of primary care that might contribute to late diagnosis. Methods All cases of lung cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2013 were extracted from The Health Improvement Network database. Patients who died within 90days of diagnosis were compared with those who survived longer. Standardised chest X-ray (CXR) and lung cancer rates were calculated for each practice. Results Of 20142 people with lung cancer, those who died early consulted with primary care more frequently prediagnosis. Individual factors associated with early death were male sex (OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.24), current smoking (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.61), increasing age (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.62 to 1.99 for age 80years compared to 65-69years), social deprivation (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.30 for Townsend quintile 5 vs 1) and rural versus urban residence (OR 1.22; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.41). CXR rates varied widely, and the odds of early death were highest in the practices which requested more CXRs. Lung cancer incidence at practice level did not affect early deaths. Conclusions Patients who die early from lung cancer are interacting with primary care prediagnosis, suggesting potentially missed opportunities to identify them earlier. A general increase in CXR requests may not improve survival; rather, a more timely and appropriate targeting of this investigation using risk assessment tools needs further assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available