Lung cancer in England: Information from the National Lung Cancer Audit (LUCADA)

• Published in: Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Vol. 72; no. 1; pp. 16 - 22
• Main Authors: Rich, Anna L, Tata, Laila J, Stanley, Rosamund A, Free, Catherine M, Peake, Michael D, Baldwin, David R, Hubbard, Richard B
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01-04-2011; Elsevier
• Subjects: Aged; Audit; Biological and medical sciences; England - epidemiology; Epidemiology; Female; Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Medicine; Humans; Lung cancer; Lung Neoplasms - economics; Lung Neoplasms - epidemiology; Lung Neoplasms - mortality; Lung Neoplasms - therapy; Male; Medical Audit; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Pneumology; Pulmonary/Respiratory; Registries; Survival; Tumors; Tumors of the respiratory system and mediastinum; England; United Kingdom; Great Britain; Europe; Audit; Epidemiology; Survival; Lung cancer; Lung disease; Prognosis; Respiratory disease; Malignant tumor; Information; Cancerology; Bronchus disease; Cancer; Pneumology
• ISSN: 0169-5002; 1872-8332
• DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2010.07.002

Abstract Aims Our aims were to determine whether the information in the National Lung Cancer Audit database (LUCADA) is influenced by the completeness of reporting and to describe the current socio-demographics and survival of people with lung cancer in England. Methods Using national registry data as a gold standard we stratified NHS Trusts into quartiles on the basis of their patient ascertainment. We assessed the distribution of patient features across these quartiles using Cox and logistic regression. We then examined overall survival and access to treatment. Results We analysed data for 60,059 patients whose data were entered between 2004 and 2008. There was little variation in key patient features, treatment and median survival across quartiles of data completeness. Socio-economic disadvantage did not influence survival or access to surgery but was related to a decreased use of chemotherapy. Conclusion Our findings suggest that LUCADA accurately describes people in England who are diagnosed with lung cancer and can therefore be used to drive health care improvements. Individual patient socio-economic status does not affect survival and has only a limited impact on access to treatment and so NHS Trust level factors should be studied to explain the previously published regional variations in these outcomes.