The National Lung Cancer Audit: The Impact of COVID-19.

Since 2014, the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) has been evaluating the performance of the UK NHS lung cancer services against established standards of care. Prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NLCA's annual reports revealed a steady stream of improvements in early diagnosis, access to surgery, treatment with anti-cancer therapies, input from specialist nursing and survival for patients with lung cancer in the NHS. In January 2022, the NLCA reported on the negative impact COVID-19 has had on all aspects of the lung cancer diagnosis and treatment pathway within the NHS. This article details the fundamental changes made to the NLCA data collection and analysis process during the COVID-19 pandemic and details the negative impact COVID-19 had on NHS lung cancer patient outcomes during 2020.

Risk stratification for prostate cancer management: value of the Cambridge Prognostic Group classification for assessing treatment allocation.

BACKGROUND: The five-tiered Cambridge Prognostic Group (CPG) classification is a better predictor of prostate cancer-specific mortality than the traditional three-tiered classification (low, intermediate, and high risk). We investigated radical treatment rates according to CPG in men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer in England between 2014 and 2017. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer were identified from the National Prostate Cancer Audit database. Men were risk stratified according to the CPG classification. Risk ratios (RR) were estimated for undergoing radical treatment according to CPG and for receiving radiotherapy for those treated radically. Funnel plots were used to display variation in radical treatment rates across hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 61,999 men were included with 10,963 (17.7%) in CPG1 (lowest risk group), 13,588 (21.9%) in CPG2, 9452 (15.2%) in CPG3, 12,831 (20.7%) in CPG4, and 15,165 (24.5%) in CPG5 (highest risk group). The proportion of men receiving radical treatment increased from 11.3% in CPG1 to 78.8% in CGP4, and 73.3% in CPG5. Men in CPG3 were more likely to receive radical treatment than men in CPG2 (66.3% versus 48.4%; adjusted RR 1.44; 95% CI 1.36-1.53; P < 0.001). Radically treated men in CPG3 were also more likely to receive radiotherapy than men in CPG2 (59.2% versus 43.9%; adjusted RR, 1.18; 95% CI 1.10-1.26). Although radical treatment rates were similar in CPG4 and CPG5 (78.8% versus 73.3%; adjusted RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04), more men in CPG5 had radiotherapy than men in CPG4 (79.9% versus 59.1%, adjusted RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.12-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The CPG classification distributes men in five risk groups that are about equal in size. It reveals differences in treatment practices in men with intermediate-risk disease (CPG2 and CPG3) and in men with high-risk disease (CPG4 and CPGP5) that are not visible when using the traditional three-tiered risk classification.

Comparison of Treatment-Related Toxicity With Hypofractionated or Conventionally Fractionated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A National Population-Based Study.

AIMS: Randomised controlled trials have shown comparable early oncological outcomes after hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of prostate cancer (PCa). The effect of hypofractionation on treatment-related gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity remains uncertain, especially in older men and those with locally advanced PCa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A population-based study of all patients treated with radical conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (n = 9106) and hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 3027) in all radiotherapy centres in the English National Health Service between 2014 and 2016 was carried out. We identified severe gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicity using a validated coding framework and compared conventionally fractionated and hypofractionated radiotherapy using a competing-risks proportional hazards regression analysis. RESULTS: The median age in our cohort was 72 years old and most patients had locally advanced disease (65%). There was no difference in gastrointestinal toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 5.0 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 5.2 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 1.00, 95% confidence interval: 0.89-1.13; P = 0.95) or genitourinary toxicity (conventionally fractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; hypofractionated radiotherapy: 2.3 events/100 person-years; adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio: 0.92, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-1.10; P = 0.35) between patients who received conventionally fractionated radiotherapy and those who received hypofractionated radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This national cohort study has shown that the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in the radical treatment of PCa does not increase rates of severe gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Our findings also support the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy in older men and those with locally advanced PCa.

Organisation of Prostate Cancer Services in the English National Health Service.

AIMS: The National Prostate Cancer Audit (NPCA) started in April 2013 with the aim of assessing the process of care and its outcomes in men diagnosed with prostate cancer in England and Wales. One of the key aims of the audit was to assess the configuration and availability of specialist prostate cancer services in England. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2014, the NPCA undertook an organisational survey of all 143 acute National Health Service (NHS) Trusts and 48 specialist multidisciplinary team (MDT) hubs cross England. Questionnaires established the availability and location of core diagnostic, treatment and patient-centred support services for the management of non-metastatic prostate cancer in addition to specific diagnostic and treatment procedures that reflect the continuing evolution of prostate cancer management, such as high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and stereotactic body radiotherapy. RESULTS: The survey received a 100% response rate. The results showed considerable geographical variation with respect to the availability of core treatment modalities, the size of the target population and catchment areas served by specialist MDT hubs, as well as in the uptake of additional procedures and services. Specifically there are gaps in the availability of core radiotherapy procedures; high dose rate and low dose rate brachytherapy are available in 44% and 75% of specialist MDTs, respectively. By comparison, there seems to be a relative 'over-penetration' of surgical innovation, with 67% of specialist MDTs providing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy and 21% HIFU. There is also evidence of increased centralisation of core surgical procedures and regional inequity in the availability of surgical innovation across England. CONCLUSIONS: The organisational survey of the NPCA has provided a comprehensive assessment of the structure and function of specialist MDTs in England and the availability of prostate cancer procedures and services. As part of the prospective audit, the NPCA will assess the effect of the availability of prostate cancer services on access regionally and subsequent outcomes of care according to evidence-based guidelines.