Association between Receipt of Guideline-Concordant Lung Cancer Treatment and Individual- and Area-Level Factors: A Spatio-Temporal Analysis

Access to Guideline Concordant Care for Node-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in the United States

BACKGROUND

This study sought to determine whether seeking care at multiple Commission on Cancer (CoC) hospitals is associated with different rates of receiving guideline-concordant care (GCC) among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was queried for the years 2004 to 2018 for patients with margin-negative pT1 to pT3 N1 to N2 M0 noncarcinoid NSCLC without neoadjuvant therapy. GCC was defined as chemotherapy for pN1 disease and as chemotherapy with or without radiation for pN2 disease. Patients who received care at >1 facility were examined separately. Factors previously associated with barriers to care were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank tests analyzed 5-year overall survival (OS). Propensity score matching was performed to compare the effect sizes of race, insurance status, and income.

RESULTS

In total 44,531 patients met inclusion criteria, 11,980 (26.9%) of whom sought care at >1 CoC institution. Among patients with pN1 disease, 5565 (76.7%) received GCC if they visited >1 facility vs 13,995 (68.5%) patients who sought care at 1 facility (P < .001). For patients with pN2 disease, 3991 (84.4%) received GCC if they visited >1 facility vs9369 (77.4%) patients receiving care at 1 facility (P < .001). Visiting >1 facility was associated with higher OS at 5 years (4784 [54.35%] vs 10,215 [45.62%]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Visiting >1 CoC institution is associated with higher rates of GCC for individuals with pN1 to pN2 lung cancer. Patients who received care at >1 facility had higher OS at 5 years. Further study is warranted to identify factors associated with the ability of patients to seek care at multiple facilities.

Rates of adherence to cancer treatment guidelines in Australia and the factors associated with adherence: A systematic review

Adherence to cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) varies enormously across Australia, despite being associated with improved patient outcomes. This systematic review aims to characterize adherence rates to active-cancer treatment CPGs in Australia and related factors to inform future implementation strategies. Five databases were systematically searched, abstracts were screened for eligibility, a full-text review and critical appraisal of eligible studies performed, and data extracted. A narrative synthesis of factors associated with adherence was conducted, and the median adherence rates within cancer streams calculated. A total of 21,031 abstracts were identified. After duplicates were removed, abstracts screened, and full texts reviewed, 20 studies focused on adherence to active-cancer treatment CPGs were included. Overall adherence rates ranged from 29% to 100%. Receipt of guideline recommended treatments was higher for patients who were younger (diffuse large B-cell lymphoma [DLBCL], colorectal, lung, and breast cancer); female (breast and lung cancer), and male (DLBCL and colorectal cancer); never smokers (DLBCL and lung cancer); non-Indigenous Australians (cervical and lung cancer); with less advanced stage disease (colorectal, lung, and cervical cancer), without comorbidities (DLBCL, colorectal, and lung cancer); with good-excellent Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (lung cancer); living in moderately accessible places (colon cancer); and; treated in metropolitan facilities (DLBLC, breast and colon cancer). This review characterized active-cancer treatment CPG adherence rates and associated factors in Australia. Future targeted CPG implementation strategies should account for these factors, to redress unwarranted variation particularly in vulnerable populations, and improve patient outcomes (Prospero number: CRD42020222962).

Clinical practice guideline adherence in oncology: A qualitative study of insights from clinicians in Australia

BACKGROUND

The burden of cancer is large in Australia, and rates of cancer Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) adherence is suboptimal across various cancers.

METHODS

The objective of this study is to characterise clinician-perceived barriers and facilitators to cancer CPG adherence in Australia. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from 33 oncology-focused clinicians (surgeons, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists and haematologists). Clinicians were recruited in 2019 and 2020 through purposive and snowball sampling from 7 hospitals across Sydney, Australia, and interviewed either face-to-face in hospitals or by phone. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and qualitative thematic analysis of the interview data was undertaken. Human research ethics committee approval and governance approval was granted (2019/ETH11722, #52019568810127).

RESULTS

Five broad themes and subthemes of key barriers and facilitators to cancer treatment CPG adherence were identified: Theme 1: CPG content; Theme 2: Individual clinician and patient factors; Theme 3: Access to, awareness of and availability of CPGs; Theme 4: Organisational and cultural factors; and Theme 5: Development and implementation factors. The most frequently reported barriers to adherence were CPGs not catering for patient complexities, being slow to be updated, patient treatment preferences, geographical challenges for patients who travel large distances to access cancer services and limited funding of CPG recommended drugs. The most frequently reported facilitators to adherence were easy accessibility, peer review, multidisciplinary engagement or MDT attendance, and transparent CPG development by trusted, multidisciplinary experts. CPGs provide a reassuring framework for clinicians to check their treatment plans against. Clinicians want cancer CPGs to be frequently updated utilising a wiki-like process, and easily accessible online via a comprehensive database, coordinated by a well-trusted development body.

CONCLUSION

Future implementation strategies of cancer CPGs in Australia should be tailored to consider these context-specific barriers and facilitators, taking into account both the content of CPGs and the communication of that content. The establishment of a centralised, comprehensive, online database, with living wiki-style cancer CPGs, coordinated by a well-funded development body, along with incorporation of recommendations into point-of-care decision support would potentially address many of the issues identified.

Development of an Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Clinical Quality Registry: a protocol paper

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, comprising the largest national cancer disease burden in Australia and New Zealand. Regional reports identify substantial evidence-practice gaps, unwarranted variation from best practice, and variation in processes and outcomes of care between treating centres. The Australia and New Zealand Lung Cancer Registry (ANZLCR) will be developed as a Clinical Quality Registry to monitor the safety, quality and effectiveness of lung cancer care in Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Patient participants will include all adults >18 years of age with a new diagnosis of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), SCLC, thymoma or mesothelioma. The ANZLCR will register confirmed diagnoses using opt-out consent. Data will address key patient, disease, management processes and outcomes reported as clinical quality indicators. Electronic data collection facilitated by local data collectors and local, state and federal data linkage will enhance completeness and accuracy. Data will be stored and maintained in a secure web-based data platform overseen by registry management. Central governance with binational representation from consumers, patients and carers, governance, administration, health department, health policy bodies, university research and healthcare workers will provide project oversight.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The ANZLCR has received national ethics approval under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme. Data will be routinely reported to participating sites describing performance against measures of agreed best practice and nationally to stakeholders including federal, state and territory departments of health. Local, regional and (bi)national benchmarks, augmented with online dashboard indicator reporting will enable local targeting of quality improvement efforts.

Identification of Predictive Factors for Patient-Reported Outcomes in the Prospective Australian Breast Device Registry

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an important tool for evaluating outcomes following breast device procedures and are used by breast device registries. PROMs can assist with device monitoring through benchmarked outcomes but need to account for demographic and clinical factors that may affect PROM responses.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop appropriate risk-adjustment models for the benchmarking of PROM data to accurately track device outcomes and identify outliers in an equitable manner.

METHODS

Data for this study were obtained from the Australian Breast Device Registry, which consists of a large prospective cohort of patients with primary breast implants. The 5-question BREAST-Q implant surveillance module was used to assess PROMs at 1 year following implant insertion. Logistic regression models were used to evaluate associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and PROMs separately by implant indication. Final multivariate risk-adjustment models were built sequentially, assessing the independent significant association of these variables.

RESULTS

In total, 2221 reconstructive and 12,045 aesthetic primary breast implants with complete 1-year follow-up PROMs were included in the study. Indication for operation (post-cancer, risk reduction, or developmental deformity) was included in the final model for all reconstructive implant PROMs. Site type (private or public hospital) was included in the final breast reconstruction model for look, rippling, and tightness. Age at operation was included in the reconstruction models for rippling and tightness and in the aesthetic models for look, rippling, pain, and tightness.

CONCLUSIONS

These multivariate models will be useful for equitable benchmarking of breast devices by PROMs to help track device performance.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Hospital-based multidisciplinary lung cancer care in Australia: a survey of the landscape in 2021

Introduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in Australia and has the highest cancer burden. Numerous reports describe variations in lung cancer care and outcomes across Australia. There are no data assessing compliance with treatment guidelines and little is known about lung cancer multidisciplinary team (MDT) infrastructure around Australia.

Methods

Clinicians from institutions treating lung cancer were invited to complete an online survey regarding the local infrastructure for lung cancer care and contemporary issues affecting lung cancer.

Results

Responses from 79 separate institutions were obtained representing 72% of all known institutions treating lung cancer in Australia. Most (93.6%) held a regular MDT meeting although recommended core membership was only achieved for 42/73 (57.5%) sites. There was no thoracic surgery representation in 17/73 (23.3%) of MDTs and surgery was less represented in regional and low case volume centres. Specialist nurses were present in just 37/79 (46.8%) of all sites. Access to diagnostic and treatment facilities was limited for some institutions. IT infrastructure was variable and most sites (69%) do not perform regular audits against guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic has driven most sites to incorporate virtual MDT meetings, with variable impact around the country. Clinician support for a national data-driven approach to improving lung cancer care was unanimous.

Discussion

This survey demonstrates variations in infrastructure support, provision and membership of lung cancer MDTs, in particular thoracic surgery and specialist lung cancer nurses. This heterogeneity may contribute to some of the well-documented variations in lung cancer outcomes in Australia.