Elsevier

Lung Cancer

Volume 42, Issue 3, December 2003, Pages 283-290
Lung Cancer

The pathway study: results of a pilot feasibility study in patients suspected of having lung carcinoma investigated in a conventional chest clinic setting compared to a centralised two-stop pathway

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5002(03)00358-1Get rights and content

Abstract

The best chance of cure in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgical resection, but UK rates of 8% compare poorly to 25% in the USA and Europe. Delays in diagnosis in the current UK system may be one reason for such discrepancy. To address this problem we set up a rapid diagnostic system and compared it to the conventional method of investigations in a pilot randomised trial. Methods: Eighty-eight patients were prospectively enrolled from three District General Hospitals and randomised to either investigation locally or to the rapid system at The Royal Marsden Hospital. The pilot end-points were feasibility and audit of radical treatment rates to enable estimates for patient numbers for the full study. Results: Forty-five and 43 patients were in the central and conventional arms, respectively (65% male, median age 69 years). There was a 4-week improvement in time to first treatment in those in the central arm (P=0.0025) with 13/30 (43%) and 9/27 (33%) patients having radical treatment in the central and conventional arms, respectively. Patients in the conventional arm felt the diagnostic process was too slow (P=0.02) while those in the central arm seemed to have a better care experience (P=0.01). There were significantly less visits to the general practitioner (GP) in the central arm (P=0.02). Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrates that the full study is feasible but would require the commitment and involvement of a large number of patients and physicians. The results show several advantages to investigations and diagnosis in the central arm, particularly in time to treatment initiation, patient satisfaction and rate of radical treatments. The improved rate of radical treatment could lead to an improved survival rate.

Introduction

The only current hope of cure in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is treatment at an early stage with either surgery [1] or radical radiotherapy [2]. In the UK, regional surgical resection rates vary, with reported rates between 5 and 10% [3], [4], [5]. This compares to a rate of 25% in the USA and the rest of Europe [6].

There are a number of explanations for such a large discrepancy. Firstly, there is often a delay in diagnosis of lung cancer due to its slow growth [7] with most patients presenting themselves very late once the tumour has begun to cause local symptoms [8]. A second common cause of delay is that after the presentation to a physician time is lost in waiting for both the investigations and the results [9]. Other causes of these lower resection rates include poor awareness on behalf of both primary physicians and patients along with the lack of expert thoracic surgical input at the time of diagnosis with some patients being inappropriately treated with palliative intent.

Currently, there is no evidence that early diagnosis will increase survival. The three seminal studies on lung cancer screening reported in the 1980s showed no apparent true benefit—only lead-time bias—using regular chest X-ray (CXR) and sputum analysis [10], [11], [12]. Once the tumour has been detected, it would seem logical that the earlier definitive treatment is instituted the better. However, a recent study of just over 500 patients with stage IA tumours showed that there is no correlation between size of the tumour at diagnosis and survival. Outcomes were similar when comparing a 3 cm tumour to a tumour less than 1 cm in diameter [13]. This is probably explained by the fact that once tumours are visible on conventional imaging, their metastatic potential may have already been realised.

Presently, there is a resurgence of interest in screening, using low-dose helical CT scanning, in both the USA and Japan [14], [15]. So far, detection rates are promising and follow-up survival data are eagerly awaited.

National guidelines (COIN [16], COG [17], BTS [18]) have focused on the patient pathway from presentation to treatment, and central to this is the setting up of multi-disciplinary meetings (MDMs). The Whitehouse Report in 1994 made recommendations regarding the time frame of investigations in lung cancer, particularly in operable cases, to prevent delay. The recommendations were that the patient must be seen in the specialist outpatients within 14 days of referral from the GP, and that bronchoscopy or other method of biopsy must be performed within 7 days of being seen and subsequent pathology reports should be ready within 7 days after this. Finally, if surgery was possible, it should be carried out within 56 days of first presentation [19]. The National Health Service (NHS) Cancer Plan (2000) sets out a maximum waiting period of 2 months from urgent GP referral to treatment and 1 month from diagnosis to treatment for all cancer patients by 2005 [20].

At Papworth Hospital, a two-stop centralised clinic, with an MDM, has been set up for patients to be diagnosed with lung cancer within a median of 2 weeks and has resulted in an increase in resection rates from 11 to 26% [21]. A similarly high resection rate has been reported in Scotland [22].

More recently, a retrospective study from Norwich has shown no relation between delay in treatment and outcome in nearly 200 NSCLC patients with a 29% radical treatment rate [23]. A similar study in Spain on 1082 patients also showed no correlation between delay in therapy and survival [24].

However, there is no randomised controlled trial that looks at the role of a centralised approach to lung cancer management. In this era of increased service commitment at all levels, practitioners and purchasers need evidence that such strategies will produce true benefits before investing in a major management pathway change.

Thus, we have carried out a randomised pilot study to test the feasibility of a full trial to investigate patients suspected of having lung cancer. We have compared the conventional method of investigation in local chest clinics to a centralised two-stop pathway at The Royal Marsden Hospital in Surrey. The results of such a study would provide a basis to plan appropriate lung cancer management and service requirement in the New Millenium.

Section snippets

Methods

Patients were recruited from the local District General Hospitals of Kingston, St. Helier and The Mayday University Hospitals. The study was approved by both the local and multi-centre research ethics committees. Informed written consent was obtained from all enrolled patients. Eligibility criteria for the study were a possible diagnosis of lung cancer with fitness for a CT scan and biopsy, either percutaneously or by bronchoscopy.

Patients were seen in the local clinics and were randomised to

Results

Eighty-eight patients were recruited from October 1998 to January 2001. At the time of data analysis, 36 patients had died, 20 were in the central arm and 16 in the local arm.

Table 1 summarises the patient demographics in both arms. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the distribution of lung cancer cell types or diagnostic rate, with 35% of patients found not to have lung cancer. Nearly two-thirds of the overall group had locally advanced or metastatic disease at

Discussion

Recruitment was labour intensive and needed a full time study co-ordinator to organise patient randomisation and investigation in the central arm. Twice as many patients received chemotherapy, mostly with a palliative intent in the central arm than in the conventional arm. All patients who received chemotherapy were treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital. As shown in Table 1, there was no significant difference in the two-patient groups as regards cancer cell type or performance status,

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by the Royal Marsden NHS Trust and the Alan J. Lerner Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma Research Fund.

References (28)

  • S.W. Watkin et al.

    Time trends in the outcome of lung cancer management: a study of 9,090 cases diagnosed in the Mersey Region 1974–86

    Br. J. Cancer

    (1990)
  • A. Gregor et al.

    Management and survival of patients with lung cancer in Scotland diagnosed in 1995: results of a national population based study

    Thorax

    (2001)
  • Spiro S.G. Lung Tumours. In: R.A.L. Brewis, G.J. Gibson, D.M. Geddes (Eds.), Respiratory medicine. London: Balliere...
  • J.S. Billing et al.

    Delays in the diagnosis and surgical treatment of lung cancer

    Thorax

    (1996)
  • Cited by (64)

    • Time to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer: A systematic overview of risk factors, interventions and impact on patient outcomes

      2022, Lung Cancer
      Citation Excerpt :

      Studies on multidisciplinary strategies (e.g., multidisciplinary clinics, meetings) were investigated by seven reviews [21,22,26,27,32,31,34]. Among the reviews, six supported that multidisciplinary strategies significantly reduce diagnostic and treatment intervals [21,22,27,32,31,34]; the strategies included multidisciplinary team meetings [21,22,27,32,31,73,74,78] and multidisciplinary clinics [26,32,31,74,79,80,82]. However, there were studies within these reviews where these types of intervention did not appear effective [21,22,27,31,34].

    • Composition, Quoracy and Cost of Specialist Skin Cancer Multidisciplinary Team Meetings in the United Kingdom

      2021, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery
      Citation Excerpt :

      As the Calman-Hine report in 1995, highlighted inadequacies in cancer care, and the National Health Service (NHS) Executive Group mandated that all cases of cancer should be managed by an multidisciplinary team (MDT), they have been a core component of patient management in the United Kingdom (UK).1–3 MDT working has been shown to reduce variations in care, by standardising practise with evidence-based decisions, reduce waiting times for treatment, and improve the patient experience.4-7 Despite these advantages, the current MDT process has been shown to be time consuming, expensive and inefficient.8, 9

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text