Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Comparing the case mix and survival of women receiving breast cancer care from one private provider with other London women with breast cancer: pilot data exchange and analyses

Authors: Elizabeth A. Davies, Victoria H. Coupland, Steve Dixon, Kefah Mokbel, Ruth H. Jack

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Data from providers of private cancer care are not yet formally included in English cancer registration data. This study aimed to test the exchange of breast cancer data from one Hospital Corporation of America International (HCAI) hospital in London with the cancer registration system and assess the suitability of these data for comparative analyses of case mix and adjusted survival.

Methods

Data on 199 London women receiving ‘only HCAI care’, 278 women receiving ‘some HCAI care’ (HCAI and other services), and 31,234 other London women diagnosed between 2005 and 2011 could be identified and compared. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox regression was used to adjust for age, socioeconomic deprivation, year of diagnosis, stage of disease and recorded treatment.

Results

Women receiving ‘only HCAI care’ were younger, lived in areas of higher affluence (47.8 % vs 27.6 %) and appeared less likely to be recorded as having screen-detected (2.5 % vs 25.0 %) disease than other London women. Women receiving ‘some HCAI care’ were more similar to ‘HCAI only’ women. Although HCAI stage of disease data completeness improved during the study period, this was less complete overall than cancer registration data and limited the comparative survival analyses. An apparent survival advantage for ‘HCAI only’ women compared with other London women (hazard ratio 0.48, 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.32-0.74) was attenuated and no longer statistically significant after adjustment (0.79, 95 % CI: 0.51-1.21). Women receiving ‘some HCAI care’ appeared to have higher survival (hazard ratio 0.24, 95 % CI 0.14-0.41) which was attenuated to 0.48 (95 % CI: 0.28-0.80) in the fully adjusted model.

Conclusions

Exchange of data between the private cancer sector and the English cancer registration service can identify patients who receive all or some private care. The better survival of women receiving only or some HCAI breast cancer care appears to be at least partly explained by demographic, disease, and treatment factors. However, larger studies using similarly quality assured datasets and more complete staging data from the private sector are needed to produce definitive comparative results.
Literature
1.
go back to reference HM Government. Health and Social Care Act 2012. 2012. HM Government. Health and Social Care Act 2012. 2012.
3.
go back to reference Arora S, Charlesworth A, Kelly E, Stoye G, Public payment and private provision. The changing landscape of health care in the 2000s. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies and Nuffield Trust; 2013. Arora S, Charlesworth A, Kelly E, Stoye G, Public payment and private provision. The changing landscape of health care in the 2000s. London: Institute for Fiscal Studies and Nuffield Trust; 2013.
7.
go back to reference Chard J, Kuczawski M, Black N, van der Meulen J, Committee POAS. Outcomes of elective surgery undertaken in independent sector treatment centres and NHS providers in England: audit of patient outcomes in surgery. BMJ. 2011;343:d6404. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chard J, Kuczawski M, Black N, van der Meulen J, Committee POAS. Outcomes of elective surgery undertaken in independent sector treatment centres and NHS providers in England: audit of patient outcomes in surgery. BMJ. 2011;343:d6404. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​d6404.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference NHS Confederation. Independent sector dominates top ten for improved quality of life following elective hip and knee replacement. 2013. NHS Confederation. Independent sector dominates top ten for improved quality of life following elective hip and knee replacement. 2013.
10.
go back to reference Health and Social Care Information Centre. National Lung Cancer Audit Report 2014. 2014. Health and Social Care Information Centre. National Lung Cancer Audit Report 2014. 2014.
15.
16.
go back to reference Noble M, McLennan D, Wilkinson K, Whitworth A, Barnes H, Dibben C. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. London: Communities and Local Government; 2008. Noble M, McLennan D, Wilkinson K, Whitworth A, Barnes H, Dibben C. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. London: Communities and Local Government; 2008.
17.
go back to reference Jack RH, Robson T, Davies EA. The varying influence of socioeconomic deprivation on breast cancer screening uptake in London. Journal of Public Health. 2015. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv038 Jack RH, Robson T, Davies EA. The varying influence of socioeconomic deprivation on breast cancer screening uptake in London. Journal of Public Health. 2015. doi:10.​1093/​pubmed/​fdv038
19.
go back to reference Klodawski E, Mindell J, Fitzpatrick J, Malhotra N. Inequalities in access to revascularisation in the NHS and in the independent sector among London residents. London: London Health Observatory; 2006. Klodawski E, Mindell J, Fitzpatrick J, Malhotra N. Inequalities in access to revascularisation in the NHS and in the independent sector among London residents. London: London Health Observatory; 2006.
20.
go back to reference Care Quality Commission. A fresh start for the regulation of independent healthcare. 2014. Care Quality Commission. A fresh start for the regulation of independent healthcare. 2014.
Metadata
Title
Comparing the case mix and survival of women receiving breast cancer care from one private provider with other London women with breast cancer: pilot data exchange and analyses
Authors
Elizabeth A. Davies
Victoria H. Coupland
Steve Dixon
Kefah Mokbel
Ruth H. Jack
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2439-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Cancer 1/2016 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine