Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

A methodology to extract outcomes from routine healthcare data for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Authors: Swee-Ling Wong, Kate Ricketts, Gary Royle, Matt Williams, Ruheena Mendes

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Outcomes for patients in UK with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (LA NSCLC) are amongst the worst in Europe. Assessing outcomes is important for analysing the effectiveness of current practice. However, data quality is inconsistent and regular large scale analysis is challenging.
This project investigates the use of routine healthcare datasets to determine progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients treated with primary radical radiotherapy for LA NSCLC.

Methods

All LA NSCLC patients treated with primary radical radiotherapy in a 2 year period were identified and paired manual and routine data generated for an initial pilot study. Manual data was extracted information from hospital records and considered the gold standard. Key time points were date of diagnosis, recurrence, death or last clinical encounter. Routine data was collected from various data sources including, Hospital Episode Statistics, Personal Demographic Service, chemotherapy data, and radiotherapy datasets. Relevant event dates were defined by proxy time points and refined using backdating and time interval optimization. Dataset correlations were then tested on key clinical outcome indicators to establish if routine data could be used as a reliable proxy measure for manual data.

Results

Forty-three patients were identified for the pilot study. The manual data showed a median age of 67 years (range 46- 89 years) and all patients had stage IIIA/B disease. Using the manual data, the median PFS was 10.78 months (range 1.58–37.49 months) and median OS was 16.36 months (range 2.69–37.49 months). Based on routine data, using proxy measures, the estimated median PFS was 10.68 months (range 1.61–31.93 months) and estimated median OS was 15.38 months (range 2.14–33.71 months). Overall, the routine data underestimated the PFS and OS of the manual data but there was good correlation with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.94 for PFS and 0.97 for OS.

Conclusions

This is a novel approach to use routine datasets to determine outcome indicators in patients with LA NSCLC that will be a surrogate to analysing manual data. The ability to enable efficient and large scale analysis of current lung cancer strategies has a huge potential impact on the healthcare system.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Molina JR, Yang P, Cassivi SD, Schild SE, Adjei AA. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(5):584–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Molina JR, Yang P, Cassivi SD, Schild SE, Adjei AA. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(5):584–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Verdecchia A, et al. Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(9):784–96.CrossRefPubMed Verdecchia A, et al. Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-02 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(9):784–96.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Coleman M, et al. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995 – 2007 (the international Cancer benchmarking partnership): an analysis of population-based. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):127–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Coleman M, et al. Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995 – 2007 (the international Cancer benchmarking partnership): an analysis of population-based. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):127–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
go back to reference Cancer Research UK, Vision for radiotherapy 2014–2024, 2014. Cancer Research UK, Vision for radiotherapy 2014–2024, 2014.
5.
6.
go back to reference Saad ED, Katz A. Progression-free survival and time to progression as primary end points in advanced breast cancer: often used, sometimes loosely defined. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(3):460–4.CrossRefPubMed Saad ED, Katz A. Progression-free survival and time to progression as primary end points in advanced breast cancer: often used, sometimes loosely defined. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(3):460–4.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Kane R, Wellings K, Free C, Goodrich J. Uses of routine data sets in the evaluation of health promotion interventions: opportunities and limitations. Health Educ. 2000;100(1):33–41.CrossRef Kane R, Wellings K, Free C, Goodrich J. Uses of routine data sets in the evaluation of health promotion interventions: opportunities and limitations. Health Educ. 2000;100(1):33–41.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Coory M, Thompson B, Baade P, Fritschi L. Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Coory M, Thompson B, Baade P, Fritschi L. Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Hewitt M, Simone J. Ensuring quality cancer care. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press; 1999. Hewitt M, Simone J. Ensuring quality cancer care. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press; 1999.
11.
go back to reference Jha RDAK, Perlin JB, Kizer KW. Effect of the transformation of the veterans affairs health care system on the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2218–27.CrossRefPubMed Jha RDAK, Perlin JB, Kizer KW. Effect of the transformation of the veterans affairs health care system on the quality of care. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2218–27.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Trivedi A, Zaslavsky A, Schneider E, et al. Trends in the quality of care and racial disparities in Medicare managed care. New Engl J Med. 2005;353:692–700.CrossRefPubMed Trivedi A, Zaslavsky A, Schneider E, et al. Trends in the quality of care and racial disparities in Medicare managed care. New Engl J Med. 2005;353:692–700.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Ricketts K, Williams M, Liu Z, Gibson A. Automated estimation of disease recurrence in head and neck cancer using routine healthcare. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2014;117(3):412–24.CrossRef Ricketts K, Williams M, Liu Z, Gibson A. Automated estimation of disease recurrence in head and neck cancer using routine healthcare. Comput Methods Prog Biomed. 2014;117(3):412–24.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Liu Z, Fitzke H, Williams M. Using routine data to estimate survival and recurrence in head and neck cancer : our preliminary experience in twenty patients. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013;38(4):334–9.CrossRefPubMed Liu Z, Fitzke H, Williams M. Using routine data to estimate survival and recurrence in head and neck cancer : our preliminary experience in twenty patients. Clin Otolaryngol. 2013;38(4):334–9.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Rich AL, et al. Lung cancer in England: information from the National Lung Cancer Audit (LUCADA). Lung Cancer. 2011;72(1):16–22.CrossRefPubMed Rich AL, et al. Lung cancer in England: information from the National Lung Cancer Audit (LUCADA). Lung Cancer. 2011;72(1):16–22.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Blagden SP, Charman SC, Sharples LD, Magee LRA, Gilligan D. Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree? Br J Cancer. 2003;89(6):1022–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Blagden SP, Charman SC, Sharples LD, Magee LRA, Gilligan D. Performance status score: do patients and their oncologists agree? Br J Cancer. 2003;89(6):1022–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Lung cancer. The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. NICE Clin. Guidel. 2011;121:41. Lung cancer. The diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. NICE Clin. Guidel. 2011;121:41.
19.
go back to reference Sørensen JB, Klee M, Palshof T, Hansen HH. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. Br J Cancer. 1993;67(4):773–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sørensen JB, Klee M, Palshof T, Hansen HH. Performance status assessment in cancer patients. An inter-observer variability study. Br J Cancer. 1993;67(4):773–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Everyone Counts: Planning for patients 2014/15 to 2018/19, England, NHS, 1–90, 2013. Everyone Counts: Planning for patients 2014/15 to 2018/19, England, NHS, 1–90, 2013.
21.
go back to reference Oken CP, MM CRH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET. Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–55.CrossRefPubMed Oken CP, MM CRH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, McFadden ET. Toxicity and response criteria of the eastern cooperative oncology group. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982;5(6):649–55.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A methodology to extract outcomes from routine healthcare data for patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer
Authors
Swee-Ling Wong
Kate Ricketts
Gary Royle
Matt Williams
Ruheena Mendes
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3029-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Health Services Research 1/2018 Go to the issue