Search

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant disruption to health-care services and delivery worldwide. The impact of the pandemic and associated national lockdowns on lung cancer incidence in England have yet to be assessed., Research Question: What was the impact of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence and presentation of lung cancer in England?, Study Design and Methods: In this retrospective observational study, incidence rates for lung cancer were calculated from The National Lung Cancer Audit Rapid Cancer Registration Datasets for 2019 and 2020, using midyear population estimates from the Office of National Statistics as the denominators. Rates were compared using Poisson regression according to time points related to national lockdowns in 2020., Results: Sixty-four thousand four hundred fifty-seven patients received a diagnosis of lung cancer across 2019 (n = 33,088) and 2020 (n = 31,369). During the first national lockdown, a 26% reduction in lung cancer incidence was observed compared with the equivalent calendar period of 2019 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78). This included a 23% reduction in non-small cell lung cancer (adjusted IRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.81) and a 45% reduction in small cell lung cancer (adjusted IRR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.46-0.65) incidence. Thereafter, incidence rates almost recovered to baseline, without overcompensation (adjusted IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98)., Interpretation: The incidence rates of lung cancer in England fell significantly by 26% during the first national lockdown in 2020 and did not compensate later in the year., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests RWL is funded by the Royal Marsden National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden Cancer Charity. RWL's institution receives compensation from NHS England for time spent in a secondment role for the lung health check programme and as a National Specialty Lead for the NIHR. He has received research funding from Cancer Research UK, Innovate UK (co-funded by GE Healthcare, Roche, and Optellum), Small Business Research Initiative for Healthcare (co-applicant with QURE.AI), RM Partners Cancer Alliance, and NIHR (co-applicant in grants with Optellum). He has received honoraria from Cancer Research UK. SHB reports being clinical lead for cancer for the Leeds office of the West Yorkshire Integrated Care Board and received funding from Cancer Research UK for doctoral research. KB receives funding from the Welsh Government via the Health and Care Research Wales-funded Wales Cancer Research Centre (grant number 517190) and Primary and Emergency Care Research Centre (grant number 517195). MEJC reports being principal investigator for Leeds Lung Health Check and the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (funding from Yorkshire Cancer Research). YC reports being the lead for PERFECTS: the first national External Quality Assurance scheme for lung cancer imaging assessment funded by NHS England and NHS Improvement. AD declares a role as Medical Director for Thoracic Radiology at Brainomix. JKF has received fees for participation in speaker's bureau from AstraZeneca and participation on advisory boards from Epigenomics, NUCLEIX, AstraZeneca, and iDNA; and grant support from Janssen Research & Development. SMJ declares paid advisory board membership for 2017–20 with AstraZeneca, Bard1 Bioscience, Achilles Therapeutics, and Jansen; has received assistance for travel to meetings from AstraZeneca; is grant income lead investigator for GRAIL, GSK, and Owlstone; and is a shareholder in Optellum and BARD1 Lifescience. AM declares her role on the National Screening Committee. RLM declares honorarium from AstraZeneca and has been commissioned by Action on Smoking and Health to produce a report on smoking cessation in targeted lung health checks. AN declares grants from UK Department of Health and Social Care's NIHR Biomedical Research Centre's funding scheme and GRAIL (Summit study); consulting fees from Aidence, Faculty Science, and MSD; support for attending meetings from Takeda; advisory board participation with Aidence and Faculty Science; leadership roles for the British Society of Thoracic Imaging, British Lung Foundation, and NHS England Targeted Lung Health Checks Programme. ELO’D reports research funding from Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. SLQ receives funding from Cancer Research UK (grant number C50664/A24460), Barts Charity (MRC&U0036), and University College London Hospital NHS Trust. RR reports advisory boards and consultancy for Inivata, AstraZeneca, and Olympus Medical and research funding support from Owlstone Medical, Victor Dahdaleh Charitable Foundation, Cancer Research UK, and Asthma and Lung UK. RB declares honoraria from Siemens for speaker fees. DRB declares his role as Clinical Advisor to the UK National Screening Committee, UK Department of Health and Social Care, and honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, and Bristol Myers Squibb. PC reports consultancy for Novartis, Everest Detection, AstraZeneca, and North West eHealth; and stock options for Everest Detection. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake., Methods: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition., Results: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand., Conclusion: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening., Patient or Public Contribution: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study., (© 2022 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Lung cancer outcomes in England are inferior to comparable countries. Patient or disease characteristics, healthcare-seeking behaviour, diagnostic pathways, and oncology service provision may contribute. We aimed to quantify associations between geographic variations in treatment and survival of patients in England., Methods: We retrieved detailed cancer registration data to analyse the variation in survival of 176,225 lung cancer patients, diagnosed 2010-2014. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression to investigate survival in the two-year period following diagnosis., Results: Survival improved over the period studied. The use of active treatment varied between geographical areas, with inter-quintile ranges of 9%-17% for surgical resection, 4%-13% for radical radiotherapy, and 22%-35% for chemotherapy. At 2 years, there were 188 potentially avoidable deaths annually for surgical resection, and 373 for radical radiotherapy, if all treated proportions were the same as in the highest quintiles. At the 6 month time-point, 318 deaths per year could be postponed if chemotherapy use for all patients was as in the highest quintile. The results were robust to statistical adjustments for age, sex, socio-economic status, performance status and co-morbidity., Conclusion: The extent of use of different treatment modalities varies between geographical areas in England. These variations are not attributable to measurable patient and tumour characteristics, and more likely reflect differences in clinical management between local multi-disciplinary teams. The data suggest improvement over time, but there is potential for further survival gains if the use of active treatments in all areas could be increased towards the highest current regional rates., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TR has a personal grant from the National Institute for Health Research during the period of this work. DRB has received personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work. Other authors have no competing interest to declare., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in young adults is a rare but devastating illness with significant socioeconomic implications, and studies of this patient subgroup are limited., Aim: This study employed the National Lung Cancer Audit to compare the clinical features and survival of young adults with NSCLC with the older age groups., Design: A retrospective cohort review using a validated national audit dataset., Methods: Data were analysed for the period between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2011. Young adults were defined as between 18 and 39 years, and all others were divided into decade age groups, up to the 80 years and above group. We performed logistic and Cox regression analyses to assess clinical outcomes., Results: Of a total of 1 46 422 patients, 651 (0.5%) were young adults, of whom a higher proportion had adenocarcinoma (48%) than in any other age group. Stage distribution of NSCLC was similar across the age groups and 71% of young patients had stage IIIb/IV. Performance status (PS) was 0-1 for 85%. Young adults were more likely to have surgery and chemotherapy compared with the older age groups and had better overall and post-operative survival. The proportion with adenocarcinoma, better PS and that receiving surgery or chemotherapy diminished progressively with advancing decade age groups., Conclusion: In our cohort of young adults with NSCLC, the majority had good PS despite the same late-stage disease as older patients. They were more likely to have treatment and survive longer than older patients., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: To determine the influence of where a patient is first seen (either surgical or non-surgical centre) and patient features on having surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Design: Cross-sectional study from individual patients, between 1January 2008 and 31March 2012., Setting: Linked National Lung Cancer Audit and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets., Participants: 95,818 English patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC, of whom 12,759 (13%) underwent surgical resection., Main Outcome Measure: Odds of having surgery based on the empirical catchment population of the 30 thoracic surgical centres in England and whether the patient is first seen in a surgical centre or a non-surgical centre., Results: Patients were more likely to be operated on if they were first seen at a surgical centre (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.45). This was most marked for surgical centres with the largest catchment populations. In these surgical centres with large catchment populations, the resection rate for local patients was 18% and for patients first seen in a non-surgical centre within catchment was 12%., Conclusions: Surgical centres that serve the largest catchment populations have high resection rates for patients first seen in their own centre but, in contrast, low resection rates for patients first seen at the surrounding centres they serve. Our findings demonstrate the importance of going further than relating resection rates to hospital volume or surgeon number, and show that there is a pressing need to design lung cancer services which enable all patients, including those first seen at non-surgical centres, to have equal access to lung cancer surgery., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Introduction: Chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy is the recommended treatment for small cell lung cancer (SCLC), except in stage I disease where clinical guidelines state there may be a role for surgery based on favourable outcomes in case series. Evidence supporting adjuvant chemotherapy in resected SCLC is limited but this is widely offered., Methods: Data on 359 873 patients who were diagnosed with a first primary lung cancer in England between 1998 and 2009 were grouped according to histology (SCLC or non-SCLC (NSCLC)) and whether they underwent a surgical resection. We explored their survival using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity and socioeconomic status., Results: The survival of 465 patients with resected SCLC was lower than patients with resected NSCLC (5-year survival 31% and 45%, respectively), but much higher than patients of either group who were not resected (3%). The difference between resected SCLC and NSCLC diminished with time after surgery. Survival was superior for the subgroup of 198 'elective' SCLC cases where the diagnosis was most likely known before resection than for the subgroup of 267 'incidental' cases where the SCLC diagnosis was likely to have been made after resection., Conclusions: These data serve as a natural experiment testing the survival after surgical management of SCLC according to NSCLC principles. Patients with SCLC treated surgically for early stage disease may have survival outcomes that approach those of NSCLC, supporting the emerging clinical practice of offering surgical resection to selected patients with SCLC.

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify trends in survival and chemotherapy use for individuals with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) in England using the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA)., Methods: We used data from the NLCA database to identify people with histologically proven SCLC from 2004-2011. We calculated the median survival by stage and assessed whether patient characteristics changed over time. We also assessed whether the proportion of patients with records of chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy changed over time., Results: 18,513 patients were diagnosed with SCLC in our cohort. The median survival was 6 months for all patients, 1 year for those with limited stage and 4 months for extensive stage. 69% received chemotherapy and this proportion changed very slightly over time (test for trends p = 0.055). Age and performance status of patients remained stable over the study period, but the proportion of patients staged increased (p-value<0.001), mainly because of improved data completeness. There has been an increase in the proportion of patients that had a record of receiving both chemotherapy and radiotherapy each year (from 19% to 40% in limited and from 9% to 21% in extensive stage from 2004 to 2011). Patients who received chemotherapy with radiotherapy had better survival compared with any other treatment (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.23-0.25)., Conclusion: Since 2004, when the NLCA was established, the proportion of patients with SCLC having chemotherapy has remained static. We have found an upward trend in the proportion of patients receiving both chemotherapy and radiotherapy which corresponded to a better survival in this group, but as it only applied for a small proportion of patients, it was not enough to change the overall survival.

Background: In comparison with other European and North American countries, England has poor survival figures for lung cancer. Our aim was to evaluate the changes in survival since the introduction of the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA)., Methods: We used data from the NLCA to identify people with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and stratified people according to their performance status (PS) and clinical stage. Using Cox regression, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for death according to the year of diagnosis from 2004/2005 to 2010; adjusted for patient features including age, sex and co-morbidity. We also assessed whether any changes in survival were explained by the changes in surgical resection rates or histological subtype., Results: In this cohort of 120,745 patients, the overall median survival did not change; but there was a 1% annual improvement in survival over the study period (adjusted HR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-0.99). Survival improvement was only seen in patients with good PS and early stage (adjusted HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99) and this was partly accounted for by changes in resection rates., Conclusion: Survival has only improved for a limited group of people with NSCLC and increasing surgical resection rates appeared to explain some of this improvement.

Introduction: For appropriately staged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgical resection can dramatically improve survival, but some may not be offered this treatment because of concerns about perioperative mortality., Methods: We used data from the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) to determine the proportions of English patients who died within 30 and 90 days after surgery for NSCLC. We quantified the predictors of early postoperative death and using these results devised a score to predict risk of death within 90 days of surgery., Results: We analysed data on 10 991 patients operated on between 2004 and 2010. Three per cent (334) of patients died within 30 days of their procedure and 5.9% (647) within 90 days. Age was strongly associated with early postoperative death (adjusted OR within 90 days for 80-84 years vs 70-74 years: 1.46, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.98); significant associations were also observed with performance status (PS) (adjusted OR within 90 days for PS 2 vs PS 0: 2.40, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.41), as well as lung function, stage and procedure type., Conclusions: Our results show that age is the most important predictor of death within both of these early postoperative periods. We used the data in the NLCA to develop a predictive score, based on an English population and specific to lung cancer surgery, which estimates risk of death within 90 days; this score should be tested in future cohorts.

Background: The National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) recommends that trusts obtain pathology (histology or cytology) for 75% of their lung cancer patients, however this figure was arbitrarily chosen and the optimal pathological confirmation rate is unknown, and many countries report somewhat higher rates. The aims of this study were to provide a simple means of benchmarking appropriate pathological confirmation rates by stratifying patients into groups, and whether obtaining pathology based on those groups is associated with a survival benefit., Methods: We calculated the proportion of patients with non-small cell or small cell lung cancer in the NLCA database, first seen between 1st January 2004 and 31st December 2010, who had pathological confirmation of their diagnosis. Using logistic we assessed the independent influence of patient factors on the likelihood of having histology or cytology, and the overall effect on survival. We also used bivariate analysis to identify the features which were most strongly associated with having pathology and performed Cox regression to identify any survival advantage., Findings: We analysed data on 136,993 individuals. Age and performance status (PS) were the strongest predictors of pathological confirmation: age ≥ 85 odds ratio (OR) 0.20 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.22) compared with age<55; PS 4 OR 0.11 (95%CI 0.10-0.12) compared with PS 0. Pathological confirmation of diagnosis was associated with a small early survival advantage for groups 1 & 2 which represented younger patients with good PS, even after adjusting for other patient features: hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 & 0.89 respectively., Conclusion: Stratifying patients by age and performance status is useful and appropriate when benchmarking standards for pathological confirmation of the diagnosis of lung cancer. We have shown better survival at six months and one year for younger patients with better PS, even after adjusting for confounders. Much of the survival advantage was accounted for by adjusting for the use of chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The treatment given to patients with lung cancer and survival vary between and within countries. The National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics was used to quantify the extent to which these outcomes are influenced by patient features and/or hospital facilities and performance indicators., Methods: All patients with a histological diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were included. Logistic regression was used to quantify the independent influence of features of both patients and hospitals on the likelihood of having surgery and Cox regression was used for survival analyses., Results: There were 34,513 patients with NSCLC in our dataset. After adjusting for age, sex, performance status, stage and Charlson Index of comorbidity, patients with NSCLC first seen in thoracic surgical centres (27% of the cohort) were 51% more likely to have surgery than those seen in non-surgical centres (adjusted OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.97). Resection rates varied from 13% to 17% between non-surgical and thoracic surgical centres. Surgery was the most powerful determinant of overall survival (adjusted HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.44)., Conclusion: A minority of patients with NSCLC first seen in a thoracic surgical centre are more likely to have surgery and to benefit from the survival advantage this confers. This finding suggests that there is an opportunity to improve the outcome for patients with lung cancer in England by optimising access to thoracic surgeons in non-surgical centres.

Background: Our aim was to systematically determine how features of patients and hospitals influence access to chemotherapy and survival for people with small-cell lung cancer in England., Methods: We linked the National Lung Cancer Audit and Hospital Episode Statistics and used multiple logistic and Cox regression analyses to assess the influence of patient and hospital features on small-cell lung cancer outcomes., Results: There were 7845 patients with histologically proven small-cell lung cancer. Sixty-one percent (4820) of the patients received chemotherapy. Increasing age, worsening performance status, extensive stage and greater comorbidity all reduced the likelihood of receiving chemotherapy. There was wide variation in access to chemotherapy between hospitals in general and patients first seen in centres with a strong interest in clinical trials had a higher odds of receiving chemotherapy (adjusted odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06, 1.90). Chemotherapy was associated with a lower mortality rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.46, 0.56)., Conclusion: Patients first seen at a hospital with a keen interest in clinical trials are more likely to receive chemotherapy, and chemotherapy was associated with improved survival.

Aims: Our aims were to determine whether the information in the National Lung Cancer Audit database (LUCADA) is influenced by the completeness of reporting and to describe the current socio-demographics and survival of people with lung cancer in England., Methods: Using national registry data as a gold standard we stratified NHS Trusts into quartiles on the basis of their patient ascertainment. We assessed the distribution of patient features across these quartiles using Cox and logistic regression. We then examined overall survival and access to treatment., Results: We analysed data for 60,059 patients whose data were entered between 2004 and 2008. There was little variation in key patient features, treatment and median survival across quartiles of data completeness. Socio-economic disadvantage did not influence survival or access to surgery but was related to a decreased use of chemotherapy., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that LUCADA accurately describes people in England who are diagnosed with lung cancer and can therefore be used to drive health care improvements. Individual patient socio-economic status does not affect survival and has only a limited impact on access to treatment and so NHS Trust level factors should be studied to explain the previously published regional variations in these outcomes., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The '2-week wait' scheme for referral of patients with cancer to secondary care coincided with the introduction of Department of Health (DoH) Guidelines on referral of patients with suspected lung cancer. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of this process on the urgent referral pathway for lung cancer. Medical records of all patients referred with suspected lung cancer were reviewed for the year prior to introduction of the 2-week wait and DoH guidelines and for the subsequent 24 months. A total of 1044 patients were referred, of which 650 (62%) were found to have malignancy. In the first and second years of the 2-week wait scheme, only 57 and 58% were referred via the scheme. Department of Health guidelines were followed in all but a small number. Median wait time increased from 7 to 9 days. The proportion of all urgent referrals seen within 2 weeks fell from 84 to 71%. The proportion of non-2-week wait urgent referrals being seen within 2 weeks was only 75.5% in the first year of the scheme and fell further to 60.9% in the second year. The absolute number of referrals rose and the proportion having cancer fell from 78% before the scheme to 46% in the second year. During this time, there was no change in stage at presentation. Symptoms were not helpful in discriminating benign from malignant disease and haemoptysis was actually more common in the benign group. However, over 50% of patients in the benign group were appropriate to be seen in secondary care. The 2-week wait scheme has so far failed to reduced waiting times for lung cancer. The findings of this study suggest that this is partly due to continued usage of urgent referral routes outside the 2-week wait scheme and secondly due to a large increase in referrals, probably generated by the introduction of the DoH guidelines. Some adjustment to the guidelines may be appropriate to reflect more emphasis on the early performance of a chest X-ray and the use of direct access to other imaging modalities such as CT. Patients referred outside the 2-week wait are disadvantaged and thus practitioners would be wise to refer all their patients through the 2-week wait system.

General practitioners (GPs) in the UK have long had direct access to hospital radiological services, which in theory shortens investigation time and improves the quality of service. Chest X-rays (CXRs) account for a substantial proportion of requests, and we investigated what happened when an abnormality was detected. In one year, 204 GPs in the Nottingham area requested CXRs in 605 patients. 362 were reported normal, 165 abnormal but hospital follow-up not indicated and 71 abnormal with radiological follow-up or hospital referral indicated (mass lesion suspicious of tumours 27, infective shadowing 35, other 9). 64 of the 71 were seen in hospital within three months, and in those with suspected cancer the median time to follow-up was 20 days. These results show that GPs do act on the results of abnormal CXRs, but only 37% of those with a mass suspicious of cancer were seen in hospital within two weeks as recommended by the British Thoracic Society. Time might be saved if GPs agreed to direct referral from the radiology department to respiratory physicians.

Hospital management of acute severe asthma in 14 large hospitals in Birmingham and Manchester was audited in a random 20% of 1196 patients aged 15-45 years admitted in 1985. Of the 239 admissions randomised, 192 were suitable for study. Results were compared with those from a study in the same hospitals using the same methods in 1978. The age and sex of the patients and their smoking history, duration of asthma, and hospital attendance were similar in 1978 and 1985. A much smaller proportion of patients presented with symptoms of over seven days' duration in 1985 (8.5%) than in 1978 (26%). The inpatient management of asthma appears to have improved in both thoracic and general units, with more thorough functional assessments, more frequent performance of relevant investigations (arterial blood gases and peak expiratory flow rates) and more frequent use of recommended treatment (nebulised bronchodilators, oral and intravenous corticosteroids). Less difference was found in 1985 between units with a specialist thoracic interest and those without, though some differences remained in 1985 in monitoring of peak expiratory flow rate and arterial blood gases, outpatient prescribing, and follow up arrangements. Inhaled preventive medication was prescribed more frequently than in 1978. In 1985 there was a 56% increase in admissions for asthma. The proportion of severely ill patients was similar to that in 1978, but in the most severe functional grade mean arterial carbon dioxide tension was higher in 1985 and more patients were ventilated. Our results suggest that hospital management by thoracic and general physicians has improved over the period 1978-85. Patients presented earlier in 1985, though there seems to have been an increase in asthma of all grades of severity.