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.)

Background: Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer., Methods: In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866., Findings: Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity)., Interpretation: Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response., Funding: GRAIL., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JLD, CH, ST, HH, and PV were employed by University College London (UCL) as clinical research fellows through SUMMIT Study funding provided by GRAIL. SMJ has received travel expenses from AstraZeneca, BARD1 Bioscience, Optellum, Jansen, Takeda, Evidera, and Achilles Therapeutics for participation on advisory boards; has received honoraria for lectures from Chiesi; and has received travel expenses from AstraZeneca for a US conference. AH has received one honorarium for an advisory board meeting for GRAIL; has received consulting fees from Evidera (for a GRAIL-initiated project); and has previously owned shares in Illumina. NN has received honoraria for advisory, education, and consultancy work from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly & Co, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Olympus, Oncimmune, OncLive, PeerVoice, Pfizer, and Takeda, all outside of the submitted work. AN has received consulting fees from Aidence BV, Faculty Science Limited, and MSD; and has received expenses for travelling to a conference from Takeda. A-MM, JT, LF, VB, KG, FB, CL, TA, JM, AD, and SLQ declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A better insight into injuries in elite-youth football may inform prevention strategies. The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to investigate the frequency, incidence, and pattern of time-loss injuries in an elite male football academy, exploring injuries in relation to age and maturation status. Across four consecutive playing seasons, playing exposure and injuries to all academy players (U'9 to U'21) were recorded by club medical staff. Maturation status at the time of injury was also calculated for players competing in U'13 to U'16 aged squads. Time-loss injury occurrence and maturation status at time of injury were the main outcome measures. A total of 603 time-loss injuries were recorded, from 190 different players. Playing exposure was 229 317 hours resulting in an overall injury rate of 2.4 p/1000 h, ranging from 0.7 p/1000 h (U'11) to 4.8 p/1000 h (U'21). Most injuries were traumatic in mechanism (73%). The most common injury location was the thigh (23%), and the most common injury type was muscle injury (29%) combining to provide the most common injury diagnosis; thigh muscle injury (17%). In U'13-U'16 players, a higher number of injuries to early-maturing players were observed in U'13-U'14 players, while more injuries to U'15-U'16 players occurred when classed as "on-time" in maturity status. Maturation status did not statistically relate to injury pattern; however, knee bone (not-fracture) injuries peaked in U'13 players while hip/groin muscle injuries peaked in U'15 players., (© 2021 The Authors. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science In Sports published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Undocumented migrant women experience complex barriers to maternity services, are less likely to receive the recommended level of maternity care, and have poorer obstetric outcomes than non-migrant women. There are concerns increasing restrictions on entitlement to health services have a detrimental impact on access to services and obstetric outcomes, particularly among undocumented migrant women. The study aimed to investigate the experiences of undocumented migrant women who have been pregnant in England, and factors affecting access to care and health outcomes., Methods: We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews June-December 2017 with a purposive sample of migrant women born outside the UK (aged>18) who had experiences of pregnancy and undocumented status (without permission to reside) in the UK, recruited through Doctors of the World (DOTW) UK. Interpreting services were used on request. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using thematic analysis. Ethical approval: Imperial College London Research Ethics Committee (ICREC reference: 17IC3924)., Results: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants, 10 of whom had their first antenatal appointment after the national target of 13 weeks, and nine of whom reported complications. Themes defining women's experiences of pregnancy included: restricted agency, intersecting stressors, and an ongoing cycle of precarity, defined by legal status, social isolation, and economic status., Conclusions: This study provides new evidence of women's experiences of pregnancy in the UK in the context of increasingly restrictive health policies including charging and data sharing. Six recommendations are made to ensure the UK and other migrant receiving countries work towards reducing inequalities and achieving national and global targets for maternal and child health and universal health coverage., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: A proof-of-concept study has shown that the Added Value for Oral Care (ADVOCATE) Field Studies approach (academic detailing with feedback data) is considered a feasible, useful, and acceptable way to motivate general dental practitioners (GDPs) to reflect on and, if required, change their oral health-care delivery. The aims of this proof-of-principle study were to test whether such results were reproducible and to reach consensus among stakeholders on recommendations for wider implementation., Methods: Eleven groups of GDPs were recruited in 6 countries (Denmark, England Germany, Hungary, Ireland, and The Netherlands). Each group had 3 academic detailing meetings, being stimulated by feedback data. Focus group interviews were held to evaluate the reproducibility of the Field Studies approach. A World Café session explored suggestions for the wider implementation of the approach., Results: Replicable results on feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of the Field Studies approach were seen; 7 out of 9 themes identified in the proof-of-concept study were validated. Directed content analyses identified that adjustments to procedures to collect and present feedback data were desirable. Overall, the approach can stimulate GDPs to reflect on and change aspects of their oral health-care delivery., Conclusions: The Field Studies approach, after some adjustments to data collection procedures, is ready for further testing in larger studies., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: During the COVID-19 lockdown, referrals via the 2-week-wait urgent pathway for suspected cancer in England, UK, are reported to have decreased by up to 84%. We aimed to examine the impact of different scenarios of lockdown-accumulated backlog in cancer referrals on cancer survival, and the impact on survival per referred patient due to delayed referral versus risk of death from nosocomial infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2., Methods: In this modelling study, we used age-stratified and stage-stratified 10-year cancer survival estimates for patients in England, UK, for 20 common tumour types diagnosed in 2008-17 at age 30 years and older from Public Health England. We also used data for cancer diagnoses made via the 2-week-wait referral pathway in 2013-16 from the Cancer Waiting Times system from NHS Digital. We applied per-day hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer progression that we generated from observational studies of delay to treatment. We quantified the annual numbers of cancers at stage I-III diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway using 2-week-wait age-specific and stage-specific breakdowns. From these numbers, we estimated the aggregate number of lives and life-years lost in England for per-patient delays of 1-6 months in presentation, diagnosis, or cancer treatment, or a combination of these. We assessed three scenarios of a 3-month period of lockdown during which 25%, 50%, and 75% of the normal monthly volumes of symptomatic patients delayed their presentation until after lockdown. Using referral-to-diagnosis conversion rates and COVID-19 case-fatality rates, we also estimated the survival increment per patient referred., Findings: Across England in 2013-16, an average of 6281 patients with stage I-III cancer were diagnosed via the 2-week-wait pathway per month, of whom 1691 (27%) would be predicted to die within 10 years from their disease. Delays in presentation via the 2-week-wait pathway over a 3-month lockdown period (with an average presentational delay of 2 months per patient) would result in 181 additional lives and 3316 life-years lost as a result of a backlog of referrals of 25%, 361 additional lives and 6632 life-years lost for a 50% backlog of referrals, and 542 additional lives and 9948 life-years lost for a 75% backlog in referrals. Compared with all diagnostics for the backlog being done in month 1 after lockdown, additional capacity across months 1-3 would result in 90 additional lives and 1662 live-years lost due to diagnostic delays for the 25% backlog scenario, 183 additional lives and 3362 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 276 additional lives and 5075 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. However, a delay in additional diagnostic capacity with provision spread across months 3-8 after lockdown would result in 401 additional lives and 7332 life-years lost due to diagnostic delays under the 25% backlog scenario, 811 additional lives and 14 873 life-years lost under the 50% backlog scenario, and 1231 additional lives and 22 635 life-years lost under the 75% backlog scenario. A 2-month delay in 2-week-wait investigatory referrals results in an estimated loss of between 0·0 and 0·7 life-years per referred patient, depending on age and tumour type., Interpretation: Prompt provision of additional capacity to address the backlog of diagnostics will minimise deaths as a result of diagnostic delays that could add to those predicted due to expected presentational delays. Prioritisation of patient groups for whom delay would result in most life-years lost warrants consideration as an option for mitigating the aggregate burden of mortality in patients with cancer., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 15%-20% of all non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cases present with stage I disease. Surgical resection traditionally offers the best chance of a cure but some patients will not have this treatment due to older age, comorbidities or personal choice. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has become an established curative intent treatment option for patients who are not selected for or do not choose surgery. The aim of this study is to compare survival at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years for patients who received either lobectomy or SABR., Methods: We used data from the 2015 National Lung Cancer Audit database and linked with Hospital Episode Statistics and the radiotherapy dataset to identify patients with NSCLC stage IA-IB and performance status (PS) 0-2 who underwent surgery or SABR treatment. We assessed the likelihood of death at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year and 2 year after diagnosis and procedure date to observe survival between two patient groups., Results: We identified 2373 patients in our cohort, 476 of whom had SABR. The median difference between date of diagnosis and date of treatment for surgery patients was 17 days while for SABR patients it was 73 days. Increasing age and worsening PS were associated with having SABR rather than surgery. Survival between the two treatment modalities was similar early on but by 1-year people who had surgery did better than those who had SABR (adjusted ORs 2.12, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.31). This difference persisted at 2 years and when the analysis was restricted to patients aged <80 years and with PS 0 or 1 and stage IA only., Conclusion: Our analysis suggests that patients who have lobectomy have a better survival compared with SABR patients; however, we found considerable delays in patients receiving SABR which may contribute to poorer long-term outcomes with this treatment option. Reducing these delays should be a key focus in development and reorganisation of services., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AK has conducted the statistical analysis for the National Lung Cancer Audit annual reports for the past 4 years, which were funded by Royal College of Physicians. None of the authors have received any personal earnings from any funding body for this work. RH has a grant provided by the British Lung Foundation chair of respiratory epidemiology., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The presence of comorbidity affects the care of cancer patients, many of whom are living with multiple comorbidities. The prevalence of cancer comorbidity, beyond summary metrics, is not well known. This study aims to estimate the prevalence of comorbid conditions among cancer patients in England, and describe the association between cancer comorbidity and socio-economic position, using population-based electronic health records., Methods: We linked England cancer registry records of patients diagnosed with cancer of the colon, rectum, lung or Hodgkin lymphoma between 2009 and 2013, with hospital admissions records. A comorbidity was any one of fourteen specific conditions, diagnosed during hospital admission up to 6 years prior to cancer diagnosis. We calculated the crude and age-sex adjusted prevalence of each condition, the frequency of multiple comorbidity combinations, and used logistic regression and multinomial logistic regression to estimate the adjusted odds of having each condition and the probability of having each condition as a single or one of multiple comorbidities, respectively, by cancer type., Results: Comorbidity was most prevalent in patients with lung cancer and least prevalent in Hodgkin lymphoma patients. Up to two-thirds of patients within each of the four cancer patient cohorts we studied had at least one comorbidity, and around half of the comorbid patients had multiple comorbidities. Our study highlighted common comorbid conditions among the cancer patient cohorts. In all four cohorts, the odds of having a comorbidity and the probability of multiple comorbidity were consistently highest in the most deprived cancer patients., Conclusions: Cancer healthcare guidelines may need to consider prominent comorbid conditions, particularly to benefit the prognosis of the most deprived patients who carry the greater burden of comorbidity. Insight into patterns of cancer comorbidity may inform further research into the influence of specific comorbidities on socio-economic inequalities in receipt of cancer treatment and in short-term mortality.

Background: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer., Objectives: The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C)., Design: The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study., Setting: The setting was 16 NHS hospitals., Participants: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L)., Interventions: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography)., Reference Standard: Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness., Results: Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p  = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p  = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests., Limitations: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice., Conclusions: In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483., Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information., Competing Interests: Stuart A Taylor reports personal fees from Robarts Clinical Trials Inc. (London, ON, Canada) outside the submitted work. Andrea Rockall reports personal fees from Guerbet (Paris, France) outside the submitted work. Vicky Goh and Anwar Padhani report grants from Siemens AG (Erlangen, Germany) outside the submitted work. Steve Halligan reports non-financial support from iCad Inc. (Nashua, NH, USA) outside the submitted work and was a member of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) commissioning board (2008–14). Stephen Morris declares past membership of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials Board (2007–9), HTA Commissioning Board (2009–13), Public Health Research Board (2011–17), Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) Commissioning Board (2014–16) and HSDR Board (2014–18), and current membership of the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research expert subpanel (2015–present) and HSDR Evidence Synthesis Sub Board (2016–present).

Background: The evidence that large pay-for-performance schemes improve the health of populations is mixed-evidence regarding locally implemented schemes is limited., Objective: This study evaluates the effects in Stoke-on-Trent of a local, multifaceted Quality Improvement Framework including pay for performance in general practice introduced in 2009 in the context of the national Quality and Outcomes Framework that operated from 2004., Methods: We compared age-standardized mortality data from all 326 local authorities in England with the rates in Stoke-on-Trent using Difference-in-Differences, estimating a fixed-effects linear regression model with an interaction effect., Results: In addition to the existing downward trend in cardiovascular deaths, we find an additional annual reduction of 36 deaths compared with the national mean for coronary heart disease and 13 deaths per 100000 from stroke in Stoke-on-Trent. Compared with the national mean, there was an additional reduction of 9 deaths per 100000 people per annum for coronary heart disease and 14 deaths per 100000 people per annum for stroke following the introduction of the 2009 Stoke-on-Trent Quality Improvement Framework., Conclusion: There are concerns about the unintended consequences of large pay-for-performance schemes in health care, but in a population with a high prevalence of disease, they may at least initially be beneficial. This study also provides evidence that a local, additional scheme may further improve the health of populations. Such schemes, whether national or local, require periodic review to evaluate the balance of their benefits and risks., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Introduction: Data from the National Lung Cancer Audit (NLCA) often show variation in outcomes between lung cancer units which are not entirely explained by case mix. We explore the association between the organisation of services and patient outcome., Methods: Details of service provision were collected via an electronic survey in June 2017. An overall organisational score derived from eleven key service factors from national lung cancer commissioning guidance was calculated for each organisation. The results for each hospital were linked to their patient outcome results from the 2015 NLCA cases. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to link the organisational score to patient outcomes., Results: Lung cancer unit organisational audit scores varied from 0 to 11. Thirty-eight (29%) units had a score of 0-4, 64 (50%) had a score of 5-7 and 27 (21%) had a score of 8-11. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that, compared with an organisational score of 0-4, patients seen at units with a score of 8-11 had higher 1-year survival (adjusted OR (95% CI)=2.30 (1.04 to 5.08), p<0.001), higher curative-intent treatment rate (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.62 (1.26 to 2.09), p<0.001) and greater likelihood of receiving treatment within 62 days (adjusted OR (95% CI)=1.49 (1.20 to 1.86), p<0.001)., Conclusion: National variation in the provision of services and workforce remain. We provide evidence that adherence to the national lung commissioning guidance has the potential to improve patient outcomes within the current service structure., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC., Methods: The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete., Findings: Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37-63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41-67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (-7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88-96]) and standard pathways (95% [91-98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12-14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17-21]); a 6-day (4-8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1-1]) and standard pathways (one [1-2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273-361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574-666) for standard pathways., Interpretation: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs., Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We investigated socioeconomic disparities and the role of the main prognostic factors in receiving major surgical treatment in patients with lung cancer in England., Methods: Our study comprised 31 351 patients diagnosed with non-small cell lung cancer in England in 2012. Data from the national population-based cancer registry were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and National Lung Cancer Audit data to obtain information on stage, performance status and comorbidities, and to identify patients receiving major surgical treatment. To describe the association between prognostic factors and surgery, we performed two different analyses: one using multivariable logistic regression and one estimating cause-specific hazards for death and surgery. In both analyses, we used multiple imputation to deal with missing data., Results: We showed strong evidence that the comorbidities 'congestive heart failure', 'cerebrovascular disease' and 'chronic obstructive pulmonary disease' reduced the receipt of surgery in early stage patients. We also observed gender differences and substantial age differences in the receipt of surgery. Despite accounting for sex, age at diagnosis, comorbidities, stage at diagnosis, performance status and indication of having had a PET-CT scan, the socioeconomic differences persisted in both analyses: more deprived people had lower odds and lower rates of receiving surgery in early stage lung cancer., Discussion: Comorbidities play an important role in whether patients undergo surgery, but do not completely explain the socioeconomic difference observed in early stage patients. Future work investigating access to and distance from specialist hospitals, as well as patient perceptions and patient choice in receiving surgery, could help disentangle these persistent socioeconomic inequalities., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Multicentre research can be used to explore and generate significant data in aspects of care that affect small numbers of children. This article describes the problems and benefits encountered by a group of nurses from 11 hospitals undertaking a multicentre study of pressure ulcers in children and young people in England and Wales. Multicentre research can generate a large amount of useful data contributing to high quality evidence-based care and can provide nurses with a valuable learning and networking experience.