Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Ninety-day mortality following lung cancer surgery: outcomes from the English national clinical outcomes audit
  1. Helen Morgan1,
  2. David Baldwin1,2,
  3. Richard Hubbard1,
  4. Neal Navani3,
  5. Doug West4,
  6. Emma Louise O'Dowd1,2
  1. 1Division of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
  3. 3Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
  4. 4Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Helen Morgan, Division of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK; helen.morgan{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

Accurately explaining perioperative mortality and risk to patients is an essential part of shared decision making. In the case of lung cancer surgery, the currently available multivariable mortality prediction tools perform poorly, and could mislead patients. Using data from 2004 to 2012, this group has previously produced data tables for 90-day postoperative mortality, to be used as a communication aid in the consenting process. Using National Lung Cancer Clinical Outcomes audit data from 2017 to 2018, we have produced updated early mortality tables, to reflect current thoracic surgery practice.

  • Lung Cancer
  • Thoracic Surgery

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors HM was involved in study design, performed the majority of data processing and analysis and drafted the article. The original idea was from DB, RH and ELO'D, who also contributed to design of the study and interpretation of the data. All authors were involved in revising the manuscript and approved its submission.

  • Funding This study was funded by Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation (RB48HD).

  • Competing interests HM has nothing to disclose. DRB reports grants from Cancer Research UK, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from BMS, outside the submitted work. RH reports personal fees from Galapagos, outside the submitted work. NN is supported by an MRC Clinical Academic Research Partnership (MR/T02481X/1). NN has received fees or non-financial support fromAmgen, Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Lilly & Co, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Olympus,Oncimmune, OncLive, PeerVoice, Pfizer and Takeda, outside of the submitted work. DWreports grants from Medtronic, personal fees from Astra Zeneca UK, and is a salariedemployee of the NHS England Improvement GIRFT programme. ELO'D has nothing to disclose.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.