Optimal lung cancer care pathways – a Tasmanian perspective.

Chui Lyn Leong; Ingrid Cox; Renae Grundy; Nick Harkness; Andrew Palmer; Barbara de Graaff; Emma Ball

Just Accepted

This article has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. It is in production and has not been edited, so may differ from the final published form.

Optimal lung cancer care pathways – a Tasmanian perspective.

Chui Lyn Leong , Ingrid Cox , Renae Grundy, Nick Harkness, Andrew Palmer, Barbara de Graaff, Emma Ball

Abstract

Introduction/Aim: In Australia, Tasmania has the second highest rate of incident lung cancer cases at 44.0/100,000 population, with overall 5-year relative survival rate at 20%¹. This retrospective study aimed to map and compare patient transit timelines from referral, diagnosis, and treatment to national care quality indicators (NCQI) and optimal care pathway benchmarks (OCP). Methods: Data was extracted from the weekly lung cancer multidisciplinary team meeting minutes, Digital Medical Records (DMR) and ARIA Oncology-Information System for newly diagnosed small cell and non-small cell lung cancer cases between 2019 and 2022, at a regional, university-affiliated tertiary hospital in Tasmania. Sociodemographic data and key dates were extracted including first general practitioner (GP) referral, specialist appointments (respiratory, medical oncology, radiation oncology and cardiothoracic), investigations, diagnosis, staging and treatment. Timelines were benchmarked against NCQI and OCP. Results: 165 cases were included; mean age was 72 years, and 57% were males. 153 (93%) patients were diagnosed with non-small cell cancer and 12 (7%) with small cell lung cancer. . Results for all years demonstrated that 93% of patients were seen by the respiratory service within 14 days of their GP referral and 71% diagnosed within 28 days of their referral, in accordance with current standards. The time taken between GP referrals and diagnosis to any treatment intent were below the required standards, with on average 7% of patients meeting the quality standards (range 0-16%) for all treatment intents. Conclusion: Current national benchmarks have proven challenging to achieve with prolonged time to treatment of any intent. Challenges both at a patient and systemic level will need to be assessed to improve clinical indicator outcomes.

AH24249 Accepted 19 January 2025