ArticleThorax2015
The impact of the 'hub and spoke' model of care for lung cancer and equitable access to surgery.
Article in Thorax, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- "You're the person for me:" patient perceptions of cancer care team selection and experiences with care coordination within a rural hub-and-spoke health system.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Utilization of Lung Cancer Registries in Learning Health Systems for Health Care Improvement.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Review
- Article
- Quality of breast surgery care at a comprehensive cancer center and its rural affiliate hospital.American journal of surgery · 2024Article
- Recent advances in liver transplantation.Frontline gastroenterology · 2022Article
- The promises and challenges of early non-small cell lung cancer detection: patient perceptions, low-dose CT screening, bronchoscopy and biomarkers.Molecular oncology · 2021Review
- Survival Impact of an Enhanced Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Conference in a Regional Community Health Care System.JTO clinical and research reports · 2021Article
- The basics of onco-nephrology in the renal clinic.Journal of nephrology · 2020Review
- Association of cancer screening and residing in a coal-polluted East Asian region with overall survival of lung cancer patients: a retrospective cohort study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Value and Quality of Care in Head and Neck Oncology.Current oncology reports · 2020Review
- Impact of cancer service centralisation on the radical treatment of men with high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer: A national cross-sectional analysis in England.International journal of cancer · 2019Article
- Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Geographical variations in the use of cancer treatments are associated with survival of lung cancer patients.Thorax · 2018Article
- Recent advances in the management of lung cancer.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2018Review
- Impact of hepatobiliary service centralization on treatment and outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases.The British journal of surgery · 2017Article
- An International Consensus on Actions to Improve Lung Cancer Survival: A Modified Delphi Method Among Clinical Experts in the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo 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).
designCross-sectional study from individual patients, between 1January 2008 and 31March 2012.
settingLinked National Lung Cancer Audit and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets.
participants95,818 English patients with a diagnosis of NSCLC, of whom 12,759 (13%) underwent surgical resection.
main outcome measureOdds 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.
resultsPatients 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%.
conclusionsSurgical 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25182047What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.