P265 Survey of north west england ct follow-up of patients post radical treatment for lung cancer. (15th November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Griffiths, P; Fullerton, DG; Lees, DC
• Is Part Of: Thorax. Volume 72(2017)Supplement 3
• Page Start: A227
• Page End: A227
• Publication Date: 2017-11-15
• Subjects: Chest -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Thorax; Chest -- Diseases; Periodicals; Periodicals; 617.54
• DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2017-210983.407
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0040-6376

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: There is not currently consensus in the UK regarding optimal follow up of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after radical treatment. Survivorship clinics aim to detect treatment related complications, assess for disease recurrence, support patients (and families) as well as detect new primaries. Computed tomography (CT) is superior to chest x-ray (CXR) for NSCLC follow-up and although several professional bodies have issued guidance on CT follow-up after treatment, real-world practice on when to perform CT follow-up varies according to local protocols, resources as well as patient-related variables. Aim: To determine local patterns of CT surveillance in patients treated radically for NSCLC. Methods: An online questionnaire was sent to 40 different specialists involved in lung cancer treatment in the North West of England. They included respiratory physicians, thoracic surgeons, and clinical and medical oncologists. Results: 21 questionnaires were completed. Surveillance patterns varied between the treatment modality delivered and specialty. Following curative surgery (n=19 respondents): Short-term CT surveillance intervals varied between no routine CT (n=5), 3–6 monthly (n=4), 1–2 yearly (n=10). Following radical radiotherapy (n=16): Frequency of CT varied between no routine CT (n=4), 3–6 monthly (n=5) and 1–2 yearly (n=7). Following Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) (n=7): Frequency of CT surveillance varied from 3–6 monthly (n=5) to 1–2 yearly (n=2). The total duration of routine follow-up also varied from 'Indefinitely' (n=2) to 5 years (n=16), and 10 years (n=3). Conclusion: This survey has demonstrated that wide variation exists in the NW England in relation to when to perform CT scans in patients who have had a radical treatment for NSCLC. There is no standardised follow up protocol for this patient group in NW England. An agreed protocol for follow up of patients after radical treatment for NSCLC based on variables that predict recurrence is needed. It is hoped that data from on-going research should help to inform follow up protocols in the future. We have demonstrated that there is a need for a more uniform and evidence based strategy for CT scan follow up of patients with NSCLC.