Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Patient characteristics of both cohorts, and of EBUS and Non-EBUS patients within the Post-EBUS cohort

From: Impact of the introduction of EBUS on time to management decision, complications, and invasive modalities used to diagnose and stage lung cancer: a pragmatic pre-post study

Patient characteristics Both cohorts Post-EBUS cohort (n = 326)
Pre-EBUS cohort (n = 234) Post-EBUS cohort (n = 326) EBUS group (n = 90) Non-EBUS group (n = 236)
  Median (IQR) Median (IQR) Median (IQR) Median (IQR)
Age at diagnosis (years)a 69 (15) 69 (17) 67 (15) 70 (18)
  n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Male 139 (59.4) 200 (61.3) 58 (64.4) 142 (60.2)
Smoker     
 Unknown 18 (7.7) 32 (9.8) 8 (8.9) 24 (10.2)
 Current 77 (32.9) 92 (28.2) 29 (32.2) 63 (26.7)
 Ceased 124 (53.0) 180 (55.2) 49 (54.4) 131 (55.5)
 Never 15 (6.4) 22 (6.7) 4 (4.4) 18 (7.6)
Remoteness     
 Major city 184 (79.3) 244 (74.8) 65 (72.2) 179 (75.8)
 Inner regional 17 (7.3) 29 (8.9) 10 (11.1) 19 (8.1)
 Outer regional 22 (9.5) 34 (10.4) 11 (12.2) 23 (9.7)
 Remote 9 (3.9) 19 (5.8) 4 (4.4) 15 (6.4)
ECOG-PSb     
 0 87 (37.2) 91 (27.9) 25 (28.0) 66 (27.8)
 1 78 (33.3) 143 (43.9) 50 (55.6) 93 (39.5)
 2 43 (18.4) 58 (17.8) 13 (14.4) 45 (19.1)
 3 20 (8.5) 28 (8.6) 2 (2.2) 26 (11.0)
 4 6 (2.6) 6 (1.8) 0 (0.0) 6 (2.0)
Tumour type     
 NSCLC 204 (87.2) 288 (88.3) 80 (88.9) 208 (88.1)
 SCLC 30 (12.8) 38 (11.7) 10 (11.0) 28 (11.9)
  1. aMann–Whitney U test; all others except bare Pearson’s chi squared
  2. bNo significant differences between groups except for ECOG-PS (EBUS group compared with Non-EBUS group, Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.009)