Helen Morgan
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Helen Morgan has a total of 19 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- David R. Baldwin
Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
3 shared publications - Emma Louise O'DOwd
Division of Medicine, University of Nottingham, NG5 1PB Nottingham, UK
3 shared publications - Neal Navani
Lungs for Living, UCL Respiratory, Department of Medicine, University College London, London, UK
3 shared publications David Baldwin
City Hospital Campus, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
2 shared publicationsDoug West
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
2 shared publicationsRichard Hubbard
Lifespan and Population Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England; Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, City Hospital, Nottingham, England
2 shared publications
Latest Publications
Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on lung cancer survival in England: an analysis of the rapid cancer registration dataset
Early changes in lung cancer care can affect survival. Given the decrease in diagnosis during lockdowns, we calculated their impact on survival using National Lung Cancer Audit data. Percentage survival and HRs for death were compared between 2019 and lockdown periods of 2020. Decreased survival was observed from the first national lockdown onwards and within 90 days of diagnosis. HRs were highest for people diagnosed at the end of 2020 at 1.26 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.32) for death within 90 days and 1.51 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.60) for death between 91 and 270 days. Further work is needed on measures to mitigate this impact.
Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on lung cancer survival in England: an analysis of the rapid cancer registration dataset
Early changes in lung cancer care can affect survival. Given the decrease in diagnosis during lockdowns, we calculated their impact on survival using National Lung Cancer Audit data. Percentage survival and HRs for death were compared between 2019 and lockdown periods of 2020. Decreased survival was observed from the first national lockdown onwards and within 90 days of diagnosis. HRs were highest for people diagnosed at the end of 2020 at 1.26 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.32) for death within 90 days and 1.51 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.60) for death between 91 and 270 days. Further work is needed on measures to mitigate this impact.
- 14 January 2023
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in British Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 96 (1145) , 20220489
Important parameters for cost-effective implementation of lung cancer screening
It is now widely accepted that lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results in fewer diagnoses at a late stage, and decreased lung cancer mortality. Whilst reducing deaths from lung cancer is an essential prerequisite, this must be balanced against the considerable economic costs accumulated in screening. Multiple health economic models have shown substantial variation in cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), partly driven by the healthcare costs in the country concerned and partly by other modifiable programme components. Recent modelling using UK costs and a targeted approach suggest that most scenarios are within the willingness to pay threshold for the UK. However, identifying the most clinically and cost-effective programme is a priority to minimise the total financial impact. Programme components that influence cost-effectiveness include the method of selection of the eligible population, the participation rate, the interval between rounds of screening, the method of pulmonary nodule management, and the approach to clinical work up. Future research will clarify if a personalised approach to screening, using baseline and subsequent risk to define screening intervals is more cost-effective. The burden of LDCT screening on the medical infrastructure and workforce has to be quantified and carefully managed during implementation.
- 14 January 2023
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in British Journal of Radiology
- Vol. 96 (1145) , 20220489
Important parameters for cost-effective implementation of lung cancer screening
It is now widely accepted that lung cancer screening through low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results in fewer diagnoses at a late stage, and decreased lung cancer mortality. Whilst reducing deaths from lung cancer is an essential prerequisite, this must be balanced against the considerable economic costs accumulated in screening. Multiple health economic models have shown substantial variation in cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), partly driven by the healthcare costs in the country concerned and partly by other modifiable programme components. Recent modelling using UK costs and a targeted approach suggest that most scenarios are within the willingness to pay threshold for the UK. However, identifying the most clinically and cost-effective programme is a priority to minimise the total financial impact. Programme components that influence cost-effectiveness include the method of selection of the eligible population, the participation rate, the interval between rounds of screening, the method of pulmonary nodule management, and the approach to clinical work up. Future research will clarify if a personalised approach to screening, using baseline and subsequent risk to define screening intervals is more cost-effective. The burden of LDCT screening on the medical infrastructure and workforce has to be quantified and carefully managed during implementation.
Ninety-day mortality following lung cancer surgery: outcomes from the English national clinical outcomes audit
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.
Ninety-day mortality following lung cancer surgery: outcomes from the English national clinical outcomes audit
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.
- 10 February 2022
- Published by Elsevier in Lung Cancer
- Vol. 165, S68
90-Day mortality following lung cancer surgery: contemporary outcomes from the English National Clinical Outcomes Audit
- 10 February 2022
- Published by Elsevier in Lung Cancer
- Vol. 165, S68
90-Day mortality following lung cancer surgery: contemporary outcomes from the English National Clinical Outcomes Audit
- Open Access
- 1 October 2020
- Published by AME Publishing Company in Translational Lung Cancer Research
- Vol. 9 (5) , 2161-2164
New fissure-attached nodules in lung cancer screening: more practical implications from the NELSON study?
New fissure-attached nodules in lung cancer screening: more practical implications from the NELSON study?
- 1 October 2020
- Published by AME Publishing Company in Translational Lung Cancer Research
- Vol. 9 (5) , 2161-2164
Open AccessNew fissure-attached nodules in lung cancer screening: more practical implications from the NELSON study?
New fissure-attached nodules in lung cancer screening: more practical implications from the NELSON study?