Skip to main content

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)