ObjectiveSince 2010, England has experienced relative constraints in public expenditure on healthcare (PEH) and social care (PES). We sought to determine whether these constraints have affected mortality rates.MethodsWe collected data on health and social care resources and finances for England from 2001 to 2014. Time trend analyses were conducted to compare the actual mortality rates in 2011–2014 with the counterfactual rates expected based on trends before spending constraints. Fixed-effects regression analyses were conducted using annual data on PES and PEH with mortality as the outcome, with further adjustments for macroeconomic factors and resources. Analyses were stratified by age group, place of death and lower-tier local authority (n=325). Mortality rates to 2020 were projected based on recent trends.ResultsSpending constraints between 2010 and 2014 were associated with an estimated 45 368 (95% CI 34 530 to 56 206) higher than expected number of deaths compared with pre-2010 trends. Deaths in those aged ≥60 and in care homes accounted for the majority. PES was more strongly linked with care home and home mortality than PEH, with each £10 per capita decline in real PES associated with an increase of 5.10 (3.65–6.54) (p<0.001) care home deaths per 100 000. These associations persisted in lag analyses and after adjustment for macroeconomic factors. Furthermore, we found that changes in real PES per capita may be linked to mortality mostly via changes in nurse numbers. Projections to 2020 based on 2009-2014 trend was cumulatively linked to an estimated 152 141 (95% CI 134 597 and 169 685) additional deaths.ConclusionsSpending constraints, especially PES, are associated with a substantial mortality gap. We suggest that spending should be targeted on improving care delivered in care homes and at home; and maintaining or increasing nurse numbers.

Objectives: The independent impact of individual surgical experience and team familiarity on surgical performance has been widely studied; however, the interplay of these factors and their relative, quantified, contributions to performance is poorly understood. We determined the impact of team familiarity and surgeon, and cumulative team experience on operative efficiency in total knee replacement. Design: Retrospective analysis of all total knee replacements conducted at the host institution in 1996-2009. Multivariate generalised-estimating-equation regression models were used to adjust for patient risk and clustering. Setting: Tertiary care academic hospital. Participants: All patients undergoing TKR at the host institution in 1996-2009. Main outcome measure: Operative efficiency. Results: A total of 4276 total knee replacements were completed by 1163 different surgical teams. The median experience level was 17.6 years for consultant surgeons and 3.7 years for trainee surgeons. After patient-risk adjustment, consultant surgical experience (p < 0.0001), trainee surgical experience (p < 0.05), cumulative team operative experience (p < 0.0001) and team familiarity (p < 0.0001) were associated with significant reductions in operative time. Surgical experience and team familiarity demonstrated concave and linear relationships with operative time, respectively. For a consultant surgeon, the expected reduction in operative time after 25 years in practice was 51 min, compared to a 21-min reduction over the span of 40 collaborations with the same team members. Conclusions: Surgical experience and team familiarity display important and distinct relationships with operative time in total knee replacement. Appreciation of this interplay may serve to guide implementation and allocation of procedurespecific quality improvement strategies in surgery.

Liposarcoma is one of the most common subtypes of soft-tissue sarcoma and consists of three main subtypes, of which well-differentiated liposarcoma and dedifferentiated liposarcoma account for 40–45%. The current mainstay of systemic treatment for patients with metastatic or unresectable disease remains doxorubicin with or without ifosfamide in the first-line setting. Recently, eribulin and trabectedin have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for recurrent liposarcomas and progress in molecular characterization of these tumors has opened up new and potential novel treatment targets. This review will focus on the evidence base for current treatment strategies and will also discuss potential future options.

ObjectivesTo systematically categorise cancer research investment awarded to United Kingdom (UK) institutions in the period 2000–2013 and to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLDs).DesignSystematic analysis of all open-access data.Setting and participantsPublic and philanthropic funding to all UK cancer research institutions, 2000–2013.Main outcome measuresNumber and financial value of cancer research investments reported in 2013 UK pounds (UK£). Mortality, DALYs and YLDs data were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease Study. A compound metric was adapted to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, DALYs and YLDs.ResultsWe identified 4299 funded studies with a total research investment of £2.4 billion. The highest fundings by anatomical sites were haematological, breast, prostate, colorectal and ovarian cancers. Relative to disease burden as determined by a compound metric combining mortality, DALYs and YLDs, gender-specific cancers were found to be highest funded—the five sites that received the most funding were prostate, ovarian, breast, mesothelioma and testicular cancer; the least well-funded sites were liver, thyroid, lung, upper gastrointestinal (GI) and bladder. Preclinical science accounted for 66.2% of award numbers and 62.2% of all funding. The top five areas of primary research focus by funding were pathogenesis, drug therapy, diagnostic, screening and monitoring, women's health and immunology. The largest individual funder was the Medical Research Council. In combination, the five lowest funded site-specific cancers relative to disease burden account for 47.9%, 44.3% and 20.4% of worldwide cancer mortality, DALYs and YLDs.ConclusionsResearch funding for cancer is not allocated according to relative disease burden. These findings are in line with earlier published studies. Funding agencies and industry should openly document their research investments to improve better targeting of research investment.

ObjectivesTo categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs).DesignSystematic analysis of all open-access data.MethodsData about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value.ResultsOf the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses.ConclusionsWe demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded.