Andy Nordin
East Kent Hospitals University Nhs Foundation Trust
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Andy Nordin.
Gynecologic Oncology | 2012
Camille Maringe; Sarah Walters; John Butler; Michel P. Coleman; Neville F. Hacker; Louise Hanna; Berit Jul Mosgaard; Andy Nordin; Barry Rosen; Gerda Engholm; Marianne L. Gjerstorff; Juanita Hatcher; Tom Børge Johannesen; Colleen E. McGahan; David Meechan; Richard Middleton; Elizabeth Tracey; D. Turner; Mike A Richards; Bernard Rachet
OBJECTIVE We investigate what role stage at diagnosis bears in international differences in ovarian cancer survival. METHODS Data from population-based cancer registries in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the UK were analysed for 20,073 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 2004-07. We compare the stage distribution between countries and estimate stage-specific one-year net survival and the excess hazard up to 18 months after diagnosis, using flexible parametric models on the log cumulative excess hazard scale. RESULTS One-year survival was 69% in the UK, 72% in Denmark and 74-75% elsewhere. In Denmark, 74% of patients were diagnosed with FIGO stages III-IV disease, compared to 60-70% elsewhere. International differences in survival were evident at each stage of disease; women in the UK had lower survival than in the other four countries for patients with FIGO stages III-IV disease (61.4% vs. 65.8-74.4%). International differences were widest for older women and for those with advanced stage or with no stage data. CONCLUSION Differences in stage at diagnosis partly explain international variation in ovarian cancer survival, and a more adverse stage distribution contributes to comparatively low survival in Denmark. This could arise because of differences in tumour biology, staging procedures or diagnostic delay. Differences in survival also exist within each stage, as illustrated by lower survival for advanced disease in the UK, suggesting unequal access to optimal treatment. Population-based data on cancer survival by stage are vital for cancer surveillance, and global consensus is needed to make stage data in cancer registries more consistent.
British Journal of Cancer | 2015
Rema Iyer; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Nordin; Margot J. Burnell; Robert M. Liston; Ranjit Manchanda; Nagindra Das; Ritti Desai; Robert Gornall; Alice Beardmore-Gray; James Nevin; Kathryn Hillaby; Simon Leeson; Anders Linder; Ademar Lopes; David Meechan; Tim Mould; Santosh Varkey; Adeola Olaitan; Barnaby Rufford; Andrew M. Ryan; Satyanarayan Shanbhag; A Thackeray; Nick J Wood; Karina Reynolds; Usha Menon
Background:There are limited data on surgical outcomes in gynaecological oncology. We report on predictors of complications in a multicentre prospective study.Methods:Data on surgical procedures and resulting complications were contemporaneously recorded on consented patients in 10 participating UK gynaecological cancer centres. Patients were sent follow-up letters to capture any further complications. Post-operative (Post-op) complications were graded (I–V) in increasing severity using the Clavien-Dindo system. Grade I complications were excluded from the analysis. Univariable and multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of complications using all surgery for intra-operative (Intra-op) and only those with both hospital and patient-reported data for Post-op complications.Results:Prospective data were available on 2948 major operations undertaken between April 2010 and February 2012. Median age was 62 years, with 35% obese and 20.4% ASA grade ⩾3. Consultant gynaecological oncologists performed 74.3% of operations. Intra-op complications were reported in 139 of 2948 and Grade II–V Post-op complications in 379 of 1462 surgeries. The predictors of risk were different for Intra-op and Post-op complications. For Intra-op complications, previous abdominal surgery, metabolic/endocrine disorders (excluding diabetes), surgical complexity and final diagnosis were significant in univariable and multivariable regression (P<0.05), with diabetes only in multivariable regression (P=0.006). For Post-op complications, age, comorbidity status, diabetes, surgical approach, duration of surgery, and final diagnosis were significant in both univariable and multivariable regression (P<0.05).Conclusions:This multicentre prospective audit benchmarks the considerable morbidity associated with gynaecological oncology surgery. There are significant patient and surgical factors that influence this risk.
British Journal of Cancer | 2013
Rema Iyer; A Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Nordin; R Liston; Matthew Burnell; Nagindra Das; R Desai; Robert Gornall; A Beardmore-Gray; Kathryn Hillaby; Simon Leeson; Anders Linder; Alberto Lopes; David Meechan; Tim Mould; J Nevin; Adeola Olaitan; Barnaby Rufford; Andrew M. Ryan; S Shanbhag; A Thackeray; N Wood; Karina Reynolds; Usha Menon
Background:Most studies use hospital data to calculate postoperative complication rates (PCRs). We report on improving PCR estimates through use of patient-reporting.Methods:A prospective cohort study of major surgery performed at 10 UK gynaecological cancer centres was undertaken. Hospitals entered the data contemporaneously into an online database. Patients were sent follow-up letters to capture postoperative complications. Grade II–V (Clavien–Dindo classification) patient-reported postoperative complications were verified from hospital records. Postoperative complication rate was defined as the proportion of surgeries with a Grade II–V postoperative complication.Results:Patient replies were received for 1462 (68%) of 2152 surgeries undertaken between April 2010 and February 2012. Overall, 452 Grade II–V (402 II, 50 III–V) complications were reported in 379 of the 1462 surgeries. This included 172 surgeries with 200 hospital-reported complications and 231 with 280 patient-reported complications. All (100% concordance) 36 Grade III–V and 158 of 280 (56.4% concordance) Grade II patient-reported complications were verified on hospital case-note review. The PCR using hospital-reported data was 11.8% (172 out of 1462; 95% CI 11–14), patient-reported was 15.8% (231 out of 1462; 95% CI 14–17.8), hospital and verified patient-reported was 19.4% (283 out of 1462; 95% CI 17.4–21.4) and all data were 25.9% (379 out of 1462; 95% CI 24–28). After excluding Grade II complications, the hospital and patient verified Grade III–V PCR was 3.3% (48 out of 1462; 95% CI 2.5–4.3).Conclusion:This is the first prospective study of postoperative complications we are aware of in gynaecological oncology to include the patient-reported data. Patient-reporting is invaluable for obtaining complete information on postoperative complications. Primary care case-note review is likely to improve verification rates of patient-reported Grade II complications.
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology | 2016
Carolynn Gildea; Andy Nordin; L Hirschowitz; Jason Poole
To quantify trends in 30‐day mortality following surgery for endometrial carcinoma in England, and investigate hospital‐ and geographical‐level variations.
British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology | 2016
Matthew Burnell; Rema Iyer; A Gentry-Maharaj; Andy Nordin; Robert M. Liston; Ranjit Manchanda; Nagindra Das; R Gornall; A Beardmore-Gray; K Hillaby; Simon Leeson; Anders Linder; Alberto Lopes; David Meechan; Tim Mould; J Nevin; Adeola Olaitan; Barnaby Rufford; S Shanbhag; A Thackeray; N Wood; K Reynolds; Andy Ryan; Usha Menon
To explore the impact of risk‐adjustment on surgical complication rates (CRs) for benchmarking gynaecological oncology centres.
Gynecologic Oncology | 2001
Wiebren A.A. Tjalma; John M. Monaghan; Alberto Lopes; Raj Naik; Andy Nordin; Joost Weyler
Gynecologic Oncology | 2000
Raj Naik; Andy Nordin; Paul Cross; Diane Hemming; Alberto Lopes; John M. Monaghan
Gynecologic Oncology | 2001
Andy Nordin; D.J. Chinn; I. Moloney; Raj Naik; A. de Barros Lopes; John M. Monaghan
Gynecologic Oncology | 2000
Raj Naik; Andy Nordin; Paul Cross; Diane Hemming; Alberto Lopes; John M. Monaghan
Gynecologic Oncology | 2005
Raj Naik; K. Maughan; Andy Nordin; Alberto Lopes; K.A. Godfrey; M.H. Hatem