Literature DB >> 19560908

Geographical variation in radiotherapy services across the UK in 2007 and the effect of deprivation.

M V Williams1, K J Drinkwater.   

Abstract

AIMS: Modelling of demand has shown substantial underprovision of radiotherapy in the UK. We used national audit data to study geographical differences in radiotherapy waiting times, access and dose fractionation across the four countries of the UK and between English strategic health authorities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a web-based tool to collect data on diagnosis, dose fractionation and waiting times on all National Health Service patients in the UK starting a course of radiotherapy in the week commencing 24 September 2007. Cancer incidence for the four countries of the UK and for England by primary care trust was used to model demand for radiotherapy aggregated by country and by strategic health authority.
RESULTS: Across the UK, excluding skin cancer, 2504 patients were prescribed 33 454 fractions in the audit week. Waits for radical radiotherapy exceeded the recommended 4 week maximum for 31% of patients (range 0-62%). Fractions per million per year ranged from 17 678 to 36 426 and radical fractions per incident cancer ranged from 3.0 to 6.7. Patients who were treated received similar treatment in terms of fractions per radical course of radiotherapy (18.2-23.0). Access rates ranged from 25.2 to 48.8%, nearing the modelled optimum of 50.7% in three regions. Fractions per million prescribed as a first course of treatment varied from 43.9 to 90.3% of modelled demand. The percentage of patients failing to meet the 4 week Joint Council for Clinical Oncology target for radical radiotherapy rose as activity rates increased (r=0.834), indicating a mismatch of demand and capacity. In England, a comparison between strategic health authorities showed that increasing deprivation was correlated with lower rates of access to radiotherapy (r=-0.820).
CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial differences across the UK in the radiotherapy provided to patients and its timeliness. Radiotherapy capacity does not reflect regional variations in cancer incidence across the UK (3618-5800 cases per million per year). In addition, deprivation is a major unrecognised influence on radiotherapy access rates. In regions with higher levels of deprivation, fewer patients with cancer receive radiotherapy and the proportion treated radically is lower. This probably reflects late presentation with advanced disease, poor performance status and co-morbid illness. To provide an equitable, evidence-based service, the needs of the local population should be assessed using demand modelling based on local cancer incidence. Ideally this should include data on deprivation, performance status and stage at presentation. The results should be compared with local radiotherapy activity data to understand waits, access and dose fractionation in order to plan adequate provision for the future. The development of a mandatory radiotherapy data set in England will facilitate this, but to assist change it is essential that the results are analysed and fed back to clinicians and commissioners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19560908     DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2009.05.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol)        ISSN: 0936-6555            Impact factor:   4.126


  8 in total

Review 1.  Research in cancer care disparities in countries with universal healthcare: mapping the field and its conceptual contours.

Authors:  Christina Sinding; Rachel Warren; Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis; Jonathan Sussman
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Geographic variation in secondary fracture prevention after a hip fracture during 1999-2013: a UK study.

Authors:  A Shah; D Prieto-Alhambra; S Hawley; A Delmestri; J Lippett; C Cooper; A Judge; M K Javaid
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2016-11-03       Impact factor: 4.507

3.  Assessment of performance indicators of a radiotherapy department using an electronic medical record system.

Authors:  Yasir A Bahadur; Camelia Constantinescu; Ammar Y Bahadur; Ruba Y Bahadur
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2017-07-21

4.  Should positron emission tomography/computed tomography be the first rather than the last test performed in the assessment of cancer?

Authors:  Rodney J Hicks
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 3.909

5.  Cancer survival in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, 1995-2007 (the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership): an analysis of population-based cancer registry data.

Authors:  M P Coleman; D Forman; H Bryant; J Butler; B Rachet; C Maringe; U Nur; E Tracey; M Coory; J Hatcher; C E McGahan; D Turner; L Marrett; M L Gjerstorff; T B Johannesen; J Adolfsson; M Lambe; G Lawrence; D Meechan; E J Morris; R Middleton; J Steward; M A Richards
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-12-21       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  The association of waiting times from diagnosis to surgery with survival in women with localised breast cancer in England.

Authors:  M T Redaniel; R M Martin; S Cawthorn; J Wade; M Jeffreys
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 7.640

7.  Spatial barriers impact upon appropriate delivery of radiotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Fabrizio Stracci; Fortunato Bianconi; Chiara Lupi; Manuela Margaritelli; Alessio Gili; Cynthia Aristei
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2018-01-22       Impact factor: 4.452

8.  Disparities in radiation therapy utilization for cancer patients in Victoria.

Authors:  Wee Loon Ong; Norah Finn; Luc Te Marvelde; Colin Hornby; Roger L Milne; Gerard G Hanna; Graham Pitson; Hany Elsaleh; Jeremy L Millar; Farshad Foroudi
Journal:  J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-03-31       Impact factor: 1.667

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.