Josep M Borras1, Yolande Lievens2, Peter Dunscombe3, Mary Coffey4, Julian Malicki5, Julieta Corral6, Chiara Gasparotto7, Noemie Defourny7, Michael Barton8, Rob Verhoeven9, Liesbeth van Eycken10, Maja Primic-Zakelj11, Maciej Trojanowski12, Primoz Strojan13, Cai Grau14. 1. University of Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: jmborras@iconcologia.net. 2. Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. 3. University of Calgary, Canada. 4. Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 5. Electroradiology Dep. University of Medical Sciences, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland. 6. Doctoral programme in Public Health, Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain; Catalonian Cancer Plan, Department of Health, Spain. 7. European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology, Belgium. 8. CCORE, Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, UNSW, Liverpool, Australia. 9. The Netherlands Cancer Registry/Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation, The Netherlands. 10. Belgian Cancer Registry, Brussels, Belgium. 11. Cancer Registry, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia. 12. Cancer Registry, Greater Poland Cancer Centre, Poznan, Poland. 13. Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Slovenia. 14. Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The absolute number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy in each country of Europe was estimated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The incidence and relative frequency of cancer types from the year 2012 European Cancer Observatory estimates were used in combination with the population-based stage at diagnosis from five cancer registries. These data were applied to the decision trees of the evidence-based indications to calculate the Optimal Utilization Proportion (OUP) by tumour site. RESULTS: In the minimum scenario, the OUP ranged from 47.0% in the Russian Federation to 53.2% in Belgium with no clear geographical pattern of the variability among countries. The impact of stage at diagnosis on the OUP by country was rather limited. Within the 24 countries where data on actual use of radiotherapy were available, a gap between optimal and actual use has been observed in most of the countries. CONCLUSIONS: The actual utilization of radiotherapy is significantly lower than the optimal use predicted from the evidence based estimates in the literature. This discrepancy poses a major challenge for policy makers when planning the resources at the national level to improve the provision in European countries.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The absolute number of new cancerpatients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy in each country of Europe was estimated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The incidence and relative frequency of cancer types from the year 2012 European Cancer Observatory estimates were used in combination with the population-based stage at diagnosis from five cancer registries. These data were applied to the decision trees of the evidence-based indications to calculate the Optimal Utilization Proportion (OUP) by tumour site. RESULTS: In the minimum scenario, the OUP ranged from 47.0% in the Russian Federation to 53.2% in Belgium with no clear geographical pattern of the variability among countries. The impact of stage at diagnosis on the OUP by country was rather limited. Within the 24 countries where data on actual use of radiotherapy were available, a gap between optimal and actual use has been observed in most of the countries. CONCLUSIONS: The actual utilization of radiotherapy is significantly lower than the optimal use predicted from the evidence based estimates in the literature. This discrepancy poses a major challenge for policy makers when planning the resources at the national level to improve the provision in European countries.
Authors: A Rodríguez; M Algara; D Monge; J López-Torrecilla; F Caballero; R Morera; R Escó; H Pérez-Montero; C Ferrer; P C Lara Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: A Rodríguez; J M Borrás; J López-Torrecilla; M Algara; A Palacios-Eito; A Gómez-Caamaño; L Olay; P C Lara Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: J López-Torrecilla; D González Sanchis; D Granero Cabañero; E García Miragall; P Almendros Blanco; A Hernandez Machancoses; L Brualla González; J Pastor Peidro; J C Gordo Partearroyo; J Rosello Ferrando Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2021-02-14 Impact factor: 3.405