Linn M Åsli1, Tor Å Myklebust1,2, Stein O Kvaløy3,4, Vidar Jetne5, Bjørn Møller1, Sverre G Levernes6, Tom B Johannesen1. 1. a Department of Registration , Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research , Oslo , Norway. 2. b Department of Research and Innovation , Møre and Romsdal Hospital Trust , Ålesund , Norway. 3. c Department of Oncology , Oslo University Hospital , Oslo , Norway. 4. d Faculty of Medicine , University of Oslo , Oslo , Norway. 5. e Department of Medical Physics , Oslo University Hospital , Oslo , Norway. 6. f The Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority , Østerås , Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) comprises half of all radiotherapy use and is an effective and important treatment modality for improving quality of life in incurable cancer patients. We have described the use of PRT in Norway and aimed to identify and quantify the impact of factors associated with PRT utilization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Population-based data from the Cancer Registry of Norway identified 25,281 patients who died of cancer, 1 July 2009-31 December 2011. Additionally, individual-level data on socioeconomic status and community-level data on travel distance were collected. The proportion of patients who received PRT in the last two years of life (PRT2Y) was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors that influenced the PRT2Y. Analyses of geographic variation in PRT use were also performed for the time period 2012-2016. RESULTS: PRT2Y for all cancer sites combined was 29.6% with wide geographic variations (standardized inter-county range; 21.8-36.6%). Female gender, increasing age at death, certain cancer sites, short survival time, and previous receipt of curative radiotherapy were associated with decreased odds of receiving PRT. Patients with low education, those living in certain counties, or with travel distances 100-499 km, were also less likely to receive PRT. Patients with low household income (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56-0.72) and those diagnosed in hospitals without radiotherapy facility (OR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.64-0.77) had especially low likelihood of receiving PRT. Significant inter-county variation in use of PRT remained during the time period 2012-2016. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a publicly funded, universal healthcare system with equity as a stated health policy aim, utilization of PRT in Norway is significantly associated with factors such as household income and availability of radiotherapy facility at the diagnosing hospital. Even after adjustments for relevant factors, unexplained geographic variations in PRT utilization exist.
BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy (PRT) comprises half of all radiotherapy use and is an effective and important treatment modality for improving quality of life in incurable cancerpatients. We have described the use of PRT in Norway and aimed to identify and quantify the impact of factors associated with PRT utilization. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Population-based data from the Cancer Registry of Norway identified 25,281 patients who died of cancer, 1 July 2009-31 December 2011. Additionally, individual-level data on socioeconomic status and community-level data on travel distance were collected. The proportion of patients who received PRT in the last two years of life (PRT2Y) was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors that influenced the PRT2Y. Analyses of geographic variation in PRT use were also performed for the time period 2012-2016. RESULTS: PRT2Y for all cancer sites combined was 29.6% with wide geographic variations (standardized inter-county range; 21.8-36.6%). Female gender, increasing age at death, certain cancer sites, short survival time, and previous receipt of curative radiotherapy were associated with decreased odds of receiving PRT. Patients with low education, those living in certain counties, or with travel distances 100-499 km, were also less likely to receive PRT. Patients with low household income (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.56-0.72) and those diagnosed in hospitals without radiotherapy facility (OR = 0.70; 95% CI = 0.64-0.77) had especially low likelihood of receiving PRT. Significant inter-county variation in use of PRT remained during the time period 2012-2016. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a publicly funded, universal healthcare system with equity as a stated health policy aim, utilization of PRT in Norway is significantly associated with factors such as household income and availability of radiotherapy facility at the diagnosing hospital. Even after adjustments for relevant factors, unexplained geographic variations in PRT utilization exist.
Authors: Wei Liu; Alissa Liu; Jessica Chan; R Gabriel Boldt; Pablo Munoz-Schuffenegger; Alexander V Louie Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2019-09