Mwila Kabwe1,2, Amanda Robinson1, Yachna Shethia1, Carol Parker1, Robert Blum1, Ilana Solo1, Michael Leach1,3. 1. Loddon Mallee Integrated Cancer Service, Bendigo Health, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. 2. Department of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, La Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. 3. Rural Health, Monash University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Timeliness of cancer care is vital for improved survival and quality of life of patients. Service and care centralisation at larger-volume centres has been associated with improved outcomes. However, there is a lack of systematic data on the impact of tumour stream volume on timeliness of care. AIMS: To investigate and compare timeliness of care for lung cancer, a high-volume (more commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, and oesophagogastric (OG) cancer, a low-volume (less commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, at a regional health service in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study comprising random samples of 75 people newly diagnosed with lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 [ICD-10] diagnosis codes C34 in the Victorian Cancer Registry [VCR]) and 50 people newly diagnosed with OG cancer (ICD-10 diagnosis codes C15 or C16 in VCR) at one regional Victorian health service between 2016 and 2017. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between patient factors and suboptimal timeliness of care. RESULTS: In comparison to OG cancer patients, lung cancer patients had reduced odds of suboptimal timeliness of care in reference to times outside OCP for referral to diagnosis (OR [95% CI] = 0.34 [0.14 to 0.83]) but increased odds of suboptimal timeliness for diagnosis to treatment (OR [95% CI] = 2.48 [1.01 to 6.09]). CONCLUSION: In the low-volume OG cancer stream, patients had longer wait times from referral to an MDM, where treatment decisions occur, but shorter time to commencement of first treatment. Conversely in the high-volume lung cancer group, there was delayed initiation of first treatment following presentation at MDM. There is need to explore ways to fast-track MDM presentation and commencement of therapy among people diagnosed with low-volume and high-volume cancers, respectively.
BACKGROUND: Timeliness of cancer care is vital for improved survival and quality of life of patients. Service and care centralisation at larger-volume centres has been associated with improved outcomes. However, there is a lack of systematic data on the impact of tumour stream volume on timeliness of care. AIMS: To investigate and compare timeliness of care for lung cancer, a high-volume (more commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, and oesophagogastric (OG) cancer, a low-volume (less commonly diagnosed) tumour stream, at a regional health service in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study comprising random samples of 75 people newly diagnosed with lung cancer (International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 [ICD-10] diagnosis codes C34 in the Victorian Cancer Registry [VCR]) and 50 people newly diagnosed with OG cancer (ICD-10 diagnosis codes C15 or C16 in VCR) at one regional Victorian health service between 2016 and 2017. Binary logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between patient factors and suboptimal timeliness of care. RESULTS: In comparison to OG cancerpatients, lung cancerpatients had reduced odds of suboptimal timeliness of care in reference to times outside OCP for referral to diagnosis (OR [95% CI] = 0.34 [0.14 to 0.83]) but increased odds of suboptimal timeliness for diagnosis to treatment (OR [95% CI] = 2.48 [1.01 to 6.09]). CONCLUSION: In the low-volume OG cancer stream, patients had longer wait times from referral to an MDM, where treatment decisions occur, but shorter time to commencement of first treatment. Conversely in the high-volume lung cancer group, there was delayed initiation of first treatment following presentation at MDM. There is need to explore ways to fast-track MDM presentation and commencement of therapy among people diagnosed with low-volume and high-volume cancers, respectively.
Authors: James E McGowan; Jonathon D Truwit; Pam Cipriano; R Edward Howell; Margaret VanBree; Arthur Garson; John B Hanks Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Linde A D Busweiler; Johan L Dikken; Daniel Henneman; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Vincent K Y Ho; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Michel W J M Wouters; Johanna W van Sandick Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-05-15 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Jin Mou; Effie L Bolieu; Bethann M Pflugeisen; Paul J Amoroso; Beth Devine; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Laura L Frank; Rebecca H Johnson Journal: J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 2.223
Authors: N Haj Mohammad; N Bernards; M van Putten; V E P P Lemmens; M G H van Oijen; H W M van Laarhoven Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 9.162