Re-audit of radiotherapy waiting times 2003

Radiotherapy waiting time in Northern Nigeria: experience from a resource-limited setting

Background

Access and availability of radiotherapy treatment is limited in most low- and middle-income countries, which leads to long waiting times and poor clinical outcomes. The aim of our study is to determine the magnitude of waiting times for radiotherapy in a resource-limited setting.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients with the five most commonly treated cancers managed with radiotherapy between 2010 and 2014. Data includes diagnosis, patients’ demographics and treatment provided. The waiting time was categorised into intervals (1) between diagnosis and first radiation consultation (2) First consultation to radiotherapy treatment (3) Decision-to-treat to treatment and (4) Diagnosis to treatment.

Results

A total of 258 cases were involved, including cervical (50%; 129/258), breast (27.5%; 71/258), nasopharynx (12.8%; 33/258), colorectal (5%; 13/258) and prostate cancers (4.7%; 12/258). Mean age was 48 (±12.9) years. Treatment with radical intent comprised 67% (178/258) of cases, while 33% (80/258) had palliative treatment. The median time from diagnosis to first radiation consultation was 40 (IQR 17–157.75) days for all the patients, with prostate cancer having the longest time – 305 days (IQR 41–393.8). The median time between the first radiation oncology consultations and first radiotherapy treatment was 130.5 (IQR 14–211.5) days; cervical cancer patients waited a median of 139 (IQR 13–195.5) days. The median time between diagnosis and first radiotherapy for breast cancer patients was 329 (IQR 207–464) days, compared to 213 (IQR 101.5–353.5) days for all the patients.

Conclusion

The study shows that waiting time for radiotherapy in Nigeria was generally longer than what is recommended internationally. This reflects the need to improve access to radiotherapy in order to improve cancer treatment outcomes in resource-limited settings.

Time abides long enough for those who make use of it

Increased treatment package time is an independent poor prognostic factor for outcomes in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Similarly the timeliness of treatment initiation is a risk factor for disease recurrence. Despite these well-known issues, the timeliness of treatment initiation is actually worsening in the United States and the expeditious completion of radiation treatments continues to be difficult secondary to a number of patients and treatment related issues. This analysis evaluates the current data on treatment intervals in the management of head and neck cancer. Rapid staging/diagnosis of head and neck cancer, appropriate referrals to providers qualified to treat said cancer, and expeditious treatment completion remains the most cost-effective, widely applicable method to improve outcomes in head and neck cancer.

Testing the Timing: Time Factor in Radiation Treatment for Head and Neck Cancers

OPINION STATEMENT

Overall radiation treatment time has long been recognized as an important factor in head and neck tumor control. The concern of tumor growth in waiting time either before starting radiotherapy or during treatment is substantial given its negative impact on clinical outcome. There is an overwhelming evidence that increasing the time to initiate treatment increases the tumor burden and worsens the prognosis. This effect is more pronounced especially in patients with an early stage cancer disease. Delay in treatment initiation is contributed by both health care- and patient-related factors. Health care-related factors include advancement in diagnostic modalities and transfer of patient to academic health care centers accompanied by delayed referrals and long-awaited appointments. Patient-related factors include delayed reporting time and socioeconomic factors. An efficient transition of care along with access of cancer care modalities to community health care centers will not only improve the quality of care in secondary health care centers but also help decrease the patient burden in tertiary centers. A quick and well-structured multidisciplinary appointment program is fundamental in shortening the time required for patient referrals, thus increasing the optimal survival time for Head and Neck cancer patients with early initiation of treatment.

Waiting time to radiotherapy as a prognostic factor for glioblastoma patients in a scenario of medical disparities

Objective To evaluate the effect of waiting time (WT) to radiotherapy (RT) on overall survival (OS) of glioblastoma (GBM) patients as a reliable prognostic variable in Brazil, a scenario of medical disparities. Method Retrospective study of 115 GBM patients from two different health-care institutions (one public and one private) in Brazil who underwent post-operative RT. Results Median WT to RT was 6 weeks (range, 1.3-17.6). The median OS for WT ≤ 6 weeks was 13.5 months (95%CI , 9.1-17.9) and for WT > 6 weeks was 14.2 months (95%CI, 11.2-17.2) (HR 1.165, 95%CI 0.770-1.762; p = 0.470). In the multivariate analysis, the variables associated with survival were KPS (p < 0.001), extent of resection (p = 0.009) and the adjuvant treatment (p = 0.001). The KPS interacted with WT to RT (HR 0.128, 95%CI 0.034-0.476; p = 0.002), showing that the benefit of KPS on OS depends on the WT to RT. Conclusion No prognostic impact of WT to RT could be detected on the OS. Although there are no data to ensure that delays to RT are tolerable, we may reassure patients that the time-length to initiate treatment does not seem to influence the control of the disease, particularly in face of other prognostic factors.

Utilitarian prioritization of radiation oncology patients based on maximization of population tumour control

An objective method for establishing patient prioritization in the context of a radiotherapy waiting list is investigated. This is based on a utilitarian objective, being the greatest probability of local tumour control in the population of patients. A numerical simulation is developed and a clinical patient case-mix is used to determine the influence of the characteristics of the patient population on resulting optimal patient scheduling. With the utilitarian objective, large gains in tumour control probability (TCP) can be achieved for individuals or cohorts by prioritizing patients for that fraction of the patient population with relatively small sacrifices in TCP for a smaller fraction of the population. For a waiting list in steady state with five patients per day commencing treatment and leaving the list (and so with five patients per day entering the list), and a mean wait time of 35 days and a maximum of 90 days, optimized wait times ranged from a mean of one day for patients with tumour types with short effective doubling times to a mean of 66.9 days for prostate cancer patients. It is found that, when seeking the optimal daily order of patients on the waiting list in a constrained simulation, the relative rather than absolute value of TCP is the determinant of the resulting optimal waiting times. An increase in the mean waiting time mostly influences (increases) the optimal waiting times of patients with fast-growing tumours. The proportional representation of groups (separated by tumour type) in the patient population has an influence on the resulting distribution of optimal waiting times for patients in those groups, though has only a minor influence on the optimal mean waiting time for each group.

Waiting times for radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery and the association with survival: a path analysis

AIMS

To investigate the association between radiotherapy waiting times and survival in women who have undergone breast-conserving surgery using data from two English cancer registry regions. The data were analysed using path analysis to account for the complex variable interrelationships within the data.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cases of female invasive breast cancer diagnosed during the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2005 were identified and linked to an extract of Hospital Episode Statistics data. A subset of these linked records where women underwent breast-conserving surgery was extracted (n=18,158). Patient, tumour and treatment information were extracted. A path model was developed with three outcome variables: survival, time to receive radiotherapy and receipt of chemotherapy before radiotherapy.

RESULTS

During the study period, the median radiotherapy waiting time in region 1 increased from 70 days to 128.5 days. In region 2, the median wait increased from 44 days in 1998 to 68 days in 2001, then decreased to 42 days by 2005. In the path model, radiotherapy waiting time was not associated with survival (hazard ratio=1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.99-1.01 per week increase in both regions). Patients receiving chemotherapy before radiotherapy waited 12.3 weeks (region 1) and 6.3 weeks (region 2) longer for their radiotherapy than those not receiving chemotherapy. Patients with stage II/III disease waited longer than patients with stage I disease. Younger age, diagnosis of stage II/III disease and presence of co-morbidities were associated with increased odds of receiving chemotherapy before radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no association between waiting times for radiotherapy and survival in two regions of England, despite increases in waiting times over the study period. Such an association, if real, may only become apparent after a longer period of follow-up.

A single centre experience with sequential and concomitant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced stage IV tonsillar cancer

Background

Chemo-radiotherapy offers an alternative to primary surgery and adjuvant therapy for the management of locally advanced stage IV squamous cell carcinomas of the tonsil.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed of the outcomes of 41 patients with locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsil treated non-surgically at the Yorkshire Cancer Centre between January 2004 and December 2005. Due to long radiotherapy waiting times, patients received induction chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by either cisplatin concurrent chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone.

Results

Median age was 55 years (range 34-76 years) and 28 (68%) patients were male. 35/41 patients (85%) received 2 or more cycles of induction chemotherapy. Following induction chemotherapy, 32/41 patients (78%) had a clinical response. Concomitant chemotherapy was given to 30/41 (73%). All patients received the planned radiotherapy dose with no delays. There were no treatment related deaths. Six (15%) patients had gastrostomy tubes placed before treatment, and 22 (54%) required nasogastric tube placement during or after treatment for nutritional support. 17 patients required unplanned admissions during treatment for supportive care. At 4 months post treatment assessment 35 out of 41 (85%) patients achieved complete clinical and radiographic response. Median follow-up is 38 months (8-61 months). Local and regional control rate in complete responders at 3 years was 91%. Distant metastases have been found in 4 (9.8%) patients. Three year progression-free survival rate in all patients is 75%. The 3-year cause specific survival and overall survival are 75% and 66% respectively.

Conclusion

Cisplatin-based induction and concurrent chemoradiotherapy provides excellent tumour control with acceptable toxicity for patients with locally advanced tonsillar cancer.

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

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.

A model for managing patient booking in a radiotherapy department with differentiated waiting times

BACKGROUND

In Denmark, the waiting time from the ready-to-treat date to the first radiotherapy fraction is by national legislation guaranteed not to exceed 4 weeks. This guarantee has now been tightened for some specific diagnoses as it is required that e.g. intestinal and head and neck cancer patients have to be treated without unnecessary delays. Thus, patients with these tumour sites have to start radiotherapy treatment immediately after diagnosis, if it is their primary treatment modality. Previously, patients have been booked at the first empty time slot after their ready-to-treat date. Now, booking has to take the differentiated waiting times into account. To facilitate this, a model has been developed. It is used to manage the booking of patients, reserve accelerator capacity for patients with no waiting time and establish the waiting times for other patients.

METHODS

The patients are divided into categories according to their waiting time guarantee and for each category a maximum waiting time is defined. The required daily accelerator capacity and average new starts rate for each waiting time category has been determined from the actual patient case-mix in the department. To account for variations in treatment capacity, a prospective daily accelerator capacity is set. Based on the prospective capacity, preparation times, maximum waiting times, and new starts rates, a maximum booking curve (MBC) and a lower limit curve (LLC) are derived. They show the daily maximum and minimum limits, respectively, for booking at future dates.

RESULTS

The method is evaluated by a retrospective analysis of actual number of appointments booked compared to the MBC and LLC in situations of both excessive workload and ineffective use of capacity.

CONCLUSION

The model represents a tool for effectively managing the capacity in a radiotherapy department with differentiated waiting times. It improves the transparency of the booking process and prospective waiting times can easily be derived on a daily basis.

Cancer survival in England and Wales at the end of the 20th century

Survival has risen steadily since the 1970s for most cancers in adults in England and Wales, but persistent inequalities exist between those living in affluent and deprived areas. These differences are not seen for children. For many of the common adult cancers, these inequalities in survival (the 'deprivation gap') became more marked in the 1990s. This volume presents extended analyses of survival for adults diagnosed during the 14 years 1986-1999 and followed up to 2001, including trends in overall survival in England and Wales and trends in the deprivation gap in survival. The analyses include individual tumour data for 2.2 million cancer patients. This article outlines the structure of the supplement - an article for each of the 20 most common cancers in adults, followed by an expert commentary from one of the leading UK clinicians specialising in malignancies of that organ or system. The available data, quality control and methods of analysis are described here, rather than repeated in each of the 20 articles. We open the discussion between clinicians and epidemiologists on how to interpret the observed trends and inequalities in cancer survival, and we highlight some of the most important contrasts in these very different points of view. Survival improved substantially for adult cancer patients in England and Wales up to the end of the 20th century. Although socioeconomic inequalities in survival are remarkably persistent, the overall patterns suggest that these inequalities are largely avoidable.

What will be the radiotherapy machine capacity required for optimal delivery of radiotherapy in Scotland in 2015?

AIMS

Lack of radiotherapy capacity has been cited as a reason for poor cancer outcomes reported in the United Kingdom. This modelling study was conducted to ensure sufficient capacity in the future and to aid health service planning.

METHODS

The predicted changes in the incidence of each cancer type to 2015 were calculated using the age-period-cohort technique. To develop the model the indications for radiotherapy now and in 2015 were established, as were the fractionation schedules for each clinical scenario. The optimal radiotherapy utilisation rates and required radiotherapy capacity were estimated for 2005 and for 2015.

RESULTS

Cancer incidence is expected to rise by 18.9% by 2015. In Scotland, the estimated optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate during initial management is 44.2-47.9%. The model suggested that currently for optimal delivery, the capacity for 195,300-256,300 fractions is required. Due to predicted changes in the patient population, it is anticipated that requirements will increase to between 276,400 and 354,200 fractions per annum by 2015. Based on the current working practices, this is a 20-54% increase in current capacity, or from 5 to 6-7.6 machines per million head of population.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to meet the current and projected demand, a marked increase in the provision of radiotherapy machine capacity will be required in Scotland by 2015.

Radiotherapy waiting times for women with breast cancer: a population-based cohort study

Background

Waiting times for cancer patients are a national priority in the UK. Previous studies have shown variation between cancer networks in the time between diagnosis and start of radiotherapy for all cancer patients. Studies of the relationship between delay in receiving treatment and survival of breast cancer patients have been inconsistent. This study aimed to examine factors associated with waiting times for radiotherapy for breast cancer patients.

Methods

35,354 women resident in South East England and diagnosed with breast cancer between 1992 and 2001 who received radiotherapy within six months of diagnosis were identified from the Thames Cancer Registry. Time to radiotherapy was measured from either the date of diagnosis or the start of the previous treatment, whichever was shorter. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were fitted to examine whether patients received radiotherapy within 60 days of their diagnosis or previous treatment.

Results

The adjusted proportions of patients receiving radiotherapy within 60 days varied significantly between different cancer networks (range: 43% to 81%), and decreased from 68% in 1992 to 33% in 2001. After adjustment there was no association between deprivation of area of residence, age or stage and radiotherapy wait. Median time waited to radiotherapy increased over the study period whether measured from the start of chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery or the date of diagnosis.

Conclusion

This study covered a period of time before the investment following the Cancer Plan of 2000. Results are consistent with other findings suggesting variation between cancer networks and increasing waits over time. Further studies should examine different methods of measuring waiting time, the causes and consequences of waits for radiotherapy and the effect of current initiatives and investments.

Research or reality: Within the context of UK radiotherapy and cancer services, where should research and investment be focused to best improve UK treatment outcomes?

Purpose: It is now six years since the publication of the NHS Cancer Plan. During this time, there has been considerable investment and research within UK cancer services. Some progress has been made towards improving treatment outcomes, but obstacles persist. This article explores some recent advances in cancer treatment and considers whether UK cancer treatment outcomes will best improve through the clinical advances being made in cancer research or whether improvement now needs to be more explicitly driven via a strategic approach.Methodology: The article explores this question from two differing perspectives. First, from a research perspective, it reviews briefly the evidence for a selection of clinical advancements in cancer therapy that have all been cited as providing breakthroughs in treatment outcomes. Second, it considers the investment in cancer research within a more strategic context, focusing on the reality of managing an improvement programme in UK cancer services. Here, some of the practical obstacles to improving treatment outcomes are highlighted.Findings: Significant progress has been made over the past six years towards improving UK treatment outcomes. Much of this is a direct result of international advances in clinical research. Further progress, however, is required. This article argues that progress will best be achieved by focusing resources and research investment on tackling some of the endemic strategic obstacles, highlighted in this article, that are the present reality within UK cancer services.

National survey of radiotherapy fractionation practice in 2003

AIMS

To document UK practice in radiotherapy fractionation.

METHODS

All radiotherapy centres in the UK participated in a 1-week audit from 29 September 2003. Fractionation data were collected for all patients starting external beam radiotherapy. This included 2498 patients who were prescribed 32 547 fractions.

RESULTS

For the radical treatment of non-skin malignancy (n = 708), the prescribed dose ranged from a single fraction of 8 Gy for total-body irradiation to 75 Gy in 43 fractions for prostate cancer. Postoperative treatment for breast cancer was dominated by three regimens: 40 Gy in 15 fractions; 45 Gy in 20 fractions; and 50 Gy in 25 fractions. Palliative treatment was given in a single fraction to 393 patients (36%) with doses of up to 15 Gy. Three hundred and ninety patients (36%) received four to seven fractions delivering 20-25 Gy. Only 89 patients (8%) received more than 10 fractions with palliative intent but used 29% of such fractions. In the treatment of bone metastases, the most common prescriptions were 8-10 Gy in a single fraction and 20 Gy in five fractions.

CONCLUSION

UK radiotherapy practice has become more uniform and moved closer to practice in North America and Europe over the past 15 years. For radical radiotherapy, 54% of prescriptions were for a fraction size of 1.8-2.0 Gy but the distribution was bi-modal and 20% of patients were prescribed fraction sizes of 2.7-3.0 Gy. Evidence-based practice now supports hypo-fractionated palliative treatment favouring single fractions for bone metastases and one or two fractions for many patients with advanced lung cancer. Two fractions are advised for some patients with brain metastasis. If these guidelines had been applied uniformly, then the number of treatments prescribed for palliation could have fallen by 36% from 5197 to 3313. This would have represented a 6% reduction in the overall radiotherapy workload. Not all patients are suitable for such hypo-fractionated treatments, but this is an area in which resource use can be improved. In the postoperative management of breast cancer, a change in practice to use 15 fractions uniformly would reduce overall radiotherapy workload by 4%. By contrast, a change to 25 fractions would increase overall workload by 7%.

Moving to a High-tech Approach to the Irradiation of Early Breast Cancer: Is It Possible to Balance Efficacy, Morbidity and Resource Use?

There is substantial evidence documenting the potential morbidity associated with radiotherapy in early breast cancer. An appraisal of current standard radiation practice is therefore necessary, given that women are surviving longer, have an improved quality of life, and are overcoming subsequent side-effects caused by postoperative irradiation. New technology allows the application of more complex approaches. This discussion paper considers some of the benefits of the widespread use of new complex approaches, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the light of staffing and equipment shortfalls, and possible consequences on waiting times for treatment. The discussion is considered under the following themes: (1) which women with breast cancer benefit from complex treatment approaches? (2) What is the role of treatment accuracy in limiting morbidity? And (3) what is the potential effect of complex breast irradiation approaches on service delivery? In the UK, and globally, many departments are struggling to meet waiting-time guidelines. The use of more complex approaches for breast irradiation may increase this difficulty. However, a number of simple technical changes can be used to enhance efficacy and reduce levels of normal tissue morbidity. A sub-set of women who are at greatest risk from normal tissue morbidity or reduced cosmesis should be accurately defined in order to allow departments to plan their treatment strategies with optimal use of resources.

Waiting for radiotherapy

Amid recent improvements in cancer care within the United Kingdom, inadequate radiotherapy capacity compromises care and is an important and underappreciated problem

Waiting times for radiotherapy: variation over time and between cancer networks in southeast England

The aim of this study was to investigate variations in the length of time that patients with cancer wait from diagnosis to treatment with radiotherapy. A total of 57 426 men and 71 018 women diagnosed with cancer between 1992 and 2001 and receiving radiotherapy within 6 months of diagnosis were identified from the Thames Cancer Registry database. In total, 12 sites were identified for which a substantial number or proportion of patients received radiotherapy: head and neck, oesophagus, colon, rectum, lung, nonmelanoma skin cancer, breast, uterus, prostate, bladder, brain and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Median waiting times from diagnosis to radiotherapy were calculated, together with the proportion of patients who received radiotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis, and analysed by year of diagnosis, cancer site, deprivation quintile, age at diagnosis, sex and cancer network of either residence or treatment. Logistic regression was used to adjust the proportion receiving treatment within 60 days for the effects of the other factors. There were significant differences in the proportions receiving radiotherapy within 60 days between different networks and different cancer sites, which remained after adjustment. Median waiting times varied from 42 to 65 days across networks of residence, with the adjusted proportion treated within 60 days ranging from 44 to 71%. There was no difference between male and female patients after adjustment for the other factors, particularly site. There was a highly significant trend over time: the median wait increased from 45 days in 1992 to 76 days in 2001, while the adjusted proportion being treated within 60 days declined by almost a half, from 64 to 35%, over the same period.