Utilization of Radiation Therapy in Norway After the Implementation of The National Cancer Plan—A National, Population-Based Study

Small Cell Lung Cancer in Norway: Patterns of Care by Health Region and Survival Trends

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

There has been a marked survival improvement for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. We describe the national trends in characteristics and survival, and geographical differences in diagnostic workup, treatment, and survival for patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients registered with SCLC at the Cancer Registry of Norway in 2002 to 2022 were included. Trends in overall survival were estimated for all SCLC patients, patients with limited stage SCLC, patients undergoing surgery, and by health region. Adjusting for case-mix, a multivariable Cox regression was performed examining the association between health region and death.

RESULTS

The study included 8374 patients. The stage distribution remained unchanged during the study period. The 5-year overall survival increased from 7.7% to 22.8% for patients with limited stage. The use of multidisciplinary team meetings varied from 62.5% to 85.7%, and the use of positron emission tomography-computer tomography varied from 70.4% to 86.2% between the health regions. Treatment patterns differed markedly between the health regions, with the proportion dying without any registered treatment ranging from 1.2% to 10.9%. For limited stage patients in 2018 to 2022, the median overall survival ranged from 16.5 to 25.5 months across health regions, and the 5-year overall survival ranged from 18.7% to 28.7% (P = .019).

CONCLUSION

The survival for patients with SCLC remains poor. The use of diagnostic procedures, treatment modalities, and survival differed between regions, warranting investigations to further explore the reasons.

Use of radiotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study

BACKGROUND

There is little evidence on variation in radiotherapy use in different countries, although it is a key treatment modality for some patients with cancer. Here we aimed to examine such variation.

METHODS

This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), nine Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in radiotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data, or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs).

FINDINGS

Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 902 312 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 115 357 (12·8%) did not meet inclusion criteria, and 786,955 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in radiotherapy use, with wide 95% PIs: 17·8 to 82·4 (pooled estimate 50·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 35·5 to 55·2 (45·2%) for rectal cancer, 28·6 to 54·0 (40·6%) for lung cancer, and 4·6 to 53·6 (19·0%) for stomach cancer. For patients with stage 2-3 rectal cancer, interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with rectal cancer (95% PI 37·0 to 84·6; pooled estimate 64·2%). Radiotherapy use was infrequent but variable in patients with pancreatic (95% PI 1·7 to 16·5%), liver (1·8 to 11·2%), colon (1·6 to 5·0%), and ovarian (0·8 to 7·6%) cancer. Patients aged 85-99 years had three-times lower odds of radiotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with substantial interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio [OR] 0·38; 95% PI 0·20-0·73). Women had slightly lower odds of radiotherapy use than men (OR 0·88, 95% PI 0·77-1·01). There was large variation in median time to first radiotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation (eg, oesophageal 95% PI 11·3 days to 112·8 days; pooled estimate 62·0 days; rectal 95% PI 34·7 days to 77·3 days; pooled estimate 56·0 days). Older patients had shorter median time to radiotherapy with appreciable interjurisdictional variation (-9·5 days in patients aged 85-99 years vs 65-74 years, 95% PI -26·4 to 7·4).

INTERPRETATION

Large interjurisdictional variation in both use and time to radiotherapy initiation were observed, alongside large and variable age differences. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, underlying reasons for these differences need to be established.

FUNDING

International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust).

COMPUTED RADIOGRAPHY UTILIZATION FOR TELECOBALT60 TO ACHIEVE THE RADIATION CERTAINTY

OBJECTIVE

The aim: This research aimed to show the achievement of Telecobalt60 radiation certainty using computed radiography, in comparation with non-verified computed radiography.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Materials and methods: This research is a quantitative study, randomized double-blind, and consecutive sampling design. The study was conducted by observing and com¬paring the data of verified computed radiography (VerC) computed radiograph for Telecobalt60 compared to the non-verified computed radiography (nVerC) Telecobalt60 data.

RESULTS

Results: The results showed that there are significant statistical differences in several measurement characteristics between the verified computed radiography arm and the non-verified computed radiography arm. All of the value divergences of the verified computed radiography arm are less than 7 mm while the non-verified computed radiography arm are 7 mm or more (P<0.050). Furthermore, all of the edge aspect of measurement in the verified computed radiography arms are less than the non-verified computed radiography, all without manual block utilization (P<0.050).

CONCLUSION

Conclusions: We conclude that Telecobalt60 radiation certainty is significantly better achieved by using computed radiography, when compared to non-verified computed radiography Telecobalt60 use. This research contributes to provide evidence based for better Telecobalt60 radiation accuracy and quality of radiotherapy outcome by using computed radiography.

Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

FINDINGS

Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.

Clinical endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy: A systematic meta-research analysis

PURPOSE

Up to 50% of radiotherapy courses are delivered in palliative intent for various indications. Despite the large number of treated patients, we know little about the choice of endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy. Our primary aim was, therefore, to analyze primary endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-registered (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GMCAF) meta-research analysis searching Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and "ClinicalTrials.gov" for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published 1990-2020. Endpoints were categorized in "patient-centered endpoints", including overall survival and patient-reported outcomes, and "tumor-centered endpoints" such as local control. The remainder were "other endpoints" including toxicity or observer-rated symptoms. We applied descriptive statistics to summarize data and logistic regression to assess if year of publication predicted the choice of primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 7379 records screened, 292 were eligible. Trials were characterized by small sample sizes and use of external beam radiotherapy for metastases or thoracic primaries. Median patient age was 64 and median ECOG was 1. Only 64.4%(145/225) of published trials clearly stated their primary endpoint. Published trials employed a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 45.5%(66/145) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 17.3%(25/145) of the cases. There was no statistically significant trend in time for the use of "patient-centered primary endpoints". Registered ongoing trials used a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 32.8%(22/67) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 26.9%(18/67) of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Although "patient-centered primary endpoints" appear relatively prevalent in published trials of palliative radiotherapy, their use is still suboptimal and appears to be lower in currently ongoing trials.

Optimal and actual rates of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) utilisation for primary lung cancer in Australia

•

Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) plays a major role in the management of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

•

An evidence-based model is developed to estimate optimal rates of lung SABR utilisation within the Australian population.

•

Optimal utilisation rates are compared against actual utilisation rates to evaluate service provision.

Background and purpose

Radiotherapy utilisation rates considerably vary across different countries and service providers, highlighting the need to establish reliable benchmarks against which utilisation rates can be assessed. Here, optimal utilisation rates of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer are estimated and compared against actual utilisation rates to identify potential shortfalls in service provision.

Materials and Methods

An evidence-based optimal utilisation model was constructed after reviewing practice guidelines and identifying indications for lung SABR based on the best available evidence. The proportions of patients likely to develop each indication were obtained, whenever possible, from Australian population-based studies. Sensitivity analysis was performed to account for variations in epidemiological data. Practice pattern studies were reviewed to obtain actual utilisation rates.

Results

A total of 6% of all lung cancer patients were estimated to optimally require SABR at least once during the course of their illness (95% CI: 4–6%). Optimal utilisation rates were estimated to be 32% for stage I and 10% for stage II NSCLC. Actual utilisation rates for stage I NSCLC varied between 6 and 20%. For patients with inoperable stage I, 27–74% received SABR compared to the estimated optimal rate of 82%.

Conclusion

The estimated optimal SABR utilisation rates for lung cancer can serve as useful benchmarks to highlight gaps in service delivery and help plan for more adequate and efficient provision of care. The model can be easily modified to determine optimal utilisation rates in other populations or updated to reflect any changes in practice guidelines or epidemiological data.

Geriatric assessment with management for older patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy. Protocol of a Norwegian cluster-randomised controlled pilot study

About 50% of patients with cancer are expected to need radiotherapy (RT), and the majority of these are older. To improve outcomes for older patients with cancer, geriatric assessment (GA) with management (GAM) is highly recommended. Evidence for its benefits is still scarce, in particular for patients receiving RT. We report the protocol of a cluster-randomised pilot study designed to test the effect, feasibility and health economic impact of a GAM intervention for patients ≥65 years, referred for palliative or curative RT. The randomising units are municipalities and city districts. The intervention is municipality-based and carried out in collaboration between hospital and municipal health services from the start of RT to eight weeks after the end of RT. Its main constituents are an initial GA followed by measures adapted to individual patients' impairments and needs, systematic symptom assessments and regular follow-up by municipal cancer nurses, appointed to coordinate the patient's care. Follow-up includes at least one weekly phone call, and a house call four weeks after the end of RT. All patients receive an individually adapted physical exercise program and nutritional counselling. Detailed guidelines for management of patients' impairments are provided. Patients allocated to the intervention group will be compared to controls receiving standard care. The primary outcome is physical function assessed by the European Organisation of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30. Secondary outcomes are global quality of life, objectively tested physical performance and use of health care services. Economic evaluation will be based on a comparison of costs and effects (measured by the main outcome measures). Feasibility will be assessed with mixed methodology, based on log notes and questionnaires filled in by the municipal nurses and interviews with patients and nurses. The study is carried out at two Norwegian RT centres. It was opened in May 2019. Follow-up will proceed until June 2022. Statistical analyses will start by the end of 2021. We expect the trial to provide important new knowledge about the effect, feasibility and costs of a GAM intervention for older patients receiving RT. Trial registration: ClinTrials.gov, ID NCT03881137, initial release 13th of March 2019.

Comparative Survival Outcomes of High-risk Prostate Cancer Treated with Radical Prostatectomy or Definitive Radiotherapy Regimens

Background

Observational data has indicated improved survival after radical prostatectomy (RP) compared with definitive radiotherapy (RT) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa).

Objective

To compare PCa-specific mortality (PCSM) and overall mortality (OM) in men with high-risk PCa treated with RP or RT, providing information on target doses and fractionations.

Design, setting, and participants

This is an observational study from the Cancer Registry of Norway. Patients were diagnosed with high-risk PCa during 2006–2015, treated with RP ≤12 mo or RT ≤15 mo after diagnosis, and stratified according to RP or RT modality; external beam radiotherapy (EBRT; 70–<74, 74–<78, or 78 Gy), hypofractionated RT or EBRT combined with brachytherapy (BT-RT).

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Competing risk and Kaplan-Meier methods estimated PCSM and OM, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression models evaluated hazard ratios (HRs) for PCSM and OM.

Results and limitations

In total, 9254 patients were included (RP 47%, RT 53%). RT patients were older, had poorer performance status and more unfavorable disease characteristics. With a median follow-up time of seven and eight yrs, the overall 10-yr PCSM was 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4–8.0) and OM was 22.9% (95% CI 21.8–24.1). Compared with RP, EBRT 70–<74 Gy was associated with increased (HR 1.88, 95% CI 1.33–2.65, p < 0.001) and BT-RT with decreased (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24–0.96, p = 0.039) 10-yr PCSM. Patients treated with EBRT 70–78 Gy had higher adjusted 10-yr OM than those treated with RP.

Conclusions

In men with high-risk PCa, treatment with EBRT <74 Gy was associated with increased adjusted 10-yr PCSM and OM, and BT-RT with decreased 10-yr PCSM, compared with RP.

Patient summary

In this study, we compared mortality after radical prostatectomy (RP) and radiotherapy (RT) in men with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa); the results suggest that men receiving lower-dose RT have higher, and patients receiving brachytherapy may have lower, risk of death from PCa than patients treated with prostatectomy.

Definitive radiotherapy for prostate cancer in Norway 2006-2015: Temporal trends, performance and survival

BACKGROUND

More studies are needed to document nation-wide use and effectiveness of curative definitive radiotherapy (Def-RT) in the treatment of prostate cancer (PCa).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

For 38,960 men diagnosed with PCa without distant metastases from 2006 to 2015 data from the Norwegian Prostate Cancer Registry and a national radiotherapy database (NoRadBase) was analyzed. Overall survival and PCa-specific mortality were described comparing EQD-2 < 74 Gy ("low-dose") with EQD-2 ≥ 74 Gy ("escalated dose").

RESULTS

Use of Def-RT decreased (27-24%) whereas the proportion of radical prostatectomies (RPs) increased (31-38%). In high-risk patients the use of RP doubled (18-36%), while the proportion of Def-RT remained stable (about 35%). Before 2010, almost a quarter of patients received low-dose Def-RT with gradual increase of escalated Def-RT thereafter. Escalated Def-RT was associated with significantly more favorable 10-year PCa-specific mortality (4.4% [95% CI: 2.7-10.7%]) than observed after low-dose Def- RT (8.8% [95% CI: 6.2-9.8%), with the most beneficial effects in high-risk patients. Our analyses indicated the need to expand the NoRadBase by consensus-based quality measures.

CONCLUSION

In this nationwide cohort, the overall use of Def-RT decreased slightly. In high-risk patients the provision of Def-RT remained stable and was accompanied by doubling of patients with RP and reduction of a "no curative treatment" strategy. Escalated dose Def-RT significantly reduced 10-year PCa-specific mortality compared to low-dose Def-RT. Aiming for cancer care equity national radiotherapy registries for PCa should regularly monitor data based on consensus-based quality measures enabling feedback to the responsible hospitals.

A population perspective on the use of external beam radiotherapy in Catalonia, Spain

PURPOSE

To assess the use of external beam radiotherapy in Catalonia (Spain), overall and by health management area.

METHODS

We assessed radiotherapy treatments in a cohort of patients diagnosed with cancer from 2009 to 2011, using the population-based cancer registries in Girona and Tarragona. Participants had to have a minimum follow-up of 5 years from the time the cancer registry database was linked to the catalan health service database for financing radiation oncology. Outcomes included the proportion of patients receiving radiotherapy within 1 and 5 years of diagnosis. A log-binomial model was used to assess age-related trends in the use of radiotherapy by tumour site. Finally, we calculated the standardized utilization rate and 95% confidence intervals by health management area covered by the radiation oncology services, using indirect methods.

RESULTS

At 1 and 5 years from diagnosis, 21.4 and 24.4% of patients, respectively, had received external beam radiotherapy. Patients aged 40-64 years had the most indications for the treatment, and there was a negative correlation between the patients' age and the use of radiotherapy for most tumour sites (exceptions were cervical, thyroid, and uterine cancers). There were no statistically significant differences in the use of radiotherapy according to th health management area.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based data show that external beam radiotherapy is underutilized in Catalonia. This situation requires a careful analysis to understand the causes, as well as an improvement of the available resources, oriented toward achieving realistic targets for the optimal use of external beam radiotherapy in our country.

Provision and use of radiotherapy in Europe

Radiation therapy is one of the core components of multidisciplinary cancer care. Although ~ 50% of all European cancer patients have an indication for radiotherapy at least once in the course of their disease, more than one out of four cancer patients in Europe do not receive the radiotherapy they need. There are multiple reasons for this underutilisation, with limited availability of the necessary resources – in terms of both trained personnel and equipment – being a major underlying cause of suboptimal access to radiotherapy. Moreover, large variations across European countries are observed, not only in available radiotherapy equipment and personnel per inhabitant or per cancer patient requiring radiotherapy, but also in workload. This variation is in part determined by the country's gross national income. Radiation therapy and technology are advancing quickly; hence, recommendations supporting resource planning and investment should reflect this dynamic environment and account for evolving treatment complexity and fractionation schedules. The forecasted increase in cancer incidence, the rapid introduction of innovative cancer treatments and the more active involvement of patients in the healthcare discussion are all factors that should be taken under consideration. In this continuously changing oncology landscape, reliable data on the actual provision and use of radiotherapy, the optimal evidence‐based demand and the future needs are crucial to inform cancer care planning and address and overcome the current inequalities in access to radiotherapy in Europe.

Factors Associated With Radiotherapy Utilisation In New South Wales, Australia: Results From The 45 and Up Study

AIMS

Actual radiotherapy utilisation rates tend to be lower than the estimated optimal rates. Little is known about the factors contributing to this difference. Our aim was to identify factors associated with radiotherapy receipt for a cohort of cancer patients in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 267 153 participants in the NSW 45 and Up Study completed a questionnaire during 2006-2009 providing detailed health and socio-demographic information and consented to record linkage with administrative health datasets. Single primary cancers diagnosed after study enrolment were identified through linkage with the NSW Cancer Registry to December 2013. Radiotherapy receipt was determined from claims to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and/or records in the NSW Admitted Patient Data Collection (2006 to June 2016). Competing risks regression was used to examine associations between health and socio-demographic characteristics and radiotherapy treatment.

RESULTS

Of 17 873 patients with an incident cancer, 5414 (30.3%) received radiotherapy during follow-up (median 5.3 years). Patients less likely to receive radiotherapy were aged <60 or 80+ years, female, had a Charlson co-morbidity index of 1+, needed help with daily tasks or lived ≥100 km from the nearest radiotherapy centre.

CONCLUSION

Distinct subgroups of patients are less likely to receive radiotherapy. Advocacy and/or policy changes are needed to improve access.

What is the optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for lung cancer?-a systematic review

Lung cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Although radiotherapy (RT) may be beneficial in the radical and/or palliative management of many lung cancer patients, it is underutilized worldwide. Population-level development of RT resources requires estimates of optimal radiotherapy utilization rates (ORUR) and actual radiotherapy utilization rate (ARUR). A systematic review of PubMed database for English-language articles from January 2009 to January 2019 was performed. Keywords included utilization, underutilization, demand, epidemiologic, benchmark, RT and cancer. Data abstracted included: study population, diagnosis, stage, year of diagnosis, timing of RT, intent of RT, ARUR, and ORUR. Eligible studies provided ARUR or ORUR for lung cancer, small cell lung cancer (SCLC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Included ARUR were based on at least 1,000 patients who were diagnosed or treated in 2009 or later. Included ORUR were based on evidence review or ARUR in 2009 or later. The initial search strategy yielded 1,627 unique abstracts. After review, 105 articles were determined appropriate for full-text review. From these, a final set of 21 articles met all inclusion criteria. In eight papers, ORUR was estimated. Estimated lifetime ORUR ranged from 61% to 82%. Methods for estimation included the evidence-based guideline model, Malthus model, and criterion-based benchmarking (CBB) model. The majority of estimates (6/8) used the evidence-based guideline model. Fifteen papers provided ARUR on lung cancer, inclusive of SCLC and NSCLC. ARUR within 9 months to 1 year of diagnosis ranged from 39% to 46%. Lifetime ARUR was an estimated 52% in Ontario, Canada. Palliative intent ARUR ranged from 12% in Central Poland to 46% in Ontario, Canada. RT is underutilized for lung cancer globally, and there is wide geographical variation in the level of underutilization.

Radiotherapy underutilisation and its impact on local control and survival in New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify the actual radiotherapy utilisation rate (A-RUR) in New South Wales (NSW) Australia for 2009-2011 and compare that to the published evidence-based optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate (O-RUR) and to previously reported A-RUR in NSW in 2004-2006. It also aimed to estimate the effect of underutilisation on 5-year local control (LC) and overall survival (OS) and identify factors that predict for underutilisation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All cases of registered cancer diagnosed in NSW between 2009 and 2011 were identified from the NSW Central Cancer Registry and linked with data from all radiotherapy departments. The A-RUR was calculated and compared with O-RURs for all cancers. The difference for each indication was used to estimate 5-year OS and LC shortfall. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors that correlated with reduced radiotherapy utilisation.

RESULTS

110,645 cancer cases were identified. 25% received radiotherapy within one year of diagnosis compared to an estimated optimal rate of 45%. This has marginally improved from previously reported rate of 22% in NSW in 2004-2006. We estimated that 5-year OS and LC were compromised in 1162 and 5062 patients respectively. Factors that predicted for underuse of radiotherapy were older age, male gender, lower socioeconomic status, increasing distance to nearest radiotherapy centre and localised disease.

CONCLUSION

The identified deficit in radiotherapy use has a significant negative impact on patient outcomes. Strategies to overcome such shortfalls need to be developed to improve radiotherapy use and patient outcomes.

Decreasing waiting time for treatment before and during implementation of cancer patient pathways in Norway

BACKGROUND

In 2015, Norway implemented cancer patient pathways to reduce waiting times for treatment. The aims of this paper were to describe patterns in waiting time and their association with patient characteristics for colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancers.

METHODS

National, population-based data from 2007 to 2016 were used. A multivariable quantile regression examined the association between treatment period, age, stage, sex, place of residence, and median waiting times.

RESULTS

Reduction in median waiting times for radiotherapy among colorectal, lung and prostate cancer patients ranged from 14 to 50 days. Median waiting time for surgery remained approximately 21 days for both colorectal and breast cancers, while it decreased by 7 and 36 days for lung and prostate cancers, respectively. The proportion of lung and prostate cancer patients with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis decreased, while the proportion of colorectal patients with localised disease and patients with stage I breast cancer increased (p < 0.001). After adjusting for case-mix, a patient's place of residence was significantly associated with waiting time for treatment (p < 0.001), however, differences in waiting time to treatment decreased over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2007 and 2016, Norway experienced improved stage distributions and consistently decreasing waiting times for treatment. While these improvements occurred gradually, no significant change was observed from the time of cancer patient pathway implementation.

Factors influencing access to palliative radiotherapy: a Norwegian population-based study

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 (PRT_2Y) was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors that influenced the PRT_2Y. Analyses of geographic variation in PRT use were also performed for the time period 2012-2016.

RESULTS

PRT_2Y 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.

Radiotherapy access in Belgium: How far are we from evidence-based utilisation?

INTRODUCTION

Underutilisation of radiotherapy has been observed worldwide. To evaluate the current situation in Belgium, optimal utilisation proportions (OUPs) adopted from the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology - Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (ESTRO-HERO) project were compared to actual utilisation proportions (AUPs) and with radiotherapy advised during the multidisciplinary cancer team (MDT) meetings. In addition, the impact of independent variables was analysed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

AUPs and advised radiotherapy were calculated overall and by cancer type for 110,810 unique cancer diagnoses in 2009-2010. Radiotherapy utilisation was derived from reimbursement data and distinguished between palliative and curative intent external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy (BT). Sensitivity analyses regarding the influence of the follow-up period, the survival length and patient's age were performed. Advised radiotherapy was calculated based on broad treatment categories as reported at MDT meetings.

RESULTS

The overall AUP of 37% (39% including BT) was lower than the OUP of 53%, but in line with advised radiotherapy (35%). Large variations by tumour type were observed: in some tumours (e.g. lung and prostate cancer) AUP was considerably lower than OUP, whereas in others there was reasonable concordance (e.g. breast and rectal cancer). Overall, 84% of treatments started within 9 months following diagnosis. Survival time influenced AUP in a cancer type-dependent way. Elderly patients received less radiotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Although the actually delivered radiotherapy in Belgium aligns well to MDT advices, it is lower than the evidence-based optimum. Further analysis of potential barriers is needed for radiotherapy forecasting and planning, and in order to promote adequate access to radiotherapy.

Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer and impact on outcomes - A population-based study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy ((C)RT) for rectal cancer is, in Norway, restricted to patients with cT4-stage or threatened circumferential resection margin. This nationwide population-based study assessed the use of preoperative (C)RT in Norway and its impact on treatment outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from The Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Registry were used to identify all stage I-III rectal cancers treated with major resection (1997-2011: n=9193). Cumulative risk of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and relative survival was estimated for patients in 2007-2011 (n=3179). Multivariate regression-models were used to compare outcomes following preoperative (C)RT and surgery versus surgery alone.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients given preoperative (C)RT increased from 5% to 49% during 1997-2011. Preoperative (C)RT was associated with reduced risk of local recurrence (hazard ratio (HR)=0.55; 95% CI=0.29-1.04) and a tendency of improved survival (excess HR=0.75; 95% CI=0.52-1.08) with significant effects in patients aged ≥70years (local recurrence: HR=0.35; 95% CI=0.13-0.91; survival: excess HR=0.58; 95% CI=0.35-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that when use of preoperative (C)RT is restricted to selected high-risk rectal cancers, preoperative (C)RT is associated with improved local recurrence, and possibly improved survival, when studied on a population-based level.

What is access to radiation therapy? A conceptual framework and review of influencing factors

OBJECTIVES

Optimal radiation therapy (RT) utilisation rates (RURs) have been defined for various cancer indications through extensive work in Australia and overseas. These benchmarks remain unrealised. The gap between optimal RUR and actual RUR has been attributed to inadequacies in 'RT access'. We aimed to develop a conceptual framework for the consideration of 'RT access' by examining the literature for existing constructs and translating it to the context of RT services. We further aimed to use this framework to identify and examine factors influencing 'RT access'.

METHODS

Existing models of health care access were reviewed and used to develop a multi-dimensional conceptual framework for 'RT access'. A review of the literature was then conducted to identify factors reported to affect RT access and utilisation. The electronic databases searched, the host platform and date range of the databases searched were Ovid MEDLINE, 1946 to October 2014 and PsycINFO via OvidSP,1806 to October 2014.

RESULTS

The framework developed demonstrates that 'RT access' encompasses opportunity for RT as well as the translation of this opportunity to RT utilisation. Opportunity for RT includes availability, affordability, adequacy (quality) and acceptability of RT services. Several factors at the consumer, referrer and RT service levels affect the translation of this opportunity for RT to actual RT utilisation.

CONCLUSION

'Access' is a term that is widely used in the context of health service related research, planning and political discussions. It is a multi-faceted concept with many descriptions. We propose a conceptual framework for the consideration of 'RT access' so that factors affecting RT access and utilisation may be identified and examined. Understanding these factors, and quantifying them where possible, will allow objective evaluation of their impact on RT utilisation and guide implementation of strategies to modify their effects.

Barriers to radiotherapy utilization: Consumer perceptions of issues influencing radiotherapy-related decisions

AIMS

Radiation therapy (RT) is an essential and cost-effective cancer treatment, but it is underutilized in Australia. We aimed to quantify consumers' perceptions of factors that influence RT decisions.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, survey-based study was conducted in March-August 2012. Potential participants were invited to complete an electronic survey disseminated through multiple patient support and advocacy groups throughout New South Wales (NSW), Australia. Study invitations were also placed in local newspapers across NSW with hard copy surveys mailed to respondents. Current or past cancer patients (and carers) who had been offered RT were eligible to participate regardless of their RT decision.

RESULTS

Of the 1191 participants (electronic, n = 1153; hard copy, n = 38), 91% were female, most (88%) were current or past patients, and 78% had accepted RT. Issues commonly perceived to be moderate to strong influencers of RT decisions were: concern about acute and long-term side effects; management of side effects; fear and anxiety regarding RT; lack of awareness of RT; lack of local availability of RT; and lack of RT information resources. Those who declined RT were significantly more likely to highlight practical difficulties with receiving RT.

CONCLUSIONS

Although availability of RT is well recognized, other issues such as fear and anxiety about RT and perceived side effects appear to feature prominently in consumers' decisions. Perceived practical difficulties with receiving RT may have influenced those who declined RT. There may be a need for information resources, support services and interventions to increase awareness of RT.

Regional variations in cancer survival: Impact of tumour stage, socioeconomic status, comorbidity and type of treatment in Norway

Cancer survival varies by place of residence, but it remains uncertain whether this reflects differences in tumour, patient and treatment characteristics (including tumour stage, indicators of socioeconomic status (SES), comorbidity and information on received surgery and radiotherapy) or possibly regional differences in the quality of delivered health care. National population-based data from the Cancer Registry of Norway were used to identify cancer patients diagnosed in 2002-2011 (n = 258,675). We investigated survival from any type of cancer (all cancer sites combined), as well as for the six most common cancers. The effect of adjusting for prognostic factors on regional variations in cancer survival was examined by calculating the mean deviation, defined by the mean absolute deviation of the relative excess risks across health services regions. For prostate cancer, the mean deviation across regions was 1.78 when adjusting for age and sex only, but decreased to 1.27 after further adjustment for tumour stage. For breast cancer, the corresponding mean deviations were 1.34 and 1.27. Additional adjustment for other prognostic factors did not materially change the regional variation in any of the other sites. Adjustment for tumour stage explained most of the regional variations in prostate cancer survival, but had little impact for other sites. Unexplained regional variations after adjusting for tumour stage, SES indicators, comorbidity and type of treatment in Norway may be related to regional inequalities in the quality of cancer care.

Lung cancer survival in Norway, 1997-2011: from nihilism to optimism

We examine changes in survival and patient-, tumour- and treatment-related factors among resected and nonresected lung cancer patients, and identify subgroups with the largest and smallest survival improvements.National population-based data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, Statistics Norway and the Norwegian Patient Register were linked for lung cancer patients diagnosed during 1997-2011. The 1- and 5-year relative survival were estimated, and Cox proportional hazard regression, adjusted for selected patient characteristics, was used to assess prognostic factors for survival in lung cancer patients overall and stratified by resection status.We identified 34 157 patients with lung cancer. The proportion of histological diagnoses accompanied by molecular genetics testing increased from 0% to 26%, while those accompanied by immunohistochemistry increased from 8% to 26%. The 1-year relative survival among nonresected and resected patients increased from 21.7% to 34.2% and 75.4% to 91.5%, respectively. The improved survival remained significant after adjustment for age, sex, stage and histology. The largest improvements in survival occurred among resected and adenocarcinoma patients, while patients ≥80 years experienced the smallest increase.Lung cancer survival has increased considerably in Norway. The explanation is probably multifactorial, including improved attitude towards diagnostic work-up and treatment, and more accurate diagnostic testing that allows for improved selection for resection and improved treatment options.

Expanding global access to radiotherapy

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015-35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015-35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries-a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015-35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015-35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015-35 (-$14·9 billion in low-income countries; -$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (-$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

Barriers to radiotherapy utilisation in New South Wales Australia: Health professionals' perceptions of impacting factors

INTRODUCTION

Utilisation of radiation therapy (RT) in Australia is below recommended evidence-based benchmarks. Barriers to the referral of patients for RT and the uptake of RT by patients may be affecting RT utilisation. The current study aimed to examine health professionals' (HPs) perceptions of potential barriers to RT referral and uptake.

METHODS

A custom survey was developed to assess perceptions regarding the degree to which a range of issues affect decisions regarding RT. Hard copy surveys were disseminated to HPs involved in the care of cancer patients across New South Wales (NSW): medical, radiation and surgical oncologists, physicians (including palliative care), and general practitioners with an interest in oncology. Electronic versions of the survey were disseminated via oncology multidisciplinary teams and professional networks at participating hospitals.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-three HPs participated via hard copy (n = 208) or electronic (n = 45) surveys. Two-thirds of HPs perceived acute side effects of RT, their management and impact on daily commitments, as well as fear and anxiety about RT, to exert moderate to significant influence on RT decisions. Treatment-related travel, need for accommodation and relocation were also perceived by 64% of HPs to do the same. Over half of HPs rated concern regarding late effects of RT, disruption to family and work life, and the ability to organise family and work commitments around RT, as moderate to significant influences on RT uptake.

CONCLUSION

Perceptions of HPs in NSW reveal potential important influencers of RT decisions by patients and clinicians. An understanding of these additional issues and their actual impact on RT-related decisions may inform future interventions to improve RT access and utilisation.

The optimal utilization proportion of external beam radiotherapy in European countries: An ESTRO-HERO analysis

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.