SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • radiotherapy utilization;
  • cancer;
  • evidence-based

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

Radiotherapy utilization rates for cancer vary widely internationally. It has previously been suggested that approximately 50% of all cancer patients should receive radiation. However, this estimate was not evidence-based. The aim of this study was to estimate the ideal proportion of new cases of cancer that should receive radiotherapy at least once during the course of their illness based on the best available evidence. An optimal radiotherapy utilization tree was constructed for each cancer based upon indications for radiotherapy taken from evidence-based treatment guidelines. The proportion of patients with clinical attributes that indicated a possible benefit from radiotherapy was obtained by adding epidemiologic data to the radiotherapy utilization tree. The optimal proportion of patients with cancer that should receive radiotherapy was then calculated using TreeAge (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA) software. Sensitivity analyses using univariate analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed. The proportion of patients with cancer in whom external beam radiotherapy is indicated according to the best available evidence was calculated to be 52%. Monte Carlo analysis indicated that the 95% confidence limits were from 51.7% to 53.1%. The tightness of the confidence interval suggests that the overall estimate is robust. Comparison with actual radiotherapy utilization data suggests a shortfall in actual radiotherapy delivery. This methodology allows comparison of optimal rates with actual rates to identify areas where improvements in the evidence-based use of radiotherapy can be made. It provides valuable data for radiotherapy service planning. Actual rates need to be addressed to ensure better radiotherapy utilization. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

The planning of efficient and equitable treatment services for a population requires a rational and defensible estimate of demand. This has particular relevance for planning services that require significant capital expenditure such as radiotherapy. Radiotherapy is an essential mode of cancer treatment and contributes to the cure or palliation of many cancer patients. Radiotherapy facilities have high capital costs and their operation is staff intensive. In this project, we have undertaken to calculate a rational estimate of need for radiotherapy, based on the occurrence of each type of cancer, the evidence-based indication for radiotherapy in the treatment of each type of cancer, and the probability that radiotherapy will be chosen as a form of treatment.

The radiotherapy utilization rate is defined as the proportion of a defined population of patients with cancer that receives at least one course of radiotherapy during their lifetime. Previous reports from Australian Commonwealth and State agencies have proposed that 50% of all new cases of notifiable cancer in Australia should be treated with external beam radiotherapy.1–5(Notifiable cancers are cancers for which registry data are available.) Although this figure is based almost entirely on expert opinion, it is currently accepted as the guide for estimating utilization and is used to plan for the distribution and number of linear accelerators. However, its validity is questionable, and it is not responsive to changing clinical indications. There are significant variations in actual radiotherapy utilization rates reported in Australia, the United States, Canada, and the Nordic countries, where utilization ranges from 20–55% of all new cancer cases.6–11 These variations stress the importance of using rigorous evidence-based methods to estimate an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate that can act as a benchmark against which actual utilization rates can be compared.

This report estimates an ideal rate of radiotherapy utilization for cancer in Australia based on the incidence of each type of cancer, the evidence-based indication for radiotherapy in the treatment of that cancer, and the proportion of cancer patients included in that indication for radiotherapy.

The authors of the current study have previously published optimal radiotherapy utilization rates for breast carcinoma,12 lung carcinoma,13 melanoma,14 gastrointestinal cancers,15 genitourinary cancers,16 head and neck cancers,17 gynecologic cancers,18, 19 hematologic malignancies,20, 21 central nervous system tumors, unknown primary cancers, and thyroid carcinomas.22 This article reports the estimated overall optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for all registered cancers in Australia and compares the optimal rate with known actual rates of radiotherapy utilization.

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

The objectives of this study were:

  • To estimate the ideal proportion of new cases of notifiable cancer that should receive megavoltage external-beam radiotherapy at some time during the course of their illness using the best available evidence.

  • To develop a model of radiotherapy utilization that can be used to estimate the effect of future changes in the relative distribution of tumor sites, changes in stage at presentation, and changes in indications for radiotherapy on the optimal radiotherapy utilization rate.

  • To compare the estimated optimal rates with actual rates of radiotherapy use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

In this study, an “indication for radiotherapy” was defined as a clinical situation in which radiotherapy was recommended as the treatment of choice on the basis of published evidence that radiotherapy has a superior clinical outcome compared to alternative treatment modalities (including no treatment) and where the patient was suitable to undergo radiotherapy based on an assessment of performance status indicators and the presence or absence of comorbidities. The superiority of radiotherapy over other treatment options could be because of better survival, local control, or toxicity profiles. The study was limited to all notifiable cancers with an incidence of > 1% of the Australian cancer population. Notifiable cancers are cancers for which registry data are available. In Australia this includes ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast but does not include nonmelanomatous skin cancers and benign tumors.

The indications for radiotherapy for each cancer site were derived from treatment guidelines issued by national and international institutions or specialist groups and published (including on the Internet) before December 2003. If guidelines did not exist for particular cancer types and tumor sites, or where the guidelines did not adequately address radiotherapy use, other sources of evidence were identified. These included treatment reviews, randomized controlled trials, population-based studies of care, and single-institution studies.

The evidence for indications for radiotherapy was classified using the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) hierarchy of levels of evidence (Table 1), with only the highest level of evidence being used for each indication for radiotherapy.23 As our purpose was to make recommendations for radiotherapy services in Australia, the highest priority was given to Australian evidence-based clinical practice guidelines issued by national institutions such as the NHMRC or the National Breast Cancer Centre. If these did not exist, then guidelines from other countries were used wherever possible.

Table 1. Levels of Evidence for Indications for Radiotherapy23
Level of evidenceDescription
  • a

    These include trials with pseudo-randomization where a flawed randomization method occurred (e.g., alternate allocation of treatments) or comparative studies with either comparative or historical controls.

ISystematic review of all relevant randomized studies
IIAt least 1 properly conducted randomized trial
IIIWell designed controlled trials without randomizationa
IVCase series

Radiotherapy utilization trees for individual cancer sites were constructed based upon the treatment recommendations obtained from evidence-based treatment guidelines. We used decision analysis software (TreeAge Data version 3.5, TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA) to illustrate the indications for radiotherapy in a diagrammatic form (as a tree), to perform basic calculations such as multiplication of factors and summation of the results, and to perform sensitivity analyses of variability. Parameters can be readily adjusted in the tree if indications for radiotherapy or epidemiologic data distributions change in the future and the software can then rapidly calculate the adjusted utilization rates.

The utilization trees depict the clinical conditions for which radiotherapy is indicated. Each terminal branch of the tree shows whether or not radiotherapy is recommended for a particular type of cancer in individuals with specific clinical attributes. In some circumstances, the indication for radiotherapy occurred in the initial stages of management. In other circumstances, radiotherapy was given later in the disease course (for instance, in patients who developed a local recurrence and who had not previously had an indication for treatment with radiotherapy). Similar methodology has been used by others.6, 24–26 This is the first published report of an analysis of all cancers.

The purpose of our project was to determine the proportion of all cancer patients who have at least one indication for radiotherapy at some time in the course of their illness. Patients requiring radiotherapy were therefore counted only once, even if they had multiple indications at different stages in their illness.

The radiotherapy utilization trees also depict the proportion of patients represented by each branch point of the tree. The relative quality of epidemiologic data from various sources was ranked according to a scoring system that gave greatest importance to Australian population-based data. Population-based datasets from other countries were also used. Population-based databases were preferred because they were considered less likely to be affected by referral or selection bias (compared with hospital-based databases) and, therefore, were more likely to be representative of the entire population of patients with cancer. Table 2 shows the hierarchy of quality of epidemiologic data used.

Table 2. Hierarchy of Epidemiologic Dataa
Quality of sourceSource Type
  • a

    Modified from Tyledsley et al.6

αAustralian National Epidemiological data
βAustralian State Cancer Registry
γEpidemiologic databases from other large international groups (e.g. SEER)
δResults from reports of a random sample from a population
εComprehensive multiinstitution database
ζComprehensive single-institution database
θMultiinstitution reports on selected groups (e.g. multiinstitution clinical trials)
λSingle-institution reports on selected groups of cases
μExpert opinion

The proportion of patients for whom radiotherapy would be recommended was calculated for each cancer site by calculating the frequency of each indication for radiotherapy and then summing the frequencies to give the total optimal rate of use. The overall optimal radiotherapy utilization rate was calculated by summing the optimal utilization rates derived for each cancer site, calculated as a proportion of all cancers.

As this project involved determining estimates for optimal radiotherapy utilization for all notifiable cancers with an incidence of > 1%, the remaining cancers that have an incidence of < 1% have been called “other cancers” in the radiotherapy utilization tree and comprise 2% of the entire cancer population according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report.27 These cancers include pediatric cancers, sarcomas of soft tissue and bone, cancers of the mediastinum, orbit, peritoneum, retroperitoneum, penis, and pleura as well as other rare malignancies. Some of these malignancies are commonly treated with radiotherapy (such as soft tissue sarcomas), and others are rarely treated with radiation (e.g., peritoneal and pleural tumors). For the purpose of the current study, specific radiotherapy utilization trees were not constructed for each of these uncommon cancers. We assumed that the requirement for radiotherapy for this miscellaneous group was 50% and then performed sensitivity analysis where the use of radiotherapy for other cancers ranges between 0% and 100%. This is included in the sensitivity analysis performed for the entire radiotherapy decision tree and is described later.

For some branches of the trees, there was a relative lack of high quality epidemiologic data, and, for some other branches, epidemiologic data differed significantly across different data sources of equal quality. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess the impact on the radiotherapy utilization rate that would result from variations in epidemiologic data, different probabilities of benefit from treatment, or uncertainty in the indication for radiotherapy. Monte Carlo simulations are based upon random sampling of variables from discrete and continuous distributions using individual trial data. Observing the statistical properties of many trials using random sampled values allows additional insight into performance of a model. The main weakness of the Monte Carlo analysis, in the current study, is that the relative importance of all of data used is weighted by study size and may not necessarily be ranked by study quality, which was impossible to assess for each dataset.

Funding and Peer Review

The project was funded by the Department of Health and Ageing of the Australian Government and supervised by the National Cancer Control Initiative (NCCI). An expert steering committee was convened for this project by the NCCI with representation from major nongovernmental cancer organizations, consumers, epidemiologists, radiation and medical oncologists, surgeons, palliative care specialists, and experts in evidence and treatment guidelines.

A multidisciplinary panel of expert reviewers was established, comprising ninety-one nationally recognized oncology experts from the fields of medical, surgical, and radiation oncology, palliative care, and oncology nursing. Forty-two of these reviewers provided comments, and 43% of reviewers were from nonradiation oncology specialties also commented.

Comparison with Actual Radiotherapy Utilization Rates

Actual radiotherapy utilization rates were obtained from published and unpublished sources covering the years 1990 to 2001. These actual rates were tabulated and compared with estimated optimal radiotherapy utilization rates.

RESULTS

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

Recommended optimal radiotherapy utilization rates and optimal radiotherapy utilization trees for breast,12 lung,13 skin (melanoma),14 genitourinary,16 gastrointestinal,15 gynecologic,18, 19 and head and neck cancers,17 hematologic malignancies,20, 21 and central nervous system, thyroid, and unknown primary site tumors22 have been reported in detail elsewhere. A summary of the calculated ideal radiotherapy utilization rates for the various tumor sites are presented in Table 3 along with the proportion of cancer that each tumor site composes in Australia.

Table 3. Optimal Radiotherapy Utilization Rate by Cancer Type
Tumor typeProportion of all cancersProportion of patients receiving radiotherapyPatients receiving radiotherapy (% of all cancers)Reference
Breast0.138310.8Delaney et al.12
Lung0.10767.6Delaney et al.13
Melanoma0.11232.5Delaney et al.14
Prostate0.12607.2Delaney et al.16
Gynecologic0.05351.8Delaney et al.18, 19
Colon0.09141.3Delaney et al.15
Rectum0.05613.1Delaney et al.15
Head and neck0.04783.1Delaney et al.17
Gall bladder0.01130.1Delaney et al.15
Liver0.0100.0Delaney et al.15
Esophageal0.01800.8Delaney et al.15
Stomach0.02681.4Delaney et al.15
Pancreas0.02571.1Delaney et al.15
Lymphoma0.04652.6Featherstone et al.20
Leukemia0.0340.1Featherstone et al.21
Myeloma0.01380.4Featherstone et al.21
Central nervous system0.02921.8Delaney et al.22
Renal0.03270.8Delaney et al.16
Bladder0.03581.7Delaney et al.16
Testis0.01490.5Delaney et al.16
Thyroid0.01100.1Delaney et al.22
Unknown primary0.04612.4Delaney et al.22
Other0.02501.0See citations in text
Total1.00-52.3 

Overall Optimal Radiotherapy Utilization Rate

The optimal radiotherapy utilization rates in Table 3 varied from a low recommended rate of 0% for liver cancer patients to a high rate of 92% for patients with central nervous system tumors. The recommended overall optimal radiotherapy utilization rate was calculated to be 52.3%.

Sensitivity Analysis

Some variables in the utilization tree were associated with significant uncertainties, which can be categorized as follows:

  • 1
    Uncertainty in the data where the values of epidemiologic data obtained from multiple sources differed significantly. Typically these were near the terminal ends of the tree where large studies on incidence rates were lacking.
  • 2
    Uncertainty in the indication for radiotherapy where guidelines had no specific criteria, or conflicting criteria, for consideration of radiotherapy. For example, one guideline for breast cancer recommended radiotherapy for postmastectomy patients with > 3 axillary nodes involved, but also advocated “consideration” of radiotherapy in all patients with nodal involvement.28 Other guidelines either mention that radiotherapy in patients with involvement of less than 4 axillary lymph nodes is controversial29 or avoid the issue completely.30
  • 3
    Uncertainty in the choice between radiotherapy and other treatment options of equal efficacy, such as surgery, observation, or radiotherapy for localized prostate adenocarcinoma.

The actual branchpoints where these uncertainties existed have been described in reports of each specific cancer site's radiotherapy utilization trees. Sensitivity analysis allows an assessment of the effect that data uncertainty may have on the overall radiotherapy utilization estimate. Two different types of sensitivity analyses were performed. One-way sensitivity analyses allowed assessment of the effect of varying the value of each variable on the overall model in a univariate fashion. One-way sensitivities were presented for each of the decision trees where uncertainty existed and are not repeated here.12–17, 19–22 For a more global multivariate-type assessment, Monte Carlo simulations can be performed to assess the effect of multiple uncertainties on the overall radiotherapy utilization rate. Monte Carlo simulations are based upon random sampling of variables from discrete and continuous distributions using individual trial data. Multivariate sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo analysis on 104 simulations indicates that the 95% confidence limits for our optimal radiotherapy estimate were 51.7% and 53.1%.

Comparison with Actual Radiotherapy Utilization Rates

Table 4 shows the actual rates of radiotherapy utilization from population-based reports from Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and some national and state patterns of care studies in Australia.5, 31–39

Table 4. Comparison of Optimal with Actual Radiotherapy Utilization Rates
Cancer site% Optimal radiotherapy utilization rateActual radiotherapy utilization rates
% Sweden National 200131% USA% UK (NYCRIS) 199934% Australia
SEER 1995–200032ACSa 200133National 199535 200036NSW 20005VIC 200037 199338SAa 1990–199439
  • NR: Not reported; ACS: American College of Surgeons; SEER: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database (National Cancer Institute); NYCRIS: Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service; NSW: the state of New South Wales; VIC: the state of Victoria; SA: the state of South Australia.

  • a

    First treatment only.

  • b

    Includes brachytherapy.

  • c

    Includes salivary glands.

Breast cancer838142445441712440
Lung cancer76713936--494438
Melanoma232321--13-2
Prostate6051274116---44
Kidney2763849---11
Urinary bladder58174326---26
Testis494840-NR---43
Esophagus807354-31---47
Stomach68715-4---6
Pancreas57616-4---4
Liver0-3-3---3
Gall bladder13914-9---5
Colon1462123--3
Rectum615640413338--17
Oral cavity7494bNR-----44c
Lip20228-----2
Larynx10010075-----80
Oropharynx10010070------
Salivary gland876055------
Hypopharynx1003974------
Paranasal sinuses100100NR------
Nasopharynx10010084------
Unknown primary (head & neck)90NR-------
Uterus46642225----26
Cervix58834433----41
Central nervous system923759-----52
Lymphoma6540------24
Leukemia48------6
Myeloma3882------34
All cancers524324-----25

DISCUSSION

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

We have used an evidence-based technique to calculate an overall estimate of optimal radiotherapy utilization of 52.3% for all notifiable cancer in Australia. This final estimate is remarkably precise (as measured by the tight confidence limits) despite uncertainty existing in relation to data for some indications for radiotherapy and occasional uncertainty between treatment options of approximately equal efficacy. The tight confidence interval may be explained by the fact that good quality data existed for the initial branches of the tree (for example, data such as tumor type and stage at presentation). Most of the uncertainty existed in the distal or near-terminal branches of the tree and, therefore, affected only very small proportions of the cancer population and had little effect on the overall estimate. In addition, the effect of these variations was such that some would increase the overall utilization rate whereas others would reduce it, so that, to a large extent, they cancelled out each other.

The model of radiotherapy utilization developed in this project has many benefits.

  • 1
    It provides a benchmark for planning radiotherapy services on a population basis.The results from this study can be useful in the planning of appropriate radiotherapy services for a given population using the following calculations.

For every 1000 cancer cases in a population, 523 patients would need radiation as an optimal part of their management based upon the results of this project (calculated optimal radiotherapy utilization rate of 52.3%). A further 120 patients, of the above 523 patients, will require retreatment (based upon an actual retreatment rate of 23%).40 This means that an estimated 643 courses of treatment will be required for every 1000 cancer patients diagnosed with a registered cancer. These calculations are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5. Estimated Optimal Number of Courses of Treatment per 1000 Registered Cancers
 PercentageTotal no.
New registered cancersN/A1000
Patients requiring radiation52.3523
Retreatments23120
Total number of courses of radiotherapy required 643

This will allow population-based estimates for the number of possible treatment courses (and, therefore, the amount of resources) that should be provided for any particular area. This study was performed for the Australian government and was viewed as a study that would provide an evidence-based planning target.

  • 2
    Modeling the effect that changes to a particular cancer incidence or changes in stage distribution have on the overall recommended radiotherapy utilization rate is another benefit.

It is possible to easily modify the model should there be changes in the relative incidence of certain cancers, a change in the stage distribution, or a change in treatment recommendations. The model can also be used to estimate the optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for other countries that may have differing cancer-specific proportions. For example, if another country with a very different cancer incidence profile were to use the model, then the only requirement to recalculate the optimal radiotherapy utilization rate would be to alter the incidence of each of the cancers in the tree and recalculate. Similarly, a change in stage distribution of cancer due to development of superior staging investigations (such as positron emission tomography in nonsmall cell lung cancer), or following the introduction of a screening program could easily be incorporated into the model.

  • 3
    This model provides a benchmark for service delivery.

The radiotherapy utilization trees that have been developed for each of the tumor sites are a diagrammatic representation of optimal evidence-based cancer care from a radiotherapy perspective. Epidemiologic data from patterns of care studies will allow comparisons to be made between the actual rates of radiotherapy delivery and the evidence-based ideal rate. Analysis of the distributions of tumor stage, histology, age, performance status, and other factors will better define any discrepancy between the actual and ideal utilization rates.

Table 4 compares optimal radiotherapy utilization rates with available rates of actual radiotherapy utilization obtained from population-based data. The table highlights the paucity of the data on actual radiotherapy utilization, the high variability of the actual radiotherapy rates across different regions, and the general shortfall in radiotherapy use for most major tumor sites including the common tumor sites that have well known evidence-based treatment guidelines (e.g., breast cancer). These data are not subdivided by the various stages or other clinical attributes that would make a direct comparison between the optimal trees and the actual practice, although future studies may be designed to identify subgroups of patients so that, when shortfalls in radiotherapy are identified, specific details as to types of patients where the shortfalls are greatest may help direct quality improvement programs to the areas of most gain.

  • 4
    This model can determine optimal rates and resources for other treatment modalities.

The methodology used here could be readily adapted to consider other treatments (such as surgery, chemotherapy, or palliative care) for cancer. It could also be used to plan other services if criteria for selecting appropriate patients were known for that particular service. For instance, if we knew the factors that predict the need for palliative care referral, or cancer genetics services, then resource planning could be assisted by calculating the optimal utilization rate in a similar fashion to that described here for radiotherapy.

  • 5
    This model may be used to predict future radiotherapy workload.

The radiotherapy utilization tree predicts whether patients should receive any radiotherapy but does not assess whether the treatment intent would be palliative or radical, and the tree predicts neither the number of fractions of treatment required nor the complexity of the patient's care. Various models of complexity have been reported in the literature that may be used in future studies so that even more accurate predictions of radiotherapy workload could be determined by calculating the actual number of treatment fractions that may be expected for a given population.

Some Limitations of the Study Were Identified

Quality of data

The current study has identified areas where good quality epidemiologic data (based on stage, performance status, etc.) were lacking. We have overcome the problem by performing modeling and sensitivity analyses to indicate the relatively minor effect that any of these uncertainties could have on overall utilization rate.12–17, 19–22

Skin cancer and benign diseases provide workload for radiation oncology departments but are not included as registered cancers and, therefore, have not been factored into the model

Notifiable cancers are cancers for which statutory requirements exist to notify a state cancer registry. Statutory notification in Australia excludes nonmelanomatous skin cancers and benign tumors but includes ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. A limitation of the study is that there are other uses for radiotherapy that are not included in this estimate and that will need consideration when planning radiotherapy resources. Radiotherapy has an established role in management of nonmalignant conditions (benign tumors and noncancerous conditions) as well as a role in the management of nonregistered cancers such as nonmelanomatous skin cancers. The overall need for radiotherapy resources is difficult to estimate for these nonregistered conditions, as the overall incidence of these conditions is unknown, and evidence-based treatment guidelines do not exist for most of these conditions. Data obtained from selected hospitals in Australia show that around 11% of patients who receive external beam radiotherapy are treated for nonnotifiable conditions.41 It remains important to consider this additional workload in resource planning.

Other forms of radiotherapy have not been considered

Inclusion of other forms of radiotherapy such as brachytherapy (interstitial and intracavitary) and/or with radioactive isotopes (iodine, yttrium, samarium, strontium, etc.) are beyond the scope of this article. However, these other forms of radiotherapy should be considered when planning radiotherapy resources and could be the subject of further study.

Controversies in the recommended use of radiotherapy

Despite using treatment guidelines to determine indications for radiotherapy, there are many areas where the role of radiotherapy remains poorly defined or where the indications for the use of radiotherapy remain vague. This is mainly due to poor evidence and the lack of good quality trials. We have identified some areas where future research would be useful. The model is easily amended should new evidence for or against the use of radiotherapy for a specific clinical situation emerge.

The effect of patient choice considerations

We did not consider the effect of patient choice because of the risk that the studies reporting patient preference might have been confounded by availability of radiotherapy to the study population. Little or no data are presented in these studies to judge whether access to resources was factored into the decision for or against radiotherapy when alternative treatment options were available.

Rare indications for radiotherapy have not been included in the overall estimate

In many cancers there will be a small proportion of patients who may appropriately receive radiotherapy for rare indications, usually for metastases such as symptomatic lung, soft tissue, or subcutaneous metastases. They were not included because incidence data were not available and the proportions of patients with symptoms that required radiotherapy could not be estimated. Although only of small overall impact in their own right, the cumulative total of these indications could increase the overall radiotherapy utilization estimate by 1–2% at the most.

Conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

The overall estimate for radiotherapy utilization is 52.3% based upon the best available evidence. Although the scope of this study is confined to exploring the optimal utilization of external beam megavoltage radiotherapy for notifiable cancers, the overall estimate provides a useful tool for assisting in planning adequate radiotherapy resources. Population-based data from the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Australia suggest that there is a significant shortfall between the optimal rate and the proportion of patients currently treated with radiotherapy that warrants further research and action.

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES

The authors thank the members of the steering committee of the Australian National Cancer Control Initiative and the forty-two reviewers involved in this project for their comments on the study design and decision trees.

REFERENCES

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Objectives
  4. MATERIALS AND METHODS
  5. RESULTS
  6. DISCUSSION
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. REFERENCES
  • 1
    National Health and Medical Research Council. Beam and isotope radiotherapy—A report of the Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee. Publication no. 2036. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, 1996.
  • 2
    Statewide Services Development Branch. Radiotherapy management information system. State health publication no.(SSDB) 980139. Sydney: NSW Health Department, 1997.
  • 3
    Statewide Services Development Branch. Radiotherapy management information system. State health publication no. (SSDB) 970069. Sydney: NSW Health Department, 1996.
  • 4
    Statewide Services Development Branch. Radiotherapy management information system. State health publication no. (SSDB) 980139. Sydney: NSW Health Department, 1998.
  • 5
    Statewide Services Development Branch. NSW radiotherapy management information system report 2000. Sydney: NSW Health Department, 2001.
  • 6
    Tyldesley S, Boyd C, Shulze K, Walker H, Mackillop WJ. Estimating the need for radiotherapy for lung cancer: an evidence-based, epidemiologic approach. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001; 49: 973985.
  • 7
    Mackillop WJ, Dixon P, Zhou Y, et al. Variations in the management and outcome of non-small cell lung cancer in Ontario. Radiother Oncol. 1994; 32: 105115.
  • 8
    Mackillop WJ, Groome PA, Zhang-Solomons J, et al. Does a centralized radiotherapy system provide adequate access in care? J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15: 12611271.
  • 9
    Lote K, Moller T, Nordman E, et al. Resources and productivity in radiation oncology in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden during 1987. Acta Oncol. 1991; 30: 555561.
  • 10
    Denham JW. How do we bring an acceptable level of radiotherapy services to a dispersed population? Australas Radiol. 1995; 39: 171173.
  • 11
    Barton MB. Radiotherapy utilisation in New South Wales from 1996 to 1998. Australas Radiol. 2000; 44: 483484.
  • 12
    Delaney G, Barton B, Jacob S. Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for breast carcinoma: a review of the evidence. Cancer. 2003; 98: 19771986.
  • 13
    Delaney G, Barton M, Jacob S, Jalaludin B. A model for decision making for the use of radiotherapy in lung cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2003; 4: 120128.
  • 14
    Delaney G, Barton M, Jacob S. Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for melanoma. A review of the evidence. Cancer. 2004; 100: 12931301.
  • 15
    Delaney G, Barton M, Jacob S. Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for gastrointestinal cancer: A review of the evidence. Cancer. 2004; 101: 657670.
  • 16
    Delaney G, Jacob S, Barton M. Estimating the optimal external beam radiotherapy utilization rate for genitourinary malignancies. Cancer. 2005; 103: 462473.
  • 17
    Delaney G, Jacob S, Barton M. Estimation of an optimal external beam radiotherapy utilization rate for head and neck carcinoma. Cancer. 2005; 103: 22162227.
  • 18
    Delaney G, Jacob S, Barton M. Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for gynecologic cancer: part I-malignancies of the cervix, ovary, vagina, and vulva. Cancer. 2004; 101: 671681.
  • 19
    Delaney G, Jacob S, Barton M. Estimation of an optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for gynecologic cancer: part II-carcinoma of the endometrium. Cancer. 2004; 101: 682692.
  • 20
    Featherstone C, Delaney G, Jacob S, Barton M. Estimating the optimal utilization rates of radiotherapy for hematologic malignancies from a review of the evidence: part I-lymphoma. Cancer. 2005; 103: 383392.
  • 21
    Featherstone C, Delaney G, Jacob S, Barton M. Estimating the optimal utilization rates of radiotherapy for hematologic malignancies from a review of the evidence: part II-leukemia and myeloma. Cancer. 2005; 103: 393401.
  • 22
    Delaney G, Jacob S, Barton M. Estimating the optimal radiotherapy utilization for cancer of the central nervous system, thyroid cancer, and cancer of unknown primary origin from evidence-based clinical guidelines. Cancer. 2005;in press.
  • 23
    National Health and Medical Research Council. Guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Appendix B, 56. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council. 1998.
  • 24
    Foroudi F, Tyldesley S, Walker H, Mackillop WJ. An evidence-based estimate of appropriate radiotherapy utilization rate for breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 53: 12401253.
  • 25
    Foroudi F, Tyldesley S, Barbera L, Huang J, Mackillop WJ. An evidence-based estimate of the appropriate radiotherapy utilization rate for colorectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 56: 12951307.
  • 26
    Foroudi F, Tyldesley S, Barbera L, Huang J, Mackillop WJ. Evidence-based estimate of appropriate radiotherapy utilization rate for prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 55: 5163.
  • 27
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) and Australasian Association of Cancer Registries (AACR). Cancer in Australia 1998. CAN 12. Cancer Series No 17. Canberra: AIHW and AACR, 2001.
  • 28
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. National practice guidelines in oncology-breast cancer. Version 2. Available from URL: www.nccn.org. 2002. [Accessed February 21, 2003].
  • 29
    National Cancer Institute. PDQ cancer information summaries: Treatment of breast cancer. Available from URL: www.nci.nih.gov. 2003. [Accessed February21, 2003].
  • 30
    NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of advanced breast cancer. National Health and Medical Research Council. Kings Cross: NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre, 2001.
  • 31
    Moller TR, Brorsson B, Ceberg J, et al. A prospective survey of radiotherapy practice 2001 in Sweden. Acta Oncol. 2003; 42: 387410.
  • 32
    National Cancer Institute (Cancer Statistics Branch). SEER Stat 5.0. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results cancer incidence public-use database, 1973–2000. Bethesda: US Department of Health and Human Services. 2002.
  • 33
    American College of Surgeons. National Cancer Database. Available from URL: http://www.facs.org.dept/cancer/ncdb/whatsncdb.html [accessed on November 25, 2003].
  • 34
    Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service (NYCRIS). Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Networks. A report on incidence and management for the main sites of cancer 1999. Available from URL: http://www.nycris.org.uk/. 2002. [Accessed on November 25, 2003].
  • 35
    Hill D, Jamrozik K, White V, Collins J, et al. Surgical Management of Breast Cancer in Australia in 1995. Kings Cross, NHMRC National Breast Cancer Centre, 1999.
  • 36
    Clinical Governance Unit. The National Colorectal Cancer Care Survey. Australian clinical practice in 2000. Melbourne: National Cancer Control Initiative. 2002.
  • 37
    Hill DJ, White VM, Giles GG, Collins JP, Kitchen PR. Changes in the investigation and management of primary operable breast cancer in Victoria. Med J Aust. 1994; 161: 110118.
  • 38
    Richardson GE, Thursfield VJ, Giles GG. Reported management of lung cancer in Victoria in 1993: comparison with best practice. MJA. 2000; 172: 321324.
  • 39
    Luke C, Chapman P, Priest K, Roder D. Use of radiotherapy in the primary treatment of cancer in South Australia. Australas Radiol. 2003; 47: 161167.
  • 40
    Statewide Services Development Branch. Radiotherapy management information system report 2003. Sydney: NSW Health Department. 2004.
  • 41
    Barton M, Frommer M, Olver I, Cox C, Crowe P, et al. A cancer services framework for Victoria and future directions for the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute. Available from URL: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/cancer/docs/vcsfinalreport.pdf. 2003. [Accessed January 10, 2005].