NHS cancer services and systems-ten pressure points a UK cancer control plan needs to address.

In this Policy Review we discuss ten key pressure points in the NHS in the delivery of cancer care services that need to be urgently addressed by a comprehensive national cancer control plan. These pressure points cover areas such as increasing workforce capacity and its productivity, delivering effective cancer survivorship services, addressing variation in quality, fixing the reimbursement system for cancer care, and balancing of the cancer research agenda. These areas have been selected based on their relative importance to ensuring sustainable cancer services, persistence as key issues in the NHS, and their impact on delivering better and more equitable and affordable patient outcomes. Many of these pressure points are not acknowledged explicitly in any current discourse. The evidence we provide points to their impact on the ability to deliver world class cancer care, but also to their amenability to affordable solutions if given the relevant prioritisation and investment. The current narrative needs to move away from a technocentric approach to improving care, to one focused on understanding the complexity of cancer services and the wider health system to drive improvements in survival, quality of life, and experience for patients.

Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

Addressing challenges in low-income and middle-income countries through novel radiotherapy research opportunities.

Although radiotherapy continues to evolve as a mainstay of the oncological armamentarium, research and innovation in radiotherapy in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces challenges. This third Series paper examines the current state of LMIC radiotherapy research and provides new data from a 2022 survey undertaken by the International Atomic Energy Agency and new data on funding. In the context of LMIC-related challenges and impediments, we explore several developments and advances-such as deep phenotyping, real-time targeting, and artificial intelligence-to flag specific opportunities with applicability and relevance for resource-constrained settings. Given the pressing nature of cancer in LMICs, we also highlight some best practices and address the broader need to develop the research workforce of the future. This Series paper thereby serves as a resource for radiation professionals.

Association of travel time, patient characteristics, and hospital quality with patient mobility for breast cancer surgery: A national population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This national study investigated hospital quality and patient factors associated with treatment location for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: By using linked administrative data sets from the English National Health Service, the authors identified all women diagnosed between January 2, 2016, and December 31, 2018, who underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or a mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction. The extent to which patients bypassed their nearest hospital was investigated using a geographic information system (ArcGIS). Conditional logistic regressions were used to estimate the impact of travel time, hospital quality, and patient characteristics. RESULTS: 22,622 Of 69,153 patients undergoing BCS, 22,622 (32.7%) bypassed their nearest hospital; and, of 23,536 patients undergoing mastectomy, 7179 (30.5%) bypassed their nearest hospital. Women who were younger, without comorbidities, or from rural areas were more likely to travel to more distant hospitals (p < .05). Patients undergoing BCS (odds ratio [OR], 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-2.50) or mastectomy (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.14-2.02) were more likely to be treated at specialist breast reconstruction centers despite not undergoing the procedure. Patients receiving mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were more likely to travel to hospitals employing surgeons who had a media reputation (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.28-4.52). Patients undergoing BCS were less likely to travel to hospitals with shorter surgical waiting times (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92). The authors did not observe a significant impact for research activity, hospital quality rating, breast re-excision rates, or the status as a multidisciplinary cancer center. CONCLUSIONS: Patient choice policies may drive inequalities in the health care system without improving patient outcomes.

Impact of Medical Oncology-Focused Quality Programs on Cancer Care Around the World.

Quality cancer care is efficient, accessible, coordinated, and evidence-based. Recognizing the necessary key components, development of pathways and guidelines to incorporate these key domains, and finally respectful adaptation to cultural differences can ensure that cancer care globally is of the highest quality. This quality care should be judged not only on how it optimizes health outcomes for patients, but also its impact on the care providers and the global community.

Deciphering the Sex gap in global life expectancy: the impact of female-specific cancers 1990-2019.

BACKGROUND: Females live longer than males, which results in a sex gap in life expectancy. This study examines the contribution of female cancers to this differential by world region and country 1990-2019 with special focus to the 15-69 age group. METHODS: Cause-specific mortality data for 30 cancers, including four female-specific cancers from 238 countries and territories was retrieved from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Using life table techniques and demographic decomposition analysis, we estimated the contribution of cancer deaths to the sex gap in life expectancy by age and calendar period. RESULTS: At ages 15-69, females had a higher life expectancy than males in 2019. Countries with the largest sex gaps or the largest female advantage in life expectancy were in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, Latin America and Southern Africa. In contrast, countries with the smallest sex gaps were mainly located in Northern Africa, Northern America, and Northern Europe. The contribution of female-specific cancers to sex gaps in life expectancy were largely negative, ranging from -0.15 years in the Western Pacific to -0.26 years in the Eastern Mediterranean Region, implying that the disproportionately higher premature cancer mortality among females contributed to a reduction in the female life expectancy advantage. CONCLUSION: Female-specific cancers are important determinants of sex gaps in life expectancy. Their negative impact on life expectancy at working and reproductive age groups has far-reaching consequences for society. Increasing the availability and access to prevention, screening, timely diagnosis, and effective treatment can reduce this gap.

Variation in Access to Palliative Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer: A Population-Based Study in Canada.

BACKGROUND: As a result of improvements in cancer therapies, patients with metastatic malignancies are living longer, and the role of palliative radiotherapy has become increasingly recognized. However, access to adequate palliative radiotherapy may continue to be a challenge, as is evident from the high proportion of patients dying of prostate cancer who never receive palliative radiotherapy. The main objective of this investigation is to identify and describe the factors associated with the receipt of palliative radiation treatment in a decedent cohort of prostate cancer patients in Ontario. METHODOLOGY:  Population-based administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, were used to identify prostate cancer decedents, 65 years or older who received androgen deprivation therapy between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. Baseline and treatment characteristics were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models for association with receipt of radiotherapy in a two-year observation period before death. RESULTS: We identified 3,788 prostate cancer decedents between 2013 and 2018; among these, 49.9% received radiotherapy in the two years preceding death. There were statistically significant positive associations between receipt of radiotherapy and younger age at diagnosis (odds ratio [OR] 1.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.3); higher stage at diagnosis (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.7); receipt of care at a regional cancer center (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.4); and involvement of radiation oncologists (OR 155.1, 95% CI 83.3-288.7) or medical oncologists (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8). However, there were no associations between receipt of radiotherapy and income, distance to the nearest cancer center, involvement of urologists in cancer care, healthcare administrative region, home-care involvement, or number of hospitalizations in the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: We found the utilization of palliative radiotherapy for prostate cancer patients in Ontario varies depending on age, stage at diagnosis, number of comorbidities, registration at regional cancer centers, and involvement of oncologists. There were no differences detected based on income or distance from a cancer center. The findings of this study represent an important opportunity to facilitate better access to palliative radiotherapy and referrals to multidisciplinary regional cancer centers, to improve the quality of life of this patient population.

Common Sense (Radiation) Oncology: Redefining targets in radiotherapy.

In 2023, the Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement was launched with the goal of recalibrating cancer care to focus on outcomes that matter to patients. We extend the three CSO pillars - evidence generation, interpretation and communication - to radiation oncology and advocate for better evidence demonstrating the value of our modality.

The impact of transportation mode, socioeconomic deprivation and rurality on travel times to radiotherapy and surgical services for patients with prostate cancer: A national population-based evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The distances that patients have to travel can influence their access to cancer treatment. We investigated the determinants of travel time, separately for journeys by car and public transport, to centres providing radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Using national cancer registry records linked to administrative hospital data, we identified patients who had radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 in the English National Health Service. Estimated travel times from the patients' residential area to the nearest specialist surgical or radiotherapy centre were estimated for journeys by car and by public transport. RESULTS: We included 13,186 men who had surgery and 26,581 who had radiotherapy. Estimated travel times by public transport (74.4 mins for surgery and 69.4 mins for radiotherapy) were more than twice as long as by car (33.4 mins and 29.1mins, respectively). Patients living in more socially deprived neighbourhoods in rural areas had the longest travel times to the nearest cancer treatment centres by car (62.0 mins for surgery and 52.1 mins for radiotherapy). Conversely patients living in more affluent neighbourhoods in urban conurbations had the shortest (18.7 mins for surgery and 17.9 mins for radiotherapy). CONCLUSION: Travel times to cancer centres vary widely according to mode of transport, socioeconomic deprivation, and rurality. Policies changing the geographical configuration of cancer services should consider the impact on the expected travel times both by car and by public transport to avoid enhancing existing inequalities in access to treatment and patient outcomes.

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. RESULTS: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. CONCLUSION: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

What can patient-reported experience measures tell us about the variation in patients' experience of prostate cancer care? A cross-sectional study using survey data from the National Prostate Cancer Audit in England.

OBJECTIVES: A national survey aimed to measure how men with prostate cancer perceived their involvement in and decisions around their care immediately after diagnosis. This study aimed to describe any differences found by socio-demographic groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of men who were diagnosed with and treated for prostate cancer. SETTING: The National Prostate Cancer Audit patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) survey in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men diagnosed in 2014-2016, with non-metastatic prostate cancer, were surveyed. Responses from 32 796 men were individually linked to records from a national clinical audit and to administrative hospital data. Age, ethnicity, deprivation and disease risk classification were used to explore variation in responses to selected questions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Responses to five questions from the PREMs survey: the proportion responding to the highest positive category was compared across the socio-demographic characteristics above. RESULTS: When adjusted for other factors, older men were less likely than men under the age of 60 to feel side effects had been explained in a way they could understand (men 80+: relative risk (RR)=0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00), that their views were considered (RR=0.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.87) or that they were involved in decisions (RR=0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.00). The latter was also apparent for men who were not white (black men: RR=0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98; Asian men: RR=0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96) and, to a lesser extent, for more deprived men. CONCLUSIONS: The observed discrepancies highlight the need for more focus on initiatives to improve the experience of ethnic minority patients and those older than 60 years. The findings also argue for further validation of discriminatory instruments to help cancer care providers fully understand the variation in the experience of their patients.

Artificial Intelligence-Based Radiotherapy Contouring and Planning to Improve Global Access to Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Increased automation has been identified as one approach to improving global cancer care. The Radiation Planning Assistant (RPA) is a web-based tool offering automated radiotherapy (RT) contouring and planning to low-resource clinics. In this study, the RPA workflow and clinical acceptability were assessed by physicians around the world. METHODS: The RPA output for 75 cases was reviewed by at least three physicians; 31 radiation oncologists at 16 institutions in six countries on five continents reviewed RPA contours and plans for clinical acceptability using a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: For cervical cancer, RPA plans using bony landmarks were scored as usable as-is in 81% (with minor edits 93%); using soft tissue contours, plans were scored as usable as-is in 79% (with minor edits 96%). For postmastectomy breast cancer, RPA plans were scored as usable as-is in 44% (with minor edits 91%). For whole-brain treatment, RPA plans were scored as usable as-is in 67% (with minor edits 99%). For head/neck cancer, the normal tissue autocontours were acceptable as-is in 89% (with minor edits 97%). The clinical target volumes (CTVs) were acceptable as-is in 40% (with minor edits 93%). The volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans were acceptable as-is in 87% (with minor edits 96%). For cervical cancer, the normal tissue autocontours were acceptable as-is in 92% (with minor edits 99%). The CTVs for cervical cancer were scored as acceptable as-is in 83% (with minor edits 92%). The VMAT plans for cervical cancer were acceptable as-is in 99% (with minor edits 100%). CONCLUSION: The RPA, a web-based tool designed to improve access to high-quality RT in low-resource settings, has high rates of clinical acceptability by practicing clinicians around the world. It has significant potential for successful implementation in low-resource clinics.

ARCHERY: a prospective observational study of artificial intelligence-based radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck and prostate cancer - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy. METHODS: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.

Assessment of long term outcomes after buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty: the impact of chronic kidney disease

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare and assess various outcomes and success of buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty (BMGU) in patients with CKD versus patients having normal renal function. Material and Methods This was a retrospective, single centre study, during period 2013 to 2017. Patients were grouped into two groups. Group 1 had patients with estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR)>60mL/min/1.73m2 while group 2 had patients with eGFR <60mL/min/1.73m2. eGFR was calculated according to the MDRD equation. The two groups were compared with regard to various outcomes like length, location of stricture, technique of graft placement, intra-operative blood loss (haemoglobin drop), duration of hospital stay, post-operative complications and recurrence. Results A total of 223 patients were included in study with group 1 had 130 patients and group 2 had 93 patients. Mean age of patients with CKD were higher (47.49 years versus 29.13 years). The mean follow-up period was comparable between both groups (23.29 months and 22.54 months respectively). Patients with CKD had more post-operative Clavien Grade 2 or higher complications (p=0.01) and a greater recurrence rates (p<0.001) than in non-CKD patients. On multivariate analysis, age and CKD status was significant predictor of urethroplasty success (p=0.004) (OR= 14.98 (1.952-114.94, 95% CI). Conclusions CKD patients are more prone to post-operative complications in terms of wound infection, graft uptake and graft failure and higher recurrence rates following BMGU.