Radiotherapy equipment and departments in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND: Documenting the distribution of radiotherapy departments and the availability of radiotherapy equipment in the European countries is an important part of HERO - the ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology project. HERO has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The aim of the current report is to describe the distribution of radiotherapy equipment in European countries. METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, principally through their national societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy departments and equipment (questionnaire items 26-29), analyzed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis is based on validated responses from 28 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. There were 2192 linear accelerators, 96 dedicated stereotactic machines, and 77 cobalt machines reported in the 27 countries where this information was available. A total of 12 countries had at least one cobalt machine in use. There was a median of 0.5 simulator per MV unit (range 0.3-1.5) and 1.4 (range 0.4-4.4) simulators per department. Of the 874 simulators, a total of 654 (75%) were capable of 3D imaging (CT-scanner or CBCT-option). The number of MV machines (cobalt, linear accelerators, and dedicated stereotactic machines) per million inhabitants ranged from 1.4 to 9.5 (median 5.3) and the average number of MV machines per department from 0.9 to 8.2 (median 2.6). The average number of treatment courses per year per MV machine varied from 262 to 1061 (median 419). While 69% of MV units were capable of IMRT only 49% were equipped for image guidance (IGRT). There was a clear relation between socio-economic status, as measured by GNI per capita, and availability of radiotherapy equipment in the countries. In many low income countries in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe there was very limited access to radiotherapy and especially to equipment for IMRT or IGRT. CONCLUSIONS: The European average number of MV machines per million inhabitants and per department is now better in line with QUARTS recommendations from 2005, but the survey also showed a significant heterogeneity in the access to modern radiotherapy equipment in Europe. High income countries especially in Northern-Western Europe are well-served with radiotherapy resources, other countries are facing important shortages of both equipment in general and especially machines capable of delivering high precision conformal treatments (IMRT, IGRT).

Radiotherapy staffing in the European countries: final results from the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND: The ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (HERO) project has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The first milestone was to assess the availability of radiotherapy resources within Europe. This paper presents the personnel data collected in the ESTRO HERO database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy staffing (questionnaire items 47-60), analysed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis was conducted between February and July 2014, and is based on validated responses from 24 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). RESULTS: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. Averages and ranges for personnel numbers per million inhabitants are 12.8 (2.5-30.9) for radiation oncologists, 7.6 (0-19.7) for medical physicists, 3.5 (0-12.6) for dosimetrists, 26.6 (1.9-78) for RTTs and 14.8 (0.4-61.0) for radiotherapy nurses. The combined average for physicists and dosimetrists is 9.8 per million inhabitants and 36.9 for RTT and nurses. Radiation oncologists on average treat 208.9 courses per year (range: 99.9-348.8), physicists and dosimetrists conjointly treat 303.3 courses (range: 85-757.7) and RTT and nurses 76.8 (range: 25.7-156.8). In countries with higher GNI per capita, all personnel categories treat fewer courses per annum than in less affluent countries. This relationship is most evident for RTTs and nurses. Different clusters of countries can be distinguished on the basis of available personnel resources and socio-economic status. CONCLUSIONS: The average personnel figures in Europe are now consistent with, or even more favourable than the QUARTS recommendations, probably reflecting a combination of better availability as such, in parallel with the current use of more complex treatments than a decade ago. A considerable variation in available personnel and delivered courses per year however persists among the highest and lowest staffing levels. This not only reflects the variation in cancer incidence and socio-economic determinants, but also the stage in technology adoption along with treatment complexity and the different professional roles and responsibilities within each country. Our data underpin the need for accurate prediction models and long-term education and training programmes.