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 (PRT2Y) was calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors that influenced the PRT2Y. Analyses of geographic variation in PRT use were also performed for the time period 2012-2016. RESULTS: PRT2Y 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 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.

Guidelines for equipment and staffing of radiotherapy facilities in the European countries: final results of the ESTRO-HERO survey.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In planning to meet evidence based needs for radiotherapy, guidelines for the provision of capital and human resources are central if access, quality and safety are not to be compromised. A component of the ESTRO-HERO (Health Economics in Radiation Oncology) project is to document the current availability and content of guidelines for radiotherapy in Europe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An 84 part questionnaire was distributed to the European countries through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies with 30 items relating to the availability of guidelines for equipment and staffing and selected operational issues. Twenty-nine countries provided full or partial evaluable responses. RESULTS: The availability of guidelines across Europe is far from uniform. The metrics used for capital and human resources are variable. There seem to have been no major changes in the availability or specifics of guidelines over the ten-year period since the QUARTS study with the exception of the recent expansion of RTT staffing models. Where comparison is possible it appears that staffing for radiation oncologists, medical physicists and particularly RTTs tend to exceed guidelines suggesting developments in clinical radiotherapy are moving faster than guideline updating. CONCLUSION: The efficient provision of safe, high quality radiotherapy services would benefit from the availability of well-structured guidelines for capital and human resources, based on agreed upon metrics, which could be linked to detailed estimates of need.

Utilization of radiation therapy in Norway after the implementation of the national cancer plan--a national, population-based study.

PURPOSE: To estimate actual utilization rates of radiation therapy (RT) in Norway, describe time trends (1997-2010), and compare these estimates with corresponding optimal RT rates. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from the population-based Cancer Registry of Norway was used to identify all patients diagnosed with cancer and/or treated by RT for cancer in 1997-2010. Radiation therapy utilization rates (RURs) were calculated as (1) the proportion of incident cancer cases who received RT at least once within 1 year of diagnosis (RUR1Y); and (2) the proportion who received RT within 5 years of diagnosis (RUR5Y). The number of RT treatment courses per incident cancer case (TCI) was also calculated for all cancer sites combined. The actual RURs were compared with corresponding Australian and Canadian epidemiologic- and evidence-based model estimates and criterion-based benchmark estimates of optimal RURs. The TCIs were compared with TCI estimates from the 1997 Norwegian/National Cancer Plan (NCP). Joinpoint regression was used to identify changes in trends and to estimate annual percentage change (APC) in actual RUR1Y and actual TCI. RESULTS: The actual RUR5Y (all sites) increased significantly to 29% in 2005 but still differed markedly from the Australian epidemiologic- and evidence-based model estimate of 48%. With the exception of RUR5Y for breast cancer and RUR1Y for lung cancers, all actual RURs were markedly lower than optimal RUR estimates. The actual TCI increased significantly during the study period, reaching 42.5% in 2010, but was still lower than the 54% recommended in the NCP. The trend for RUR1Y (all sites) and TCI changed significantly, with the annual percentage change being largest during the first part of the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization rates of RT in Norway increased after the NCP was implemented and RT capacity was increased, but they still seem to be lower than optimal levels.

Quality assurance in radiotherapy on a national level; experience from Norway: the KVIST initiative.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In radiotherapy (RT), there are high requirements for quality assurance (QA) in all the steps of the process. Development of QA systems are demanding in terms of financial and human resources. A national QA programme (KVIST) has been established in Norway to facilitate implementation of QA activity on hospital level. METHOD: The KVIST organisation comprises the KVIST team, the reference group (RG) and the working groups (WGs). The KVIST team is multidisciplinary and are employed in permanent positions. The RG acts as an advisory body for the KVIST team in defining and ranking the priority of projects. Relevant national QA projects are identified in collaboration with the RG, and WGs are established to carry out the various projects. RESULT: Several national consensus documents have been prepared by the various WGs. Systems for incident handling and activity reporting have been established and clinical audits have been implemented in Norwegian RT. Guidelines for RT of various diagnoses have also been prepared in collaboration with National Cancer groups. CONCLUSION: The KVIST programme has been very well acknowledged in the Norwegian RT community. It has succeeded in creating a positive attitude towards QA and improved the communication between centres and the various professions.