Waiting times for radiotherapy: variation over time and between cancer networks in southeast England

The aim of this study was to investigate variations in the length of time that patients with cancer wait from diagnosis to treatment with radiotherapy. A total of 57 426 men and 71 018 women diagnosed with cancer between 1992 and 2001 and receiving radiotherapy within 6 months of diagnosis were identified from the Thames Cancer Registry database. In total, 12 sites were identified for which a substantial number or proportion of patients received radiotherapy: head and neck, oesophagus, colon, rectum, lung, nonmelanoma skin cancer, breast, uterus, prostate, bladder, brain and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Median waiting times from diagnosis to radiotherapy were calculated, together with the proportion of patients who received radiotherapy within 60 days of diagnosis, and analysed by year of diagnosis, cancer site, deprivation quintile, age at diagnosis, sex and cancer network of either residence or treatment. Logistic regression was used to adjust the proportion receiving treatment within 60 days for the effects of the other factors. There were significant differences in the proportions receiving radiotherapy within 60 days between different networks and different cancer sites, which remained after adjustment. Median waiting times varied from 42 to 65 days across networks of residence, with the adjusted proportion treated within 60 days ranging from 44 to 71%. There was no difference between male and female patients after adjustment for the other factors, particularly site. There was a highly significant trend over time: the median wait increased from 45 days in 1992 to 76 days in 2001, while the adjusted proportion being treated within 60 days declined by almost a half, from 64 to 35%, over the same period

Factors influencing time from presentation to treatment of colorectal and breast cancer in urban and rural areas

Stage at diagnosis and survival from cancer vary according to where people live, suggesting some may have delays in diagnosis. The aim of this study was to determine if time from presentation to treatment was longer for colorectal and breast cancer patients living further from cancer centres, and identify other important factors in delay. Data were collected on 1097 patients with breast and 1223 with colorectal cancer in north and northeast Scotland. Women with breast cancer who lived further from cancer centres were treated more quickly than those living closer to cancer centres (P = 0.011). Multilevel modelling found that this was largely due to them receiving earlier treatment at hospitals other than cancer centres. Breast lump, change in skin contour, lymphadenopathy, more symptoms and signs, and increasing age predicted faster treatment. Screen detected cancers and private referrals were treated more quickly. For colorectal cancer, time to treatment was similar for people in rural and urban areas. Quicker treatment was associated with palpable rectal or abdominal masses, tenesmus, abdominal pain, frequent GP consultations, age between 50 and 74 years, tumours of the transverse colon, and iron medication at presentation. Delay was associated with past anxiety or depression. There was variation between general practices and treatment appeared quicker at practices with more female general practitioners

Radiotherapy waiting times for women with breast cancer: a population-based cohort study

Background: Waiting times for cancer patients are a national priority in the UK. Previous studies have shown variation between cancer networks in the time between diagnosis and start of radiotherapy for all cancer patients. Studies of the relationship between delay in receiving treatment and survival of breast cancer patients have been inconsistent. This study aimed to examine factors associated with waiting times for radiotherapy for breast cancer patients. Methods: 35,354 women resident in South East England and diagnosed with breast cancer between 1992 and 2001 who received radiotherapy within six months of diagnosis were identified from the Thames Cancer Registry. Time to radiotherapy was measured from either the date of diagnosis or the start of the previous treatment, whichever was shorter. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were fitted to examine whether patients received radiotherapy within 60 days of their diagnosis or previous treatment. Results: The adjusted proportions of patients receiving radiotherapy within 60 days varied significantly between different cancer networks (range: 43% to 81%), and decreased from 68% in 1992 to 33% in 2001. After adjustment there was no association between deprivation of area of residence, age or stage and radiotherapy wait. Median time waited to radiotherapy increased over the study period whether measured from the start of chemotherapy, hormone therapy, surgery or the date of diagnosis. Conclusion: This study covered a period of time before the investment following the Cancer Plan of 2000. Results are consistent with other findings suggesting variation between cancer networks and increasing waits over time. Further studies should examine different methods of measuring waiting time, the causes and consequences of waits for radiotherapy and the effect of current initiatives and investments

Socioeconomic background in relation to stage at diagnosis, treatment and survival in women with breast cancer

In a large population-based series of invasive breast cancer patients, we investigated socioeconomic background (SEB) in relation to (a) stage at diagnosis; (b) treatment pattern; and (c) 5-year survival. Women diagnosed during 1998–2000 and resident in the Northern and Yorkshire regions of England were identified from the cancer registry database (N¼12 768). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to estimate associations between SEB (defined using the Townsend Index for area of residence) and tumour stage, treatment pattern, and survival. Living in a more deprived area was associated with increased likelihood of being diagnosed with stage III or IV disease (age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–1.18 per quartile increase in Townsend score), and, after adjustment for age and stage, reduced odds of having surgery (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.80–0.91), and receiving radiotherapy (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.88–0.94). Amongst patients receiving surgery, those living in more deprived areas had decreased odds of having breast conserving surgery (age plus stage-adjusted OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.89–0.95). Living in a more deprived area was also associated with increased mortality (age- plus stage-adjusted hazard ratio 1.08; 95% CI 1.05–1.11). These effects may operate through several pathways, such as later presentation leading to advanced disease.http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v96/n5/abs/6603622a.htm

Socioeconomic background in relation to stage at diagnosis, treatment and survival in women with breast cancer

In a large population-based series of invasive breast cancer patients, we investigated socioeconomic background (SEB) in relation to (a) stage at diagnosis; (b) treatment pattern; and (c) 5-year survival. Women diagnosed during 1998–2000 and resident in the Northern and Yorkshire regions of England were identified from the cancer registry database (N¼12 768). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to estimate associations between SEB (defined using the Townsend Index for area of residence) and tumour stage, treatment pattern, and survival. Living in a more deprived area was associated with increased likelihood of being diagnosed with stage III or IV disease (age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08–1.18 per quartile increase in Townsend score), and, after adjustment for age and stage, reduced odds of having surgery (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.80–0.91), and receiving radiotherapy (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.88–0.94). Amongst patients receiving surgery, those living in more deprived areas had decreased odds of having breast conserving surgery (age plus stage-adjusted OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.89–0.95). Living in a more deprived area was also associated with increased mortality (age- plus stage-adjusted hazard ratio 1.08; 95% CI 1.05–1.11). These effects may operate through several pathways, such as later presentation leading to advanced disease.http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v96/n5/abs/6603622a.htm

Effects of specialisation on treatment and outcomes in screen-detected breast cancers in Wales: cohort study

Volume–outcome relationships have been found for management of symptomatic but not for screen-detected, breast cancers. The study included 2705 patients with breast cancer detected by the Welsh breast cancer-screening programme from its inception in 1989 to 1997. Survival was tracked until 1999. Data validity was assessed for 10% of subjects. Hospitals' and surgeons' annual patient volumes were calculated as indices of specialisation. Effects of hospital and surgeon volumes on survival were estimated using Cox regression. Surgeons' and hospitals' volumes ranged from 1 to 90, and 1 to 86 patients, respectively. Patients managed by higher volume surgeons survived significantly longer (adjusted hazards ratio for a volume difference of 10 patients per year=0.90 (95% confidence intervals 0.84–0.97)). The adjusted hazard ratio for breast cancer survival was similar (0.91 (95% confidence intervals 0.82–1.00)). This association decreased over time. Patients of higher volume surgeons were significantly more likely to have axillary surgery and impalpable excision biopsies and were less likely to have mastectomy or radiotherapy. Surgeons' specialisation in management of screen-detected breast cancers was associated with longer survival, but this effect appeared to decrease over time