Search

Summary Background The growing demand for cancer surgery has placed a global strain on health systems. In-depth analyses of the global demand for cancer surgery and optimal workforce requirements are needed to plan service provision. We estimated the global demand for cancer surgery and the requirements for an optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce, using benchmarks based on clinical guidelines. Methods Using models of benchmark surgical use based on clinical guidelines, we estimated the proportion of cancer cases with an indication for surgery across 183 countries, stratified by income group. These proportions were multiplied by age-adjusted national estimates of new cancer cases using GLOBOCAN 2018 data and then aggregated to obtain the estimated number of surgical procedures required globally. The numbers of cancer surgical procedures in 44 high-income countries were divided by the actual number of surgeons and anaesthetists in the respective countries to calculate cancer procedures per surgeon and anaesthetist ratios. Using the median (IQR) of these ratios as benchmarks, we developed a three-tiered optimal surgical and anaesthesia workforce matrix, and the predictions were extrapolated up to 2040. Findings Our model estimates that the number of cancer cases globally with an indication for surgery will increase by 5 million procedures (52%) between 2018 (9 065 000) and 2040 (13 821 000). The greatest relative increase in surgical demand will occur in 34 low-income countries, where we also observed the largest gaps in workforce requirements. To match the median benchmark for high-income countries, the surgical workforce in these countries would need to increase by almost four times and the anaesthesia workforce by nearly 5·5 times. The greatest increase in optimal workforce requirements from 2018 to 2040 will occur in low-income countries (from 28 000 surgeons to 58 000 surgeons; 107% increase), followed by lower-middle-income countries (from 166 000 surgeons to 277 000 surgeons; 67% increase). Interpretation The global demand for cancer surgery and the optimal workforce are predicted to increase over the next two decades and disproportionately affect low-income countries. These estimates provide an appropriate framework for planning the provision of surgical services for cancer worldwide. Funding University of New South Wales Scientia Scholarship and UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund.

Summary Background The incidence of cancer (excluding non-melanomatous skin cancers) is projected to rise from 17·0 million to 26·0 million between 2018 and 2040. A large proportion of these patients would be likely to derive benefit from chemotherapy, but no studies so far have quantified current and projected global chemotherapy demands. We aimed to estimate changes in national, regional, and global demands for first-course chemotherapy and the cancer physician workforce between 2018 and 2040 if all patients were treated according to best-practice evidence-based guidelines. Methods Data for the incidence of 29 types of cancer in 183 countries in 2018, and projections of incidence in 2040, were obtained from GLOBOCAN 2018. Optimal chemotherapy utilisation from evidence-based guidelines was applied to these incidence data to generate the number of new patients requiring first-course chemotherapy in 2018 and 2040. We then estimated the corresponding cancer physician workforce required to deliver this chemotherapy (on the basis of physicians seeing 150 new patients requiring chemotherapy per year). We did sensitivity analyses to investigate how cancer stage at presentation affected chemotherapy demands. We also did sensitivity analyses to explore changes to workforce requirements if each physician was seeing 100 new patients requiring chemotherapy per year or 300 new patients requiring chemotherapy per year. Findings Between 2018 and 2040, the number of patients requiring first-course chemotherapy annually will increase from 9·8 million to 15·0 million, a relative increase of 53%. The estimated proportion of patients needing chemotherapy who reside in low-income or middle-income countries was 63% (6 162 240 of 9 782 783) in 2018, and will be 67% (10 071 049 of 14 984 560) in 2040. The most common indications for chemotherapy worldwide in 2040 will be lung cancer (accounting for 2 455 137 [16·4%] of 14 984 560 cases eligible for chemotherapy), breast cancer (1 898 740 [12·7%]), and colorectal cancer (1 678 153 [11·1%]). We estimated that, in 2018, 65 000 cancer physicians were required worldwide to deliver optimal chemotherapy—a figure that we estimate will rise to 100 000 by 2040 (with estimates ranging from from 50 000 to 150 000, depending on workload). Interpretation Strategic investments in chemotherapy service provision and cancer physicians are needed to meet the projected increased demand for chemotherapy in 2040. Funding None.

Objective To investigate the value (survival benefit and cost) of first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer at a population level. Methods Based on guideline recommendations, a model of optimal utilisation was constructed for first-line chemotherapy and targeted therapy in breast cancer, calculating the survival benefit and average cost of all regimens recommended for each treatment indication at 5 years and at 10 years. Results Survival benefits from chemotherapy and targeted therapy differ markedly depending on the treatment indications. The cost per life-year gained at 5 years is $38,044 for stages I and II, $33,749 for stage III and $ 151,668 for patients presenting with stage IV breast cancer. The cost per life-year gained at 10 years is $ 13,587 for early breast cancer. The most expensive chemotherapy indication in breast cancer is the treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer costing $330,978 per LYG for a survival benefit of 11% at 5 years falling to zero survival benefit at 10 years. Conclusion There are large differences in value between the different indications for first-course chemotherapy and targeted therapy in the treatment of breast cancer that should be considered when pricing cancer drugs.

Summary Background Estimating a population-level benchmark rate for use of surgery in the management of cancer helps to identify treatment gaps, estimate the survival impact of such gaps, and benchmark the workforce and other resources, including budgets, required to meet service needs. A population-based benchmark for use of surgery in high-income settings to inform policy makers and service provision has not been developed but was recommended by the Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery. We aimed to develop and validate a cancer surgery benchmarking model. Methods We examined the latest clinical guidelines from high-income countries (Australia, the UK, the EU, the USA, and Canada) and mapped surgical treatment pathways for 30 malignant cancer sites (19 individual sites and 11 grouped as other cancers) that were notifiable in Australia in 2014, broadly reflecting contemporary high-income models of care. The optimal use of surgery was considered as an indication for surgery where surgery is the treatment of choice for a given clinical scenario. Population-based epidemiological data, such as cancer stage, tumour characteristics, and fitness for surgery, were derived from Australia and other similar high-income settings for 2017. The probabilities across the clinical pathways of each cancer were multiplied and added together to estimate the population-level benchmark rates of cancer surgery, and further validated with the comparisons of observed rates of cancer surgery in the South Western Sydney Local Health District in 2006–12. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were done to explore uncertainty around model inputs, with mean (95% CI) benchmark surgery rates estimated on the basis of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations. Findings Surgical treatment was indicated in 58% (95% CI 57–59) of newly diagnosed patients with cancer in Australia in 2014 at least once during the course of their treatment, but varied by site from 23% (17–27) for prostate cancer to 99% (96–99) for testicular cancer. Observed cancer surgery rates in South Western Sydney were comparable to the benchmarks for most cancers, but were higher for some cancers, such as prostate (absolute increase of 29%) and lower for others, such as lung (−14%). Interpretation The model provides a new template for high-income and emerging economies to rationally plan and assess their cancer surgery provision. There are differences in modelled versus observed surgery rates for some cancers, requiring more in-depth analysis of the observed differences. Funding University of New South Wales Scientia Scholarship, UK Research and Innovation-Global Challenges Research Fund.

Accurate delineation of the proximal bronchial tree (PBT) is crucial for appropriate assessment of lung tumor centrality and choice of Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy (SABR) dose prescription. Here, we investigate variabilities in manual PBT delineation and their potential to influence assessing lesion centrality. A fully automatic, intensity-based tool for PBT contouring and measuring distance to the target is also described. This retrospective analysis included a total of 61 patients treated with lung SABR. A subset of 41 patients was used as a training dataset, containing clinical PBT contour and additional subsequently generated manual contours. The tool was optimized and compared against manual contours in terms of volume, distance to the target and various overlap/similarity metrics. The remaining 20 patients were used as a validation dataset to investigate the dosimetric effects of variations between manual and automatic PBT contours. Considerable interobserver variability was observed, particularly in identifying the superior and inferior borders of the PBT. Automatic PBT contours were comparable to manual contours with average Dice of 0.63 to 0.79 and mean distance to agreement of 1.78 to 3.34 mm. No significant differences in dosimetric parameters were found between automatically and manually generated contours. A moderate negative correlation was found between PBT maximum dose and distance to the lesion (p < 0.05). Variability in manual PBT delineation may result in inconsistent assessment of tumor centrality. Automatic contouring can help standardize clinical practice, support investigations into the link between SABR outcomes and lesion proximity to central airways and the development of predictive toxicity models that incorporate precise measurements of tumor location in relation to high-risk organs.

Background: Estimating the optimum rate for utilization of surgery in the management of cancer helps to identify treatment gaps, estimate the survival impact of such gaps and to calculate the optimum workforce and other resources including budgets required to meet service needs. A population-based benchmark rate for optimum surgical utilization in high income settings has not been developed to inform policymakers and service provision but was recommended by the Lancet Oncology Commission into Global Cancer Surgery. Here we have developed and validated the first such instrument. Methods: The latest clinical guidelines were examined, and surgical treatment pathways were mapped for each cancer, broadly reflecting contemporary high income models of care. The optimum utilization of surgery was considered as an indication for surgery where surgery is the treatment of choice for a given clinical scenario. The population based epidemiological data such as stage of cancer, tumour characteristics, and fitness for surgery were derived from Australia and other comparable high-income settings. The probabilities across the clinical pathways of each cancer was multiplied and added together to estimate the optimum rates of cancer surgical utilization and compared with actual rates of utilization. Findings: Surgical treatment is indicated in 58% (95% CI 57% to 59%) of newly diagnosed cancer patients in Australia, at least once during the course of their treatment but varies between 22% and 99% for site specific cancers. The actual utilization was higher for some cancers including prostate, head &neck and cervix, whereas it was lower for other cancers such as lung, ovary and pancreas. Interpretation: There are discordances in modelled versus actual utilisation rates that require more in depth analysis. This approach provides a new template for other high income and emerging economies to rationally plan and assess their cancer surgery provision. Funding Statement: University of New South Wales Scientia Scholarship. Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Ethics Approval Statement: The data on the actual surgical utilization from the South Western Sydney Clinical Cancer Registry was obtained with necessary ethical clearance.

There is wide variation in the proportion of newly diagnosed cancer patients who receive chemotherapy, indicating the need for a benchmark rate of chemotherapy utilisation. This study describes an evidence-based model that estimates the proportion of new cancer patients in whom chemotherapy is indicated at least once (defined as the optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate). The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can act as a benchmark for measuring and improving the quality of care. Models of optimal chemotherapy utilisation were constructed for each cancer site based on indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient- and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained, using population-based data where possible. Treatment indications and epidemiological data were merged to calculate the optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate. Monte Carlo simulations and sensitivity analyses were used to assess the effect of controversial chemotherapy indications and variations in epidemiological data on our model. Chemotherapy is indicated at least once in 49.1% (95% confidence interval 48.8-49.6%) of all new cancer patients in Australia. The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rates for individual tumour sites ranged from a low of 13% in thyroid cancers to a high of 94% in myeloma. The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can serve as a benchmark for planning chemotherapy services on a population basis. The model can be used to evaluate service delivery by comparing the benchmark rate with patterns of care data. The overall estimate for other countries can be obtained by substituting the relevant distribution of cancer types. It can also be used to predict future chemotherapy workload and can be easily modified to take into account future changes in cancer incidence, presentation stage or chemotherapy indications.

Purpose We aimed to estimate the optimal proportion of all gynecological cancers that should be treated with brachytherapy (BT)—the optimal brachytherapy utilization rate (BTU)—to compare this with actual gynecological BTU and to assess the effects of nonmedical factors on access to BT. Methods and Materials The previously constructed inter/multinational guideline-based peer-reviewed models of optimal BTU for cancers of the uterine cervix, uterine corpus, and vagina were combined to estimate optimal BTU for all gynecological cancers. The robustness of the model was tested by univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses. The resulting model was applied to New South Wales (NSW), the United States, and Western Europe. Actual BTU was determined for NSW by a retrospective patterns-of-care study of BT; for Western Europe from published reports; and for the United States from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. Differences between optimal and actual BTU were assessed. The effect of nonmedical factors on access to BT in NSW were analyzed. Results Gynecological BTU was as follows: NSW 28% optimal (95% confidence interval [CI] 26%-33%) compared with 14% actual; United States 30% optimal (95% CI 26%-34%) and 10% actual; and Western Europe 27% optimal (95% CI 25%-32%) and 16% actual. On multivariate analysis, NSW patients were more likely to undergo gynecological BT if residing in Area Health Service equipped with BT (odds ratio 1.76, P=.008) and if residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged postcodes (odds ratio 1.12, P=.05), but remoteness of residence was not significant. Conclusions Gynecological BT is underutilized in NSW, Western Europe, and the United States given evidence-based guidelines. Access to BT equipment in NSW was significantly associated with higher utilization rates. Causes of underutilization elsewhere were undetermined. Our model of optimal BTU can be used as a quality assurance tool, providing an evidence-based benchmark against which actual patterns of practice can be measured. It can also be used to assist in determining the adequacy of BT resource allocation.

Background Different jurisdictions report different breast cancer treatment rates. Evidence-based optimal utilization models may be specific to the derived population. We compared predicted optimal with actual endocrine and chemotherapy utilization in British Columbia, Canada; Dundee, Scotland; and Perth, Western Australia. Design Data were analyzed for differences in demography, tumour, and treatment. Epidemiological data were fitted to published Australian optimal radiotherapy utilization trees and region-specific optimal treatment rates were calculated. Optimal and actual systemic therapy rates from 2 population-based and 1 institution-based cancer registries were compared for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000–2004, and 2002 for British Columbia. Results Chemotherapy rates differed between British Columbia (32%), Perth (29%), and Dundee (24%, p = 0.014 ). Endocrine therapy rates were similar between British Columbia (56%), Perth (59%), and Dundee (64%, p > 0.05 ). Actual utilization rates were lower than optimal estimates for chemotherapy, but higher for endocrine therapy. Region-specific optimal utilization rates at diagnosis varied between 50–56% for chemotherapy, and 49–54% for endocrine therapy. Variation was attributed to local differences in demographics, and tumour stage. Conclusion Actual treatment rates varied. There was lower than estimated optimal chemotherapy use but higher than expected use of endocrine therapy.

Introduction: Having previously modelled the optimal proportion of uterine cervix and corpus cancers that should be treated with brachytherapy (BT), we aimed to complete the assessment of the role of BT for gynaecological cancers by estimating the optimal proportion of vaginal cancer cases that should be treated with BT, the optimal BT utilisation (BTU) rate for vaginal cancer. We compared this with actual vaginal BTU and assessed quality of BT for vaginal cancer by a Patterns-of-Care Study (POCS). Methods: Evidence-based guidelines were used to construct an optimal BTU decision tree for vaginal cancer. Searches of the epidemiological literature to ascertain the proportion of patients who fulfilled the criteria for BT were conducted. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses and by peer review. A retrospective POCS of BT in New South Wales (NSW) for 2003 was conducted, and actual BTU for vaginal cancer was determined. Differences between optimal and actual BTU were assessed. Quality of BT for vaginal cancer was compared with published benchmarks. Results: The optimal vaginal cancer BTU rate was estimated to be 85% (range 81–87%). In NSW in 2003, actual vaginal cancer BTU was only 42% (95% confidence interval 22–62%). In NSW, only nine patients were treated, all with intra-vaginal cylinders, and two of four to lower than recommended doses. Conclusions: BT for vaginal cancers is underutilised in NSW compared with the proposed optimal models of care. BT quality may have been suboptimal and this may relate to the rarity of this disease.

Background Published chemotherapy utilization rates for rectal cancer show considerable variation. Optimal chemotherapy utilization rates can serve as benchmarks to assess the quality of cancer care. The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal proportion of patients with rectal cancer who should receive chemotherapy at least once. Patients and Methods An optimal chemotherapy utilization tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Epidemiologic data were merged with treatment indications to calculate an optimal chemotherapy utilization rate; this rate was compared with reported actual rates of chemotherapy utilization. Results Chemotherapy is indicated at least once in 64% of patients with rectal cancer. Although the actual (Australian and United States data) and optimal utilization rates are comparable for patients presenting in stages II or III rectal cancer, actual utilization rates are higher than the optimal for stage I and lower than optimal for patients presenting in stage IV rectal cancer. Conclusion Chemotherapy may be under-utilized in the initial management of patients presenting with metastatic rectal cancer.

Background: Evidence-based optimal utilization models provide estimates of optimal radiotherapy, chemotherapy and hormonal therapy utilization by stage and other clinically relevant patient sub-groups. We therefore compared predicted utilization with actual utilization of radiotherapy, hormone therapy and chemotherapy in 3 jurisdictions with population-based stage and treatment data: British Columbia, Canada; Dundee, Scotland; and Perth, Western Australia. Methods: Previously published optimal radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and endocrine therapy treatment utilization trees for an Australian population were modified to incorporate epidemiological data from British Columbia, Dundee, and Perth, such that the optimal trees for each region reflected the casemix for each region. Frequency data on patient, tumour, and surgical factors were used to calculate optimal treatment rates for each region. Optimal rates were then compared with actual rates of surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and endocrine therapy use obtained from 2 population-based and 1 institution-based cancer registries for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 to 2004. Information on region-specific treatment guidelines was also collected. Results: Region-specific optimal treatment utilization rates at diagnosis varied between 80% and 81% for radiotherapy (62 to 64% when patient preference is taken into account), 53% to 56% for chemotherapy, and 49% to 54% for endocrine therapy. The predicted ranges were due to local variations in demographics, and tumour stage. Actual radiotherapy utilization was 57%, 49%, and 52%; chemotherapy utilization was 32%, 24%, and 29%; and endocrine therapy utilization was 56%, 64%, and 52% for British Columbia, Dundee, and Perth, respectively. Conclusion: There are significant differences in actual treatment utilisation rates between the study populations. It is unlikely that all of this variation is due to differences in tumour characteristics alone. Actual utilization rates were lower than the calculated optimal rates for radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and higher for endocrine therapy. Differences between actual regional rates of treatment utilization were seen, and were associated with differences in mastectomy rates, and guideline recommendations for treatment use in that region. This methodology allows comparison of the treatment that occurs in a jurisdiction against what would be considered optimal based on evidence. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2010;70(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-11-11.

Background The proportion of breast cancer patients that received chemotherapy varies widely in high-income countries. An evidence-based estimate of the optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate for a breast cancer population may serve as a useful benchmark for measuring and improving the quality of care. Methods An optimal chemotherapy utilisation model was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient (age, performance status and preference) and tumour (stage, size, grade, nodal status, hormone receptor and HER2 status) attributes were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate an optimal utilisation rate. This model was peer-reviewed by a panel of independent experts. Results Chemotherapy was indicated in 17 of the 24 possible clinical scenarios depicted in the optimal utilisation model. The estimated optimal proportion of breast cancer patients who should received chemotherapy at least once was 68%. Sensitivity analyses showed that the range of optimal rate was 60–69%. The optimal rate appears to be substantially higher than the reported actual rates (29–49%). Conclusion It is possible to generate an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate in breast cancer to serve as an evidence-based benchmark. The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate in breast cancer has remained largely unchanged over the past 15 years. The reported actual utilisation rates of chemotherapy in breast cancer populations appear to have remained below the estimated optimal rate, suggesting that potential opportunities for improvement in the compliance to guideline recommended care exist.

Background Optimal chemotherapy (CT) utilisation rates can serve as benchmarks to assess the quality of cancer care. This study aims to determine the optimal proportion of patients with colon cancer that should receive chemotherapy at least once. Methods An optimal chemotherapy utilisation tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate (CTU rate). This optimal rate was compared with reported actual rates of chemotherapy utilisation. Results Chemotherapy is indicated at least once in 55% of patients with colon cancer. While 89% of colon cancer patients presenting with Stage IV disease should optimally receive chemotherapy, 38–52% actually received chemotherapy as part of their initial treatment. Conclusion The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can serve as an evidence-based benchmark in the planning and evaluation of chemotherapy services. Chemotherapy may be under-utilised in the initial management of patients presenting with metastatic colon cancer.

Background We estimated the optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate for head and neck cancer as a benchmark for measuring and improving the quality of cancer care. Methods An optimal chemotherapy utilisation tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy that were identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate the optimal utilisation rate. The robustness of the model was tested with sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo simulation. The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate was compared with actual utilisation rates reported. Results Chemotherapy is indicated at least once in 36% (95% CI, 33–38%) of all patients with head and neck carcinoma. The optimal utilisation rates by subsites were as follows: lip, 8%; oral cavity, 40%; nasopharynx, 69%; oropharynx, 66%; hypopharynx, 74%; larynx, 43%; salivary gland, 48% and paranasal sinus with nasal cavity, 38%. Conclusions The optimal proportion of patients who should receive chemotherapy in the head and neck carcinoma population has risen significantly over the past 20 years. This temporal rise does not appear to be reflected in the limited actual utilisation rates that are available for comparison. Large population-based studies are recommended to further assess the current practice and compliance to guideline recommended care.

Purpose Brachytherapy (BT) is an important treatment technique for uterine corpus malignancies. We modeled the optimal proportion of these cases that should be treated with BT—the optimal rate of brachytherapy utilization (BTU). We compared this optimal BTU rate with the actual BTU rate. Methods and Materials Evidence-based guidelines and the primary evidence were used to construct a decision tree for BTU for malignancies of the uterine corpus. Searches of the literature to ascertain the proportion of patients who fulfilled the criteria for BT were conducted. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses and peer review. A retrospective Patterns of Care Study of BT in New South Wales for 2003 was conducted, and the actual BTU for uterine corpus malignancies was determined. The actual BTU in other geographic areas was calculated from published reports. The differences between the optimal and actual rates of BTU were assessed. Results The optimal uterine corpus BTU rate was estimated to be 40% (range, 36–49%). In New South Wales in 2003, the actual BTU rate was only 14% of the 545 patients with uterine corpus cancer. The actual BTU rate in 2001 was 11% in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results areas and 30% in Sweden. Conclusion The results of this study have shown that BT for uterine corpus malignancies is underused in New South Wales and in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results areas. Our model of optimal BTU can be used as a quality assurance tool, providing an evidence-based benchmark against which can be measured actual patterns of practice. It can also be used to assist in determining the adequacy of BT resource allocation.

Background and purpose We aimed to construct an evidence-based model of optimal treatment utilisation for prostate cancer, incorporating all local treatment modalities: radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), and brachytherapy (BT); and then to compare this optimal model with actual practice. Materials and methods Evidence-based guidelines were used to construct a prostate cancer treatment decision-tree. The proportion of patients who fulfilled treatment criteria was drawn from the epidemiological literature. These data were combined to calculate the overall proportion of patients that should optimally have RP, EBRT and/or BT at least once during the course of their disease. The model was peer reviewed and tested by sensitivity analyses and compared with actual practice. Results Optimal utilisation rates, at some point during the disease course, were: RP, 24% (range 15–30%); EBRT, 58% (range 54–64%); BT, 9.6% (range 6.0–17.9%); and any RT, 60% (range 56–66%). Many patients had indications for more than one of these treatments, and at least one of these treatments was indicated in 76% of patients. The model was sensitive to patient preference estimates. Optimal rates were achievable in some health care jurisdictions. Conclusions Modelling optimal utilisation of all local treatment options for a particular cancer is possible. These optimal prostate cancer treatment rates can be used as a planning and quality assurance tool, providing an evidence-based benchmark against which can be measured patterns of practice.

Aims. The proportion of patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers that received chemotherapy varies widely in Australia and internationally, indicating a need for a benchmark rate of chemotherapy utilisation. We developed evidence-based models for upper gastrointestinal cancers to estimate the optimal chemotherapy utilisation rates that can serve as useful benchmarks for measuring and improving the quality of care.Materials and Methods. Optimal chemotherapy utilisation models for cancers of the oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, gallbladder, and primary liver were constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based guidelines.Results. Based on the best available evidence, the optimal proportion of upper gastrointestinal cancers that should receive chemotherapy at least once during the course of the patients’ illness was estimated to be 79% for oesophageal cancer, 83% for gastric cancer, 35% for pancreatic cancer, 80% for gallbladder cancer, and 27% for primary liver cancer.Conclusions. The reported chemotherapy utilisation rates for upper gastrointestinal cancers (with the exception of primary liver cancer) appear to be substantially lower than the estimated optimal rates suggesting that chemotherapy may be underutilised. Further studies to elucidate the reasons for the potential underutilisation of chemotherapy in upper gastrointestinal tumours are required to bridge the gap between the ideal and actual practice identified.

BACKGROUND Radiotherapy is used commonly in the treatment of patients with head and neck carcinoma. The benchmark radiotherapy utilization rates for head and neck carcinoma largely are unknown. The objective of the current study was to determine the optimal radiotherapy utilization rate for patients with head and neck carcinoma and to compare this optimal rate with actual utilization rates where actual utilization data were available. METHODS An optimal radiotherapy utilization tree was constructed that depicted all patients with head and neck carcinoma in whom radiotherapy was indicated according to evidence-based treatment guidelines. The proportions of patients with clinical attributes that indicated possible benefit from radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiological data and were inserted into the utilization tree. The optimal proportion of patients with carcinoma of the head and neck who should receive radiotherapy was calculated by merging the evidence-based recommendations with the epidemiological data in the tree. Optimal rates of radiotherapy utilization were compared with actual rates obtained from population-based studies. RESULTS Radiotherapy was indicated at some point during their illness in 74% of all patients with head and neck carcinoma. By subsite, the optimal radiotherapy utilization rates were oral cavity, 74%; lip, 20%; larynx, 100%; oropharynx, 100%; salivary gland, 87%; hypopharynx, 100%; nasopharynx, 100%; paranasal sinuses, 100%; and unknown squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck, 90%. All treatment recommendations were based on Level III or IV evidence. Assessment of actual radiotherapy utilization rates indicated an increased use of radiotherapy over time for head and neck carcinoma. However, there also were some decreases in the use of radiotherapy for some carcinoma subsites over the past 20 years, despite the lower actual rates compared with the optimal rates. The reasons for these reductions in use were not identified. CONCLUSIONS The actual radiotherapy utilization rate for patients with head and neck carcinoma corresponded reasonably closely to the optimal rate for some populations but also identified some shortfalls for other patient groups. The results of this study provide a way of assessing shortfalls in radiotherapy. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to estimate the ideal proportion of new patients with leukemia and myeloma who should receive radiotherapy at some time during the course of their illness based on the best evidence. METHODS Available evidence of the efficacy of radiotherapy in most clinical situations for leukemia and myeloma was identified through extensive literature reviews and treatment guideline searches. Epidemiologic data concerning the distribution of types, disease stages, and other factors that influence the use of radiotherapy were identified. Decision trees were constructed to merge the evidence-based recommendations with the epidemiological data to calculate the optimal proportion of patients who should receive radiotherapy according to the best available evidence. Actual radiotherapy utilization rates also were identified. RESULTS The proportion of patients diagnosed with myeloma in Australia who should receive radiotherapy based on the evidence was 38%. There was wide variation in the proportion of patients who actually received radiotherapy for myeloma from 24% up to 55%. The recommended proportion of patients diagnosed with myeloma in Australia who, according to the best available evidence, should receive at least a single course of radiotherapy was 38%. The proportion of patients diagnosed in Australia with leukemia who should receive radiotherapy at some point in their management, according to the best available evidence, was calculated at 4%, which corresponded with actual practice. CONCLUSIONS Further research will be required to determine why more patients who are diagnosed with myeloma are not treated with radiotherapy. Cancer 2005. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

Background The objective of this study was to estimate the ideal proportion of new patients with leukemia and myeloma who should receive radiotherapy at some time during the course of their illness based on the best evidence. Methods Available evidence of the efficacy of radiotherapy in most clinical situations for leukemia and myeloma was identified through extensive literature reviews and treatment guideline searches. Epidemiologic data concerning the distribution of types, disease stages, and other factors that influence the use of radiotherapy were identified. Decision trees were constructed to merge the evidence-based recommendations with the epidemiological data to calculate the optimal proportion of patients who should receive radiotherapy according to the best available evidence. Actual radiotherapy utilization rates also were identified. Results The proportion of patients diagnosed with myeloma in Australia who should receive radiotherapy based on the evidence was 38%. There was wide variation in the proportion of patients who actually received radiotherapy for myeloma from 24% up to 55%. The recommended proportion of patients diagnosed with myeloma in Australia who, according to the best available evidence, should receive at least a single course of radiotherapy was 38%. The proportion of patients diagnosed in Australia with leukemia who should receive radiotherapy at some point in their management, according to the best available evidence, was calculated at 4%, which corresponded with actual practice. Conclusions Further research will be required to determine why more patients who are diagnosed with myeloma are not treated with radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy utilization rates for cancer vary widely, both within and between countries. The optimal proportion of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies who should receive at least one course of radiotherapy at some time during their illness is an important benchmark.The authors studied treatment guidelines and treatment reviews to identify the indications for radiotherapy for patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Optimal radiotherapy utilization trees were constructed to show the clinical attributes of patients with gastrointestinal carcinomas who will benefit from radiotherapy. Epidemiologic incidence data for each of these clinical attributes were obtained to calculate the optimal proportion of all patients with gastrointestinal malignancies for whom radiotherapy was considered appropriate. Optimal rates of radiotherapy use were compared with actual rates in population-based studies to assess any discrepancies between actual and optimal radiotherapy utilization rates.Radiotherapy was indicated in 80% of patients with esophageal carcinoma, 68% of patients with gastric carcinoma, 57% of patients with pancreatic carcinoma, 13% of patients with carcinoma of the gallbladder, 0% of patients with hepatic carcinoma, 14% of patients with colon carcinoma, and 61% of patients with rectal carcinoma. The actual radiotherapy utilization rates for most of these gastrointestinal malignancies fell well short of optimal rates, which were derived from evidence-based treatment guidelines.It is possible to model optimal radiotherapy utilization using published treatment guidelines and existing incidence data. There was a discrepancy between the optimal and actual rates of radiotherapy utilization for patients with carcinomas of the esophagus, stomach, pancreas, and rectum. Strategies to implement evidence-based clinical guidelines are recommended.

Radiotherapy utilization rates for breast carcinoma vary widely, both within and between countries. Current estimates of the proportion of patients with carcinoma who optimally should receive radiotherapy are based either on expert opinion or on the measurement of actual utilization rates, and not on the best scientific evidence.To develop an evidence-based benchmark for radiotherapy utilization in patients with breast carcinoma, the authors undertook a systematic review of treatment guidelines on the use of radiotherapy for breast carcinoma. A decision tree was constructed, and the proportions of patients with clinical features that lead to a decision for radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiological data. This ideal utilization rate was compared with the utilization rates of radiotherapy over the last decade for breast carcinoma in Australia and internationally.The proportion of patients with breast carcinoma in whom radiotherapy would be recommended according to the best available evidence was calculated at 83% (95% confidence interval, 82-85%) of all patients with breast carcinoma. A review of actual radiotherapy utilization rates for breast carcinoma revealed that, in clinical practice, actual utilization rates varied between 24% and 71%.A substantial difference was found between the recommended optimal utilization of radiotherapy based on evidence and the actual rates reported in clinical practice. The reasons for these differences need to be examined, and a plan for addressing the suboptimal use of radiotherapy needs to be implemented. Cancer 2003.

Palliative radiotherapy is effective in the treatment of bone metastases but is under-utilized, possibly because it is perceived to be expensive. We performed a cost-utility analysis of palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, evaluating both the actual cost of radiotherapy as well as its impact on quality of life by adjusting for the variation in response to treatment. Hospital records between July 1991 and July 1996 were reviewed to ascertain the number of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases, the average number of fields of radiation delivered to each patient and the average duration of survival. Partial and complete response rates to palliative radiotherapy were obtained from a review of all published randomized controlled trials of radiation treatment of bone metastases. Utility values were assigned to the response rates, and an overall adjusted response rate to radiotherapy was derived. The cost of delivering a field of radiation was calculated. The total cost was divided by the total number of response months to give a utility-adjusted cost per month of palliative radiotherapy. The utility-adjusted cost per month of palliative radiotherapy of bone metastases was found to be AUS dollars 100 per month or AUS dollars 1200 per utility-adjusted life-year. This study demonstrates that, contrary to popular perception, palliative radiotherapy is a cost-effective treatment modality for bone metastases.

Background and Purpose In 2003 we estimated that 52.3% of new cases of cancer in Australia had an indication for external beam radiotherapy at least once at some time during the course of their illness. This update reviews the contemporary evidence to define the optimal proportion of new cancers that would benefit from radiotherapy as part of their treatment and estimates the changes to the optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate from 2003 to 2012. Materials and Methods National and international guidelines were reviewed for external beam radiotherapy indications in the management of cancers. Epidemiological data on the proportion of new cases of cancer with each indication for radiotherapy were identified. Indications and epidemiological data were merged to develop an optimal radiotherapy utilisation tree. Univariate and Monte Carlo simulations were used in sensitivity analysis. Results The overall optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate (external beam radiotherapy) for all registered cancers in Australia changed from 52.3% in 2003 to 48.3% in 2012. Overall 8.9% of all cancer patients in Australia have at least one indication for concurrent chemo-radiotherapy during the course of their illness. Conclusions The reduction in the radiotherapy utilisation rate was due to changes in epidemiological data, changes to radiotherapy indications and refinements of the model structure.

Different jurisdictions report different breast cancer treatment rates. Evidence-based utilization models may be specific to derived populations. We compared predicted optimal with actual radiotherapy utilization in British Columbia, Canada; Dundee, Scotland; and Perth, Western Australia.Data were analyzed for differences in demography, tumor, and treatment. Epidemiological data were fitted to published Australian optimal radiotherapy utilization trees and region-specific optimal treatment rates were calculated. Optimal and actual surgery/radiotherapy rates from 2 population-based and 1 institution-based registries were compared for patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2004, and 2002 for British Columbia.Mastectomy rates differed between British Columbia (40%), Western Australia (44%), and Dundee (47%, p0.01). Radiotherapy rates differed between British Columbia (60%), Western Australia (52%), and Dundee (49%, p0.01). Actual radiotherapy utilization rates were lower than optimal estimates. Region-specific optimal utilization rates at diagnosis varied from 57% to 71% for radiotherapy and 62% to 64% when taking into account patient preference. Variation was attributed to local differences in demography and tumor stage.Actual treatment rates varied, and were associated with patterns of care and guideline differences. Actual radiotherapy rates were lower than optimal rates. Differences between optimal and actual utilization may be due to access shortfalls, and patient preference.

Background Variation in the use of neoadjuvant and adjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer suggests an opportunity to avoid it in all but patients at highest risk of local recurrence. Methods Between 1 July 1999 and 1 February 2006, patients with primary rectal cancer were treated by a single surgeon operating at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Digital rectal examination and pelvic computed tomography were used to determine whether the mesorectal margin was threatened by tumour and thus whether preoperative radiotherapy would be needed. The study outcome was local tumour recurrence. Results Forty-six (48 per cent) of 96 patients received preoperative radiation therapy. The median follow-up was 4·2 years. Tumours were fixed or tethered in 31 (67 per cent) of the 46 irradiated patients. In contrast, no tumour was fixed in unirradiated patients and only ten (20 per cent) of the 50 tumours were tethered. The proportion of patients with stage I or II tumours based on final pathology was similar: 61 per cent (28 of 46) and 56 per cent (28 of 50) in irradiated and unirradiated groups respectively (P = 0·287). There were four (9 per cent) and two (4 per cent) local recurrences among irradiated and unirradiated patients respectively (P = 0·422). Conclusion Limiting preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer to patients with a threatened circumferential margin does not compromise patient outcome.

Aims The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can serve as a benchmark to assess the quality of cancer care. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal proportion of patients with primary malignant brain tumours for whom there was evidence that they should receive chemotherapy at least once. Materials and methods An optimal chemotherapy utilisation tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate. This optimal rate was compared with reported actual rates of chemotherapy utilisation. Results Chemotherapy is indicated at least once, either as an initial treatment or at recurrence (in those who have not previously received chemotherapy), in 72% of all patients with primary malignant brain tumours. No recent published data on actual chemotherapy utilisation rates were identified for comparison with the optimal rate. Conclusion The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can serve as an evidence-based benchmark in the planning and evaluation of chemotherapy services for brain cancer. There are no recent published patterns of care studies that report on chemotherapy utilisation rates for primary malignant brain tumours; future research should focus on filling this gap.

Background Optimal chemotherapy utilisation rates can serve as benchmarks to assess the quality of cancer service delivery. This study aims to determine the optimal proportion of patients with lung cancer that should receive chemotherapy at least once during the course of their illness, based on the best available evidence. Methods An optimal chemotherapy utilisation tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate. This optimal rate was compared with reported actual rates of chemotherapy utilisation. Results Chemotherapy is recommended at least once in 73% of all patients with lung cancer (93% of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients and 69% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients). Comparison of these benchmark rates with international reported actual chemotherapy utilisation rates reveals under-utilisation of chemotherapy in all newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, regardless of histological type and stage, with the exception of stage I NSCLC. Conclusion The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can serve as a feasible, evidence-based measure of the quality of cancer care. Chemotherapy may be under-utilised in the initial management of lung cancer.

Aims: An optimal utilisation rate for palliative radiotherapy in newly diagnosed cancers will be useful in the planning and delivery of cancer services and has not been reported to date. The aim of this study was to estimate the proportion of new cases of cancer that should receive palliative radiotherapy as their first course of radiotherapy at some time during the course of their illness. Materials and methods: A previously developed model depicting indications for radiotherapy was merged with Australian cancer epidemiological data and re-analysed to identify palliative or radical treatment end points. Palliative radiotherapy end points were further divided by treatment site. The optimal palliative radiotherapy utilisation rates were compared with actual radiotherapy utilisation data for newly diagnosed cancers. Results: Fourteen per cent of all new cancer cases should optimally receive palliative radiotherapy as their first course of radiotherapy treatment. Comparisons with actual radiotherapy utilisation rates from New South Wales, Australia, show that for some common cancers, more newly diagnosed patients receive palliative radiotherapy as their first radiotherapy treatment than would be optimally recommended in this model. This suggests that many patients in New South Wales are not currently being referred for curative treatment. Conclusion: Palliative radiotherapy is optimally recommended as the first course of radiotherapy in 14% of all newly diagnosed cancers.

BACKGROUND. Brachytherapy (BT) is an integral part of cervical carcinoma treatment. There have been no attempts to estimate the optimal proportion of new cervical carcinoma cases that should be treated with BT, that is, the optimal rate of brachytherapy utilization (BTU). METHODS. Evidence-based guidelines and primary evidence were used to construct a BTU tree for carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Searches were performed of the epidemiological literature to ascertain the proportion of patients who fulfilled criteria for BT. The robustness of the model was tested by sensitivity analyses and by peer review. A patterns of care study of BT in New South Wales for 2003 was conducted, and actual BTU for cervical carcinoma determined. The differences between optimal and actual rates of BTU were assessed. RESULTS. The optimal cervical carcinoma BTU was 49% (range, 42% to 50%). In New South Wales in 2003, actual BTU was only 30% of 256 cervical carcinoma patients. The major discrepancy was for FIGO stage IB-IIA disease, where there was an underutilization of BT, estimated to be 15% actual use compared with 47% optimal use. In Surveillence, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas, there was underutilization for stage IB-IIA (22% actual BTU versus 47% optimal BTU) and for stage IIB-IVA (54% actual BTU versus 100% optimal BTU). CONCLUSIONS. BT for cervical carcinoma is underutilized in New South Wales and in SEER areas. The authors' model of optimal BTU can be used as a quality assurance tool to provide an evidence-based benchmark against which actual patterns of practice can be measured. The model can also be used to help determine adequacy of BT resource allocation. Cancer 2006. © 2006 American Cancer Society.

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.

BACKGROUND Benchmark radiotherapy utilization rates for genitourinary malignancies are largely unknown, despite the finding that genitourinary cancers comprise approximately 19% of all registered malignancies in Australia. METHODS To develop an evidence-based benchmark of the optimal proportion of patients with genitourinary malignancies who should receive at least one course of radiotherapy at some time during their illness, the authors studied treatment guidelines and treatment reviews regarding genitourinary malignancies. Optimal radiotherapy utilization trees were constructed to show the clinical attributes that indicated possible benefit from radiotherapy based on evidence. Epidemiologic incidence data for each of these clinical attributes were obtained to calculate the optimal proportion of all patients with genitourinary cancer for whom radiotherapy was considered appropriate. RESULTS The proportion of patients with genitourinary malignancies for whom radiotherapy was indicated at some point in their illness, according to the best available evidence, was estimated to be 27% of patients with renal cancer, 58% of patients with bladder cancer, 60% of patients with prostate cancer, and 49% of patients with testicular cancer. The occurrence of ureteric and penile cancers among patients was too rare, and, therefore, these patients were not included in the current study. CONCLUSIONS There was a large discrepancy between actual radiotherapy utilization and the evidence-based optimal rate. The authors recommended strategies to implement the evidence-based guidelines. Evidence-based benchmarks for radiotherapy utilization rates such as the ones described in the current study were important in the evaluation of the appropriate use of radiotherapy. Cancer 2005. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

Summary A trial of videoconferencing of multidisciplinary breast cancer clinical meetings between three public hospitals was conducted in an attempt to increase attendance by medical staff at the meetings, and thus facilitate multidisciplinary care for breast cancer patients. The videoconferences were compared with the previously existing face-to-face clinical meetings through questionnaires, attendance, number of cases discussed and anthropological analysis. Although more people attended the videoconferences than the face-to-face meetings, most of the participants in the trial preferred the face-to-face meetings to the videoconferences. The mean number of cases discussed at the videoconferences was significantly less than the mean number of cases presented at the face-to-face clinical meetings. The face-to-face meetings were informal, spontaneous and conducive to open discussion. In contrast, the videoconferences were formal and regimented. Multidisciplinary case discussion can be facilitated by videoconferencing. Some of the negative experiences we encountered could be overcome with changes in meeting format. Our experience may help others in setting up a successful multidisciplinary team via videoconference.

Background Radiotherapy usage rates exhibit wide variations both within and between countries. Current estimates of the proportion of cancer patients who should optimally receive radiotherapy are based either on expert opinion or on the measurement of actual usage rates rather than on the best available scientific evidence. Methods With the goal of developing an evidence-based benchmark for radiotherapy use in the treatment of malignancies of the cervix, vagina, vulva, and ovary (endometrial malignancies are covered in a separate article), the authors reviewed international evidence-based treatment guidelines. Optimal radiotherapy usage trees were constructed, and proportions of patients with clinical indications for radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiologic data. These ideal usage rates were compared with actual radiotherapy utilization rates recorded in Australia and elsewhere. Results According to the best available evidence, radiotherapy is indicated at least once for 58% of patients with cervical carcinoma, 4% of patients with ovarian carcinoma, 100% of patients with vaginal carcinoma, and 34% of patients with vulvar carcinoma. A review of the limited data available suggests that actual radiotherapy usage rates for patients with gynecologic malignancies are comparable to optimal usage rates. Conclusions Actual practice appears to approximate the authors' model of optimal radiotherapy use. This finding reflects the high level of agreement among treatment guidelines as well as the existence of high-quality evidence related to the management of gynecologic malignancies, and it may also be indicative of the fact that a large proportion of patients are treated in specialist units. The management of gynecologic malignancies may serve as a good example in the development of management strategies for other types of cancer.

BACKGROUND Radiotherapy is not used commonly in the treatment of patients with malignant melanoma. The benchmark optimal radiotherapy utilization rates for melanoma are largely unknown, despite the fact that melanoma is a very common cancer. METHODS To develop an evidence-based benchmark for the optimal proportion of patients with melanoma who should receive radiotherapy, the authors reviewed major treatment guidelines for melanoma. A radiotherapy decision tree was constructed showing the clinical features of melanoma patients for whom radiotherapy was indicated based on evidence. The proportions of melanoma patients with indications for radiotherapy were obtained from epidemiologic data and were used to calculate the optimal proportion of melanoma patients who should receive radiotherapy. RESULTS The proportion of patients with melanoma for whom radiotherapy is indicated at some point in their illness, according to the best available evidence, was calculated at 23% of all melanoma patients. The utilization rates of radiotherapy for melanoma recorded in actual practice were 13% in New South Wales, 6% in data from the American College of Surgeons, and 1% according to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data. CONCLUSIONS Strategies for implementing the evidence-based guidelines are recommended to overcome the shortfall in the use of radiotherapy in the treatment of patients with melanoma. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

Summary To develop an evidence-based benchmark for the use of radiotherapy in lung cancer, we did a systematic review of treatment guidelines on radiotherapy for lung cancer. We then constructed an optimum use of radiotherapy "tree" from epidemiological data, which shows the proportion of patients with clinical attributes indicating that they would benefit from radiotherapy. We calculated that the proportion of patients with lung cancer in whom radiotherapy is indicated (according to the best available evidence) is 76%. We then compared this ideal rate with the actual rates of use of radiotherapy for lung cancer in Australia, and internationally, in the past decade. A substantial discrepancy was found between the evidence-based recommended rate of use and the actual rates reported in clinical practice. We hope this model will be used to plan efficient and cost-effective radiotherapy services.

6099 Background: A wide variation in the utilization rates of chemotherapy exists in cancer care in Australia and internationally. We developed an evidence-based utilization model to estimate the o...

6613 Background: The proportion of patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy varies from 21% to 42% in high-income countries. The utility and accountability of the quality measures develop...