Search

To assess adherence to standard clinical practice for the diagnosis and treatment of patients undergoing prostate cancer (PCa) radiotherapy in four European countries using clinical audits as part of the international IROCA project. Multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of 240 randomly-selected patients treated for PCa (n = 40/centre) in the year 2015 at six European hospitals. Clinical indicators applicable to general and PCa-specific radiotherapy processes were evaluated. All data were obtained directly from medical records. The audits were performed in the year 2017. Adherence to clinical protocols and practices was satisfactory, but with substantial inter-centre variability in numerous variables, as follows: staging MRI (range 27.5-87.5% of cases); presentation to multidisciplinary tumour board (2.5-100%); time elapsed between initial visit to the radiation oncology department and treatment initiation (42-102.5 days); number of treatment interruptions ≥ 1 day (7.5-97.5%). The most common deviation from standard clinical practice was inconsistent data registration, mainly failure to report data related to diagnosis, treatment, and/or adverse events. This clinical audit detected substantial inter-centre variability in adherence to standard clinical practice, most notably inconsistent record keeping. These findings confirm the value of performing clinical audits to detect deviations from standard clinical practices and procedures.

Background The coronavirus disease COVID-19 pandemic posed a number of challenges to the oncology community, particularly the diagnosis and care of cancer patients while ensuring safety from the virus for both patients and professionals: minimization of visits to the hospital, cancellation of the screening programmes and the difficulties in the management and operation of cancer registries (CRs) while working remotely. This article describes the effects in the medium term of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer registration in Europe, focusing on changes in cancer detection and treatment, possible reduction of CR resources and difficulties in the access to data sources. Methods A questionnaire was distributed in June 2020 to the directors of 108 CRs from 34 countries affiliated to the European Network of Cancer Registries, providing a 37% response rate. Results The results of the survey showed that cancer-screening programmes were mostly stopped or slowed down in the majority of regions covered by the respondent CRs. Cancer diagnostics and treatments were severely disrupted. The cancer registration process was also disrupted, due to changes in the work modalities for the personnel, as well as to the difficulties in accessing sources and/or receiving the notifications. In some CRs, staff was allocated to different activities related to controlling the pandemic. Several CRs reported that they were investigating the impact of COVID-19 on cancer care via dedicated studies. Conclusions A careful analysis will be necessary for proper interpretation of temporal and geographical variations of the 2020 cancer burden indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a steady decline in cancer mortality in Western Europe (WE), but this trend is not so obvious in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). One of the largest discrepancies between WE and CEE is the level of investment in cancer care. The objective of our analysis was to examine the correlation between mortality‐to‐incidence (M/I) ratio and expenditures on oncology drugs in CEE and WE. Materials and Methods: This cross‐sectional analysis was done on publicly available data. Data on expenditures for oncology drugs were obtained from QuintilesIMS, and data on M/I ratio from Globocan. The main outcome was mortality‐to‐incidence ratio, and the primary analysis was performed by Spearman's rank correlation. Results: There is a large discrepancy in expenditure on oncology drugs per cancer case between WE and CEE, and within CEE. Average expenditure on oncology drugs per capita as well as per new cancer case was 2.5 times higher in WE than in CEE. Availability of oncology drugs was highest in Germany (100%), relatively similar in WE (average of 91%), but in CEE it ranged from 37% to 86%, with an average of 70%. Annual expenditures on all oncology drugs per new cancer case was significantly negatively correlated with the M/I ratio (Spearman's ρ = −0.90, p <.001). Conclusion: There is a financial threshold for oncology drugs per cancer case needed to increase survival. Based on significantly lower expenditures for oncology drugs in CEE in comparison with WE, more investment for drugs as well as better, more organized, value‐ oriented consumption is needed. Implications for Practice: Cancer is not treated equally successfully in Western Europe (WE) and in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This study showed that success in treatment of cancer is associated with the amount of money invested in oncology drugs. CEE countries spend on average 2.5 times less than WE countries for oncology drugs per new cancer case. These findings should be used by health care providers and oncologists struggling for more resources and better, more organized, evidence‐based allocation of these resources as well as better oncology outcomes. This article examines the relationship between expenditures on oncology drugs and the mortality‐to‐incidence ratio in Central and Eastern Europe compared with Western Europe, analyzing the differences in expenditures on oncology drugs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]