Search

Background: There is little evidence on variation in radiotherapy use in different countries, although it is a key treatment modality for some patients with cancer. Here we aimed to examine such variation., Methods: This population-based study used data from Norway, the four UK nations (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales), nine Canadian provinces (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan), and two Australian states (New South Wales and Victoria). Patients aged 15-99 years diagnosed with cancer in eight different sites (oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, or ovarian cancer), with no other primary cancer diagnosis occurring within the 5 years before to 1 year after the index cancer diagnosis or during the study period were included in the study. We examined variation in radiotherapy use from 31 days before to 365 days after diagnosis and time to its initiation, alongside related variation in patient group differences. Information was obtained from cancer registry records linked to clinical or patient management system data, or hospital administration data. Random-effects meta-analyses quantified interjurisdictional variation using 95% prediction intervals (95% PIs)., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2017, of 902 312 patients with a new diagnosis of one of the studied cancers, 115 357 (12·8%) did not meet inclusion criteria, and 786,955 were included in the analysis. There was large interjurisdictional variation in radiotherapy use, with wide 95% PIs: 17·8 to 82·4 (pooled estimate 50·2%) for oesophageal cancer, 35·5 to 55·2 (45·2%) for rectal cancer, 28·6 to 54·0 (40·6%) for lung cancer, and 4·6 to 53·6 (19·0%) for stomach cancer. For patients with stage 2-3 rectal cancer, interjurisdictional variation was greater than that for all patients with rectal cancer (95% PI 37·0 to 84·6; pooled estimate 64·2%). Radiotherapy use was infrequent but variable in patients with pancreatic (95% PI 1·7 to 16·5%), liver (1·8 to 11·2%), colon (1·6 to 5·0%), and ovarian (0·8 to 7·6%) cancer. Patients aged 85-99 years had three-times lower odds of radiotherapy use than those aged 65-74 years, with substantial interjurisdictional variation in this age difference (odds ratio [OR] 0·38; 95% PI 0·20-0·73). Women had slightly lower odds of radiotherapy use than men (OR 0·88, 95% PI 0·77-1·01). There was large variation in median time to first radiotherapy (from diagnosis date) by cancer site, with substantial interjurisdictional variation (eg, oesophageal 95% PI 11·3 days to 112·8 days; pooled estimate 62·0 days; rectal 95% PI 34·7 days to 77·3 days; pooled estimate 56·0 days). Older patients had shorter median time to radiotherapy with appreciable interjurisdictional variation (-9·5 days in patients aged 85-99 years vs 65-74 years, 95% PI -26·4 to 7·4)., Interpretation: Large interjurisdictional variation in both use and time to radiotherapy initiation were observed, alongside large and variable age differences. To guide efforts to improve patient outcomes, underlying reasons for these differences need to be established., Funding: International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Institute New South Wales, Cancer Research UK, Danish Cancer Society, National Cancer Registry Ireland, The Cancer Society of New Zealand, National Health Service England, Norwegian Cancer Society, Public Health Agency Northern Ireland on behalf of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry, DG Health and Social Care Scottish Government, Western Australia Department of Health, and Public Health Wales NHS Trust)., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MEB reports personal fees from GRAIL Bio UK Ltd, for Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) membership unrelated to this study. OB and GM report salary compensation for analysis of trial data in preparation for review by the Data Safety Monitoring Board for the POWERRANGER trial (NCT01404156), unrelated to this project. DWH reports grant support by Moondance Cancer Initiative (to institution) in relation to exploring bowel cancer audit data. YN reports grant support to The Cancer Registry of Norway by the Norwegian Cancer Society on standardised cancer pathways (no direct payment). RRW reports research grant funding by the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, the First Nations Health Authority/Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, and the BC Cancer Foundation for unrelated to the present study public health research projects. GL declares research grant funding by the study sponsors to his employer (University College London)., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research ethicists have recently declared a new ethical imperative: that researchers should communicate the results of research to participants. For some analysts, the obligation is restricted to the communication of the general findings or conclusions of the study. However, other analysts extend the obligation to the disclosure of individual research results, especially where these results are perceived to have clinical relevance. Several scholars have advanced cogent critiques of the putative obligation to disclose individual research results. They question whether ethical goals are served by disclosure or violated by non-disclosure, and whether the communication of research results respects ethically salient differences between research practices and clinical care. Empirical data on these questions are limited. Available evidence suggests, on the one hand, growing support for disclosure, and on the other, the potential for significant harm., Methods: This paper explores the implications of the disclosure of individual research results for the relationship between research and clinical care through analysis of research-based cancer genetic testing in Ontario, Canada in the late 1990s. We analyze a set of 30 interviews with key informants involved with research-based cancer genetic testing before the publicly funded clinical service became available in 2000., Results: We advance three insights: First, the communication of individual research results makes research practices seem like clinical services for our respondents. Second, while valuing the way in which research enables a form of clinical access, our respondents experience these quasi-clinical services as inadequate. Finally, our respondents recognize the ways in which their experience with these quasi-clinical services is influenced by research imperatives, but understand and interpret the significance and appropriateness of these influences in different ways., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the hybrid state created through the disclosure of research results about individuals that are perceived to be clinically relevant may produce neither sufficiently adequate clinical care nor sufficiently ethical research practices. These findings raise questions about the extent to which research can, and should, be made to serve clinical purposes, and suggest the need for further deliberation regarding any ethical obligation to communicate individual research results.