Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Acta Oncol ; 57(9): 1250-1258, 2018 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29706109

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Palliative Care/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/mortality , Norway/epidemiology , Quality of Life , Registries , Socioeconomic Factors , Survival Analysis
2.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys ; 90(3): 707-14, 2014 Nov 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25160610

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Health Plan Implementation/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Humans , Incidence , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Norway/epidemiology , Radiotherapy/statistics & numerical data , Radiotherapy/trends , Retreatment/statistics & numerical data
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...