Treatment Variation of Sequential versus Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients in the Netherlands and Belgium.

AIMS: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is considered the standard treatment regimen in non-surgical locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients and sequential chemoradiotherapy (SCRT) is recommended in patients who are unfit to receive CCRT or when the treatment volume is considered too large. In this study, we investigated the proportion of CCRT/SCRT in the Netherlands and Belgium. Furthermore, patient and disease characteristics associated with SCRT were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study was carried out with data from three independent national registries: the Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR), the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and the Dutch Lung Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy (DLCA-R). Differences in patient and disease characteristics between CCRT and SCRT were tested with unpaired t-tests (for continuous variables) and with chi-square tests (for categorical variables). A prognostic model was constructed to determine patient and disease parameters predictive for the choice of SCRT. RESULTS: This study included 350 patients from the BCR, 780 patients from the NCR and 428 patients from the DLCA-R. More than half of the stage III NSCLC patients in the Netherlands (55%) and in Belgium more than a third (35%) were treated with CCRT. In both the Dutch and Belgian population, higher age and more advanced N-stage were significantly associated with SCRT. Performance score, pulmonary function, comorbidities and tumour volume were not associated with SCRT. CONCLUSION: In this observational population-based study, a large treatment variation in non-surgical stage III NSCLC patients was observed between and within the Netherlands and Belgium. Higher age and N-stage were significantly associated with the choice for SCRT.

Radiotherapy access in Belgium: How far are we from evidence-based utilisation?

INTRODUCTION: Underutilisation of radiotherapy has been observed worldwide. To evaluate the current situation in Belgium, optimal utilisation proportions (OUPs) adopted from the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology - Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (ESTRO-HERO) project were compared to actual utilisation proportions (AUPs) and with radiotherapy advised during the multidisciplinary cancer team (MDT) meetings. In addition, the impact of independent variables was analysed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: AUPs and advised radiotherapy were calculated overall and by cancer type for 110,810 unique cancer diagnoses in 2009-2010. Radiotherapy utilisation was derived from reimbursement data and distinguished between palliative and curative intent external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and/or brachytherapy (BT). Sensitivity analyses regarding the influence of the follow-up period, the survival length and patient's age were performed. Advised radiotherapy was calculated based on broad treatment categories as reported at MDT meetings. RESULTS: The overall AUP of 37% (39% including BT) was lower than the OUP of 53%, but in line with advised radiotherapy (35%). Large variations by tumour type were observed: in some tumours (e.g. lung and prostate cancer) AUP was considerably lower than OUP, whereas in others there was reasonable concordance (e.g. breast and rectal cancer). Overall, 84% of treatments started within 9 months following diagnosis. Survival time influenced AUP in a cancer type-dependent way. Elderly patients received less radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Although the actually delivered radiotherapy in Belgium aligns well to MDT advices, it is lower than the evidence-based optimum. Further analysis of potential barriers is needed for radiotherapy forecasting and planning, and in order to promote adequate access to radiotherapy.