No abstract

No abstract

Objective To explore differences in position emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) service provision internationally to further understand the impact variation may have upon cancer services. To identify areas of further exploration for researchers and policymakers to optimize PET-CT services and improve the quality of cancer services. Design Comparative analysis using data based on pre-defined PET-CT service metrics from PET-CT stakeholders across seven countries. This was further informed via document analysis of clinical indication guidance and expert consensus through round-table discussions of relevant PET-CT stakeholders. Descriptive comparative analyses were produced on use, capacity and indication guidance for PET-CT services between jurisdictions. Setting PET-CT services across 21 jurisdictions in seven countries (Australia, Denmark, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and the UK). Participants None. Intervention(s) None. Main Outcome Measure(s) None. Results PET-CT service provision has grown over the period 2006–2017, but scale of increase in capacity and demand is variable. Clinical indication guidance varied across countries, particularly for small-cell lung cancer staging and the specific acknowledgement of gastric cancer within oesophagogastric cancers. There is limited and inconsistent data capture, coding, accessibility and availability of PET-CT activity across countries studied. Conclusions Variation in PET-CT scanner quantity, acquisition over time and guidance upon use exists internationally. There is a lack of routinely captured and accessible PET-CT data across the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership countries due to inconsistent data definitions, data linkage issues, uncertain coverage of data and lack of specific coding. This is a barrier in improving the quality of PET-CT services globally. There needs to be greater, richer data capture of diagnostic and staging tools to facilitate learning of best practice and optimize cancer services.

Background: The Danish multidisciplinary renal cancer group (DaRenCa) established the nationwide database DaRenCaData in 2010. The Danish Cancer Registry (DCR) has been considered the golden standard. In contrast to DCR, DaRenCaData required the diagnosis to be histologically or cytologically verified. DaRenCaData and DCR have not previously been compared. Patients and Methods: We included patients with renal cell carcinoma registered in DaRenCaData and/or DCR from August 1st 2010 to December 31st 2015. We computed completeness and positive predictive value (PPV) of a diagnosis in DaRenCaData compared with DCR, 1-year, 3-year and 5-year mortality rate ratios, and relative survival. Results: We identified 4890 patients in the two registries. Of these, 4326 were registered in DaRenCaData and 4714 in DCR. Completeness of DaRenCaData was 88% [95% CI, 87-89%] and increased during the period from 82% to 94%. The PPV was 96% [95% CI, 95-97%]. A total of 4150 patients (85%) were found in both registries, 4% (176 patients) in DaRenCaData only, and 12% (564 patients) in DCR only. The relative survival was higher for patients in DaRenCaData vs DCR; the 1-year and 5-year relative survival was 85% vs 81% and 65% vs 59%, respectively. Compared with patients registered in both registries, the mortality rates were higher in patients registered in DaRenCaData only (1-year hazard ratio (HR)=2.84 [95% CI, 2.20-3.68]) or DCR only (1-year HR=4.29 [95% CI, 3.72-4.93]). Observed in both registries, survival improved over time with a 7% yearly reduction in death based on estimations of 1-year mortality rate ratios. Conclusion: DaRenCaData had high and increasing completeness and high PPV, establishing it as a high-quality research database. Observed in both registries, renal cell carcinoma mortality declined over time; patients only registered in DCR or DaRenCaData had poorer outcomes. This study points to the importance of assessing the inclusion criteria when interpreting registry-based studies.

Background Older patients with cancer have poorer prognosis compared to younger patients. Moreover, prognosis is related to how cancer is identified, and where in the healthcare system patients present, i.e. routes to diagnosis (RtD). We investigated whether RtD varied by patients’ age. Methods This population-based national cohort study used Danish registry data. Patients were categorized into age groups and eight mutually exclusive RtD. We employed multinomial logistic regressions adjusted for sex, region, diagnosis year, cohabitation, education, income, immigration status and comorbidities. Screened and non-screened patients were analysed separately. Results The study included 137,876 patients. Both younger and older patients with cancer were less likely to get diagnosed after a cancer patient pathways referral from primary care physician compared to middle-aged patients. Older patients were more likely to get diagnosed via unplanned admission, death certificate only, and outpatient admission compared to younger patients. The patterns were similar across comorbidity levels. Conclusions RtD varied by age groups, and middle-aged patients were the most likely to get diagnosed after cancer patient pathways with referral from primary care. Emphasis should be put on raising clinicians’ awareness of cancer being the underlying cause of symptoms in both younger patients and in older patients.