4.5 Article

Estimation of an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate for lung cancer: An evidence-based benchmark for cancer care

Journal

LUNG CANCER
Volume 69, Issue 3, Pages 307-314

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2009.11.017

Keywords

Lung cancer; Chemotherapy utilisation rate; Optimal chemotherapy utilisation; Evidence-based clinical guidelines; Small cell lung cancer; Non-small cell lung cancer

Funding

  1. Cancer Institute New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Optimal chemotherapy utilisation rates can serve as benchmarks to assess the quality of cancer service delivery. This study aims to determine the optimal proportion of patients with lung cancer that should receive chemotherapy at least once during the course of their illness, based on the best available evidence. Methods: An optimal chemotherapy utilisation tree was constructed using indications for chemotherapy identified from evidence-based treatment guidelines. Data on the proportion of patient and tumour-related attributes for which chemotherapy was indicated were obtained and merged with the treatment indications to calculate an optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate. This optimal rate was compared with reported actual rates of chemotherapy utilisation. Results: Chemotherapy is recommended at least once in 73% of all patients with lung cancer (93% of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients and 69% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients). Comparison of these benchmark rates with international reported actual chemotherapy utilisation rates reveals under-utilisation of chemotherapy in all newly diagnosed lung cancer patients, regardless of histological type and stage, with the exception of stage I NSCLC. Conclusion: The optimal chemotherapy utilisation rate can serve as a feasible, evidence-based measure of the quality of cancer care. Chemotherapy may be under-utilised in the initial management of lung cancer. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available