Survival following a diagnosis of cancer is contingent upon an interplay of factors, some non-modifiable (e.g., age, sex, genetics) and some modifiable (e.g., volitional choices) but the majority determined by circumstance (personal, social, health system context and capacity, and health policy). Accordingly, mortality and survival rates vary considerably as a function of geography, opportunity, wealth and development. Quality of life is impacted similarly, such that aspects of care related to coordination and integration of care across primary, community and specialist environments; symptom control, palliative and end-of-life care for those who will die of cancer; and survivorship challenges for those who will survive cancer, differs greatly across low, middle and high-income resource settings. Session 3 of the 4th International Cancer Control Congress (ICCC-4) focused on cancer care and treatment through three plenary presentations and five interactive workshop discussions: 1) establishing, implementing, operating and sustaining the capacity for quality cancer care; 2) the role of primary, community, and specialist care in cancer care and treatment; 3) the economics of affordable and sustainable cancer care; 4) issues around symptom control, support, and palliative/end-of-life care; and 5) issues around survivorship. A number of recommendations were proposed relating to capacity-building (standards and guidelines, protocols, new technologies and training and deployment) for safe, appropriate evidence-informed care; mapping and analysis of variations in primary, community and specialist care across countries with identification of models for effective, integrated clinical practice; the importance of considering the introduction, or expansion, of evidence-supported clinical practices from the perspectives of health economic impact, the value for health resources expended, and sustainability; capacity-building for palliative, end-of-life care and symptom control and integration of these services into national cancer control plans; the need for public education to reduce the fear and stigma associated with cancer so that patients are better able to make informed decisions regarding follow-up care and treatment; and the need to recognize the challenges and needs of survivors, their increasing number, the necessity to integrate survivorship into cancer control plans and the economic and societal value of functional survival after cancer. Discussions highlighted that coordinated care and treatment for cancer patients is both a ' systems'challenge and solution, requiring the consideration of patient and family circumstances, societal values and priorities, the functioning of the health system (access, capacity, resources, etc.) and the importance assigned to health and illness management within public policy.
Optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate (RTU) is the proportion of all cancer cases that should receive radiotherapy. Optimal RTU was estimated for 9 Middle Income Countries as part of a larger IAEA project to better understand RTU and stage distribution.
BACKGROUND: The planning of national radiotherapy (RT) services requires a thorough knowledge of the country's cancer epidemiology profile, the radiotherapy utilization (RTU) rates and a future projection of these data. Previous studies have established RTU rates in high-income countries.
METHODS: Optimal RTU (oRTU) rates were determined for nine middle-income countries, following the epidemiological evidence-based method. The actual RTU (aRTU) rates were calculated dividing the total number of new notifiable cancer patients treated with radiotherapy in 2012 by the total number of cancer patients diagnosed in the same year in each country. An analysis of the characteristics of patients and treatments in a series of 300 consecutive radiotherapy patients shed light on the particular patient and treatments profile in the participating countries.
RESULTS: The median oRTU rate for the group of nine countries was 52% (47-56%). The median aRTU rate for the nine countries was 28% (9-46%). These results show that the real proportion of cancer patients receiving RT is lower than the optimal RTU with a rate difference between 10-42.7%. The median percent-unmet need was 47% (18-82.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: The optimal RTU rate in middle-income countries did not differ significantly from that previously found in high-income countries. The actual RTU rates were consistently lower than the optimal, in particular in countries with limited resources and a large population.