Effect of process standards on survival of patients with head and neck cancer in the south and west of England

M. Birchall, D. Bailey, P. King

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

72 Scopus citations

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare standards for the process of care and 2-year survival between two cohorts of patients with head and neck cancer in the south and west of England. A total of 566 and 727 patients presented in 1996-97 and 1999-2000, respectively. The median number of cases treated per surgeon was 4 (1997, range 1-26) and 4 (2000, 1-23) and per radiotherapist was 10 (1-51) and 19 (1-70). For all 'nontemporal' standards, the overall standard increased, without reaching minimum high targets, while most 'waiting times' increased. Overall 2-year survival was 64.1% in 1997 and 65.1% in 2000. There was no difference in survival between networks (range 56-68, 1997, log-rank test 4.1, P = 0.4; 62-69, 2000, log-rank test 1.26, P = 0.69). Patients assessed by a multidisciplinary clinic exhibited improved survival (1997: P = 0.1; 2000: hazard ratio 0.7, P = 0.02), as did those with a pretreatment chest X-ray (hazard ratio 0.7, P = 0.03). Despite an increased incidence, standards for the process of care for patients with head and neck cancer improved between 1996 and 2000, while waiting times increased and 2-year survival rates remained unaltered. Two out of five networks demonstrated centralisation of services between audits. Being seen in a multidisciplinary clinic correlated strongly with patient survival.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1477-1481
Number of pages5
JournalBritish Journal of Cancer
Volume91
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 18 2004
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Head and neck cancer
  • Standards
  • Survival
  • Waiting times

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Effect of process standards on survival of patients with head and neck cancer in the south and west of England'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this