Processes and outcomes of head and neck cancer patients from geographically disparate regions of the UK. A comparison of Scottish and English cohorts

K. MacKenzie, S. A H Savage, M. A. Birchall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this paper was to compare demographics, treatment and outcomes from two large prospective audits of head and neck cancer patients in two disparate regions of the UK. Methods: In the Scottish Audit of Head and Neck Cancer (SAHNC) a total of 1910 patients with new head and neck cancers were registered in a two year period from September 1999 to August 2001. The South and West Audit of Head and Neck Cancer (SWAHN) was carried out in three phases between 1996 and 2002 with a total of 2050 cases. Results: There were more men in SAHNC than SWAHN (71% vs 67%, p < 0.01) and patients in SAHNC presented at a younger age (76% aged 45-74 compared with 64%, p < 0.001). Significantly more patients in Scotland had advanced (stage III/IV) laryngeal cancer (44% vs 30%, p < 0.001). The overall disease specific five year survival was 54.5 for SAHNC and 54.2 for SWAHN. Conclusion: This comparison of large head and neck cancer cohorts provides important data to base UK head and neck cancer care and hypotheses regarding pathogenesis and the effects of treatment processes. Given the heterogeneity in disease, patient and healthcare characteristics between the two regions, the similarities in survival and process outcomes are striking. Crown

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1113-1118
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Surgical Oncology
Volume35
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2009
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Audit
  • Head and neck cancer
  • Outcomes
  • Survival

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Processes and outcomes of head and neck cancer patients from geographically disparate regions of the UK. A comparison of Scottish and English cohorts'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this