Cargando…

A comparative analysis: international variation in PET-CT service provision in oncology—an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study

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 serv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lynch, Charlotte, Reguilon, Irene, Langer, Deanna L, Lane, Damon, De, Prithwish, Wong, Wai-Lup, Mckiddie, Fergus, Ross, Andrew, Shack, Lorraine, Win, Thida, Marshall, Christopher, Revheim, Mona-Eliszabeth, Danckert, Bolette, Butler, John, Dizdarevic, Sabina, Louzado, Cheryl, Mcgivern, Canice, Hazlett, Anne, Chew, Cindy, O’connell, Martin, Harrison, Samantha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7896108/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33306102
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzaa166
Descripción
Sumario: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.