A comparative analysis: international variation in PET-CT service provision in oncology—an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership study. (30th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: 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
• Is Part Of: International journal for quality in health care. Volume 33:Number 1(2021)
• Publication Date: 2020-12-30
• Subjects: cancers -- benchmarking -- healthcare system -- appropriate healthcare -- diagnostics; Medical care -- Quality control -- Periodicals; 362.1068
• DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa166
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1353-4505

Abstract

Abstract: 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.