Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2004 Oct 18;91(8):1477-81.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602118.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

M Birchall et al. Br J Cancer. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Number of head and neck cancer patients diagnosed and treated by hospital Trust in (A) central south coast and (B) Avon Somerset and Wiltshire cancer networks. (A) shows evidence of centralisation, while (B) does not. Other networks showed similar results to (B).

References

    1. Aronson WL, McAuliffe MS, Miller K (2003) Variability in the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification. AANA J 71: 265–274 - PubMed
    1. Birchall MA, Bailey D (2001) SWAHN II: head and neck cancer management in the South and West of England, quantity and quality. Cancer Intelligence Unit, Winchester
    1. Birchall MA, Bailey D, Lennon A, the Regional Cancer Organisation Tumour Panel for Head and Neck Cancer (2000) Audit of the process of head and neck cancer care in the South and West of England (SWAHN I): performance vs standards. Br J Cancer 83: 421–425 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Birchall MA, & the South and West Expert Tumour Panel for Head and Neck Cancer (1998) Consensus standards for the process of cancer care: a modified expert panel method applied to head and neck cancer. Br J Cancer 77: 1926–1931 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health (2002) The National Cancer Plan. London: Department of Health, (available from PO Box 777, London SE1 6XH)

Publication types