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
. 2025 Jul 11;4(1):e000800.
doi: 10.1136/bmjonc-2025-000800. eCollection 2025.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy use in patients with lung cancer in Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway 2012-2017: an ICBP population-based study

Matthew E Barclay  1 , Sean McPhail  2 , Shane A Johnson  3 , Ruth Swann  2   3 , Christian J Finley  4   5 , John Butler  6 , Riaz Alvi  7   8 , Andriana Barisic  9 , Damien B Bennett  10 , Oliver Bucher  11 , Nicola Creighton  12 , Cheryl A Denny  13 , Ron A Dewar  14 , David W Donnelly  10 , Jeff J Dowden  15 , Laura Downie  13 , Norah Finn  16 , Steven Habbous  9 , Dyfed W Huws  17   18 , S Eshwar Kumar  19 , Leon May  17 , Carol A McClure  20 , Bjørn Møller  21 , David S Morrison  13 , Grace Musto  11 , Yngvar Nilssen  21 , Nathalie Saint-Jacques  14 , Sabuj Sarker  7 , Lorraine Shack  22 , Luc Te Marvelde  16 , Xiaoyi Tian  22 , Robert Js Thomas  23 , Catherine S Thomson  13 , Richard Walton  12 , Haiyan Wang  15 , Tommy Hon Ting Wong  16 , Ryan R Woods  24 , Hui You  12 , Bin Zhang  25 , Georgios Lyratzopoulos  1 ; ICBP Module 9 Lung Study Group
Collaborators, Affiliations

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy use in patients with lung cancer in Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway 2012-2017: an ICBP population-based study

Matthew E Barclay et al. BMJ Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: International variation in lung cancer survival may be partly explained by variation in stage-specific treatment use, but relevant comparative evidence is sparse. As part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership, we examined use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in population-based cancer registry data.

Methods: Linked population-based data sources were used to describe use and time to first treatment for either chemotherapy or radiotherapy in patients with lung cancer diagnosed in study periods during 2012-2017 in 16 jurisdictions of Australia, Canada, the UK and Norway.

Results: There was large variation in the proportions of patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy (ranging from 23% in Northern Ireland to 45% in Norway) and radiotherapy (ranging from 32% in England to 48% in New South Wales and 50% in Newfoundland and Labrador). Across jurisdictions, chemotherapy use decreased steeply with increasing age, regardless of stage at diagnosis. For radiotherapy use, in stage 1-3 cancer three patterns were observed: (a) steep decrease with increasing age (UK jurisdictions, Saskatchewan-Manitoba); (b) a relatively flat pattern (Norway, Alberta, British Columbia, Atlantic Canada, New South Wales) and (c) increasing use with increasing age (Ontario).Time to radiotherapy initiation was longer in the UK jurisdictions than elsewhere; time to chemotherapy was longer in the UK and Canadian jurisdictions except Ontario.

Discussion: Use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in patients with lung cancer varied substantially between jurisdictions during the mid-2010s within age-stage strata. Reasons for these variations are unclear. Differences in non-surgical treatment use are plausibly associated with international variation in lung cancer survival.

Keywords: chemotherapy; epidemiology; lung cancer (non-small cell); lung cancer (small-cell); radiotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

MEB reports personal fees from GRAIL Bio UK, for Independent Data Monitoring Committee (IDMC) membership unrelated to this study. OB and GM report salary compensation for analysis of trial data in preparation for review by the Data Safety Monitoring Board for the POWERRANGER trial (NCT01404156), unrelated to this project. DWH reports grant support by Moondance Cancer Initiative (to institution) in relation to exploring bowel cancer audit data. YN reports grant support to The Cancer Registry of Norway by the Norwegian Cancer Society on standardised cancer pathways (no direct payment). RRW reports grant funding by the BC Cancer Foundation for examining cancer outcomes among Indigenous populations in BC, and funding by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer for data development projects. GL declares research grant funding by the study sponsors to his employer (University College London).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Proportion of patients with lung cancer in each jurisdiction who received chemotherapy (top) or radiotherapy (bottom) treatment, overall, for non-advanced stage, for advanced stage and for those with no recorded stage. Grey diamonds (bottom of panels) show the pooled estimate from a random-effects meta-analysis, with the widest point being the central estimate, the edges of the diamond representing 95% CIs, and the wider grey lines representing 95% prediction intervals. Same colour is used for estimates of jurisdictions of the same country. D, distant; L, localised; R, regional. See also online supplemental appendix 2 table 1.
Figure 2
Figure 2. (A–B) Proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy (A, top) and radiotherapy (B, bottom) by age, for all stages (left), non-advanced stage (middle) and advanced stage (right). Coloured lines show jurisdictional results, with jurisdictions within the same country having the same colour lines. Dashed vertical lines show 95% CIs, noting that they often align closely to central estimates, making them hard to decipher. Grey lines show results for all other jurisdictions for ease of comparisons. Proportions based on counts of between 1 and 9 are not shown. Atl. Canada, Atlantic Canada; BC, British Columbia; L, localised; NI, Northern Ireland; NSW, New South Wales; R, regional; RT, radiotherapy; SK-MB, Saskatchewan-Manitoba. See also online supplemental appendix 2 table 2.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Proportion of patients treated with chemotherapy (top) and radiotherapy (bottom), by sex. Squares or circles show the point estimate, and horizontal lines show 95% CIs. L, localised; R, regional; SK-MB, Saskatchewan-Manitoba. See also online supplemental appendix 2 table 3.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Cumulative percentage of patients in each country who had received chemotherapy (top) or radiotherapy (bottom) treatment, by elapsed time since diagnosis, for all stages, stages 1–3 (or localised (L)/regional (R)) or stage 4 (or distant). Stage-specific results for Australia are based on New South Wales data only. See also online supplemental appendix 2 tables 4 and 5.
Figure 5
Figure 5. (A—left, B—right) Scatter plot of jurisdictional use of surgery versus chemotherapy and surgery versus radiotherapy for a subset of jurisdictions. Coloured circles show jurisdiction-specific use, all patients with lung cancer, with jurisdictions within the same country having the same colour circle. Data related to surgery use do not always align with study period for chemotherapy or radiotherapy use, or population basis (see ‘Methods’ section). Pearson’s r for surgery versus chemotherapy=0.75 (95% CI to 0.15, 0.97); Pearson’s r for surgery versus radiotherapy=0.60 (95% CI to 0.42, 0.95).
Figure 6
Figure 6. Scatter plot of jurisdictional use of radiotherapy versus chemotherapy, for all stages, stages 1–3 (or localised (L)/regional (R)), or stage 4 (or distant). Coloured circles show jurisdiction-specific use, with jurisdictions within the same country having the same colour circle.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Scatter plot of jurisdictional 5-year net survival against use of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. Data for 5-year net survival from Arnold et al; data on chemotherapy and radiotherapy use from the study analysis samples; for data on surgery use, please see ‘Methods’ section. Same colour is used for estimates of jurisdictions of the same country.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Arnold M, Rutherford MJ, Bardot A, et al. Progress in cancer survival, mortality, and incidence in seven high-income countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1493–505. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Araghi M, Fidler-Benaoudia M, Arnold M, et al. ICBP SURVMARK-2 Local Leads, ICBP SURVMARK-2 Academic Reference Group. International differences in lung cancer survival by sex, histological type and stage at diagnosis: an ICBP SURVMARK-2 Study. Thorax. 2022;77:378–90. doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-216555. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McPhail S, Barclay ME, Johnson SA, et al. Use of chemotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25:338–51. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00031-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McPhail S, Barclay ME, Swann R, et al. Use of radiotherapy in patients with oesophageal, stomach, colon, rectal, liver, pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer: an International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP) population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 2024;25:352–65. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00032-9. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allemani C, Matsuda T, Di Carlo V, et al. Global surveillance of trends in cancer survival 2000-14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual records for 37 513 025 patients diagnosed with one of 18 cancers from 322 population-based registries in 71 countries. Lancet. 2018;391:1023–75. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)33326-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources