Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:06:18.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Travelling for treatment; does distance and deprivation affect travel for intensity-modulated radiotherapy in the rural setting for head and neck cancer?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

B Cosway ,
L Douglas ,
N Armstrong  and
A Robson
B Cosway*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
L Douglas
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
N Armstrong
Affiliation:
Department of Radiotherapy, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
A Robson
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Mr Benjamin Cosway, Department of Otolaryngology, Cumberland Infirmary, Carlisle CA2 7HY, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

NHS England has commissioned intensity-modulated radiotherapy for head and neck cancers from Newcastle hospitals for patients in North Cumbria. This study assessed whether travel distances affected the decision to travel to Newcastle (to receive intensity-modulated radiotherapy) or Carlisle (to receive conformal radiotherapy).

Methods:

All patients for whom the multidisciplinary team recommended intensity-modulated radiotherapy between December 2013 and January 2016 were included. Index of multiple deprivation scores and travel distances were calculated. Patients were also asked why they chose their treating centre.

Results:

Sixty-nine patients were included in this study. There were no significant differences in travel distance (p = 0.53) or index of multiple deprivation scores (p = 0.47) between patients opting for treatment in Carlisle or Newcastle. However, 29 of the 33 patients gave travel distance as their main reason for not travelling for treatment.

Conclusion:

Quantitatively, travel distance and deprivation does not impact on whether patients accept intensity-modulated radiotherapy. However, patients say distance is a major barrier for access. Future research should explore how to reduce this.

Keywords

Head And Neck NeoplasmsRadiotherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedTravelPsychosocial Deprivation
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 131 , Issue 6 , June 2017 , pp. 546 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Paleri, V, Roland, N. Introduction to the United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancer. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130(suppl 2):S3–4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Nutting, C. Radiotherapy in head and neck cancer management: United Kingdom National Multidisciplinary Guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130(suppl 2):S66–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Nutting, CM, Morden, JP, Harrington, KJ, Urbano, TG, Bhide, SA, Clark, C et al. Parotid-sparing intensity modulated versus conventional radiotherapy in head and neck cancer (PARSPORT): a phase 3 multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:127–36CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4 NHS Standard Contract for Radiotherapy (all ages). In: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/b01-radiotherapy.pdf [26 June 2016]Google Scholar
5 English Indices of Deprivation 2015. In: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2015 [26 June 2016]Google Scholar
6 Lightfoot, NE, Steggles, S, Gauthier-Frohlick, D, Arbour-Gagnon, R, Conlon, MS, Innes, C et al. Psychological, physical, social and economic impact of travelling great distances for cancer treatment. Curr Oncol 2005;12:1–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Patel, RS, Hewett, J, Hickey, SA. Patient burden of centralization of head and neck cancer surgery. J Laryngol Otol 2004;118:528–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8An evaluation of cancer surgery services in the UK. In: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/policy_cruk_cancer_surgery_services_feb14.pdf [26 June 2016]Google Scholar