Skip to main content

Table 5 Key Findings for the influence of designated Cancer Network of treatment and access to chemotherapy

From: A systematic review of geographical variation in access to chemotherapy

Study Un-adjusted OR (CI) Adjusted OR for receipt of chemotherapy (CI) P-value
Beckett ‘12 [34] Not clearly stated Not stated in text- read from figure: Range of network adjusted OR of receipt of chemo in SCLC 2.1 (CI 1.6 to 2.75) to 0.55 (0.49 to 0.75) Not stated
Patel ‘07 [38] Cancer network Cancer network P < 0.001
A 18.0 A 18.0
B 18.2 B 20.5
C 18.6 C 20.7
D 17.4 D 18.6
E 18.6 E 20.5
F 24.1 F 27.7
G 17.4 G 16.6
H 10.8 H 10.3
I 10.4 I 10.9
J 18.0 J 16.9
K 7.8 K 6.1
L 15.0 L 12.6
M 14.3 M 14.2
Richards ‘04 [6] Variation by cancer network measured for each drug and adjusted by network size only. Values given per drug for variation across networks including 25 th/75 th percentile, 90 % ILE/10 % ILE, mean, median, maximum 90-percentile to/10-percentile volume ratios for drugs across cancer networks: Not performed
Rituxumab: 2.61, Imatinib 2.90, Gemcitabine 2.99, Fludarabine 3.15, Docetaxel 3.29, Capecitabine 3.60, Oxaliplatin 3.72, Irinotecan 3.73, Paclitaxel 3.78, Trastuzumab 4.25, Vinorelbine 8.13, Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin 9.69, Temozolamide 11.61, Cisplatin 2.26, Epirubicin 2.36, Doxorubicin 2.68
NLCA ‘13* [28] Numbers and percent of patients receiving chemo-therapy per network. Range: SCLC 49.3 % to 80.4 %, NSCLC 43.6 % to 70.9 % Only one network was statistically significantly different to the whole NLCA population with SCLC: OR 1.88, 95 % CI 1.19 to 2.97. Nine cancer networks were statistically significantly different to the whole population odds for receipt of chemotherapy in NSCLC, with a range of 0.41 (0.27 to 0.60) to 1.93 (1.32 to 2.83) (in 2012). Not stated