Understanding variation in treatment with Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapies across England

The types of cancer treatment patients receive, and how those treatments are given, can vary depending on where patients live in England. This project looked at these differences with SACT delivery and provided information to help clinicians follow best practice, aligned with current guidance, to deliver more consistent care. The aim is to improve cancer care and make treatment services work more effectively across England.

This project was initiated by the National Disease Registration Service (NDRS) SACT Clinical Leads Group (CLG). Members of this group include clinical representatives from all Cancer Alliances across England. The work was undertaken by NDRS analysts, NDRS Data Projects Team and the SACT CLG.

The NDRS analytical team built on existing SACT analyses and NHS facing reports to produce analyses on cancer treatments. Reports were created using R Markdown, allowing the team to automatically generate clear, consistent HTML reports.

The data focused on monthly counts of patients receiving specific treatments, broken down by NHS trust. The specific treatments of interest were identified by CLG members. This supported timely monitoring and comparison across organisations.

The results were shared and discussed at CLG meetings and then circulated more widely to local Cancer Alliances and trusts. The findings were also presented at oncology conferences, helping to share learning and insights with the wider clinical and academic community.

This project has helped reduce variation in the use of, and delivery of, SACT leading to more consistent cancer care. Trusts and cancer alliances can identify how their practice differs from others in England. The CLG structure is used to involve clinicians, listen to their feedback, and support improvements in how care is delivered.

There may be potential to expand this work into an ongoing programme to identify and reduce the use of cancer treatments no longer considered standard practice. This may highlight opportunities to deliver treatment more efficiently, without affecting patient outcomes. The findings could support commissioning decisions and inform regular audit and review processes.