IO1-UK: a cross-sectional study to re-evaluate the provision of interventional oncology services across the United Kingdom.

Velazquez-Pimentel, D.; Pancholi, J.; Jenkins, P.; Cinti, N.; Stephanou, M.; Kotecha, D.; White, A.; Ashraf, S.; Llewellyn, O.; Vigneswaran, G.; Shiwani, H.; Zhong, J.; Alcorn, D.; Breen, DJ.; Haslam, P.; Hickson, G.; Jaffer, O.; Kennedy, P.; Littler, P.; Peddu, P.; Railton, N.; Wah, TM.

IO1-UK: a cross-sectional study to re-evaluate the provision of interventional oncology services across the United Kingdom.

All Authors

Velazquez-Pimentel, D.

Pancholi, J.

Jenkins, P.

Cinti, N.

Stephanou, M.

Kotecha, D.

White, A.

Ashraf, S.

Llewellyn, O.

Vigneswaran, G.

Show 10 more

LTHT Author

Zhong, Jim
Wah, Tze Min

LTHT Department

Radiology
Interventional Radiology

Publication Date

2025

Item Type

Journal Article

Subject

UNITED KINGDOM , RADIOLOGY, INTERVENTIONAL , RADIOLOGY , HOSPITALS

Abstract

AIM: This study aims to survey the provision of Interventional Oncology (IO) services in the UK and compare the results to survey data collected in 2016. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional multicentre study of the provision of IO services was conducted across all interventional radiology (IR) departments in the UK. Data were collected using an electronic survey tool and executed via the UNITE Collaborative. IO procedures were defined using the Royal College of Radiologists classification categories. For each IR department information regarding demographic details, current IO procedures, equipment, and relevant infrastructure was collected. Thereafter, responses were compared to survey data collected in 2016. RESULTS: A total of 169 hospital boards were invited to participate, 132 (78%) of which responded stating they had an IR department, while 29 (17%) responded stating they had no IR department and 8 (5%) provided no response. Of the hospital boards with IR departments, 49% (n=65/132) provided both disease-modifying and supportive/symptomatic procedures and 51% (n=67/132) offered only supportive/symptomatic procedures. Compared to 2016, there was a modest increase in the provision of disease-modifying procedures with the largest growth seen in transarterial chemoembolisation (+9%), selective internal radiation therapy (+7%), and renal ablation (+8%). CONCLUSION: Over the last 8 years, the provision of IO services across the UK has only marginally grown in both supportive and disease-modifying domains. This study highlights the urgent need to identify and address barriers preventing access to IO procedures to ensure the UK population can benefit from modern, evidence-based IO care. Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.