Prioritising regions and pathways to improve

Summary

This page shows the percentages of patients within waiting times standards and the percentages of all breaches accounted for, by each pathway in each Cancer Alliance. It highlights regions and pathways to improve.

Time period of data: October 2023 to February 2025

28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard

Reducing inequalities

Figure 1 shows several regional pathways with low percentages of patients within the standard. Those in the lowest 2.5% of all pathways are:

Cancer Alliance	Referral group	Cancer type	Percent within standard (%)	Total number of patients	Total number within standard	Total number of breaches	Percent of all breaches (%)	Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
North East London	Urgent suspected cancer	Sarcoma	21.20	382	81	301	0.03	0.03
Thames Valley	National screening programme	Lung	22.50	40	9	31	0.00	0.03
North East London	Urgent suspected cancer	Other	26.59	410	109	301	0.03	0.06
Lancashire and South Cumbria	National screening programme	Lower GI	36.02	3973	1431	2542	0.23	0.28
Greater Manchester	National screening programme	Lower GI	36.62	4768	1746	3022	0.27	0.56
Thames Valley	Urgent suspected cancer	Non-specific symptoms	37.22	3947	1469	2478	0.22	0.78
East Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Haematological (excluding acute leukaemia)	38.54	2086	804	1282	0.11	0.89
North East London	Urgent suspected cancer	Non-specific symptoms	39.67	2095	831	1264	0.11	1.01
East of England	National screening programme	Lung	40.19	316	127	189	0.02	1.02
South East London	National screening programme	Missing or invalid	40.32	62	25	37	0.00	1.03
Humber and North Yorkshire	National screening programme	Lower GI	40.35	4555	1838	2717	0.24	1.27

Table 1: 28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard - Pathways with percentages of patients within standard that are in the lowest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These pathways may be good candidates for policies to reduce inequalities in waiting times.

However, Table 1 shows that these pathways account for only a small percentage of all breaches: the cumulative percentage of all breaches equals 1.27%.

Reducing numbers of breaches

The complementary approach is to improve pathways that account for the largest percentages of all breaches (towards the right of Figure 1).

The pathways with percentages of all breaches in the highest 2.5% of values are:

Cancer Alliance	Referral group	Cancer type	Percent within standard (%)	Total number of patients	Total number within standard	Total number of breaches	Percent of all breaches (%)	Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	58.18	78487	45667	32820	2.94	2.94
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Skin	78.01	134052	104574	29478	2.64	5.59
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	60.56	66136	40049	26087	2.34	7.93
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological (excluding testicular)	53.07	46639	24752	21887	1.96	9.89
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Gynaecological	61.96	55031	34096	20935	1.88	11.77
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological (excluding testicular)	50.75	39060	19822	19238	1.73	13.49
Cheshire and Merseyside	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	55.34	36167	20016	16151	1.45	14.94
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Gynaecological	63.27	43929	27795	16134	1.45	16.39
Surrey and Sussex	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	67.44	46627	31444	15183	1.36	17.75
East Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	64.03	41795	26763	15032	1.35	19.10
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	62.22	38059	23679	14380	1.29	20.39

Table 2: 28-day Faster Diagnosis Standard - Pathways with percentages of all breaches of the standard that are in the highest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These 11 pathways account for 20.39% of all breaches. Improving these pathways could have a larger impact on overall performance nationally.

31-day treatment standard

Reducing inequalities

Figure 2 shows several regional pathways with low percentages of patients within the standard. Those in the lowest 2.5% of all pathways are:

Cancer Alliance	First or subsequent treatment	Cancer type	Percent within standard (%)	Total number of patients	Total number within standard	Total number of breaches	Percent of all breaches (%)	Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw	Subsequent treatment	Urological - prostate	56.10	2296	1288	1008	1.15	1.15
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw	First treatment	Urological - other	63.17	945	597	348	0.40	1.55
Lancashire and South Cumbria	Subsequent treatment	Skin	66.41	1042	692	350	0.40	1.95
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw	Subsequent treatment	Skin	68.54	1154	791	363	0.42	2.37
North Central London	Subsequent treatment	Urological - prostate	69.42	2518	1748	770	0.88	3.25
Thames Valley	First treatment	Gynaecological	70.22	638	448	190	0.22	3.47
East Midlands	First treatment	Urological - other	71.49	2227	1592	635	0.73	4.19
Northern	Subsequent treatment	Urological - prostate	71.61	4561	3266	1295	1.48	5.67
West Midlands	First treatment	Urological - other	72.33	2776	2008	768	0.88	6.55
Humber and North Yorkshire	Subsequent treatment	Breast	72.55	3647	2646	1001	1.15	7.70
East of England	Subsequent treatment	Skin	72.75	3248	2363	885	1.01	8.71
West Midlands	Subsequent treatment	Skin	73.45	3958	2907	1051	1.20	9.91
Thames Valley	Subsequent treatment	Skin	73.69	1752	1291	461	0.53	10.44

Table 3: 31-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of patients within standard that are in the lowest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These pathways may be good candidates for policies to reduce inequalities in cancer waiting times.

However, Table 3 shows that these pathways account for only a small proportion of all breaches: the cumulative percentage of all breaches equals 10.44%.

Reducing numbers of breaches

The complementary approach is to improve pathways that account for the largest percentages of all breaches (towards the right of Figure 2).

The pathways with percentages of all breaches in the highest 2.5% of values are:

Cancer Alliance	First or subsequent treatment	Cancer type	Percent within standard (%)	Total number of patients	Total number within standard	Total number of breaches	Percent of all breaches (%)	Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
East of England	First treatment	Skin	83.28	10210	8503	1707	1.95	1.95
East of England	Subsequent treatment	Breast	90.23	15378	13876	1502	1.72	3.67
East of England	Subsequent treatment	Urological - prostate	81.31	7960	6472	1488	1.70	5.37
West Midlands	First treatment	Skin	83.58	8844	7392	1452	1.66	7.03
East Midlands	Subsequent treatment	Breast	86.23	10428	8992	1436	1.64	8.68
Northern	Subsequent treatment	Urological - prostate	71.61	4561	3266	1295	1.48	10.16
Surrey and Sussex	First treatment	Skin	85.16	8684	7395	1289	1.47	11.63
West Midlands	Subsequent treatment	Skin	73.45	3958	2907	1051	1.20	12.84
West Midlands	Subsequent treatment	Urological - prostate	84.92	6954	5905	1049	1.20	14.04
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw	Subsequent treatment	Urological - prostate	56.10	2296	1288	1008	1.15	15.19
Humber and North Yorkshire	Subsequent treatment	Breast	72.55	3647	2646	1001	1.15	16.33
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire	First treatment	Skin	86.24	7136	6154	982	1.12	17.46
West Midlands	First treatment	Breast	87.65	7415	6499	916	1.05	18.50

Table 4: 31-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of all breaches of the standard that are in the highest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These 13 pathways account for 18.5% of all breaches. Improving these pathways could have a larger impact on overall performance nationally.

62-day treatment standard

Reducing inequalities

Figure 3 shows several regional pathways with low percentages of patients within the standard. Those in the lowest 2.5% of all pathways are:

Cancer Alliance	Referral group	Cancer type	Percent within standard (%)	Total number of patients	Total number within standard	Total number of breaches	Percent of all breaches (%)	Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
East of England	Screening	Lung	15.68	118.0	18.5	99.5	0.07	0.07
Humber and North Yorkshire	Screening	Lung	16.07	56.0	9.0	47.0	0.03	0.10
South East London	Screening	Lower GI	17.96	103.0	18.5	84.5	0.06	0.15
Peninsula	Screening	Lung	20.11	174.0	35.0	139.0	0.09	0.25
South East London	Screening	Lung	20.38	78.5	16.0	62.5	0.04	0.29
Thames Valley	Urgent suspected cancer	Gynaecological	20.69	391.5	81.0	310.5	0.21	0.50
Surrey and Sussex	Screening	Lung	23.53	42.5	10.0	32.5	0.02	0.52
South East London	Urgent suspected cancer	Gynaecological	23.90	295.0	70.5	224.5	0.15	0.67
East Midlands	Screening	Lower GI	26.62	610.5	162.5	448.0	0.30	0.97
Peninsula	Screening	Lower GI	26.92	267.5	72.0	195.5	0.13	1.10
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire	Screening	Lower GI	26.99	389.0	105.0	284.0	0.19	1.29
Humber and North Yorkshire	Urgent suspected cancer	Gynaecological	28.19	379.5	107.0	272.5	0.18	1.47
Northern	Screening	Lung	28.72	195.0	56.0	139.0	0.09	1.57
South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw	Urgent suspected cancer	Gynaecological	28.73	402.0	115.5	286.5	0.19	1.76
Cheshire and Merseyside	Urgent suspected cancer	Gynaecological	29.09	636.0	185.0	451.0	0.30	2.06
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Head & neck	29.69	1121.5	333.0	788.5	0.53	2.59

Table 5: 62-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of patients within standard that are in the lowest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These pathways may be good candidates for policies to reduce inequalities in cancer waiting times.

However, Table 5 shows that these pathways account for only a small proportion of all breaches: the cumulative percentage of all breaches equals 2.59%.

Reducing numbers of breaches

The complementary approach is to improve pathways that account for the largest percentages of all breaches (towards the right of Figure 3).

The pathways with percentages of all breaches in the highest 2.5% of values are:

Cancer Alliance	Referral group	Cancer type	Percent within standard (%)	Total number of patients	Total number within standard	Total number of breaches	Percent of all breaches (%)	Cumulative percent of all breaches (%)
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological - prostate	33.64	6252.0	2103.0	4149.0	2.78	2.78
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological - prostate	53.91	7666.0	4132.5	3533.5	2.37	5.15
Somerset, Wiltshire, Avon and Gloucestershire	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological - prostate	42.93	3979.0	1708.0	2271.0	1.52	6.67
East Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological - prostate	51.80	4620.5	2393.5	2227.0	1.49	8.16
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	40.68	3261.0	1326.5	1934.5	1.30	9.45
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Skin	75.72	7053.0	5340.5	1712.5	1.15	10.60
Northern	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological - prostate	56.17	3895.0	2188.0	1707.0	1.14	11.74
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Breast	57.25	3961.0	2267.5	1693.5	1.13	12.88
Wessex	Urgent suspected cancer	Urological - prostate	47.82	2964.5	1417.5	1547.0	1.04	13.91
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	45.02	2686.5	1209.5	1477.0	0.99	14.90
East Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Lower GI	35.18	2162.0	760.5	1401.5	0.94	15.84
East of England	Urgent suspected cancer	Breast	72.63	4851.5	3523.5	1328.0	0.89	16.73
West Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Skin	78.69	6001.0	4722.0	1279.0	0.86	17.59
West Midlands	Consultant upgrade	Lung	62.43	3379.0	2109.5	1269.5	0.85	18.44
East Midlands	Urgent suspected cancer	Breast	60.47	3181.0	1923.5	1257.5	0.84	19.28
East of England	Consultant upgrade	Lung	59.12	2842.5	1680.5	1162.0	0.78	20.06

Table 6: 62-day treatment standard - Pathways with percentages of all breaches of the standard that are in the highest 2.5% of values across all pathways

These 16 pathways account for 20.06% of all breaches. Improving these pathways could have a larger impact on overall performance nationally.