| Verified against primary record | |
| A counted programme | 160 patients referred abroad for proton beam therapy since 2008, including nearly 100 paediatric cases, as at 2012[1] |
|---|---|
| Cost of sending patients | About 42,000 pounds per patient in Switzerland to over 100,000 at commercially run United States centres, 2012[1] |
| Records read | Government programme case and the atomic energy agency directory, 30 September 2026 |
| Independently reported | |
| Radiotherapy disparity | One teletherapy machine per over 130,000 people in high-income countries, per 15.6 million in low-income (year not stated)[2] |
| Bands apply only to the rows beneath them. Figures from the 2012 programme case that are forecasts rather than records are excluded. | |
Cancer treatment abroad covers travel for oncology, which divides cleanly into two very different situations. In one, a wealthy health system sends a small number of patients overseas for a modality it does not yet have, pays for it, and keeps records. In the other, a patient lives where radiotherapy does not exist within reach at all. The first is documented in detail; the second is a question of capacity rather than of travel, and is barely documented as travel at all.
A state-funded programme, counted
Before building domestic capacity, the English health department ran a programme sending patients overseas for proton beam therapy. Its 2012 strategic outline case records that 250 patients had been referred into the programme since it started in 2008 and 160 had been referred for proton treatment abroad, including nearly 100 paediatric cases. Fifty patients travelled overseas in 2010 to 2011 at a cost of about 5 million pounds, and 42 patients from England had begun treatment overseas in the first seven months of 2011 to 2012. The average cost that year was put at about 110,000 pounds per patient, with destinations in Switzerland, France and the United States ranging from about 42,000 pounds per patient in Switzerland to over 100,000 pounds at commercially run American centres.[1]
That document is a planning case, and it contains forecasts as well as records. Its projections for later years, and its domestic capacity estimates, are what the department expected rather than what happened, and are not reproduced here. The referral counts above are records.
The pattern is worth naming because it recurs. A state sends patients abroad for a modality it lacks, at a high unit cost, while building the capacity that will make the travel unnecessary. The travel is a transitional arrangement, and it is counted precisely because a public body is paying for it.
Where the capacity is not
The International Atomic Energy Agency maintains a directory of radiotherapy centres worldwide, recording nearly 8,800 centres, over 16,000 teletherapy machines and more than 3,000 brachytherapy resources. The disparity it reports is stark: in high-income countries one teletherapy machine serves over 130,000 people on average, while in low-income countries the figure rises to 15.6 million. Measured against a target of one machine per 500 cancer patients, low-income countries would need more than eight times their current number. As of March 2020 only 28 of Africa’s 54 countries had access to radiotherapy at all, and in 2022 only 20.9 per cent of countries met the minimum resource requirement, with global radiotherapy equipment increasing by 2.7 per cent between 2022 and 2023.[2]
The headline machine counts and the per-population disparity carry no reference year on the source consulted, and should be quoted with that stated. The African and percentage figures do carry years.
Those numbers describe the supply of a treatment, not the movement of patients. Nobody counts how many people cross a border because radiotherapy is unavailable where they live, and the distinction matters: a disparity in machines is a measure of what is absent, not a measure of who travelled in response to its absence. For most of the people it describes, the disparity is a reason care does not happen rather than a reason a journey does.
See also
- Medical travel for unavailable treatments, including travel to join a clinical trial
- Government-funded treatment abroad, the route this programme used
- Palliative care abroad, where much of this need eventually leads
- Medical travel for children, who made up much of the proton programme
References
- Department of Health, United Kingdom. National Proton Beam Therapy Service Development Programme: Strategic Outline Case. 16 October 2012. Verified against primary record: government planning document opened and read. Its forward projections are forecasts and are not used here. Retrieved 30 September 2026.
- International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Directory Provides Data-driven Insights Informing Cancer Care. Verified against primary record: the agency reporting its own DIRAC database. Machine counts and the per-population disparity carry no stated reference year. Retrieved 30 September 2026.
Sourcing note: the programme case and the agency directory report were opened and read on 30 September 2026. The 2012 document is a planning case, so its historical referral counts are reproduced and its forward projections are not, since the two are easily confused and only one records what occurred. Whether the overseas programme continued, and when domestic centres opened, was not verified for this entry and is not stated. The radiotherapy disparity figures describe the supply of treatment and are not presented as measures of travel.