RESUMEN
The foundations of nuclear medicine in Vietnam were established from 1970. Until now, after 48 years of development, in Vietnam, we have some basic equipment including 31 SPECT, 4 SPECT/CT machines, 11 PET/CT scanners, five cyclotrons, and one nuclear reactor. Many nuclear medicine techniques in diagnosis and treatment have been routinely performed at provincial and central level health facilities such as tumor scintigraphy, thyroid scintigraphy, bone scintigraphy, kidney scintigraphy, cardiac scintigraphy, and radio-isotope therapy with I-131 and P-32. Selective internal radiation therapy with Y-90 microsphere and I-125 radioactive seed implantation has been also successfully applied in some big hospitals. However, there are still many difficulties for Vietnam as the lack of new widely used radioisotopes such as Ga-67, Cu-64, Samarium-153, and Lutetium-177 and the lack of nuclear medicine specialists. In the future, we are putting our efforts on the applications of new isotopes in diagnosis and treatment of cancers (theranostic) like Ga-68-DOTATATE, Lutetium-177-DOTATATE, Ga-68-PSMA, and Lutetium-177-PSMA, equipping modern nuclear medicine diagnostic tools, strengthening the human resources training in nuclear medicine. At the same time, we are trying our best to strengthen the cooperation with international nuclear medicine societies in over the world.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This paper aims to analyze the household financial burden and poverty impacts of cancer treatment in Vietnam. METHODS: Under the "ASEAN CosTs in ONcology" study design, three major specialized cancer hospitals were employed to assemble the Vietnamese data. Factors of socioeconomic, direct, and indirect costs of healthcare were collected prospectively through both individual interviews and hospital financial records. RESULTS: The rates of catastrophic expenditure based on the cut-off points of 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50% of household's income were 82.6%, 73.7%, 64.7%, and 56.9%, respectively. 37.4% of the households with patient were impoverished by the treatment costs for cancer. The statistically significant correlates of the impoverishment problem were higher among older patients (40-60 years: 1.77, 95% CI 1.14-2.73; above 60 years: 1.75, 95% CI 1.03-2.98); poorer patients (less than 100% national income: 29, 95% CI 18.6-45.24; less than 200% national income: 2.89, 95% CI 1.69-4.93); patients who underwent surgery alone (receiving nonsurgery treatment: 2.46, 95% CI 1.32-4.59; receiving multiple treatments: 2.4, 95% CI 1.38-4.17). CONCLUSIONS: Lots of households were pushed into poverty due to their expenditure on cancer care; more actions are urgently needed to improve financial protection to the vulnerable groups.