Pan-Canadian Survey of Radiation Oncology Professional Involvement in Global Oncology Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

PURPOSE: Canadian radiation oncology professionals have a strong history of involvement in global oncology initiatives worldwide. This pan-Canadian survey-based study was conducted to determine the current level of engagement of Canadian radiation oncologists (ROs) and medical physicists (MPs) in global oncology initiatives and broaden the development of these activities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. The survey was designed to characterize current levels of engagement of Canadian ROs and MPs in global oncology initiatives. The survey was open from March 2019 to April 2020. It was disseminated to all Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology and Canadian Organization of Medical Physicists members with two subsequent email reminders. RESULTS: Survey responses were received from 40 (93%) of the 43 Canadian cancer treatment centers that offer radiotherapy. At least one RO responded at 34 centers (79%) and one MP from 34 centers (79%) with some overlap. A response was received from a total of 93 participants, 47 ROs and 46 MPs. Of all survey participants, 58% reported some experience with global oncology. Nineteen percent of the participants surveyed were currently directly involved in short- or long-term projects, more than half of which have opportunity for additional staff involvement. The projects spanned 26 countries in South America, Africa, and Asia. Quality improvement and capacity building accounted for 27% and 20% of initiatives, respectively. The most common area of engagement was in direct treatment care, accounting for 56% of the projects. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the landscape of involvement of Canadian ROs and MPs in global oncology initiatives. The study also highlights areas of opportunity for broadening international participation and collaboration as it relates to global oncology for Canadian radiation oncology professionals.

Equity in adjuvant radiotherapy utilization in locally advanced head and neck cancer: A SEER-data based study.

BACKGROUND: Not all patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer (HNC) who are eligible for adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) following upfront surgery appear to receive it. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Selected patients from 2009 to 2018 had locally advanced HNC, underwent upfront surgery, and were eligible for adjuvant RT. Multivariable logistic regression and chi-squared test were used to analyze available patient and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Of 12 549 patients, 84.5% underwent adjuvant RT, 15.5% did not. Characteristics associated with lowest adjuvant RT utilization included cancers of the larynx (p < 0.0001) and gingivae (p < 0.0001), age 80 and above (p < 0.0001), unpartnered status (p < 0.0001), and residence within a nonmetropolitan area (p < 0.0024). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor subsite, age, partnered status, and rural/urban residence correlate with omission of adjuvant RT in locally advanced HNC.

Proximity to Radiotherapy Center, Population, Average Income, and Health Insurance Status as Predictors of Cancer Mortality at the County Level in the United States.

PURPOSE: Sufficient radiotherapy (RT) capacity is essential to delivery of high-quality cancer care. However, despite sufficient capacity, universal access is not always possible in high-income countries because of factors beyond the commonly used parameter of machines per million people. This study assesses the barriers to RT in a high-income country and how these affect cancer mortality. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used US county-level data obtained from Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the International Atomic Energy Agency Directory of Radiotherapy Centres. RT facilities in the United States were mapped using Geographic Information Systems software. Univariate analysis was used to identify whether distance to a RT center or various socioeconomic factors were predictive of all-cancer mortality-to-incidence ratio (MIR). Significant variables (P ≤ .05) on univariate analysis were included in a step-wise backward elimination method of multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of US counties have at least one RT facility and 8.3% have five or more. The median linear distance from a county's centroid to the nearest RT center was 36 km, and the median county all-cancer MIR was 0.37. The amount of RT centers, linear accelerators, and brachytherapy units per 1 million people were associated with all-cancer MIR (P < .05). Greater distance to RT facilities, lower county population, lower average income per county, and higher proportion of patients without health insurance were associated with increased all-cancer MIR (R-squared, 0.2113; F, 94.22; P < .001). CONCLUSION: This analysis used unique high-quality data sets to identify significant barriers to RT access that correspond to higher cancer mortality at the county level. Geographic access, personal income, and insurance status all contribute to these concerning disparities. Efforts to address these barriers are needed.

DECOLONIZING CANCER CARE IN CANADA.

Cancer incidence and mortality among Indigenous peoples of Canada (First Nations, Inuit, and Métis) continue to rise in contrast to non-Indigenous Canadians, and Indigenous peoples are at higher risk of cancers associated with known modifiable risk factors. Jurisdictional and administrative challenges have hindered high quality cancer care for Indigenous peoples since the country's inception, and different Indigenous populations face these challenges under similar yet non-identical circumstances. Collaborative initiatives under Indigenous leadership have drawn attention to specific issues such as screening, funding, and culturally appropriate care, and have identified resources necessary to address these problems. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and their collaborators have committed significant resources to Indigenous cancer programs with locally and regionally determined leadership and priorities. In the context of broader global movements against systemic racism and inequity, decolonization of cancer care demands critical analysis of the existing cancer systems and restructuring under Indigenous leadership with multidisciplinary collaboration.