Access to Radiation Therapy: From Local to Global and Equality to Equity.

The discipline of radiation oncology is the most resource-intensive component of comprehensive cancer care because of significant initial investments required for machines, the requirement of dedicated construction, a multifaceted workforce, and recurring maintenance costs. This review focuses on the challenges associated with accessible and affordable radiation therapy (RT) across the globe and the possible solutions to improve the current scenario. Most common cancers globally, including breast, prostate, head and neck, and cervical cancers, have a RT utilization rate of > 50%. The estimated annual incidence of cancer is 19,292,789 for 2020, with > 70% occurring in low-income countries and low-middle-income countries. There are approximately 14,000 teletherapy machines globally. However, the distribution of these machines is distinctly nonuniform, with low-income countries and low-middle-income countries having access to < 10% of the global teletherapy machines. The Directory of Radiotherapy Centres enlists 3,318 brachytherapy facilities. Most countries with a high incidence of cervical cancer have a deficit in brachytherapy facilities, although formal estimates for the same are not available. The deficit in simulators, radiation oncologists, and medical physicists is even more challenging to quantify; however, the inequitable distribution is indisputable. Measures to ensure equitable access to RT include identifying problems specific to region/country, adopting indigenous technology, encouraging public-private partnership, relaxing custom duties on RT equipment, global/cross-country collaboration, and quality human resources training. Innovative research focusing on the most prevalent cancers aiming to make RT utilization more cost-effective while maintaining efficacy will further bridge the gap.

Distress Screening in Head and Neck Cancer Patients Planned for Cancer-Directed Radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: To estimate the prevalence of baseline clinically significant distress (distress score ≥ 4) in head and neck cancer patients planned and treated with radical intent radiotherapy using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) and assess factors predictive of distress. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study evaluating distress in 600 head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. The DT was used to screen patients for distress at baseline before radiotherapy. RESULTS: The median distress score of the entire cohort was 4 interquartile range (IQR) (IQR: 3-5), and 340 patients (56.7%) had clinically significant distress. On univariate analysis, the causal factors predictive of distress were low socioeconomic status (P = .04), presence of proliferative growth at presentation (P = .008), site of the tumor (oral cavity, P = .02), comorbidity (P = .04), and presence of Ryle's tube or tracheostomy tube at baseline (P = .01). Low socioeconomic status was significant (P = .04) on multivariate analysis for high levels of distress. CONCLUSIONS: Among head and neck cancer patients, 56% of patients had clinically significant baseline distress, and patients with low socioeconomic status had high distress. There is a need for interventions to mitigate distress. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 131:2023-2029, 2021.

Impact of comorbidity on therapeutic decision-making in head and neck cancer: audit from a comprehensive cancer center in India.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer has increased incidence of comorbidity due to tobacco and alcohol use. METHODS: Two hundred consecutive patients were included in this cross-sectional study. Data on clinico-demographic characteristics and comorbidity was extracted from case records. Comorbidity was assessed with Adult Comorbidity Evaluation 27 (ACE-27) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Change in therapeutic decision-making from institutional evidence-based guidelines was classified as low, medium, or high-impact. RESULTS: Of 200 patients, 68(34%) had comorbidity while 15 had multimorbidity. No change in therapeutic decision-making was seen in 139 patients (69.5%), 61patients (30.5%) had change from institutional evidence-based guidelines. There was strong positive correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.80; p < .001) between ACE-27 and change in therapeutic decision-making. For CCI, there was moderate positive correlation (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.50; p < .001). CONCLUSION: Comorbidity in patients with head and neck cancer can influence therapeutic decision-making. Prospective longitudinal rigorous collection of comorbidity data is warranted for correlation with outcomes. ACE-27 may be a clinically more meaningful tool for comorbidity assessment.