Latin American Consensus on the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer.

Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is well known as a serious health problem worldwide, especially in low-income countries or those with limited resources, such as most countries in Latin America. International guidelines cannot always be applied to a population from a large region with specific conditions. This study established a Latin American guideline for care of patients with head and neck cancer and presented evidence of HNSCC management considering availability and oncologic benefit. A panel composed of 41 head and neck cancer experts systematically worked according to a modified Delphi process on (1) document compilation of evidence-based answers to different questions contextualized by resource availability and oncologic benefit regarding Latin America (region of limited resources and/or without access to all necessary health care system infrastructure), (2) revision of the answers and the classification of levels of evidence and degrees of recommendations of all recommendations, (3) validation of the consensus through two rounds of online surveys, and (4) manuscript composition. The consensus consists of 12 sections: Head and neck cancer staging, Histopathologic evaluation of head and neck cancer, Head and neck surgery-oral cavity, Clinical oncology-oral cavity, Head and neck surgery-oropharynx, Clinical oncology-oropharynx, Head and neck surgery-larynx, Head and neck surgery-larynx/hypopharynx, Clinical oncology-larynx/hypopharynx, Clinical oncology-recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer, Head and neck surgery-reconstruction and rehabilitation, and Radiation therapy. The present consensus established 48 recommendations on HNSCC patient care considering the availability of resources and focusing on oncologic benefit. These recommendations could also be used to formulate strategies in other regions like Latin America countries.

Moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer: preferences amongst radiation oncologists from countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Background: The safety and effectiveness of moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer were demonstrated by several trials. This study aimed to evaluate the current patterns of practice and prescription preference about moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy to assess possible aspects that affect the decision-making process regarding the use of fractionation in breast cancer patients in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We also aimed to identify factors that can restrain the utilization of moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer. Materials an methods: Radiation oncologists from LAC were invited to contribute to this study. A 38-question survey was used to evaluate their opinions. Results: A total of 173 radiation oncologists from 13 countries answered the questionnaire. The majority of respondents (84.9%) preferred moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy as their first choice in cases of whole breast irradiation. Whole breast plus regional nodal irradiation, post-mastectomy (chest wall and regional nodal irradiation) without reconstruction, and post-mastectomy (chest wall and regional node irradiation) with reconstruction hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy was preferred by 72.2% 71.1%, and 53.7% of respondents, respectively. Breast cancer stage, and flap-based breast reconstruction were the factors associated with absolute contraindications for the use of hypofractionated schedules. Conclusion: Even though moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer is considered a new standard to the vast majority of the patients, its unrestricted application in clinical practice across LAC still faces reluctance.

Cost in perspective: direct assessment of American market acceptability of Co-60 in gynecologic high-dose-rate brachytherapy and contrast with experience abroad.

PURPOSE: While Ir-192 remains the mainstay isotope for gynecologic high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy in the U.S., Co-60 is used abroad. Co-60 has a longer half-life than Ir-192, which may lead to long-term cost savings; however, its higher energy requires greater shielding. This study analyzes Co-60 acceptability based on a one-time expense of additional shielding and reports the financial experience of Co-60 in Peru's National Cancer Institute, which uses both isotopes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A nationwide survey was undertaken assessing physician knowledge of Co-60 and willingness-to-pay (WTP) for additional shielding, assuming a source more cost-effective than Ir-192 was available. With 440 respondents, 280 clinicians were decision-makers and provided WTPs, with results previously reported. After completing a shielding report, we estimated costs for shielding expansion, noting acceptability to decision makers' WTP. Using activity-based costing, we note the Peruvian fiscal experience. RESULTS: Shielding estimates ranged from $173,000 to $418,000. The percentage of respondents accepting high-density modular or lead shielding (for union and non-union settings) were 17.5%, 11.4%, 3.9%, and 3.2%, respectively. Shielding acceptance was associated with greater number of radiation oncologists in a respondent's department but not time in practice or the American Brachytherapy Society membership. Peru's experience noted cost savings with Co-60 of $52,400 annually. CONCLUSIONS: By comparing the cost of additional shielding for a sample institution's HDR suite with radiation oncologists' WTP, this multi-institutional collaboration noted < 20% of clinicians would accept additional shielding. Despite low acceptability in the US, Co-60 demonstrates cost-favorability in Peru and may similarly in other locations.