ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal utilization rate of radiotherapy (oRUR) serves as a benchmark for assessing service demand and improving access to cancer care. While it is estimated that approximately 50 % of adult cancer patients require external beam radiotherapy during their treatment, there is a scarcity of data regarding the optimal use of radiotherapy in pediatric cancer. In this study, we adopted an established method and developed a model to estimate the oRUR in childhood neuroblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a decision tree model to calculate the oRUR using indications for radiotherapy and corresponding epidemiological data collected through systematic review and meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of variations in radiotherapy indications between treatment protocols and variables in the model. We calculated and compared the oRUR for global, high-income, and low- and middle-income settings. RESULTS: The oRUR for pediatric neuroblastoma was 64 % (95 % CI: 58 %-71 %) in the global setting, 50 % in high-income countries, and 68 % in low- and middle-income countries. The impact of variation in radiotherapy indications between major international treatment protocols was negligible. CONCLUSION: The knowledge of oRUR is crucial for evaluating current practices, identifying gaps in access, and planning future radiotherapy services for treating childhood cancer. Based on our results, 64 % of children with neuroblastoma have an indication for radiotherapy. Patients in low- and middle-income countries have more indications for radiotherapy than those in high-income countries, due to a more adverse tumour stage distribution caused by limited access to healthcare resources.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: We wanted to understand the current practice patterns and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) utilization for spine metastases in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A questionnaire was designed to identify the current practice patterns of treating spine metastases, uptake of spine SBRT in routine care, dose fractionations commonly used, and the perceived benefits and toxicities of using ablative doses. Individuals registering for a spine SBRT workshop were requested to answer the questionnaire. RESULTS: We received 395 responses from radiation oncologists (ROs) working in 12 different LMICs. The majority of respondents were from an academic institute (57.5%). Two hundred seventy-four respondents further identified themselves from the government/public sector (44.89%), corporate/private sector (47.89%), not-for-profit organization (5.4%), or public-private partnership (5.4%). The respondents indicated that 8.43%, 27.46%, 41.73%, and 10.04% of the spine metastases patients are treated using clinical marking, X-ray-based, 3D conformal radiation therapy, and SBRT, respectively. A third of the respondents did not have any experience of spine SBRT; those with high-volume practice were predominantly from an academic institute. The majority of respondents would use spine SBRT to reduce pain severity (71.9%) and achieve durable pain control (61.01%) in the setting of oligometastases (92.73%) and reirradiation (56.69%). Respondents preferred 3- to 5-fraction regimens (64.9%) over 1-2 fractions (33.68%). The top three reasons for not using spine SBRT were resource constraints (50%), lack of machine (37.11%), and lack of training (27.34%). CONCLUSION: There is heterogeneity in spine SBRT practice and utilization between academic and nonacademic institutes. Resource and infrastructure constraints along with lack of training are limiting the use of SBRT among ROs from LMICs. Collaborative studies from LMICs will help in resolving unique challenges posed by resource constraints.
