RESUMO
AIM: Describe the results of the first national census of radiotherapy in Mexico in order to make a situational diagnosis of radiotherapy availability, offer more accurate information to radiation oncologists, and promote an adequate scientific based investment for the country. BACKGROUND: According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the density of radiotherapy (RT) machines per million habitants in Mexico is approximately 1.7-1.8. Other international organizations such as DIRAC-IAEA report 1.15 per million habitants. National organizations collect data indirectly and previous surveys had a low accrual rate (32.5%). Therefore, a precise census is required. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Mexican Radiation Oncology Certification Board (CMRO for its acronym in Spanish) conducted a nationwide census from January through November 2019. Gathered information was combined with CMRO database for sociodemographic information and human resources. RESULTS: The study included 103 RT centers [95.1% answered the survey], with a median of 2 centers by state (ranging from 0 in Tlaxcala to 20 in Mexico City) and with a report of only 1 center in 11 states (34.4%). Fifty-six (54.3%) of the centers are public. Fourteen centers (13.6%) have residency-training programs. The total number of RT machines is 162 [141 clinical and linear accelerators (87%) and 21 radionuclide units (13%)] with a median of 3 machines by state (0 in Tlaxcala to 46 in Mexico City) and with ≤3 machines in 18 states (56.25%). The overall calculated density of RT machines per million habitants is 1.32, varying from 0 in Tlaxcala to 5.16 in Mexico City. The density of linear and clinical accelerators per million population is 1.19. The total number of brachytherapy units is 66, with a median of 1 center with brachytherapy unit per state and 29 states with ≤3 centers with a brachytherapy unit (90.6%). Thirty-seven brachytherapy units (56.1%) have automated afterload high-dose rate. The overall rate of brachytherapy units per million inhabitants is 0.55, varying from 0 in 5 states (15.6%), 0.1-0.49 in 8 states (25%), 0.5-0.99 in 13 states (40.6%), 1-1.49 in 5 states (15.6%) and 1.5-1.99 in Mexico City (3.1%). The Mexican CMRO has 368 radiation oncologists certified (99 women and 269 men), of whom only 346 remain as an active part of Mexico's workforce. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time the CMRO conducts a national census for a radiotherapy diagnostic situation in Mexico. The country currently holds a density of clinical and linear accelerators of 1.19 per million habitants. Brachytherapy density is 0.55 devices per million habitants, and 57% of radiotherapy centers have brachytherapy units.
RESUMO
AIM: Our goal was to compare conformal 3D (C3D) radiotherapy (RT), modulated intensity RT (IMRT), and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) planning techniques in treating pituitary adenomas. BACKGROUND: RT is important for managing pituitary adenomas. Treatment planning advances allow for higher radiation dosing with less risk of affecting organs at risk (OAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a 5-year retrospective review of patients with pituitary adenoma treated with external beam radiation therapy (C3D with flattening filter, flattening filter-free [FFF], IMRT, and VMAT). We compared dose-volume histogram data. For OARs, we recorded D2%, maximum, and mean doses. For planning target volume (PTV), we registered V95%, V107%, D95%, D98%, D50%, D2%, minimum dose, conformity index (CI), and homogeneity index (HI). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with pituitary adenoma were included. Target-volume coverage was acceptable for all techniques. The HI values were 0.06, IMRT; 0.07, VMAT; 0.08, C3D; and 0.09, C3D FFF (pâ¯<â¯0.0001). VMAT and IMRT provided the best target volume conformity (CI, 0.64 and 0.74, respectively; pâ¯<â¯0.0001). VMAT yielded the lowest doses to the optic pathway, lens, and cochlea. The position of the neck in extreme flexion showed that it helps in planning mainly with VMAT by allowing only one arc to be used and achieving the desired conformity, decreasing the treatment time, while allowing greater protection to the organs of risk using C3D, C3DFFF. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed that EBRT in pituitary adenomas using IMRT, VMAT, C3D, C3FFF provide adequate coverage to the target. VMAT with a single arc or incomplete arc had a better compliance with desired dosimetric goals, such as target coverage and normal structures dose constraints, as well as shorter treatment time. Neck extreme flexion may have benefits in treatment planning for better preservation of organs at risk. C3D with extreme neck flexion is an appropriate treatment option when other treatment techniques are not available.