METHODS: Novel LMIC radiotherapy demand and outcome models were created by adjusting previously developed models that used HIC cancer staging data. These models were applied to the cancer case mix (ie, the incidence of each different cancer) in each LMIC in the Asia-Pacific region to estimate the current and projected optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate (ie, the proportion of cancer cases that would require radiotherapy on the basis of guideline recommendations), and to estimate the number of megavoltage machines needed in each country to meet this demand. Information on the number of megavoltage machines available in each country was retrieved from the Directory of Radiotherapy Centres. Gaps were determined by comparing the projected number of megavoltage machines needed with the number of machines available in each region. Megavoltage machine numbers, local control, and overall survival benefits were compared with previous data from 2012 and projected data for 2040.
FINDINGS: 57 countries within the Asia-Pacific region were included in the analysis with 9·48 million new cases of cancer in 2020, an increase of 2·66 million from 2012. Local control was 7·42% and overall survival was 3·05%. Across the Asia-Pacific overall, the current optimal radiotherapy utilisation rate is 49·10%, which means that 4·66 million people will need radiotherapy in 2020, an increase of 1·38 million (42%) from 2012. The number of megavoltage machines increased by 1261 (31%) between 2012 and 2020, but the demand for these machines increased by 3584 (42%). The Asia-Pacific region only has 43·9% of the megavoltage machines needed to meet demand, ranging from 9·9-40·5% in LMICs compared with 67·9% in HICs. 12 000 additional megavoltage machines will be needed to meet the projected demand for 2040.
INTERPRETATION: The difference between supply and demand with regard to megavoltage machine availability has continued to widen in LMICs over the past decade and is projected to worsen by 2040. The data from this study can be used to provide evidence for the need to incorporate radiotherapy in national cancer control plans and to inform governments and policy makers within the Asia-Pacific region regarding the urgent need for investment in this sector.
FUNDING: The Regional Cooperative Agreement for Research, Development and Training Related to Nuclear Science and Technology for Asia and the Pacific (RCA) Regional Office (RCARP03).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 19-item electronic survey was sent to two research committee members from the 14 representative national radiation oncology organizations (N = 28) that are a part of FARO.
RESULTS: Thirteen of the 14 member organizations (93%) and 20 of 28 members (71.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Only 50% of the members stated that an active research environment existed in their country. Retrospective audits (80%) and observational studies (75%) were the most common type of research conducted in these centers. Lack of time (80%), lack of funding (75%), and limited training in research methodology (40%) were cited as the most common hindrances in conducting research. To promote research initiatives in the collaborative setting, 95% of the members agreed to the creation of site-specific groups, with head and neck (45%) and gynecological cancers (25%) being the most preferred disease sites. Projects focused on advanced external beam radiotherapy implementation (40%), and cost-effectiveness studies (35%) were cited as some of the potential areas for future collaboration. On the basis of the survey results, after result discussion and the FARO officers meeting, an action plan for the research committee has been created.
CONCLUSION: The results from the survey and the initial policy structure may allow facilitation of radiation oncology research in the collaborative setting. Centralization of research activities, funding support, and research-directed training are underway to help foster a successful research environment in the FARO region.