Impact of outpatient radiotherapy on direct non-medical cost in patients in the Central Macro Region of Peru 2021.

Background: Financial toxicity arises in cancer patients due to the objective financial burden of the disease or treatment, being associated with worse clinical outcomes. Direct non-medical spending on cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in Peru under its publicly funded health system has not been described. Objective: To know the expenses related to the transfer of the radiotherapy outpatient. Methodology: For patients who started radiation therapy in 2021, treatment demographics and expenses related to transporting the patient from home to the radiation therapy center were prospectively collected. Association and connection tests were used, such as the Mann-Whitney/Kruskal-Wallis U-test and Spearman's Rho. A value of p < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results: 398 patients were collected, with average weekly expenses for transportation, lodging and food of $17.04, $6.69 and $45.91, respectively. Confirmation was positive between weekly spending and remoteness, likewise it was negative between effective teletherapy and remoteness, both analyses being statistically significant. Conclusion: The expense associated with transfer for radiotherapy is high, exceeding the average monthly income of the patient, as a consequence they have a worse therapeutic result, and may cause financial toxicity in cancer patients.

Cost analysis of three-dimensional radiation therapy versus intensity-modulated chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer in Peruvian citizens.

Background and objectives: The standard treatment for locally advanced cervical cancer (CC) is chemoradiotherapy (CTRT) followed by high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDRBT). The ideal scenario would be under novel intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) radiation techniques over three-dimensional (3D) radiation therapy. However, radiotherapy (RT) centres in low- and middle-income countries have limited equipment for teletherapy services like HDRBT. This is why the 3D modality is still in use. The objective of this study was to analyse costs in a comparison of 3D versus IMRT versus VMAT based on clinical staging. Materials and methods: From 02/01/2022 to 05/01/2023 a prospective registry of the costs for oncological management was carried out for patients with locally advanced CC who received CTRT ± HDRBT. This included the administration of radiation with chemotherapy. The cost associated with patient and family transfers and hours in the hospital was also identified. These expenses were used to project the direct and indirect costs of 3D versus IMRT versus VMAT. Results: The treatment regimens for stage IIIC2, including 3D and novel techniques, are those with the highest costs. The administration of 3D RT for IIIC2 and novel IMRT or VMAT techniques, is $3,881.69, $3,374.76, and $2,862.80, respectively. The indirect cost from stage IIB to IIIC1 in descending order is IMRT, 3D and VMAT, but in IIIC2 the novel technique regimens reduce by up to 33.99% compared to 3D. Conclusion: In RT centres with an available supply of RT equipment, VMAT should be preferred over IMRT/3D since it reduces costs and toxicity. However, in RT centres where demand exceeds supply in the VMAT technique planning systems, the use of 3D teletherapy over IMRT/VMAT could continue to be used in patients with stage IIB to IIIC1.

Cost analysis of total neoadjuvant therapy with 5 × 5 Gy radiation therapy versus conventional chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer among Peruvians.

Background and Objectives: Conventional long-course radiotherapy (LCRT) and a new paradigm of short-course radiotherapy with total neoadjuvant therapy (SCRT-TNT) are used in locally advanced rectal cancer (RC). There are few economic assessment reports available on TNT that focus on cost analysis in a country with limited funding for healthcare systems. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis comparing SCRT-TNT versus LCRT. Materials and Methods: In 2020-2021, a prospective registry was created to document RC patients who received neoadjuvant therapy and the costs of cancer treatments, transportation and the time patients and family members spent in the hospital. This registry outlined the direct and indirect costs of LCRT versus SCRT-TNT. Results: LCRT and SCRT-TNT regimens have direct costs that range from S/.5,993.30 to S/.27,928.36 and from S/.3,409.81 to S/.18,159.42, respectively. FOLFOX regimens are the most expensive. Administering radiotherapy in 28 3D sessions and 5 sessions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) sessions costs S/.2,603.88, S/.1,277.19 and S/.1,027.77, respectively. The indirect cost of FOLFOX regimens is twice that of the similar modality that combines irradiation and Oxaliplatin IV and Capecitabine VO (CAPOX). SCRT-TNT regimens with CAPOX reduce costs by at least 50%, while SCRT-TNT regimens with FOLFOX reduce costs by 32%. Conclusion: Despite using IMRT/VMAT, SCRT-TNT is a less expensive approach for patients with RC when compared to LCRT. The costs to patients using SCRT-TNT are much lower, but it is also a better option because it saves hospital resources.

Scalp and skull bone metastasis in cervical carcinoma-a rare entity.

Cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women worldwide and the first in Peru; however, metastasis to the cranial scalp is extremely rare. We present the case of a 41-year-old woman diagnosed with cervical cancer IIIB, who received treatment based on concurrent pelvic radiotherapy with chemotherapy followed by brachytherapy at the primary level with complete response, developing, at 18 months, a metastatic lesion at the scalp level without evidence of recurrence in the cervix. With the rapid growth of the metastatic lesion leading to the destruction of the cranial cap, the meninges can be observed directly, without presenting to the neurological clinic.