Oncology research in Saudi Arabia over a 10-year period: A synopsis

Objectives:To assess the quality and quantity of Saudi publications in oncology over a 10-year period.Methods:A systematic PubMed search was conducted between January 2008 and December 2017 to retrieve all Saudi oncology publications. Data about the articles was collected. The level of evidence (LOE) was independently assessed by 2 authors. Two 5-year periods (2008-2012 and 2013-2017) were compared using the relevant parameters. Clinicaltrials.gov was also searched for all oncology trials registered in Saudi Arabia.Results:A total of 839 publications met our inclusion criteria. The most common type of research was case series, totaling 32% of all publications. Clinical trials formed less than 2% of the total. The LOE was I, II, III, and IV in 0.3%, 2.1%, 58.4%, and 39.3% of the included publications, respectively. The LOE was the same in the 2 periods. There were more publications in international journals (p=0.004), more international collaborations (p=0.001), and higher journal impact factors (p=0.037) in 2013-2017 than in 2008-2012. Only 76 registered clinical trials were found in the Clinicaltrials.gov registry.Conclusion:Despite an increase in the number of Saudi publications in the field of oncology over time, the LOE did not change. There were, however, some improvements in the international collaboration and journal impact factor, as well as an increase in the number of studies published in international journals. These observations call for a national strategy to improve oncology research in Saudi Arabia.     

Understanding the underutilization of cervical brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer

PurposeTo understand the reasons behind current low utilization of brachytherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer in the United States.Methods and MaterialsA 17-item survey was e-mailed to the American Brachytherapy Society (ABS) listserv of active members in 2018. Responses of attending physicians in the United States were included in the analysis.ResultsAmong a total of 135 respondents, 81 completed the survey. Eighty-four percent agree/strongly agree that cervical brachytherapy is underutilized, and 46.9% disagree/strongly disagree that residents are receiving adequate training for brachytherapy; 75.3% agree/strongly agree that inadequate maintenance of brachytherapy skills is a major obstacle to brachytherapy use; and 71.6% agree/strongly agree that increased time requirement constitutes a major obstacle. Over 97% will recommend brachytherapy for most patients with cervical cancer if given access/time; 72.8% always perform their own brachytherapy, whereas 29.6% reported some type of barrier exists in performing brachytherapy themselves, with time required to perform brachytherapy (9.9%) being a leading factor. A quarter (24.7%) routinely refer to other radiation oncologists for brachytherapy. Even among ABS members, 37.0% reported that they would perform an intensity-modulated radiation therapy or stereotactic body radiation therapy boost in specific scenarios in potentially curable patients. The most common scenario is inability to place a uterine tandem (56.7%).ConclusionsThe underutilization of brachytherapy in cervical cancer is widely recognized by ABS members with inadequate training during residency and inadequate maintenance of skills being possible major contributing factors. Even among ABS members, there are identifiable barriers. Continued advocacy and future initiatives in enhancing access to brachytherapy training and efficiency are needed.