PURPOSE: To determine the current use of brachytherapy, characteristics of the brachytherapy workforce, and barriers to development and maintenance of brachytherapy programs across Canada. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A survey was designed to inquire about the use of brachytherapy and was sent to all Canadian radiation oncologists. RESULTS: Of the 116 respondents, we identified 80 radiation oncologists from 33 of 41 responding centers who currently or in the past have practiced brachytherapy. Responses were received from 30% overall and 80% of provinces. Approximately 58% of the respondents treat in one site with brachytherapy, whereas 12% treat in three or more sites. Gynecologic (GYN) and genitourinary are the most commonly treated sites (49% of respondents). For all sites, there was a large range in the number of patients treated with brachytherapy by each radiation oncologist per year (i.e., cervix: 1-50). Approximately 49% of the respondents have discontinued practicing brachytherapy for a certain site, most commonly head and neck (28%), GYN (25%), and bronchus (24%). The most common reasons include reassignment or lack of a local program. The most common reasons why brachytherapy is not used for sites other than GYN and prostate include lack of infrastructure and insufficient training of radiation oncologists rather than insufficient patient numbers or lack of evidence for a benefit of brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Within its limitations, our study suggests a mismatch between demand and availability of brachytherapy programs across Canada. In light of finite resources, a rational approach to investment in brachytherapy is needed and this must be based on a formal audit of brachytherapy demand and use.
PURPOSE: To determine the current use of brachytherapy, characteristics of the brachytherapy workforce, and barriers to development and maintenance of brachytherapy programs across Canada. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A survey was designed to inquire about the use of brachytherapy and was sent to all Canadian radiation oncologists. RESULTS: Of the 116 respondents, we identified 80 radiation oncologists from 33 of 41 responding centers who currently or in the past have practiced brachytherapy. Responses were received from 30% overall and 80% of provinces. Approximately 58% of the respondents treat in one site with brachytherapy, whereas 12% treat in three or more sites. Gynecologic (GYN) and genitourinary are the most commonly treated sites (49% of respondents). For all sites, there was a large range in the number of patients treated with brachytherapy by each radiation oncologist per year (i.e., cervix: 1-50). Approximately 49% of the respondents have discontinued practicing brachytherapy for a certain site, most commonly head and neck (28%), GYN (25%), and bronchus (24%). The most common reasons include reassignment or lack of a local program. The most common reasons why brachytherapy is not used for sites other than GYN and prostate include lack of infrastructure and insufficient training of radiation oncologists rather than insufficientpatient numbers or lack of evidence for a benefit of brachytherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Within its limitations, our study suggests a mismatch between demand and availability of brachytherapy programs across Canada. In light of finite resources, a rational approach to investment in brachytherapy is needed and this must be based on a formal audit of brachytherapy demand and use.