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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Aim: Describe the anatomical changes and tumor displacement due to a rapid response of a patient’s small cell lung cancer (SCLC) during definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Background: The treatment for SCLC is based on CRT. If interfractional changes during RT are incorrectly assessed they might compromise adequate coverage of the tumor or increase dose to organs at risk. Image guided RT with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) allows to identify daily treatment variations. Material and methods Describe a SCLC case with rapid changes in size, shape and location of the primary tumor during RT. Case report: A 62-year-old woman was diagnosed with SCLC with complete obstruction of the anterior and lingular bronchi and incomplete left thorax expansion due to a 12 × 15 cm mass. During CRT (45 Gy in 1.5 Gy per fraction, twice daily) the patient presented rapid tumor response, leading to resolution of bronchi obstruction and hemithorax expansion. Tumor shifted up to 4 cm from its original position. The identification of variations led to two new simulations and planning in a 3-week treatment course. Conclusions: The complete radiological response was possible due to systematic monitoring of the tumor during CRT. We recommend frequent on-site image verification. Daily CBCT should be considered with pretreatment tumor obstruction, pleural effusion, atelectasis, large volumes or radiosensitive histology that might resolve early and rapidly and could lead to a miss of the tumor or increased toxicity. Further research should be made in replanning effect in coverage of microscopic disease since it increases uncertainty in this scenario.

Seventy years ago, Robin Mole introduced the concept of the abscopal effect to describe a rare phenomenon. This occurs when local radiation triggers an immune-mediated reduction in tumors outside the treated area but within the same organism. Observing this effect has been linked to improved overall and progression-free survival in patients who experience it. While the abscopal effect was once considered rare, it is now being observed more frequently due to the combination of radiation with immunotherapy. As a result, more researchers are exploring this study area, which shows promise for excellent results. This review focuses explicitly on the immunological implications of activating the abscopal effect through ionizing radiation in the central nervous system and explores the potentially involved immunological pathways.

Around 50% of cancer patients will require radiotherapy (RT) and 10–15% of these patients could be eligible for proton beam radiotherapy (PBT). Dosimetric advantages are undeniable, mainly in pediatric and reirradiation scenarios. Though, PBT facilities are scarce worldwide and the IAEA has reported 116 functional particle facilities, of which 98 are PBT, virtually absent in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). The Latin America and Caribbean region represent a unique opportunity for a PBT center, as there are currently no functional facilities and current RT needs are significant. The challenges can be summarized as high initial investment and maintenance, geographic coverage, required baseline technology and certification, over-optimistic workload, unclear rates and reimbursement, unmet business plan and revenue expectations, and lack of trained human resources. Investment costs for a PBT facility are estimated to be at around 140 million euros; therefore, this seems unsuitable for LMIC. Mexico’s geographical advantage, GDP, baseline technologies and high demand for RT makes it an ideal candidate. Nevertheless, a PBT center would account for a third of Mexico’s annual health expenditure for 2020. Enormous efforts must be made by both the private sector and governmental authorities to provide funding.