Search

Despite substantial strides to improve cancer control in India, challenges to deliver oncology services persist. One major challenge is the provision and accessibility of adequate infrastructure. This paper offers ethnographic insight on the conceptual and material conditions that are currently shaping the delivery of oncology in Mumbai, focusing specifically on the way India's socio-economic context necessitates non-biomedical acts of voluntarism or 'seva' (selfless service). Developing the premise that hospitals are not identical clones of a biomedical model, detailed attention is paid to the way 'care' emerges through 'praxis of place' (Casey, 2003) within the cancer hospital as a multi-scalar 'heterotopic' (Street and Coleman, 2012) site. Such a perspective enables global/local tensions to come into view, together with the heterogeneous confluence of juxtaposing materialities, imaginations, social practices and values that both propels and constrains the everyday delivery of care. The paper reflects on the theoretical implications of hospital seva in Mumbai in light of social science studies of hospital ethnography and health activism and contributes important ethnographic insight into the current global health debates regarding effective implementation of cancer services in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cumulatively, breast, cervical, ovarian, and uterine cancer account for more than 70% of cancers in women in India. Distinct differences in the clinical presentation of women with cancer suggest underlying differences in cancer biology and genetics. The peak age of onset of breast and ovarian cancer appears to be a decade earlier in India (age 45-50 years) than in high-income countries (age >60 years). Understanding these differences through research to develop diagnosis, screening, prevention, and treatment frameworks that ar e specific to the Indian population are critical and essential to improving women's health in India. Since the sequencing of the human genome in 2001, applications of advanced technologies, such as massively parallel sequencing, have transformed the understanding of the genetic and environmental drivers of cancer. How can advanced technologies be harnessed to provide health-care solutions at a scale and to a budget suitable for a country of 1·2 billion people? What research programmes are necessary to answer questions specific to India, and to build capacity for innovative solutions using these technologies? In order to answer these questions, we convened a workshop with key stakeholders to address these issues. In this Series paper, we highlight challenges in tackling the growing cancer burden in India, discuss ongoing genomics research and developments in infrastructure, and suggest key priorities for future research in cancer in India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed at analyzing different treatments of breast cancer (BC) prevalent in the region, their effect on patients' survival, and discusses the most suitable method within available resources. Methods: The study was set up at a tertiary care hospital in north India. We retrospectively reviewed data of 473 female BC patients who attended the departments of Surgical Oncology and Radiotherapy from January 1997 to December 1999. Patients with cTNM stage IV and inoperable stage III were included; those who defaulted or were lost to follow-up were excluded. Out of 473 patients, 372 were selected. The selected patients were divided into groups on the basis of place and type of local treatment they received: (1) local excision only, (2) standard breast conservation therapy (BCT), (3) total mastectomy (TM) + axillary lymph node dissection + radiotherapy (RT), and (4) modified radical mastectomy (MRM) + RT. Data regarding recurrence and survival were analyzed in December 2005. Minimum follow-up was 6 years. Results: Overall recurrence rates were significantly higher in patients operated elsewhere (P <0.0001). Of 194 operated at our Breast Unit, 25 (14.6%) of 171 MRM patients and none of 23 BCT had recurrence. Of 178 patients operated elsewhere, 44 (100%), 6 (42.9%), 41 (41%), and 8 (40%) developed recurrence in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Overall survival was significantly better in patients with MRM at our unit versus TM outside (93.6% vs. 80%). Conclusions: Several types of treatment from improper local excision alone, BCT, TM, to a carefully done MRM are prevalent here. Properly done, MRM yields significant local control with survival benefit and appears to remain the gold standard in management of our BC patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical criteria/Family history-based BRCA testing misses a large proportion of BRCA carriers who can benefit from screening/prevention. We estimate the cost-effectiveness of population-based BRCA testing in general population women across different countries/health systems. A Markov model comparing the lifetime costs and effects of BRCA1/BRCA2 testing all general population women ≥30 years compared with clinical criteria/FH-based testing. Separate analyses are undertaken for the UK/USA/Netherlands (high-income countries/HIC), China/Brazil (upper–middle income countries/UMIC) and India (low–middle income countries/LMIC) using both health system/payer and societal perspectives. BRCA carriers undergo appropriate screening/prevention interventions to reduce breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC) risk. Outcomes include OC, BC, and additional heart disease deaths and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic/one-way sensitivity analyses evaluate model uncertainty. For the base case, from a societal perspective, we found that population-based BRCA testing is cost-saving in HIC (UK-ICER = $−5639/QALY; USA-ICER = $−4018/QALY; Netherlands-ICER = $−11,433/QALY), and it appears cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $18,066/QALY; Brazil-ICER = $13,579/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $23,031/QALY). From a payer perspective, population-based BRCA testing is highly cost-effective in HIC (UK-ICER = $21,191/QALY, USA-ICER = $16,552/QALY, Netherlands-ICER = $25,215/QALY), and it is cost-effective in UMIC (China-ICER = $23,485/QALY, Brazil−ICER = $20,995/QALY), but it is not cost-effective in LMIC (India-ICER = $32,217/QALY). BRCA testing costs below $172/test (ICER = $19,685/QALY), which makes it cost-effective (from a societal perspective) for LMIC/India. Population-based BRCA testing can prevent an additional 2319 to 2666 BC and 327 to 449 OC cases per million women than the current clinical strategy. Findings suggest that population-based BRCA testing for countries evaluated is extremely cost-effective across HIC/UMIC health systems, is cost-saving for HIC health systems from a societal perspective, and can prevent tens of thousands more BC/OC cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]