Search

Background: The Cancer Survival in Africa, Asia, and South America project (SURVCAN-3) of the International Agency for Research on Cancer aims to fill gaps in the availability of population-level cancer survival estimates from countries in these regions. Here, we analysed survival for 18 cancers using data from member registries of the African Cancer Registry Network across 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa., Methods: We included data on patients diagnosed with 18 cancer types between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2014, from 13 population-based cancer registries in Cotonou (Benin), Abidjan (CÔte d'Ivoire), Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Eldoret and Nairobi (Kenya), Bamako (Mali), Mauritius, Namibia, Seychelles, Eastern Cape (South Africa), Kampala (Uganda), and Bulawayo and Harare (Zimbabwe). Patients were followed up until Dec 31, 2018. Patient-level data including cancer topography and morphology, age and date at diagnosis, vital status, and date of death (if applicable) were collected. The follow-up (survival) time was measured from the date of incidence until the date of last contact, the date of death, or until the end of the study, whichever occurred first. We estimated the 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year survival (observed, net, and age-standardised net survival) by sex, cancer type, registry, country, and human development index (HDI). 1-year and 3-year survival data were available for all registries and all cancer sites, whereas availability of 5-year survival data was slightly more variable; thus to provide medium-term survival prospects, we have focused on 3-year survival in the Results section., Findings: 10 500 individuals from 13 population-based cancer registries in 11 countries were included in the survival analyses. 9177 (87·4%) of 10 500 cases were morphologically verified. Survival from cancers with a high burden and amenable to prevention was poor: the 3-year age-standardised net survival was 52·3% (95% CI 49·4-55·0) for cervical cancer, 18·1% (11·5-25·9) for liver cancer, and 32·4% (27·5-37·3) for lung cancer. Less than half of the included patients were alive 3 years after a cancer diagnosis for eight cancer types (oral cavity, oesophagus, stomach, larynx, lung, liver, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and leukaemia). There were differences in survival for some cancers by sex: survival was longer for females with stomach or lung cancer than males with stomach or lung cancer, and longer for males with non-Hodgkin lymphomas than females with non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Survival did not differ by country-level HDI for cancers of the oral cavity, oesophagus, liver, thyroid, and for Hodgkin lymphoma., Interpretation: For cancers for which population-level prevention strategies exist, and with relatively poor prognosis, these estimates highlight the urgent need to upscale population-level prevention activities in sub-Saharan Africa. These data are vital for providing the knowledge base for advocacy to improve access to prevention, diagnosis, and care for patients with cancers in sub-Saharan Africa., Funding: Vital Strategies, the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer., Translations: For the French and Portuguese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests. Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and WHO, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this Article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy, or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer and WHO., (This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IGO license which permits users to download and share the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproduced in the whole without changes, and provided the original source is properly cited. This article shall not be used or reproduced in association with the promotion of commercial products, services or any entity. There should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Background: The increased use of telehealth to visit patients in their home permits greater access to care, and also increases the opportunity for whole-person assessments that improve individualized care. The videoconferencing camera is a proxy for home visit provider's eyes. However, cameras limit views, thereby reducing environmental cues. The Novice to Expert Theory of skill acquisition supports the use of an intentional viewing guide to assure a comprehensive patient assessment using telehealth in the home (CPATH). This study advances the development of a CPATH framework to guide providers to be intentional when using televideo technology., Methods: A quantitative content validity approach was used to determine the validity of a priori items within domains that were in the original protocol framework. A content validity determination requires 5-10 experts to rate agreement (range 1-5) on items within domains. Our sample was composed of seven expert home health providers. More than five experts had to agree to achieve statistical significance ( p  < 0.05) for validity., Results: Of the 15 items in the protocol, only 8 items had significant agreement for the sample size. These items were breathing, nonverbal gesturing, positioning, oxygen, safety, and types, dosages, and administration guidance of medication. Other items were added within the existing domains of Patient Characteristics, Treatment and Equipment Functioning, Medications and Environmental Quality, with the exception of Caregivers., Conclusion: The domains triggered considerations for existing or additional items that require assessment, thereby developing the intentional guide framework that permits individualization of a telehealth home-based visit., Competing Interests: No competing financial interests exist., (© Kimberly D. Shea et al., 2021; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.)

In non-high-risk (non-HR) patients, the Malaysia-Singapore Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia 2003 (MS2003) study achieved good outcomes. However, its delayed-intensification (DI) phase, comprising repeated blocks of protocol III (2003-PIII), was toxic and caused significant treatment delays. The successor MS2010 study attempted to lower DI toxicity by replacing myelosuppressive drugs (doxorubicin, cytarabine) with vincristine and asparaginase., Patients and Methods: We analysed 1748 admissions for fever in 315 Singapore children with non-HR acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) (MS2003, n = 183; MS2010, n = 132), comprising 76% of the total cohort (n = 413), to study the impact of these changes., Results: The new 2010-PVa which has no doxorubicin, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations due to fever (0.08 versus 0.30 admissions per block [A/blk], p < 0.001), as than 2003-PIIIa. Similarly in 2010-PIIIb and PVb, where one block of cytarabine was replaced by two doses of vincristine, admissions for fever were also fewer (0.47 versus 0.74 A/blk, p < 0.001) than in 2003-PIIIb. However, the addition of single doses of vincristine and asparaginase in 2010-PIIIa, even with a mandatory seven-day rest, led to more hospitalisations (0.45 A/blk, p < 0.001), increased risk of bacteraemia (relative-risk (RR) = 7.66, p = 0.005) and critical-care admissions (RR = 4.31, p = 0.13). Despite this, overall treatment-related mortality decreased from 2.7% to 0.8%. Taken together, the reduced phase delays allowed earlier completion of the intensive phase of treatment (standard risk: 38.1 versus 49.4 weeks, p < 0.001; intermediate risk: 50.9 versus 58.8 weeks, p < 0.001), while maintaining excellent 10-year event-free survival of 95.4% and overall survival of 96.2%., Conclusions: In non-HR ALL, replacing doxorubicin/cytarabine with vincristine/asparaginase during some DI blocks is effective in reducing toxicity without compromising outcomes., Clinical Trial Information: NCT0289464., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)