Search

Purpose: Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology., Materials and Methods: A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression., Results: Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties., Conclusion: The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

Purpose: The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice., Results: The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system., Conclusion: Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

Purpose: Access to essential cancer medicines is a major determinant of childhood cancer outcomes globally. The degree to which pediatric oncologists deem medicines listed on WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) essential is unknown, as is the extent to which such medicines are accessible on the front lines of clinical care., Methods: An electronic survey developed was distributed through the International Society of Pediatric Oncology mailing list to members from 87 countries. Respondents were asked to select 10 cancer medicines that would provide the greatest benefit to patients in their context; subsequent questions explored medicine availability and cost. Descriptive and bivariate statistics compared access to medicines between low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs)., Results: Among 159 respondents from 44 countries, 43 (27%) were from LMICs, 79 (50%) from UMICs, and 37 (23%) from HICs. The top five medicines were methotrexate (75%), vincristine (74%), doxorubicin (74%), cyclophosphamide (69%), and cytarabine (65%). Of the priority medicines identified, 87% (27 of 31) are represented on the 2021 EMLc and 77% (24 of 31) were common to the lists generated by LMIC, UMIC, and HIC respondents. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability for each of the top medicines ranged from 9% to 46% for LMIC, 25% to 89% for UMIC, and 67% to 100% for HIC. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was more common in LMIC (8%-20%), compared with UMIC (0%-28%) and HIC (0%)., Conclusion: Most medicines that oncologists deem essential for childhood cancer treatment are currently included on the EMLc. Barriers remain in access to these medicines, characterized by gaps in availability and risks of catastrophic expenditure for families that are most pronounced in low-income settings but evident across all income contexts., Competing Interests: Scott C. HowardConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, BTG, ServierSpeakers' Bureau: Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Dorothy LombeThis author is a member of the Journal of Global Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Bishal GyawaliThis author is a member of the Journal of Global Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Vivio Health Felipe RoitbergHonoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Oncologia BrasilConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), MSD (Inst), Bayer (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst) Elisabeth G. E. De VriesConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), NSABP Foundation (Inst), Crescendo Biologics (Inst)Research Funding: Amgen (Inst), Synthon (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Roche (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Servier (Inst), Crescendo Biologics (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: ESMO (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: World Health Organization (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: RECIST (Inst) Richard SullivanThis author is a member of the Journal of Global Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Honoraria: PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Competing Interests: Murallitharan MunisamyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sanofi/Aventis, MMPKV HEALTHCARE SDN BHDHonoraria: AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: MSDResearch Funding: Pfizer Kingsley NdohStock and Other Ownership Interests: Geron Omolola SalakoConsulting or Advisory Role: Stack DiagnosticsSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen and JanssenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I have intellectual property rights to Oncopadi Digital Cancer Clinic Felipe RoitbergHonoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr. Reddy's, Oncologia BrasilConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, TakedaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Existing literature has described the projected increase in cancer incidence and the associated deficiencies in the cancer workforce. However, there is currently a lack of research into the necessary policy and planning steps that can be taken to mitigate this issue. Herein, we review current literature in this space and highlight the importance of implementing oncology workforce registries. We propose the establishment of cancer workforce registries using the WHO Minimum Data Set for Health Workforce Registry by adapting the data set to suit the multidisciplinary nature of the cancer workforce. The cancer workforce registry will track the trends of the workforce, so that evidence can drive decisions at the policy level. The oncology community needs to develop and optimize methods to collect information for these registries. National cancer societies are likely to continue to lead such efforts, but ministries of health, licensing bodies, and academic institutions should contribute and collaborate., Competing Interests: Scott R. BerryStock and Other Ownership Interests: Oncology EducationConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, MD Briefcase, Apo Biologix, AmgenOther Relationship: Cancerlink/Oncology Education Felipe RoitbergHonoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle health science, Dr Reddy's, Oncologia BrazilConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, TakedaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Delays and disruptions in health systems because of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified by a previous systematic review from our group. For improving the knowledge about the pandemic consequences for cancer care, this article aims to identify the effects of mitigation strategies developed to reduce the impact of such delays and disruptions., Methods: Systematic review with a comprehensive search including formal databases, cancer and COVID-19 data sources, gray literature, and manual search. We considered clinical trials, observational longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series, and case studies. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by specific tools. The mitigation strategies identified were described in detail and their effects were summarized narratively., Results: Of 6,692 references reviewed, 28 were deemed eligible, and 9 studies with low to moderate methodological quality were included. Five multiple strategies and four single strategies were reported, and the possible effects of mitigating delays and disruptions in cancer care because of COVID-19 are inconsistent. The only comparative study reported a 48.7% reduction observed in the number of outpatient visits to the hospital accompanied by a small reduction in imaging and an improvement in radiation treatments after the implementation of a multiple organizational strategy., Conclusion: The findings emphasize the infrequency of measuring and reporting mitigation strategies that specifically address patients' outcomes and thus a scarcity of high-quality evidence to inform program development. This review reinforces the need of adopting standardized measurement methods to monitor the impact of the mitigation strategies proposed to reduce the effects of delays and disruptions in cancer health care because of COVID-19.

Purpose: There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally., Methods: This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented., Results: Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%)., Conclusion: The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.