Search

Background: The number of new cancer cases in Commonwealth countries rose by 35% between 2008 and 2018, but progress in cancer control has been slow in many low-income and lower-middle-income member states. We aimed to examine cancer outcomes and priority areas in the Commonwealth to provide insight and guidance on prioritisation of efforts to improve cancer survival and make the best use of scarce resources., Methods: We adapted a previously developed microsimulation model of global cancer survival for 11 cancer sites (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, anus, liver, pancreas, lung, breast, cervix uteri, and prostate). All 56 Commonwealth countries were included and classified based on the 2020 World Bank Income groups (low-income, lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries) and Commonwealth geographical areas. We modelled the number of incident cancer cases in each Commonwealth country in 2020, based on age group-specific estimates of incidence rates from GLOBOCAN 2020. We simulated 5-year net survival for each patient, accounting for the stage at diagnosis (I-IV), availability of specific treatment and imaging modalities, and quality of care (based on residual differences in expected versus observed survival after accounting for the availability and effectiveness of treatment and imaging modalities). We also simulated counterfactual policy scenarios, in which we scaled up various aspects of cancer care to the mean level of high-income countries to estimate the comparative effectiveness of different policies., Findings: Incident cancers in the Commonwealth accounted for an estimated 14·3% of global diagnosed cancer cases in 2020 among the 11 cancers modelled (1 610 000 Commonwealth cases [95% UI 1 556 000-1 674 000] of 11 227 000 global cases [11 069 000-11 406 000]) and are estimated to increase to 17·3% in 2050 due to population growth (3 330 000 [3 154 000-3 539 000] of 19 308 000 [18 706 000-19 911 000]). The 5-year net survival across 11 cancers combined in 2020 was 30·7% (95% UI 22·4-38·6) in Commonwealth countries, ranging from 4·1% (0·04-15·2) in low-income countries, 17·8% (3·7-30·9) in lower-middle-income countries, 33·1% (23·7-46·0) in upper-middle-income countries, to 59·0% (57·8-60·2) in high-income countries. Among single treatment policies, scaling up access to radiotherapy had the largest survival impact in low-income countries, surgery had the largest impact in lower-middle-income and upper-middle-income countries, and targeted therapy had the largest impact in high-income countries. By geographical area, improving radiotherapy availability was estimated to have the largest impact in Africa, surgery in Asia, targeted therapy in the Caribbean and the Americas and Europe, and quality of care in the Pacific Commonwealth countries. Comparing packages of scaling up the availability of all treatment modalities versus imaging modalities, expanding availability of imaging yielded the largest benefits in high-income countries, and in the Caribbean and the Americas, Europe, and the Pacific, whereas expanding treatment yielded larger benefits in all other income groups and geographical areas., Interpretation: We found large variation in 5-year net survival, with a nearly 15-times difference in cancer survival by country income group within the Commonwealth. Efforts to improve the availability of treatment and imaging modalities and quality of care will be crucial to reduce these disparities, with specific priorities of scale-up policies varying by setting. The Commonwealth could leverage a broad range of knowledge and resources and have an important role in supporting member countries with setting-specific priorities to improve cancer outcomes., Funding: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Purpose: There is an urgent need to improve access to cancer therapy globally. Several independent initiatives have been undertaken to improve access to cancer medicines, and additional new initiatives are in development. Improved sharing of experiences and increased collaboration are needed to achieve substantial improvements in global access to essential oncology medicines., Methods: The inaugural Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Meeting was organized by ASCO and convened at the June 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, with two subsequent meetings, Union for International Cancer Control World Cancer Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland, in October 2022 and at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June of 2023. Invited stakeholders included representatives from cancer institutes, physicians, researchers, professional societies, the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy organizations, funders, cancer organizations and foundations, policy makers, and regulatory bodies. The session was moderated by ASCO. Past efforts and current and upcoming initiatives were initially discussed (2022), updates on progress were provided (2023), and broad agreement on resulting action steps was achieved with participants., Results: Summit participants recognized that while much work was ongoing to enhance access to cancer therapeutics globally, communication and synergy across projects and organizations could be enhanced by providing a platform for collaboration and shared expertise., Conclusion: The summit resulted in new cross-stakeholder insights and planned collaboration addressing barriers to accessing cancer medications. Specific actions and timelines for implementation and reporting were established.

Background: Population-based cancer survival is a key metric of the effectiveness of health systems in managing cancer. Data from population-based cancer registries are essential for producing reliable and robust cancer survival estimates. Georgia established a national population-based cancer registry on 1 January 2015. This is the first analysis of population-based cancer survival from Georgia., Methods: Data were available from the national cancer registry for 16,359 adults who were diagnosed with a cancer of the stomach, colon, rectum, breast (women) or cervix during 2015-2019. We estimated age-specific and age-standardised net survival at one, two and three years after diagnosis for each cancer, by sex., Results: The data were of extremely high quality, with less than 2% of data excluded from each dataset. For the patients included in analyses, at least 80% of the tumours were microscopically verified. Age-standardised three-year survival from stomach cancer was 30.6%, similar in men and women. For colon cancer, three-year survival was 60.1%, with survival 4% higher for men than for women. Three-year survival from rectal cancer was similar for men and women, at 54.7%. For women diagnosed with breast cancer, three-year survival was 84.4%, but three-year survival from cervical cancer was only 67.2%., Conclusion: Establishment of a national cancer registry with obligatory cancer registration has enabled the first examination of population-based cancer survival in Georgia. Maintenance of the registry will facilitate continued surveillance of both cancer incidence and survival in the country., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health system capacity worldwide due to a surge of hospital admissions, while mitigation measures have simultaneously reduced patients' access to health care, affecting the diagnosis and treatment of other diseases such as cancer. We estimated the impact of delayed diagnosis on cancer outcomes in Chile using a novel modelling approach to inform policies and planning to mitigate the forthcoming cancer-related health impacts of the pandemic in Chile., Methods: We developed a microsimulation model of five cancers in Chile (breast, cervix, colorectal, prostate, and stomach) for which reliable data were available, which simulates cancer incidence and progression in a nationally representative virtual population, as well as stage-specific cancer detection and survival probabilities. We calibrated the model to empirical data on monthly detected cases, as well as stage at diagnosis and 5-year net survival. We accounted for the impact of COVID-19 on excess mortality and cancer detection by month during the pandemic, and projected diagnosed cancer cases and outcomes of stage at diagnosis and survival up to 2030. For comparison, we simulated a no COVID-19 scenario in which the impacts of COVID-19 on excess mortality and cancer detection were removed., Findings: Our modelling showed a sharp decrease in the number of diagnosed cancer cases during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a large projected short-term increase in future diagnosed cases. Due to the projected backlog in diagnosis, we estimated that in 2021 there will be an extra 3198 cases (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 1356-5017) diagnosed among the five modelled cancers, an increase of nearly 14% compared with the no COVID-19 scenario, falling to a projected 10% increase in 2022 with 2674 extra cases (1318-4032) diagnosed. As a result of delayed diagnosis, we found a worse stage distribution for detected cancers in 2020-22, which is estimated to lead to 3542 excess cancer deaths (95% UI 2236-4816) in 2022-30, compared with the no COVID-19 scenario, among the five modelled cancers, most of which (3299 deaths, 2151-4431) are projected to occur before 2025., Interpretation: In addition to a large projected surge in diagnosed cancer cases, we found that delays in diagnosis will result in worse cancer stage at presentation, leading to worse survival outcomes. These findings can help to inform surge capacity planning and highlight the importance of ensuring appropriate health system capacity levels to detect and care for the increased cancer cases in the coming years, while maintaining the timeliness and quality of cancer care. Potential delays in treatment and adverse impacts on quality of care, which were not considered in this model, are likely to contribute to even more excess deaths from cancer than projected., Funding: Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health., Translations: For the Spanish and Portuguese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In addition to increased availability of treatment modalities, advanced imaging modalities are increasingly recommended to improve global cancer care. However, estimates of the costs and benefits of investments to improve cancer survival are scarce, especially for low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this analysis, we aimed to estimate the costs and lifetime health and economic benefits of scaling up imaging and treatment modality packages on cancer survival, both globally and by country income group., Methods: Using a previously developed model of global cancer survival, we estimated stage-specific cancer survival and life-years gained (accounting for competing mortality) in 200 countries and territories for patients diagnosed with one of 11 cancers (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, anus, liver, pancreas, lung, breast, cervix uteri, and prostate) representing 60% of all cancer diagnoses between 2020 and 2030 (inclusive of full years). We evaluated the costs and health and economic benefits of scaling up packages of treatment (chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy), imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, single-photon emission CT), and quality of care to the mean level of high-income countries, separately and in combination, compared with no scale-up. Costs and benefits are presented in 2018 US$ and discounted at 3% annually., Findings: For the 11 cancers studied, we estimated that without scale-up (ie, with current availability of treatment, imaging, and quality of care) there will be 76·0 million cancer deaths (95% UI 73·9-78·6) globally for patients diagnosed between 2020 and 2030, with more than 70% of these deaths occurring in LMICs. Comprehensive scale-up of treatment, imaging, and quality of care could avert 12·5% (95% UI 9·0-16·3) of these deaths globally, ranging from 2·8% (1·8-4·3) in high-income countries to 38·2% (32·6-44·5) in low-income countries. Globally, we estimate that comprehensive scale-up would cost an additional $232·9 billion (95% UI 85·9-422·0) between 2020 and 2030 (representing a 6·9% increase in cancer treatment costs), but produce $2·9 trillion (1·8-4·0) in lifetime economic benefits, yielding a return of $12·43 (6·47-33·23) per dollar invested. Scaling up treatment and quality of care without imaging would yield a return of $6·15 (2·66-16·71) per dollar invested and avert 7·0% (3·9-10·3) of cancer deaths worldwide., Interpretation: Simultaneous investment in cancer treatment, imaging, and quality of care could yield substantial health and economic benefits, especially in LMICs. These results provide a compelling rationale for the value of investing in the global scale-up of cancer care., Funding: Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health and National Cancer Institute., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Accurate survival estimates are important for cancer control planning. Although observed survival estimates are unavailable for many countries, where they are available, wide variations are reported. Understanding the impact of specific treatment and imaging modalities can help decision makers to effectively allocate resources to improve cancer survival in their local context., Methods: We developed a microsimulation model of stage-specific cancer survival in 200 countries and territories for 11 cancers (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, anus, liver, pancreas, lung, breast, cervix uteri, and prostate) comprising 60% of global diagnosed cancer cases. The model accounts for country-specific availability of treatment (chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy) and imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, single-photon emission CT), as well as quality of care. We calibrated the model to reported survival estimates from CONCORD-3 (which reports global trends in cancer survival in 2000-14). We estimated 5-year net survival for diagnosed cancers in each country or territory and estimated potential survival gains from increasing the availability of individual treatment and imaging modalities, and more comprehensive packages of scale-up of these interventions. We report the mean and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for all outcomes, calculated as the 2·5 and 97·5 percentiles of the simulation results., Findings: The estimated global 5-year net survival for all 11 cancers combined is 42·6% (95% uncertainty interval 40·3-44·3), with survival in high-income countries being an average of 12 times (range 4-17) higher than that in low-income countries. Expanding availability of surgery or radiotherapy or improving quality of care would yield the largest survival gains in low-income (2·5-3·4 percentage point increase in survival) and lower-middle-income countries (2·4-6·1 percentage point increase), whereas upper-middle-income and high-income countries are more likely to benefit from improved availability of targeted therapy (0·7 percentage point increase for upper-middle income and 0·4 percentage point increase for high income). Investing in medical imaging will also be necessary to achieve substantial survival gains, with traditional modalities estimated to provide the largest gains in low-income settings, while MRI and PET would yield the largest gains in higher-income countries. Simultaneous expansion of treatment, imaging, and quality of care could improve 5-year net survival by more than ten times in low-income countries (3·8% [95% UI 0·5-9·2] to 45·2% [40·2-52·1]) and could more than double 5-year net survival in lower-middle-income countries (20·1% [7·2-31·7] to 47·1% [42·8-50·8])., Interpretation: Scaling up both treatment and imaging availability could yield synergistic survival gains for patients with cancer. Expanding traditional modalities in lower-income settings might be a feasible pathway to improve survival before scaling up more modern technologies., Funding: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We estimate that there will be 13·7 million new cases of childhood cancer globally between 2020 and 2050. At current levels of health system performance (including access and referral), 6·1 million (44·9%) of these children will be undiagnosed. Between 2020 and 2050, 11·1 million children will die from cancer if no additional investments are made to improve access to health-care services or childhood cancer treatment. Of this total, 9·3 million children (84·1%) will be in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. This burden could be vastly reduced with new funding to scale up cost-effective interventions. Simultaneous comprehensive scale-up of interventions could avert 6·2 million deaths in children with cancer in this period, more than half (56·1%) of the total number of deaths otherwise projected. Taking excess mortality risk into consideration, this reduction in the number of deaths is projected to produce a gain of 318 million life-years. In addition, the global lifetime productivity gains of US$2580 billion in 2020-50 would be four times greater than the cumulative treatment costs of $594 billion, producing a net benefit of $1986 billion on the global investment: a net return of $3 for every $1 invested. In sum, the burden of childhood cancer, which has been grossly underestimated in the past, can be effectively diminished to realise massive health and economic benefits and to avert millions of needless deaths., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Childhood cancers caused an estimated 75 000 deaths in children aged 0-14 years in 2018, of which 90% were in low-income and middle-income countries, and yet this group is missing from global health agendas. We examined global patterns in public and philanthropic funding for childhood cancer research-a proxy for global research activity-to address the critical gaps in knowledge. We used data from the Dimensions database to systematically search for and analyse 3414 grants from 115 funders across 35 countries between 2008 and 2016, organised by funding source, recipient, tumour type, research focus, and pipeline categories, to investigate trends over time. During this period, global funding for childhood cancer research was US$2 billion, of which $772 million (37·9%) was for general childhood cancer, $449 million (22·0%) was for leukaemias, and $330 million (16·2%) was for CNS tumours. $1·6 billion (77·7%) of funding was awarded from, and to, institutions based in the USA. Preclinical research received $1·2 billion (59·3%), and around $525 million (25·7%) included support for clinical trials, but only $113 million (5·5%) supported health-care delivery research. Overall, funding was inadequate and geographically inequitable, and new commitments to funding have declined since 2011., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite increasing global attention to non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and their incorporation into universal health coverage (UHC), the factors that determine whether and how NCDs are prioritized in national health agendas and integrated into health systems remain poorly understood. Childhood cancer is a leading non-communicable cause of death in children aged 0-14 years worldwide. We investigated the political, social, and economic factors that influence health system priority-setting on childhood cancer care in a range of low- and middle-income countries (LMIC)., Methods and Findings: Based on in-depth qualitative case studies, we analyzed the determinants of priority-setting for childhood cancer care in El Salvador, Guatemala, Ghana, India, and the Philippines using a conceptual framework that considers four principal influences on political prioritization: political contexts, actor power, ideas, and issue characteristics. Data for the analysis derived from in-depth interviews (n = 68) with key informants involved in or impacted by childhood cancer policies and programs in participating countries, supplemented by published academic literature and available policy documents. Political priority for childhood cancer varies widely across the countries studied and is most influenced by political context and actor power dynamics. Ghana has placed relatively little national priority on childhood cancer, largely due to competing priorities and a lack of cohesion among stakeholders. In both El Salvador and Guatemala, actor power has played a central role in generating national priority for childhood cancer, where well-organized and -resourced civil society organizations have disrupted legacies of fragmented governance and financing to create priority for childhood cancer care. In India, the role of a uniquely empowered private actor was instrumental in creating political priority and establishing sustained channels of financing for childhood cancer care. In the Philippines, the childhood cancer community has capitalized on a window of opportunity to expand access and reduce disparities in childhood cancer care through the political prioritization of UHC and NCDs in current health system reforms., Conclusions: The importance of key health system actors in determining the relative political priority for childhood cancer in the countries studied points to actor power as a critical enabler of prioritization in other LMIC. Responsiveness to political contexts-in particular, rhetorical and policy priority placed on NCDs and UHC-will be crucial to efforts to place childhood cancer firmly on national health agendas. National governments must be convinced of the potential for foundational health system strengthening through attention to childhood cancer care, and the presence and capability of networked actors primed to amplify public sector investments and catalyze change on the ground., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Accurate childhood cancer survival estimates are crucial for policy makers and clinicians for priority-setting and planning decisions. However, observed survival estimates are lacking for many countries, and when available, wide variation in outcomes is reported. Understanding the barriers to optimising survival can help improve childhood cancer outcomes. We aimed to provide estimates of global childhood cancer survival, accounting for the impact of multiple factors that affect cancer outcomes in children., Methods: We developed a microsimulation model to simulate childhood cancer survival for 200 countries and territories worldwide, accounting for clinical and epidemiologic factors, including country-specific treatment variables, such as availability of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. To ensure model results were consistent with reported survival data, we calibrated the model to estimates from the CONCORD-2 and CONCORD-3 studies using an Approximate Bayesian Computation approach. We estimated 5-year net survival for diagnosed cases of childhood cancer in each country and territory and estimated potential survival gains of seven policy interventions focused on improving treatment availability and delivery (ie, increasing the availability of chemotherapy, radiation, general surgery, neurosurgery, or ophthalmic surgery, reducing treatment abandonment, and improving the quality of care to the mean of high-income countries) implemented in isolation or as packages., Findings: Our model estimated that, for diagnosed cases, global 5-year net childhood cancer survival is currently 37·4% (95% uncertainty interval 34·7-39·8), with large variation by region, ranging from 8·1% (4·4-13·7) in eastern Africa to 83·0% (81·6-84·4) in North America. Among the seven policy interventions modelled, each individually provided small gains, increasing global 5-year net survival to between 38·4% (35·8-40·9) and 44·6% (41·7-47·4). 5-year net survival increased more substantially when policy interventions were bundled into packages that improved service delivery (5-year net survival 50·2% [47·3-53·0]) or that expanded treatment access (54·1% [50·1-58·5]). A comprehensive systems approach consisting of all policy interventions yielded superadditive gains with a global 5-year net survival of 53·6% (51·5-55·6) at 50% scale-up and 80·8% (79·5-82·1) at full implementation., Interpretation: Childhood cancer survival varies widely by region, with especially poor survival in Africa. Although expanding access to treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery) and addressing financial toxicity are essential, investments that improve the quality of care, at both the health-system and facility level, are needed to improve childhood cancer outcomes globally., Funding: Boston Children's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, National Cancer Institute, SickKids, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Union for International Cancer Control, Children with Cancer UK Davidson and O'Gorman Fellowship., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Accurate estimates of childhood cancer incidence are important for policy makers to inform priority setting and planning decisions. However, many countries do not have cancer registries that quantify the incidence of childhood cancer. Moreover, even when registries do exist, they might substantially underestimate the true incidence, since children with cancer might not be diagnosed. We therefore aimed to provide estimates of total childhood cancer incidence accounting for underdiagnosis., Methods: We developed a microsimulation model to simulate childhood cancer incidence for 200 countries and territories worldwide, taking into account trends in population growth and urbanicity, geographical variation in cancer incidence, and health system barriers to access and referral that contribute to underdiagnosis. To ensure model results were consistent with epidemiological data, we calibrated the model to publicly available cancer registry data using a Bayesian approach in which the observed data are fixed and the model parameters (cancer incidence and probabilities of health system access and referral) are random variables. We estimated the total incidence of childhood cancer (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in each country in 2015 and projected the number of cases from 2015 to 2030., Findings: Our model estimated that there were 397 000 (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 377 000-426 000) incident cases of childhood cancer worldwide in 2015, of which only 224 000 (95% UI 216 000-237 000) were diagnosed. This finding suggests that 43% (172 000 of 397 000) of childhood cancer cases were undiagnosed globally, with substantial variation by region, ranging from 3% in western Europe (120 of 4300) and North America (300 of 10 900) to 57% (43 000 of 76 000) in western Africa. In south Asia (including southeastern Asia and south-central Asia), the overall proportion of undiagnosed cases was estimated to be 49% (67 000 of 137 000). Taking into account population projections, we estimated that there will be 6·7 million (95% UI 6·3-7·2) cases of childhood cancer worldwide from 2015 to 2030. At current levels of health system performance, we estimated that 2·9 million (95% UI 2·7-3·3) cases of childhood cancer will be missed between 2015 and 2030., Interpretation: Childhood cancer is substantially underdiagnosed, especially in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (including western, eastern, and southern Africa). In addition to improving treatment for childhood cancer, health systems must be strengthened to accurately diagnose and effectively care for all children with cancer. As countries expand universal health coverage, these estimates of total incidence will hopefully help guide efforts to appropriately increase health system capacity to ensure access to effective childhood cancer care., Funding: Boston Children's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, National Cancer Institute, SickKids, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, and Union for International Cancer Control., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

5-year net survival of children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer is approximately 80% in many high-income countries. This estimate is encouraging as it shows the substantial progress that has been made in the diagnosis and treatment of childhood cancer. Unfortunately, scarce data are available for low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where nearly 90% of children with cancer reside, suggesting that global survival estimates are substantially worse in these regions. As LMICs are undergoing a rapid epidemiological transition, with a shifting burden from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases, cancer care for all ages has become a global focus. To improve outcomes for children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer worldwide, an accurate appraisal of the global burden of childhood cancer is a necessary first step. In this Review, we analyse four studies of the global cancer burden that included data for children and adolescents. Each study used various overlapping and non-overlapping statistical approaches and outcome metrics. Moreover, to provide guidance on improving future estimates of the childhood global cancer burden, we propose several recommendations to strengthen data collection and standardise analyses. Ultimately, these data could help stakeholders to develop plans for national and institutional cancer programmes, with the overall aim of helping to reduce the global burden of cancer in children and adolescents., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs)., Design: Systematic analysis of all open-access data., Methods: Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value., Results: Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82 billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512 million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses., Conclusions: We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: To systematically categorise cancer research investment awarded to United Kingdom (UK) institutions in the period 2000-2013 and to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLDs)., Design: Systematic analysis of all open-access data., Setting and Participants: Public and philanthropic funding to all UK cancer research institutions, 2000-2013., Main Outcome Measures: Number and financial value of cancer research investments reported in 2013 UK pounds (UK£). Mortality, DALYs and YLDs data were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease Study. A compound metric was adapted to estimate research investment relative to disease burden as measured by mortality, DALYs and YLDs., Results: We identified 4299 funded studies with a total research investment of £2.4 billion. The highest fundings by anatomical sites were haematological, breast, prostate, colorectal and ovarian cancers. Relative to disease burden as determined by a compound metric combining mortality, DALYs and YLDs, gender-specific cancers were found to be highest funded-the five sites that received the most funding were prostate, ovarian, breast, mesothelioma and testicular cancer; the least well-funded sites were liver, thyroid, lung, upper gastrointestinal (GI) and bladder. Preclinical science accounted for 66.2% of award numbers and 62.2% of all funding. The top five areas of primary research focus by funding were pathogenesis, drug therapy, diagnostic, screening and monitoring, women's health and immunology. The largest individual funder was the Medical Research Council. In combination, the five lowest funded site-specific cancers relative to disease burden account for 47.9%, 44.3% and 20.4% of worldwide cancer mortality, DALYs and YLDs., Conclusions: Research funding for cancer is not allocated according to relative disease burden. These findings are in line with earlier published studies. Funding agencies and industry should openly document their research investments to improve better targeting of research investment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Background: The global economic crisis has been associated with increased unemployment and reduced public-sector expenditure on health care (PEH). We estimated the effects of changes in unemployment and PEH on cancer mortality, and identified how universal health coverage (UHC) affected these relationships., Methods: For this longitudinal analysis, we obtained data from the World Bank and WHO (1990-2010). We aggregated mortality data for breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men, and colorectal cancers in men and women, which are associated with survival rates that exceed 50%, into a treatable cancer class. We likewise aggregated data for lung and pancreatic cancers, which have 5 year survival rates of less than 10%, into an untreatable cancer class. We used multivariable regression analysis, controlling for country-specific demographics and infrastructure, with time-lag analyses and robustness checks to investigate the relationship between unemployment, PEH, and cancer mortality, with and without UHC. We used trend analysis to project mortality rates, on the basis of trends before the sharp unemployment rise that occurred in many countries from 2008 to 2010, and compared them with observed rates., Results: Data were available for 75 countries, representing 2.106 billion people, for the unemployment analysis and for 79 countries, representing 2.156 billion people, for the PEH analysis. Unemployment rises were significantly associated with an increase in all-cancer mortality and all specific cancers except lung cancer in women. By contrast, untreatable cancer mortality was not significantly linked with changes in unemployment. Lag analyses showed significant associations remained 5 years after unemployment increases for the treatable cancer class. Rerunning analyses, while accounting for UHC status, removed the significant associations. All-cancer, treatable cancer, and specific cancer mortalities significantly decreased as PEH increased. Time-series analysis provided an estimate of more than 40,000 excess deaths due to a subset of treatable cancers from 2008 to 2010, on the basis of 2000-07 trends. Most of these deaths were in non-UHC countries., Interpretation: Unemployment increases are associated with rises in cancer mortality; UHC seems to protect against this effect. PEH increases are associated with reduced cancer mortality. Access to health care could underlie these associations. We estimate that the 2008-10 economic crisis was associated with about 260,000 excess cancer-related deaths in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development alone., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Radiotherapy (RT) is a powerful tool for the palliation of the symptoms of advanced cancer, although access to it is limited or absent in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). There are multiple factors contributing to this, including assumptions about the economic feasibility of RT in LMICs, the logical challenges of building capacity to deliver it in those regions, and the lack of political support to drive change of this kind. It is encouraging that the problem of RT access has begun to be included in the global discourse on cancer control and that palliative care and RT have been incorporated into national cancer control plans in some LMICs. Further, RT twinning programs involving high- and low-resource settings have been established to improve knowledge transfer and exchange. However, without large-scale action, the consequences of limited access to RT in LMICs will become dire. The number of new cancer cases around the world is expected to double by 2030, with twice as many deaths occurring in LMICs as in high-income countries (HICs). A sustained and coordinated effort involving research, education, and advocacy is required to engage global institutions, universities, health care providers, policymakers, and private industry in the urgent need to build RT capacity and delivery in LMICs.

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015-35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015-35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries-a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015-35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015-35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015-35 (-$14·9 billion in low-income countries; -$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (-$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Globally, the number of new cases of childhood cancer continues to rise, with a widening gulf in outcomes across countries, despite the availability of effective cure options for many pediatric cancers. Economic forces and health system realities are deeply embedded in the foundation of disparities in global childhood cancer outcomes. A truly global effort to close the childhood cancer divide therefore requires systemic solutions. Analysis of the economic and health system dimensions of childhood cancer outcomes is essential to progress in childhood cancer survival around the globe. The conceptual power of this approach is significant. It provides insight into how and where pediatric oncology entwines with broader political and economic conditions, and highlights the mutual benefit derived from systems-oriented solutions., (© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Substantial inequalities exist in cancer survival rates across countries. In addition to prevention of new cancers by reduction of risk factors, strategies are needed to close the gap between developed and developing countries in cancer survival and the effects of the disease on human suffering. We challenge the public health community's assumption that cancers will remain untreated in poor countries, and note the analogy to similarly unfounded arguments from more than a decade ago against provision of HIV treatment. In resource-constrained countries without specialised services, experience has shown that much can be done to prevent and treat cancer by deployment of primary and secondary caregivers, use of off-patent drugs, and application of regional and global mechanisms for financing and procurement. Furthermore, several middle-income countries have included cancer treatment in national health insurance coverage with a focus on people living in poverty. These strategies can reduce costs, increase access to health services, and strengthen health systems to meet the challenge of cancer and other diseases. In 2009, we formed the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, which is composed of leaders from the global health and cancer care communities, and is dedicated to proposal, implementation, and evaluation of strategies to advance this agenda., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)