Search

PURPOSEThere 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.METHODSThe 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.RESULTSSummit 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.CONCLUSIONThe 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.

Cancer is a major public health concern, impacting nearly 20 million people each year, and it is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths worldwide. The burden of cancer is increasing rapidly, straining health systems that are unable to prevent and manage the disease. Childhood cancer constitutes a significant and relevant public health challenge; it was the ninth leading cause of childhood disease globally, according to findings by the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study. Almost 80% of all children diagnosed with cancer live in low- and middle-income countries where treatment is often unavailable or unaffordable. As a result, only about 15–45% of these children survive compared with more than 80% in high-income countries. This represents a great health inequity. Delivering on the mandate provided by World Health Assembly resolution 70.12, WHO together with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and other global partners launched the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer at the United Nations General Assembly during the third High-level Meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in September 2018. The Initiative aims to increase global survival for children with cancer to at least 60% by 2030, while reducing suffering for all children with cancer. Five years after launching the Initiative, more than 70 countries across the World Health Organization’s 6 regions have advanced to different phases of action through implementation of the Initiative’s CureAll framework for action. Many successful approaches to implementing the CureAll pillars and enablers have demonstrated that improving care for children with cancer in low- and middle-income countries is possible as long as there is strong political will, multisectoral commitments and strategic investment.

This report describes the status of childhood cancer control initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Progress between 2017 and 2023 is measured using the outcome indicators from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) childhood cancer logic model aligned with the World Health Organization Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC). This report also describes the advances, barriers, and facilitators for the implementation of the GICC at the Regional level. Methods used in this report encompassed a comprehensive approach, incorporating a literature review, interviews, surveys, and a Delphi study developed by the technical team of the PAHO Non-Communicable Diseases and Mental Health Department and by the GICC LAC working group. Since 2017, there has been a substantial increase in the number of countries that have included childhood cancer in their national regulations. Currently, 21 LAC countries are involved in the GICC implementation, activities, and dialogues. However, the objectives for 2030 will only be achieved if Member States overcome the barriers to accelerating the pace of initiative implementation. There is an urgent need to increase the efforts in childhood cancer control in LAC, especially regarding the prioritization of timely detection, essential diagnostics, access to cancer treatment, palliative care, and close follow-up of children and adolescents with cancer.

A diagnosis of cancer impacts the person's physical and mental health and the psychosocial and financial health of their caregivers. While data on the experience of living with cancer is available, there is a dearth of data from persons in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The perspectives of other impacted individuals also remain understudied (e.g., bereaved family members), as well as the impact on survivors and their families over time. The objective of this study is to describe the psychosocial and financial impact of cancer on people diagnosed with cancer as a child, adolescent or adult, their families/caregivers, and the family members of those who have died from cancer, in high-income countries (HICs) and LMICs. This study is an observational, descriptive, quantitative study. Data will be collected anonymously via a digital online cross-sectional survey distributed globally by the World Health Organization (WHO) via the LimeSurvey software. Participants will include (a) adults aged 18+ who have been diagnosed with cancer at any age, who are currently undergoing cancer treatment or who have completed cancer treatment; (b) adult family members of individuals of any age with a cancer diagnosis, who are currently undergoing cancer treatment or who have completed cancer treatment; and (c) bereaved family members. Participants will be anonymously recruited via convenience and snowball sampling through networks of organisations related to cancer. Survey results will be analysed quantitatively per respondent group, per time from diagnosis, per disease and country. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences; a summary of results will be available on the WHO website. This study will suggest public health interventions and policy responses to support people affected by cancer and may also lead to subsequent research focusing on the needs of people affected by cancer.

Genomic and personalized medicine implementation efforts have largely centered on specialty care in tertiary health systems. There are few examples of fully integrated care systems that span the healthcare continuum. In 2014, NorthShore University HealthSystem launched the Center for Personalized Medicine to catalyze the delivery of personalized medicine. Successful implementation required the development of a scalable family history collection tool, the Genetic and Wellness Assessment (GWA) and Breast Health Assessment (BHA) tools; integrated pharmacogenomics programming; educational programming; electronic medical record integration; and robust clinical decision support tools. To date, more than 225,000 patients have been screened for increased hereditary conditions, such as cancer risk, through these tools in primary care. More than 35,000 patients completed clinical genetic testing following GWA or BHA completion. An innovative program trained more than 100 primary care providers in genomic medicine, activated with clinical decision support and access to patient genetic counseling services and digital healthcare tools. The development of a novel bioinformatics platform (FLYPE) enabled the incorporation of genomics data into electronic medical records. To date, over 4,000 patients have been identified to have a pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant in a gene with medical management implications. Over 33,000 patients have clinical pharmacogenomics data incorporated into the electronic health record supported by clinical decision support tools. This manuscript describes the evolution, strategy, and successful multispecialty partnerships aligned with health system leadership that enabled the implementation of a comprehensive personalized medicine program with measurable patient outcomes through a genomics-enabled learning health system model that utilizes implementation science frameworks.

BackgroundDelays to cancer diagnosis exist, resulting in worse survival outcomes for many cancers. Interventions targeting delays and barriers to cancer diagnosis and treatment have been investigated, but mostly in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and characterize the interventions studied across cancers, within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsThis systematic review forms part two of a wider study examining solutions to delays and barriers in cancer early diagnosis in LMICs. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on November 27, 2017, encompassing published studies from the preceding 15 years. We extracted study design, population, and intervention, and reported outcome measures from each study. Results were presented by target of interventions (general vs. health care professionals). A narrative synthesis was used to summarize intervention efficacy.ResultsOf 10,193 abstracts returned, 25 were included, consisting of studies across World Health Organization geographical regions, examining breast, cervix, childhood, prostate, head and neck, and gastric cancers. Altogether, 11 intervention studies targeted the general population, 12 targeted health care professionals, and 2 targeted both. The majority (17/25) of studies reported interventions focusing on patient and diagnosis-related barriers early in the cancer care pathway. Most studies reported knowledge score as primary outcome measure (17/25); few (6/25) reported on clinically relevant measures such as reducing disease stage at presentation or diagnostic time interval. Effectiveness of interventions was demonstrated for some cancers only.ConclusionMore interventions reporting clinically relevant measures and using standardized methods and outcomes are required to improve our ability to effectively improve cancer early diagnosis in LMICs.Implications for practicePrior to this study, the extent of intervention literature in cancer early diagnosis in low- and middle-income countries had not been characterized. This study aimed to outline and characterize interventions across all cancer types and across all countries. This systematic review demonstrated that interventions have been investigated targeting both the general population and health care professionals. Furthermore, this review demonstrates that the majority of studies report knowledge as an outcome measure, rather than clinically significant measures that improve cancer-related outcomes, such as delay intervals or downstaging of disease. Future interventions should address clinically relevant measures to better assess efficacy of interventions.

BackgroundAdvanced stage presentation of patients with is common in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A comprehensive analysis of existing delays and barriers in LMICs has not been previously reported. We conducted a systematic literature review to comprehensively outline delays and barriers to identify targets for future interventions and provide recommendations for future research in this field.Materials and methodsMultiple electronic databases were searched using a standardized search strategy. Eligible articles were of any language, from LMICs, and published between January 1, 2002, and November 27, 2017. Included studies reported cancer care intervals or barriers encountered. Intervals and associated barriers were summarized by cancer type and geographical region.ResultsThis review included 316 study populations from 57 LMICs: 142 (44.9%) studies addressed time intervals, whereas 214 (67.7%) studies described barriers to cancer diagnosis. The median intervals were similar in the following three stages of early diagnosis: (a) access (1.2 months), (b) diagnostic (0.9 months), and (c) treatment (0.8 months). Studies from low-income countries had significantly longer access intervals (median, 6.5 months) compared with other country income groups. Patients with breast cancer had longer delay intervals than patients with childhood cancer. No significant variation existed between geographic regions. Low health literacy was reported most frequently in studies describing barriers to cancer diagnosis and was associated with lower education level, no formal employment, lower income, and rural residence.ConclusionEarly diagnosis strategies should address barriers during all three intervals contributing to late presentation in LMICs. Standardization in studying and reporting delay intervals in LMICs is needed to monitor progress and facilitate comparisons across settings.Implications for practiceThis review draws the attention of cancer implementation scientists globally. The findings highlight the significant delays that occur throughout the cancer care continuum in low- and middle-income countries and describe common barriers that cause them. This review will help shape the global research agenda by proposing metrics and implementation studies. By demonstrating the importance of standardized reporting metrics, this report sets forth additional research and evidence needed to inform cancer control policies.

Abstract Background An estimated 400,000 children develop cancer worldwide. Of those, 90% occur in low- and middle-income countries, where survival rates can be as low as 30%. To reduce the childhood cancer survival gap between high- and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), the World Health Organization launched the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer in 2018, to support governments in building sustainable childhood cancer programs, with the aim to increase access and quality of care for children with cancer. Developing a high-quality and trained workforce is key to the success of childhood cancer services, but more information is needed on the interventions used to develop and train a workforce. The objective of this review is to understand the key factors described in the literature in relation to the development and training of a workforce in childhood cancer (defined here as ages 0–19) in LMIC, including challenges, interventions and their outcomes. Methods We will include sources of evidence that describe the development or training of a childhood cancer workforce in health services that diagnose, refer or treat children and adolescents with cancer, in low- and middle-income countries as defined by the World Bank. The following databases will be searched: OVID Medline, Embase and Pubmed from 2001 to present with no restriction of language. Grey literature searches will also be performed in Proquest Dissertation and Theses, as well as relevant organizations’ websites, and conference proceedings will be searched in conference websites. In addition, references lists will be reviewed manually. Two people will screen abstracts and full-texts and extract data. Data will be presented in a table or chart, with an accompanying narrative summary responding to the review questions. A framework synthesis will be conducted: data will be charted against a framework adapted from the 2016 WHO Global Strategy for Human Resources for Heath: Workforce 2030. Discussion This scoping review will allow to map the existing literature on workforce development in LMIC, identify potential interventions and highlight data and knowledge gaps. This constitutes a first step towards adopting successful strategies more broadly, formulating research priorities and developing effective policies and interventions. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework osf.io/3mp7n

PURPOSEDelays 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.METHODSSystematic 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.RESULTSOf 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.CONCLUSIONThe 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.

PURPOSEThere 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.METHODSThis 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.RESULTSAmong 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%).CONCLUSIONThe 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.

Summary: Background: Information on cancer statistics and cancer control policies is limited in fragile states. This paper describes the cancer burden and status of cancer control measures in these countries. Methods: In this comparative analysis, fragile states presenting with a Fragile States Index (FSI) score of 90·0 or more (alert for fragility) for at least 10 years during the 2006–20 period were selected. States with fewer than 10 years of data were selected if they were in alert for fragility during all years. Information on cancer burden, prevalence of cancer risk factors, population-attributable fraction, and on political commitment, health financing, and health system capacity was collected. Cancer incidence and mortality was calculated on the basis of data from population-based cancer registries, estimated with modelling that used mortality-to-incidence ratios and incidence-to-mortality ratios derived from cancer registries in neighbouring countries, or average of rates in selected neighbouring countries. For statistical comparison, fragile states were grouped according to the annual percent change (APC) of the FSI, with group 1 showing an increasing fragility trend (APC 0·2% or higher), group 2 a relatively stable fragility trend (APC between 0·2% and –0·2%), and group 3 a decreasing fragility trend (APC of –0·2% or lower). Findings: Overall, the estimated cancer burden in the 31 selected fragile states was lower than worldwide rates, except for cervical and prostate cancer. Cancer cases were attributed to infections (22·40% in group 1, 21·20% in group 2, and 18·80% in group 3) at a higher proportion in fragile states than globally (13·0%). Group 1 and 2 showed a significantly higher exposure to household air pollution (97·70% in group 1 and 94·90% in group 2), whereas current tobacco use in men increased from group 1 to group 3, with lung cancer incidence and mortality being higher in group 3. However, 25 countries had implemented only one or no MPOWER measures for tobacco control. Countries showed an out-of-pocket expenditure of 48·72% in group 1, 42·68% in group 2, and 51·07% in group 3, and only half of the countries had an updated cancer control plan or cancer management guidelines. Interpretation: Fragile states have started the epidemiological transition but are still not implementing enough cancer control measures. There is a need to develop reliable cancer control plans and guidelines, and to create financial mechanisms for implementation. Funding: None. Translations: For the Arabic and French translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

PURPOSEThe 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.METHODSThis 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.RESULTSThe 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.CONCLUSIONMost 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.

PURPOSEAccess 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.METHODSAn 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).RESULTSAmong 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%).CONCLUSIONMost 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.

PURPOSEThe burden of cancer is growing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including sub-Saharan Africa. Ensuring the delivery of high-quality cancer care in such regions is a pressing concern. There is a need for strategies to identify meaningful and relevant quality measures that are applicable to and usable for quality measurement and improvement in resource-constrained settings.METHODSTo identify quality measures for breast cancer care at Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence (BCCOE) in Rwanda, we used a modified Delphi process engaging two panels of experts, one with expertise in breast cancer evidence and measures used in high-income countries and one with expertise in cancer care delivery in Rwanda.RESULTSOur systematic review of the literature yielded no publications describing breast cancer quality measures developed in a low-income country, but it did provide 40 quality measures, which we adapted for relevance to our setting. After two surveys, one conference call, and one in-person meeting, 17 measures were identified as relevant to pathology, staging and treatment planning, surgery, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, palliative care, and retention in care. Successes of the process included participation by a diverse set of global experts and engagement of the BCCOE community in quality measurement and improvement. Anticipated challenges include the need to continually refine these measures as resources, protocols, and measurement capacity rapidly evolve in Rwanda.CONCLUSIONA modified Delphi process engaging both global and local expertise was a promising strategy to identify quality measures for breast cancer in Rwanda. The process and resulting measures may also be relevant for other LMIC cancer facilities. Next steps include validation of these measures in a retrospective cohort of patients with breast cancer.