Growing the global cancer care system: success stories from around the world and lessons for the future.

Despite significant biomedical advancements in various realms of oncology, the benefits of these developments are not equitably distributed, particularly in under-resourced settings. While much work has described the challenges and systemic barriers in global cancer control, in this essay we focus on success stories. This piece describes clinical care delivered at Rwanda's Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence, the cancer research collaborations under India's National Cancer Grid, and the efforts of Latin America's Institute of Cancer of São Paulo in advancing cancer care and training. These examples highlight the potential of strategic collaborations and resource allocation strategies in improving cancer care globally. We emphasize the critical role of partnerships between physicians and allied health professionals, funders, and policymakers in enhancing access to treatment and infrastructure, advancing contextualized research and national guidelines, and establishing regional and global collaborations. We also draw attention to challenges faced in diverse global settings and outline benchmarks to measure success in the fight against cancer.

Age at diagnosis for lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers: An international comparative study.

Differences in the average age at cancer diagnosis are observed across countries. We therefore aimed to assess international variation in the median age at diagnosis of common cancers worldwide, after adjusting for differences in population age structure. We used IARC's Cancer Incidence in Five Continents (CI5) Volume XI database, comprising cancer diagnoses between 2008 and 2012 from population-based cancer registries in 65 countries. We calculated crude median ages at diagnosis for lung, colon, breast and prostate cancers in each country, then adjusted for population age differences using indirect standardization. We showed that median ages at diagnosis changed by up to 10 years after standardization, typically increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and decreasing in high-income countries (HICs), given relatively younger and older populations, respectively. After standardization, the range of ages at diagnosis was 12 years for lung cancer (median age 61-Bulgaria vs 73-Bahrain), 12 years for colon cancer (60-the Islamic Republic of Iran vs 72-Peru), 10 years for female breast cancer (49-Algeria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Republic of Korea vs 59-USA and others) and 10 years for prostate cancer (65-USA, Lithuania vs 75-Philippines). Compared to HICs, populations in LMICs were diagnosed with colon cancer at younger ages but with prostate cancer at older ages (both pLMICS-vs-HICs < 0.001). In countries with higher smoking prevalence, lung cancers were diagnosed at younger ages in both women and men (both pcorr < 0.001). Female breast cancer tended to be diagnosed at younger ages in East Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Our findings suggest that the differences in median ages at cancer diagnosis worldwide likely reflect population-level variation in risk factors and cancer control measures, including screening.

Quantitative estimates of preventable and treatable deaths from 36 cancers worldwide: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality globally. This study estimates premature deaths at ages 30-69 years and distinguishes these as deaths that are preventable (avertable through primary or secondary prevention) or treatable (avertable through curative treatment) in 185 countries worldwide. METHODS: For this population-based study, estimated cancer deaths by country, cancer, sex, and age groups were retrieved from the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 database. Crude and age-adjusted cancer-specific years of life lost (YLLs) were calculated for 36 cancer types. FINDINGS: Of the estimated all-ages cancer burden of 265·6 million YLLs, 182·8 million (68·8%) YLLs were due to premature deaths from cancer globally in 2020, with 124·3 million (68·0%) preventable and 58·5 million (32·0%) treatable. Countries with low, medium, or high human development index (HDI) levels all had greater proportions of YLLs at premature ages than very high HDI countries (68·9%, 77·0%, and 72·2% vs 57·7%, respectively). Lung cancer was the leading contributor to preventable premature YLLs in medium to very high HDI countries (17·4% of all cancers, or 29·7 million of 171·3 million YLLs), whereas cervical cancer led in low HDI countries (26·3% of all preventable cancers, or 1·83 million of 6·93 million YLLs). Colorectal and breast cancers were major treatable cancers across all four tiers of HDI (25·5% of all treatable cancers in combination, or 14·9 million of 58·5 million YLLs). INTERPRETATION: Alongside tailored programmes of early diagnosis and screening linked to timely and comprehensive treatment, greater investments in risk factor reduction and vaccination are needed to address premature cancer inequalities. FUNDING: Erasmus Mundus Exchange Programme and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. TRANSLATIONS: For the German, French, Spanish and Chinese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Roles and activities of nurses in cancer prevention and early detection in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review.

Objective: Nurses play a crucial role in cancer control. Prior reviews presented the effectiveness of nursing interventions such as tobacco cessation counseling and cervical cancer screening but did not focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This scoping review addresses a gap in the literature by describing the roles and activities of nurses in cancer prevention and early detection in LMICs. Methods: Following Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework, we searched seven databases using subject headings and keywords from 1990 to January 2021 and updated in April 2022. The reference lists of relevant studies were also searched. Two reviewers independently screened the relevance of studies through Rayyan, assessed full text articles, and extracted data using a Google Form. Conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. Results: A total of 180 studies were included, representing all six World Health Organization regions and 48 LMICs. The largest number of studies were from the African region (n â€‹= â€‹72), the Americas (n â€‹= â€‹49), and South-East Asia region (n â€‹= â€‹29). The main nursing roles featured were patient/community education (n â€‹= â€‹113), history taking and cancer risk assessment (n â€‹= â€‹63), performing screening exams (n â€‹= â€‹136), care coordination (n â€‹= â€‹57), and training other healthcare professionals (n â€‹= â€‹9). Conclusions: This scoping review provides a comprehensive picture of nurses' role in cancer prevention and early detection in LMICs, across all six World Health Organization regions. Additional cancer workforce data sources at the country level are needed to fully understand the activities of nurses in cancer prevention. Future research is also needed to measure the impact of nursing educational and other interventions in both primary and secondary cancer prevention.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer mortality between and within countries in Europe: a population-based study.

Background: Reducing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer is a priority for the public health agenda. A systematic assessment and benchmarking of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer across many countries and over time in Europe is not yet available. Methods: Census-linked, whole-of-population cancer-specific mortality data by socioeconomic position, as measured by education level, and sex were collected, harmonized, analysed, and compared across 18 countries during 1990-2015, in adults aged 40-79. We computed absolute and relative educational inequalities; temporal trends using estimated-annual-percentage-changes; the share of cancer mortality linked to educational inequalities. Findings: Everywhere in Europe, lower-educated individuals have higher mortality rates for nearly all cancer-types relative to their more highly-educated counterparts, particularly for tobacco/infection-related cancers [relative risk of lung cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated = 2.4 (95% confidence intervals: 2.1-2.8) among men; = 1.8 (95% confidence intervals: 1.5-2.1) among women]. However, the magnitude of inequalities varies greatly by country and over time, predominantly due to differences in cancer mortality among lower-educated groups, as for many cancer-types higher-educated have more similar (and lower) rates, irrespective of the country. Inequalities were generally greater in Baltic/Central/East-Europe and smaller in South-Europe, although among women large and rising inequalities were found in North-Europe (relative risk of all cancer mortality for lower- versus higher-educated ≥1.4 in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and the England/Wales). Among men, rate differences (per 100,000 person-years) in total-cancer mortality for lower-vs-higher-educated groups ranged from 110 (Sweden) to 559 (Czech Republic); among women from approximately null (Slovenia, Italy, Spain) to 176 (Denmark). Lung cancer was the largest contributor to inequalities in total-cancer mortality (between-country range: men, 29-61%; women, 10-56%). 32% of cancer deaths in men and 16% in women (but up to 46% and 24%, respectively in Baltic/Central/East-Europe) were associated with educational inequalities. Interpretation: Cancer mortality in Europe is largely driven by levels and trends of cancer mortality rates in lower-education groups. Even Nordic-countries, with a long-established tradition of equitable welfare and social justice policies, witness increases in cancer inequalities among women. These results call for a systematic measurement, monitoring and action upon the remarkable socioeconomic inequalities in cancer existing in Europe. Funding: This study was done as part of the LIFEPATH project, which has received financial support from the European Commission (Horizon 2020 grant number 633666), and the DEMETRIQ project, which received support from the European Commission (grant numbers FP7-CP-FP and 278511). SV and WN were supported by the French Institut National du Cancer (INCa) (Grant number 2018-116). PM was supported by the Academy of Finland (#308247, # 345219) and the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 101019329). The work by Mall Leinsalu was supported by the Estonian Research Council (grant PRG722).

Global estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2020: a baseline analysis of the WHO Global Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Tracking progress and providing timely evidence is a fundamental step forward for countries to remain aligned with the targets set by WHO to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem (ie, to reduce the incidence of the disease below a threshold of 4 cases per 100 000 women-years). We aimed to assess the extent of global inequalities in cervical cancer incidence and mortality, based on The Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) 2020 estimates, including geographical and socioeconomic development, and temporal aspects. METHODS: For this analysis, we used the GLOBOCAN 2020 database to estimate the age-specific and age-standardised incidence and mortality rates of cervical cancer per 100 000 women-years for 185 countries or territories aggregated across the 20 UN-defined world regions, and by four-tier levels of the Human Development Index (HDI). Time trends (1988-2017) in incidence were extracted from the Cancer Incidence in Five Continents (CI5) plus database. Mortality estimates were obtained using the most recent national vital registration data from WHO. FINDINGS: Globally in 2020, there were an estimated 604 127 cervical cancer cases and 341 831 deaths, with a corresponding age-standardised incidence of 13·3 cases per 100 000 women-years (95% CI 13·3-13·3) and mortality rate of 7·2 deaths per 100 000 women-years (95% CI 7·2-7·3). Cervical cancer incidence ranged from 2·2 (1·9-2·4) in Iraq to 84·6 (74·8-94·3) in Eswatini. Mortality rates ranged from 1·0 (0·8-1·2) in Switzerland to 55·7 (47·7-63·7) in Eswatini. Age-standardised incidence was highest in Malawi (67·9 [95% CI 65·7 -70·1]) and Zambia (65·5 [63·0-67·9]) in Africa, Bolivia (36·6 [35·0-38·2]) and Paraguay (34·1 [32·1-36·1]) in Latin America, Maldives (24·5 [17·0-32·0]) and Indonesia (24·4 [24·2-24·7]) in Asia, and Fiji (29·8 [24·7-35·0]) and Papua New Guinea (29·2 [27·3-31·0]) in Melanesia. A clear socioeconomic gradient exists in cervical cancer, with decreasing rates as HDI increased. Incidence was three times higher in countries with low HDI than countries with very high HDI, whereas mortality rates were six times higher in low HDI countries versus very high HDI countries. In 2020 estimates, a general decline in incidence was observed in most countries of the world with representative trend data, with incidence becoming stable at relatively low levels around 2005 in several high-income countries. By contrast, in the same period incidence increased in some countries in eastern Africa and eastern Europe. We observed different patterns of age-specific incidence between countries with well developed population-based screening and treatment services (eg, Sweden, Australia, and the UK) and countries with insufficient and opportunistic services (eg, Colombia, India, and Uganda). INTERPRETATION: The burden of cervical cancer remains high in many parts of the world, and in most countries, the incidence and mortality of the disease remain much higher than the threshold set by the WHO initiative on cervical cancer elimination. We identified substantial geographical and socioeconomic inequalities in cervical cancer globally, with a clear gradient of increasing rates for countries with lower levels of human development. Our study provides timely evidence and impetus for future strategies that prioritise and accelerate progress towards the WHO elimination targets and, in so doing, address the marked variations in the global cervical cancer landscape today. FUNDING: French Institut National du Cancer, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation of the European Commission; and EU4Health Programme.

Screening Programs for Breast Cancer: Toward Individualized, Risk-Adapted Strategies of Early Detection.

Early detection of breast cancer (BC) comprises two approaches: screening of asymptomatic women in a specified target population at risk (usually a target age range for women at average risk), and early diagnosis for women with BC signs and symptoms. Screening for BC is a key health intervention for early detection. While population-based screening programs have been implemented for age-selected women, the pivotal clinical trials have not addressed the global utility nor the improvement of screening performance by utilizing more refined parameters for patient eligibility, such as individualized risk stratification. In addition, with the exception of the subset of women known to carry germline pathogenetic mutations in (high- or moderately-penetrant) cancer predisposition genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, there has been less success in outreach and service provision for the unaffected relatives of women found to carry a high-risk mutation (i.e., "cascade testing") as it is in these individuals for whom such actionable information can result in cancers (and/or cancer deaths) being averted. Moreover, even in the absence of clinical cancer genetics services, as is the case for the immediate and at least near-term in most countries globally, the capacity to stratify the risk of an individual to develop BC has existed for many years, is available for free online at various sites/platforms, and is increasingly being validated for non-Caucasian populations. Ultimately, a precision approach to BC screening is largely missing. In the present chapter, we aim to address the concept of risk-adapted screening of BC, in multiple facets, and understand if there is a value in the implementation of adapted screening strategies in selected women, outside the established screening prescriptions, in the terms of age-range, screening modality and schedules of imaging.

Barriers to family history collection among Spanish-speaking primary care patients: a BRIDGE qualitative study.

Objectives: Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients. Results: The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection. Conclusions: This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters. Innovation: To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection.

Global and regional estimates of orphans attributed to maternal cancer mortality in 2020.

Despite women being disproportionally affected by cancer deaths at young ages, there are no global estimates of the resulting maternal orphans, who experience health and education disadvantages throughout their lives. We estimated the number of children who became maternal orphans in 2020 due to their mother dying from cancer in that year, for 185 countries worldwide and by cause of cancer-related death. Female cancer deaths-by country, cancer type and age (derived from GLOBOCAN estimates)-were multiplied by each woman's estimated number of children under the age of 18 years at the time of her death (fertility data were derived from United Nations World Population Prospects for birth cohort), accounting for child mortality and parity-cancer risk associations. Globally, there were 1,047,000 such orphans. Over half of these were orphans due to maternal deaths from breast (258,000, 25%), cervix (210,000, 20%) and upper-gastrointestinal cancers (136,000, 13%), and most occurred in Asia (48%: India 15%, China 10%, rest of Asia 23%) and Africa (35%). Globally, there were 40 new maternal orphans due to cancer per 100,000 children, with a declining trend with a higher Human Development Index (range: 121 in Malawi to 15 in Malta). An estimated 7 million children were prevalent maternal orphans due to cancer in mid-2020. Accelerating the implementation of the World Health Organization's cervical and breast cancer initiatives has the potential to avert not only millions of preventable female cancer deaths but also the associated, often-overlooked, intergenerational consequences of these deaths.

Cancer research across Africa: a comparative bibliometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Research is a critical pillar in national cancer control planning. However, there is a dearth of evidence for countries to implement affordable strategies. The WHO and various Commissions have recommended developing stakeholder-based needs assessments based on objective data to generate evidence to inform national and regional prioritisation of cancer research needs and goals. METHODOLOGY: Bibliometric algorithms (macros) were developed and validated to assess cancer research outputs of all 54 African countries over a 12-year period (2009-2020). Subanalysis included collaboration patterns, site and domain-specific focus of research and understanding authorship dynamics by both position and sex. Detailed subanalysis was performed to understand multiple impact metrics and context relative outputs in comparison with the disease burden as well as the application of a funding thesaurus to determine funding resources. RESULTS: African countries in total published 23 679 cancer research papers over the 12-year period (2009-2020) with the fractional African contribution totalling 16 201 papers and the remaining 7478 from authors from out with the continent. The total number of papers increased rapidly with time, with an annual growth rate of 15%. The 49 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries together published just 5281 papers, of which South Africa's contribution was 2206 (42% of the SSA total, 14% of all Africa) and Nigeria's contribution was 997 (19% of the SSA total, 4% of all Africa). Cancer research accounted for 7.9% of all African biomedical research outputs (African research in infectious diseases was 5.1 times than that of cancer research). Research outputs that are proportionally low relative to their burden across Africa are paediatric, cervical, oesophageal and prostate cancer. African research mirrored that of Western countries in terms of its focus on discovery science and pharmaceutical research. The percentages of female researchers in Africa were comparable with those elsewhere, but only in North African and some Anglophone countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is an imbalance in relevant local research generation on the continent and cancer control efforts. The recommendations articulated in our five-point plan arising from these data are broadly focused on structural changes, for example, overt inclusion of research into national cancer control planning and financial, for example, for countries to spend 10% of a notional 1% gross domestic expenditure on research and development on cancer.

Association of Disparities in Family History and Family Cancer History in the Electronic Health Record With Sex, Race, Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity, and Language Preference in 2 Large US Health Care Systems.

Importance: Clinical decision support (CDS) algorithms are increasingly being implemented in health care systems to identify patients for specialty care. However, systematic differences in missingness of electronic health record (EHR) data may lead to disparities in identification by CDS algorithms. Objective: To examine the availability and comprehensiveness of cancer family history information (FHI) in patients' EHRs by sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and language preference in 2 large health care systems in 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective EHR quality improvement study used EHR data from 2 health care systems: University of Utah Health (UHealth) and NYU Langone Health (NYULH). Participants included patients aged 25 to 60 years who had a primary care appointment in the previous 3 years. Data were collected or abstracted from the EHR from December 10, 2020, to October 31, 2021, and analyzed from June 15 to October 31, 2021. Exposures: Prior collection of cancer FHI in primary care settings. Main Outcomes and Measures: Availability was defined as having any FHI and any cancer FHI in the EHR and was examined at the patient level. Comprehensiveness was defined as whether a cancer family history observation in the EHR specified the type of cancer diagnosed in a family member, the relationship of the family member to the patient, and the age at onset for the family member and was examined at the observation level. Results: Among 144 484 patients in the UHealth system, 53.6% were women; 74.4% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino and 67.6% were White; and 83.0% had an English language preference. Among 377 621 patients in the NYULH system, 55.3% were women; 63.2% were non-Hispanic or non-Latino, and 55.3% were White; and 89.9% had an English language preference. Patients from historically medically undeserved groups-specifically, Black vs White patients (UHealth: 17.3% [95% CI, 16.1%-18.6%] vs 42.8% [95% CI, 42.5%-43.1%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.0%-24.8%] vs 33.8% [95% CI, 33.6%-34.0%]), Hispanic or Latino vs non-Hispanic or non-Latino patients (UHealth: 27.2% [95% CI, 26.5%-27.8%] vs 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.5%]; NYULH: 24.4% [95% CI, 24.1%-24.7%] vs 31.6% [95% CI, 31.4%-31.8%]), Spanish-speaking vs English-speaking patients (UHealth: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.2%-19.1%] vs 40.0% [95% CI, 39.7%-40.3%]; NYULH: 15.1% [95% CI, 14.6%-15.6%] vs 31.1% [95% CI, 30.9%-31.2%), and men vs women (UHealth: 30.8% [95% CI, 30.4%-31.2%] vs 43.0% [95% CI, 42.6%-43.3%]; NYULH: 23.1% [95% CI, 22.9%-23.3%] vs 34.9% [95% CI, 34.7%-35.1%])-had significantly lower availability and comprehensiveness of cancer FHI (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that systematic differences in the availability and comprehensiveness of FHI in the EHR may introduce informative presence bias as inputs to CDS algorithms. The observed differences may also exacerbate disparities for medically underserved groups. System-, clinician-, and patient-level efforts are needed to improve the collection of FHI.

Staging practices and breast cancer stage among population-based registries in the MENA region.

BACKGROUND: Availability of stage information by population-based cancer registries (PBCR) remains scarce for diverse reasons. Nevertheless, stage is critical cancer control information particularly for cancers amenable to early detection. In the framework of the Global Initiative for Cancer Registry Development (GICR), we present the status of stage data collection and dissemination among registries in the Middle East and Northern Africa (MENA) region as well as the stage distribution of breast cancer patients. METHODS: A web-based survey exploring staging practices and breast cancer stage was developed and sent to 30 PBCR in 18 countries of the MENA region. RESULTS: Among 23 respondent PBCR, 21 collected stage data, the majority (80%) for all cancers. Fourteen registries used a single classification (9 TNM and 5 SEER), 7 used both staging systems in parallel. Out of 12,888 breast cancer patients (seven registries) 27.7% had unknown TNM stage (11.1% in Oman, 46% in Annaba). When considering only cases with known stage, 65.3% were early cancers (TNM I+II), ranging from 57.9% in Oman to 83.3% in Batna (Algeria), and 9.9% were stage IV cancers. Among the nine registries providing SEER Summary stage for breast cancer cases, stage was unknown in 19% of the cases, (0 in Bahrain, 39% in Kuwait). Stage data were largely absent from the published registry reports. CONCLUSION: Despite wide stage data collection by cancer registries, missing information and low dissemination clearly limit informing efforts on early detection. The use of two classification systems in parallel implies additional workload and might undermine completeness. The favourable results of early cancer (TNM I+II) in two thirds of breast cancer patients needs to be interpreted with caution and followed up in time. Although efforts to improve quality of stage data are needed, our findings are particularly relevant to the WHO Global Breast Cancer Initiative.

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

Treatment guideline concordance, initiation, and abandonment in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer from the African Breast Cancer-Disparities in Outcomes (ABC-DO) cohort in sub-Saharan Africa: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive breast cancer management is essential to achieve high breast cancer survival; however, detailed reports of the treatment regimens received by patients are scarce in sub-Saharan Africa where survival is low. We aimed to examine treatment initiation, guideline concordance, and abandonment in patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa from the African Breast Cancer-Disparities in Outcomes (ABC-DO) prospective cohort. METHODS: The ABC-DO prospective cohort study recruited women (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer in eight hospitals across five sub-Saharan African countries (Namibia, Nigeria, Uganda, South Africa, and Zambia). We analysed treatments received by women who were classified as non-metastatic (M0) at the initial presentation. Data on surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies were obtained from medical records and a self-reported follow-up questionnaire at 6 months after the diagnosis, follow-up calls every 3 months, and a baseline questionnaire. Initiation, completion, and abandonment of treatment modalities and combined therapy regimens were examined overall, by country-specific groups, and by clinical factors relevant for guideline-based treatment. FINDINGS: Of 2313 women recruited into the ABC-DO study between Sept 10, 2014, and Dec 31, 2017, 2226 had histologically or clinically confirmed breast cancer. Of these 2226 women, 510 were excluded from the present analysis because 378 had metastatic disease, 37 were prevalent cases (defined as those previously diagnosed with breast cancer >2 years before baseline), 82 had unknown TNM stage, and 13 were White or Asian women in South Africa (number was too small for analysis). After a median follow-up of 5·2 years (IQR 4·6-5·9), 1163 (68%) of 1716 women underwent breast cancer surgery. Surgery and systemic therapy (ie, multimodality treatment) with radiotherapy was initiated in 370 (36%) of 1028 women with localised tumours versus 156 (23%) of 688 women with locally advanced tumours, whereas multimodality treatment without radiotherapy was initiated in 386 (38%) versus 167 (24%) women, respectively. Of 1530 patients requiring chemotherapy (which excludes 105 who died within 6 months after baseline), 1013 (66%) initiated treatment of neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery within 3 months after baseline, which was adequately completed by 359 (35%) of 1013 women, marginally completed by 284 (28%), abandoned by 200 (20%), and unknown in 151 (15%). 19 (2%) women died within 6 months after chemotherapy initiation. Of 1375 women in whom endocrine therapy was indicated, this treatment was initiated in 920, and lasted at least 3 years in 367 (40%) women. Treatment disparities between country-specific groups were substantial for all therapy regimens. INTERPRETATION: A high proportion of patients with non-metastatic breast cancer did not initiate, did not fully complete, or abandoned treatment with surgery, systemic therapy, radiotherapy, or an appropriate combination of these, highlighting the need for improved treatment access and completion in sub-Saharan Africa to potentially prevent premature breast cancer deaths. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health (National Cancer Institute), Susan G Komen, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.