Survey of Hematology/Oncology Program Leaders on Equity and Global Health Opportunities for Fellows.

PURPOSE: The study assesses the current state of global oncology (GO)/hematology training opportunities in US fellowship programs. METHODS: We developed a comprehensive survey of 64-Likert multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The survey was electronically distributed to fellowship program leaders at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited adult hematology/oncology fellowships. Program directors received three reminders after which survey was sent to assistant program directors or division heads for programs not represented. RESULTS: A total of 171 programs were eligible for the survey. We received 42 (24.6%) responses; 40 were included in the analysis, and two were excluded for declined consent and incomplete responses. The programs include large academic (81.6%) and community hospitals (10.5%). Of the respondents, 18 (48.6%) reported offering some opportunities for global health training, and half reported interest among current fellows. Most programs (29, 82.9%) had three or fewer faculty engaged in GO research. Institutional training grants were available in 15 (39.5%) programs, of which six (40%) allowed for global health research. Of the 18 programs offering global health training activities, most (15, 83.3%) report less than a quarter of their trainees currently participate in GO experiences. The most commonly perceived barriers to GO opportunities include competing priorities (85.3%) and lack of faculty mentors with GO-related experience (82.4%). Conversely, the most commonly perceived facilitators include established partnerships outside the United States (97.0%) and dedicated institutional funding (93.9%). CONCLUSION: Our survey demonstrates that although there is significant interest among fellowship trainees, a minority of the fellowship programs offer GO opportunities. Providing GO opportunities would require programs to establish partnerships with institutions outside the United States and to have systematic approaches of addressing other barriers, including enhancing funding and mentorship.

Gaps in completion and timeliness of breast surgery and adjuvant therapy: a retrospective cohort of Haitian patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on breast surgery completion rates and prevalence of care-continuum delays in breast cancer treatment programs in low-income countries. METHODS: This study analyzes treatment data in a retrospective cohort of 312 female patients with non-metastatic breast cancer in Haiti. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics; treatments received; and treatment delays of > 12 weeks. Multivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with receiving surgery and with treatment delays. Exploratory multivariate survival analysis examined the association between surgery delays and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Of 312 patients, 249 (80%) completed breast surgery. The odds ratio (OR) for surgery completion for urban vs. rural dwellers was 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-3.88) and for those with locally advanced vs. early-stage disease was 0.34 (95%CI: 0.16-0.73). Among the 223 patients with evaluable surgery completion timelines, 96 (43%) experienced delays. Of the 221 patients eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy, 141 (64%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, 66 of whom (47%) experienced delays in chemotherapy initiation. Presentation in the later years of the cohort (2015-2016) was associated with lower rates of surgery completion (75% vs. 85%) and with delays in adjuvant chemotherapy initiation (OR [95%CI]: 3.25 [1.50-7.06]). Exploratory analysis revealed no association between surgical delays and DFS. CONCLUSION: While majority of patients obtained curative-intent surgery, nearly half experienced delays in surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Although our study was not powered to identify an association between surgical delays and DFS, these delays may negatively impact long-term outcomes.

Applying Lessons Learned From Low-Resource Settings to Prioritize Cancer Care in a Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced oncology clinicians and administrators in the United States to set priorities for cancer care owing to resource constraints. As oncology practices adapt to a contracted health care system, expertise gained from partnerships in low-resource settings can be used for guidance. This article provides a primer on priority setting in oncology and ethical guidance based on lessons learned from experience with cancer care priority setting in low-resource settings. Observations: Lessons learned from real-world experiences are myriad. First, in the setting of limited resources, a utilitarian approach to maximizing survival benefit should guide decision-making. Second, conflicting principles will often arise among stakeholders and decision makers. Third, fair decision-making procedures should be established to ensure moral legitimacy and accountability. Fourth, proactive safeguards must be implemented to protect vulnerable individuals, or disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes will only widen further. Fifth, communication with patients and families about priority setting decisions should be intentional and standardized. Sixth, moral distress among clinicians must be addressed to avoid burnout during a time when resilience is critical. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the need to triage cancer care may be new to those who underwent training and now practice oncology in high-resource settings, it is familiar for those who practice in low- and middle-income countries. Oncologists in the United States facing unprecedented decisions about prioritization can draw on ethical frameworks and lessons learned from real-world cancer care priority setting in resource-constrained environments.

Treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma With ABVD Chemotherapy in Rural Rwanda: A Model for Cancer Care Delivery Implementation.

PURPOSE: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is highly curable in high-income countries (HICs), yet many patients around the world do not have access to therapy. In 2012, cancer care was established at a rural district hospital in Rwanda through international collaboration, and a treatment protocol using doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) without radiotherapy was implemented. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients with confirmed HL seen at Butaro Hospital from 2012 to 2018 to evaluate quality indicators and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included (median age, 16.8 years; interquartile range, 11.0-30.5 years). Ten (12%) were HIV positive. Most had B symptoms (70%) and advanced stage (56%) on examination and limited imaging. Of 21 specimens evaluated for Epstein-Barr virus, 14 (67%) were positive. Median time from biopsy to treatment was 6.0 weeks. Of 73 patients who started ABVD, 54 (74%) completed 6 cycles; the leading reasons for discontinuation were treatment abandonment and death. Median dose intensity of ABVD was 92%. Of 77 evaluable patients, 33 (43%) are in clinical remission, 27 (36%) are deceased, and 17 (22%) were lost to follow-up; 3-year survival estimate is 63% (95% CI, 50% to 74%). Poorer performance status, advanced stage, B symptoms, anemia, dose intensity < 85%, and treatment discontinuation were associated with worse survival. CONCLUSION: Treating HL with standard chemotherapy in a low-resource setting is feasible. Most patients who completed treatment experienced a clinically significant remission with this approach. Late presentation, treatment abandonment, and loss to follow-up contribute to the discrepancy in survival compared with HICs. A strikingly younger age distribution in our cohort compared with HICs suggests biologic differences and warrants further investigation.