A National Cancer Grid pooled procurement initiative, India.

In health systems with little public funding and decentralized procurement processes, the pricing and quality of anti-cancer medicines directly affects access to effective anti-cancer therapy. Factors such as differential pricing, volume-dependent negotiation and reliance on low-priced generics without any evaluation of their quality can lead to supply and demand lags, high out-of-pocket expenditures for patients and poor treatment outcomes. While pooled procurement of medicines can help address some of these challenges, monitoring of the procurement process requires considerable administrative investment. Group negotiation to fix prices, issuing of uniform contracts with standardized terms and conditions, and procurement by individual hospitals also reduce costs and improve quality without significant investment. The National Cancer Grid, a network of more than 250 cancer centres in India, piloted pooled procurement to improve negotiability of high-value oncology and supportive care medicines. A total of 40 drugs were included in this pilot. The pooled demand for the drugs from 23 centres was equivalent to 15.6 billion Indian rupees (197 million United States dollars (US$)) based on maximum retail prices. The process included technical and financial evaluation followed by contracts between individual centres and the selected vendors. Savings of 13.2 billion Indian Rupees (US$ 166.7million) were made compared to the maximum retail prices. The savings ranged from 23% to 99% (median: 82%) and were more with generics than innovator and newly patented medicines. This study reveals the advantages of group negotiation in pooled procurement for high-value medicines, an approach that can be applied to other health systems.

Lorsque les systèmes de santé reçoivent peu de fonds publics et que leurs processus d'achat sont décentralisés, le prix et la qualité des médicaments contre le cancer ont un impact direct sur l'accès aux traitements efficaces contre la maladie. Des facteurs tels que l'application de prix différenciés, les négociations en fonction des volumes ainsi que la confiance placée dans des génériques bon marché dont la qualité n'a pas été évaluée peuvent entraîner des décalages entre l'offre et la demande, d'énormes dépenses non remboursables pour les patients et de piètres résultats thérapeutiques. Bien que les acquisitions groupées de médicaments puissent contribuer à résoudre certains de ces problèmes, le suivi du processus d'achat requiert un engagement considérable au niveau administratif. Les négociations collectives en vue de fixer les tarifs, l'établissement de contrats types assortis de conditions générales standardisées, mais aussi les achats effectués par des hôpitaux en particulier peuvent également faire baisser les coûts et améliorer la qualité sans nécessiter d'importants investissements. Le National Cancer Grid, un réseau réunissant plus de 250 centres d'oncologie en Inde, a testé un dispositif d'achat groupé visant à assurer une meilleure négociabilité pour des médicaments et soins de soutien essentiels contre le cancer. Au total, 40 substances ont été prises en compte dans ce projet pilote. La demande groupée en médicaments émise par 23 centres équivalait à 15,6 milliards de roupies indiennes (197 millions de dollars américains) d'après le prix maximal de vente au détail. Ce processus prévoyait une évaluation technique et financière, puis des contrats entre chaque centre et les distributeurs sélectionnés. Des économies de 13,2 milliards de roupies indiennes (166,7 millions de dollars américains) ont pu être réalisées par rapport au prix maximal de vente au détail. Ces économies étaient comprises entre 23 et 99% (médiane: 82%) et concernaient davantage les médicaments génériques que les marques et les médicaments récemment brevetés. La présente étude révèle les avantages que représentent les négociations collectives lors des achats groupés de médicaments essentiels, une approche applicable à d'autres systèmes de santé.

En los sistemas sanitarios con escasa financiación pública y procesos de adquisición descentralizados, el sistema de fijación de precios y la calidad de los medicamentos contra el cáncer afectan directamente al acceso a una terapia eficaz contra dicha enfermedad. Factores como los diferentes sistemas de determinación de precios, la negociación en función del volumen y la dependencia de genéricos de bajo precio sin evaluación de su calidad pueden generar retrasos en la oferta y la demanda, elevados gastos para los pacientes y malos resultados en el tratamiento. Aunque la adquisición conjunta de medicamentos puede ayudar a abordar algunos de estos retos, el seguimiento del proceso de adquisición requiere una inversión administrativa considerable. La negociación colectiva a la hora de determinar los precios, la emisión de contratos unificados con términos y condiciones estandarizados y la adquisición por parte de algunos hospitales también reducen los costes y mejoran la calidad sin necesidad de realizar una gran inversión. La Red Nacional de Cáncer, una red que cuenta con más de 250 centros oncológicos en la India, puso a prueba la adquisición conjunta con el fin de mejorar la negociabilidad de medicamentos oncológicos y de tratamiento complementario que resultaban costosos. En esta prueba piloto se incluyó un total de 40 medicamentos. La demanda conjunta de medicamentos por parte de 23 centros fue equivalente a 15 600 millones de rupias indias (197 millones USD) según los precios minoristas máximos. El proceso incluyó una evaluación técnica y financiera, así como contratos entre centros independientes y proveedores seleccionados. Se logró un ahorro de 13 200 millones de rupias indias (166,7 millones USD) en comparación con los precios minoristas máximos. El ahorro osciló entre el 23 y el 99% (media: 82%) y fue más alto con los medicamentos genéricos que con los de marca y los recién patentados. Este estudio pone de manifiesto las ventajas de la negociación colectiva en lo que respecta a la adquisición conjunta de medicamentos costosos, un enfoque que se puede aplicar a otros sistemas sanitarios.

Leveraging national and global political determinants of health to promote equity in cancer care.

Health and politics are deeply intertwined. In the context of national and global cancer care delivery, political forces-the political determinants of health-influence every level of the cancer care continuum. We explore the "3-I" framework, which structures the upstream political forces that affect policy choices in the context of actors' interests, ideas, and institutions, to examine how political determinants of health underlie cancer disparities. Borrowing from the work of PA Hall, M-P Pomey, CJ Ho, and other thinkers, interests are the agendas of individuals and groups in power. Ideas represent beliefs or knowledge about what is or what should be. Institutions define the rules of play. We provide examples from around the world: Political interests have helped fuel the establishment of cancer centers in India and have galvanized the 2022 Cancer Moonshot in the United States. The politics of ideas underlie global disparities in cancer clinical trials-that is, in the distribution of epistemic power. Finally, historical institutions have helped perpetuate disparities related to racist and colonialist legacies. Present institutions have also been used to improve access for those in greatest need, as exemplified by the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in Rwanda. In providing these global examples, we demonstrate how interests, ideas, and institutions influence access to cancer care across the breadth of the cancer continuum. We argue that these forces can be leveraged to promote cancer care equity nationally and globally.

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

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

Cost-effectiveness of Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy (PMRT) for breast cancer in India: An economic modelling study.

Background: The role of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) for breast cancer is controversial when 3-or-less lymph nodes are metastatic. Apart from local control, survival and toxicity, cost also plays an important role in decision-making. Methods: A Markov model was designed to assess cost, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of different radiotherapy techniques for management of PMRT patients. Thirty-nine scenarios were modelled based on type of radiotherapy, laterality, pathologic nodal burden, and dose fractionation. We considered a societal perspective, lifetime horizon and a 3% discount rate. The data on quality of life (QoL) was derived using the cancer database on cost and QoL. Published data on cost of services delivered in India were used. Findings: Post-mastectomy radiotherapy results in incremental quality adjusted life years (QALYs) that ranged from -0.1 to 0.38 across different scenarios. The change in cost ranged from estimated median savings of USD 62 (95% confidence intervals: -168 to -47) to incurring an incremental cost of USD 728 (650-811) across different levels of nodal burden, breast laterality and dose fractionation. For women with node-negative disease, disease-specific systemic therapy remains to be the preferred strategy. For women with node-positive disease, two-dimensional radiotherapy (2DRT) with hypofractionation is the most cost-effective strategy. However, a CT based planning is preferred when maximum heart distance (MHD) >1cm, irregular chest wall contour and inter-field separation >18cm. Interpretation: PMRT is cost-effective for all node-positive patients. With similar toxicity and effectiveness profile compared with conventional fractionation, moderate hypofractionation significantly reduces the cost of treatment and should be the standard of care. Conventional techniques for PMRT are cost-effective over newer modalities which provide minimal additional benefit, at high cost. Funding: The funding to collect primary data for study was provided by Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi, wide letter number F. No. T.11011/02/2017-HR/3100291.

Industry Funding of Oncology Randomised Controlled Trials: Implications for Design, Results and Interpretation.

AIMS: Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We explore the extent to which RCT design, results and interpretation differ between industry-funded and non-industry-funded RCTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, a structured literature search was used to identify all oncology RCTs published globally during 2014-2017. Industry funding was identified based on explicit statements in the publication. Descriptive statistics were used to compare elements of trial methodology and output between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. RESULTS: The study sample included 694 RCTs; 71% were funded by industry. Industry-funded trials were more likely to test systemic therapy (97% versus 62%; P < 0.001), palliative-intent therapy (71% versus 41%; P < 0.001) and study breast cancer (20% versus 12%; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials were larger (median sample size 474 versus 375; P < 0.001) and more likely to meet their primary end point (49% versus 41%; P < 0.001). Among positive trials, there were no differences in the magnitude of benefit between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. Trials funded by industry were published in journals that had a significantly higher median impact factor (21, interquartile range 7, 28) than non-industry-funded trials (impact factor 12, interquartile range 5, 24; P = 0.005); this persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of oncology RCTs are now funded by industry. Industry-funded trials are larger, more likely to be positive, predominantly test systemic therapies in the palliative setting and are published in higher impact journals than trials without industry support.

A prospective study to determine the cost of illness for oral cancer in India.

India accounts for almost a third of the global burden of oral cancer, a situation worsened by the inability to afford care. When available, aid is often insufficient, and costing is based on informal estimations. This study objectively determines direct healthcare costs of oral cancer in India. The study was performed from a healthcare provider's perspective using a validated bottom-up method. Care pathways were determined by prospectively observing the natural management of 100 oral cancer patients treated between October 2019 and March 2020. Specific costing categories were built across services, and apportioned values for each interaction was averaged. Costs of treatment and service utilisation were obtained using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The unit cost of treating advanced stages (United States Dollar (USD) 2,717) was found to be 42% greater than early stages (USD1,568). There was an 11% reduction in unit costs with increases in socioeconomic status. Medical equipment accounted for 97.8% of capital costs, with the highest contributor being imaging services. Variable costs for surgery in advanced stages were 1.4 times higher than early stages. Compared to surgery alone, the average cost of treatment increased by 44.6% with adjuvant therapy. These results show that over the next decade, India will incur an economic burden of USD 3 billion towards the direct healthcare of oral cancer. Early detection and prevention strategies leading to 20% reduction in advanced stage disease could save USD 30 million annually. These results are critical to deliver a disease-driven and objective reform for oral cancer care.

Primary mediastinal germ cell tumours with high prevalence of somatic malignancy: An experience from a single tertiary care oncology centre.

BACKGROUND: Primary mediastinal germ tumours (PMGCT) constitute, a mere 3-4% of all germ cell tumours (GCT). Although they account for approximately 16% of mediastinal tumours in adults and 19-25% in children as per western literature, there is hardly any large series on PMGCT reported from the Indian subcontinent. DESIGN: We have retrospectively analysed clinicopathological features of 98 cases of PMGCT diagnosed over 10 years (2010-2019) from a tertiary-care oncology centre. RESULTS: The study group (n = 98) comprised predominantly of males (n = 92) (M:F ratio-15:1), with an age range between 3 months to 57 years (median: 25 years). The tumours were predominantly located in the anterior mediastinum (n = 96). Broadly, Non-seminomatous germ cell tumours (NSGCT) were more common (n = 73, 74%) compared to pure seminoma (n = 25, 26%). Mixed NSGCT was the most common histological subtype (n = 30) followed by pure mature teratoma (n = 18), pure Yolk sac tumour (n = 13), mixed seminoma and NSGCT (n = 5), pure immature teratoma (n = 3) and GCT; NOS (n = 4). Interestingly, all female patients had exclusive teratomas. Nine cases revealed secondary somatic malignancy (5 carcinomas and 4 sarcomas). The majority of patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n = 71). Surgical excision was performed in 60 patients. Follow up was available in 68 patients. NSGCT showed a poor prognosis as compared to seminoma (p value = 0.03) and tumours with somatic malignancies had a more aggressive clinical course. CONCLUSION: PMGCT was seen predominantly in young adult males and somatic malignancies were noted in as high as 9% of cases. Patient with somatic malignancy have aggressive clinical course, hence, extensive sampling and careful histopathological evaluation are recommended for the identification and definitive characterization.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care in the Post Pandemic World: Five Major Lessons Learnt from Challenges and Countermeasures of Major Asian Cancer Centres.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected healthcare services around Asia. The Asian National Cancer Centres Alliance and the Asia-Pacific Organisation for Cancer Prevention collaborated to assess the mid- and long- term impact of COVID-19 to cancer care in Asia. METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures. RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised. CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.

Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment. FINDINGS: After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

Delivery of meaningful cancer care: a retrospective cohort study assessing cost and benefit with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) have developed frameworks that quantify survival gains in light of toxicity and quality of life to assess the benefits of cancer therapies. We applied these frameworks to a cohort of contemporary randomised controlled trials to explore agreement between the two approaches and to assess the relation between treatment benefit and cost. METHODS: We identified all randomised controlled trials of systemic therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer published between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2015, and assessed their abstracts and methods. Trials were eligible for inclusion in our cohort if significant differences favouring the experimental group in a prespecified primary or secondary outcome were reported (secondary outcomes were assessed only if primary outcomes were not significant). We assessed trial endpoints with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks at two timepoints 3 months apart to confirm intra-rater reliability. Cohen's κ statistic was calculated to establish agreement between the two frameworks on the basis of the median ASCO score, which was used as an arbitrary threshold of benefit, and the framework-recommended ESMO threshold. Differences in monthly drug cost between the experimental and control groups of each randomised controlled trial (ie, incremental drug cost) were derived from 2016 average wholesale prices. FINDINGS: 109 randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion, 42 (39%) in non-small-cell lung cancer, 36 (33%) in breast cancer, 25 (23%) in colorectal cancer, and six (6%) in pancreatic cancer. ASCO scores ranged from 2 to 77; median score was 25 (IQR 16-35). 41 (38%) trials met the benefit thresholds in the ESMO framework. Agreement between the two frameworks was fair (κ=0·326). Among the 100 randomised controlled trials for which drug costing data were available, ASCO benefit score and monthly incremental drug costs were negatively correlated (ρ=-0·207; p=0·039). Treatments that met ESMO benefit thresholds had a lower median incremental drug cost than did those that did not meet benefit thresholds (US$2981 [IQR 320-9059] vs $8621 [1174-13 930]; p=0·018). INTERPRETATION: There is only fair correlation between these two major value care frameworks, and negative correlations between framework outputs and drug costs. Delivery of optimal cancer care in a sustainable health system will necessitate future oncologists, investigators, and policy makers to reconcile the disconnect between drug cost and clinical benefit. FUNDING: None.

A randomized trial to assess the utility of preintubation adult fiberoptic bronchoscope assessment in patients for thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Confirmation of placement of Double lumen endobronchial tubes (DLETT) and bronchial blockers (BBs) with the pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) is the most preferred practice worldwide. Most centers possess standard adult FOBs, some, particularly in developing countries might not have access to the pediatric-sized devices. We have evaluated the role of preintubation airway assessment using the former, measuring the distance from the incisors to the carina and from carina to the left and right upper lobe bronchus in deciding the depth of insertion of the lung isolation device. METHODS: The study was a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial consisting of 84 patients (all >18 years) undergoing thoracic surgery over a 12-month period. In the study group (n = 38), measurements obtained during FOB with the adult bronchoscope decided the depth of insertion of the lung isolation device. In the control group (n = 46), DLETTs and BBs were placed blindly followed by clinical confirmation by auscultation. Selection of the type and size of the lung isolation device was at the discretion of the anesthesiologist conducting the case. In all cases, pediatric FOB was used to confirm accurate placement of devices. RESULTS: Of 84 patients (DLETT used in 76 patients; BB used in 8 patients), preintubation airway measurements significantly improved the success rate of optimal placement of lung isolation device from 25% (11/44) to 50% (18/36) (P = 0.04). Our incidence of failed device placement at initial insertion was 4.7% (4/84). Incidence of malposition was 10% (8/80) with 4 cases in each group. The incidence of suboptimal placement was lower in the study group at 38.9% (14/36) versus 65.9% (29/44). CONCLUSIONS: Preintubation airway measurements with the adult FOB reduces airway manipulations and improves the success rate of optimal placement of DLETT and BB.

Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery.

Surgery is essential for global cancer care in all resource settings. Of the 15.2 million new cases of cancer in 2015, over 80% of cases will need surgery, some several times. By 2030, we estimate that annually 45 million surgical procedures will be needed worldwide. Yet, less than 25% of patients with cancer worldwide actually get safe, affordable, or timely surgery. This Commission on global cancer surgery, building on Global Surgery 2030, has examined the state of global cancer surgery through an analysis of the burden of surgical disease and breadth of cancer surgery, economics and financing, factors for strengthening surgical systems for cancer with multiple-country studies, the research agenda, and the political factors that frame policy making in this area. We found wide equity and economic gaps in global cancer surgery. Many patients throughout the world do not have access to cancer surgery, and the failure to train more cancer surgeons and strengthen systems could result in as much as US $6.2 trillion in lost cumulative gross domestic product by 2030. Many of the key adjunct treatment modalities for cancer surgery--e.g., pathology and imaging--are also inadequate. Our analysis identified substantial issues, but also highlights solutions and innovations. Issues of access, a paucity of investment in public surgical systems, low investment in research, and training and education gaps are remarkably widespread. Solutions include better regulated public systems, international partnerships, super-centralisation of surgical services, novel surgical clinical trials, and new approaches to improve quality and scale up cancer surgical systems through education and training. Our key messages are directed at many global stakeholders, but the central message is that to deliver safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery to all, surgery must be at the heart of global and national cancer control planning.

The growing burden of cancer in India: epidemiology and social context.

Cancer can have profound social and economic consequences for people in India, often leading to family impoverishment and societal inequity. Reported age-adjusted incidence rates for cancer are still quite low in the demographically young country. Slightly more than 1 million new cases of cancer are diagnosed every year in a population of 1.2 billion. In age-adjusted terms this represents a combined male and female incidence of about a quarter of that recorded in western Europe. However, an estimated 600,000-700,000 deaths in India were caused by cancer in 2012. In age-standardised terms this figure is close to the mortality burden seen in high-income countries. Such figures are partly indicative of low rates of early-stage detection and poor treatment outcomes. Many cancer cases in India are associated with tobacco use, infections, and other avoidable causes. Social factors, especially inequalities, are major determinants of India's cancer burden, with poorer people more likely to die from cancer before the age of 70 years than those who are more affluent. In this first of three papers, we examine the complex epidemiology of cancer, the future burden, and the dominant sociopolitical themes relating to cancer in India.

Cancer research in India: national priorities, global results.

Over the past 20 years, cancer research in India has grown in size and impact. Clinicians, scientists, and government and state policy makers in India have championed cancer research, from studies to achieve low-tech, large-scale health outcomes to some of the most advanced areas of fundamental cancer science. In this paper, we frame public policy discussions about cancer with use of an in-depth analysis of research publications from India. Cancer research in India is a complex environment that needs to balance public policy across many competing agendas. We identify major needs across these environments such as those for increased research capacity and training and protected time for clinical researchers; for more support from states and enhanced collaborative funding programmes from government; for development of national infrastructures across a range of domains (ie, clinical trials, tissue banking, registries, etc); and for a streamlined and rational regulatory environment. We also discuss improvements that should be made to translate research into improvements in cancer outcomes and public health.

Delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care in India.

The delivery of affordable and equitable cancer care is one of India's greatest public health challenges. Public expenditure on cancer in India remains below US$10 per person (compared with more than US$100 per person in high-income countries), and overall public expenditure on health care is still only slightly above 1% of gross domestic product. Out-of-pocket payments, which account for more than three-quarters of cancer expenditures in India, are one of the greatest threats to patients and families, and a cancer diagnosis is increasingly responsible for catastrophic expenditures that negatively affect not only the patient but also the welfare and education of several generations of their family. We explore the complex nature of cancer care systems across India, from state to government levels, and address the crucial issues of infrastructure, manpower shortages, and the pressing need to develop cross-state solutions to prevention and early detection of cancer, in addition to governance of the largely unregulated private sector and the cost of new technologies and drugs. We discuss the role of public insurance schemes, the need to develop new political mandates and authority to set priorities, the necessity to greatly improve the quality of care, and the drive to understand and deliver cost-effective cancer care programmes.

Challenges to effective cancer control in China, India, and Russia.

Cancer is one of the major non-communicable diseases posing a threat to world health. Unfortunately, improvements in socioeconomic conditions are usually associated with increased cancer incidence. In this Commission, we focus on China, India, and Russia, which share rapidly rising cancer incidence and have cancer mortality rates that are nearly twice as high as in the UK or the USA, vast geographies, growing economies, ageing populations, increasingly westernised lifestyles, relatively disenfranchised subpopulations, serious contamination of the environment, and uncontrolled cancer-causing communicable infections. We describe the overall state of health and cancer control in each country and additional specific issues for consideration: for China, access to care, contamination of the environment, and cancer fatalism and traditional medicine; for India, affordability of care, provision of adequate health personnel, and sociocultural barriers to cancer control; and for Russia, monitoring of the burden of cancer, societal attitudes towards cancer prevention, effects of inequitable treatment and access to medicine, and a need for improved international engagement.

Quality and completeness of data documentation in an investigator-initiated trial versus an industry-sponsored trial.

Literature on the quality and completeness of data and documentation in investigator-initiated research studies is scarce. We carried out a study to compare the quality of data and documentation in an investigator-initiated trial (IIT) with those in an industry-sponsored study. We retrospectively studied the archived data pertaining to 42 patients enrolled in two trials, 14 patients in an industry-sponsored study and 28 randomly selected patients from an IIT. Trial-related documents were examined and scored for the completeness of the acquisition of data and for storage as per a pre-formulated checklist. Weighted scores were given for each point on the checklist proportional to its relative importance in the data documentation process. A global score and sub-scores for specific modules were given for each subject. The scores in the two studies were compared using the Mann Whitney U test. The total score for general documents was similar in the IIT (14/14, 100%) and the sponsored study (24/25, 96%). The mean summary global score obtained for study-specific documents (maximum possible score, 32) in the IIT (27.1; 95% CI 26.4-27.8) was also not significantly different from that in the sponsored study (27.9; 95% CI 26.7-29.1; p=0.1291). Thus, investigator-initiated studies carried out by independent researchers in high-volume academic centres, even without active data monitoring and formal audits, appear to adhere to the high standards laid out in the International Conference on Harmonisation-Good Clinical Practices guidelines, ensuring accuracy and completeness in data documentation and archival.