Prevention of treatment abandonment remains an important challenge to increase survival of Wilms tumor in sub-Saharan Africa: A report from Wilms Africa-CANCaRe Africa.

BACKGROUND: The Wilms Africa studies implemented an adapted Wilm's tumor (WT) treatment protocol in sub-Saharan Africa in two phases. Phase I began with four sites and provided out-of-pocket costs. Phase II expanded the number of sites, but lost funding provision. Objective is to describe the outcomes of Phase II and compare with Phase I. METHODS: Wilms Africa Phase I (n = 4 sites; 2014-2018) and Phase II (n = 8 sites; 2021-2022) used adapted treatment protocols. Funding for families' out-of-pocket costs was provided during Phase I but not Phase II. Eligibility criteria were age less than 16 years and newly diagnosed unilateral WT. We documented patients' outcome at the end of planned first-line treatment categorized as treatment abandonment, death during treatment, and disease-related events (death before treatment, persistent disease, relapse, or progressive disease). Sensitivity analysis compared outcomes in the same four sites. RESULTS: We included 431 patients in Phase I (n = 201) and Phase II (n = 230). The proportion alive without evidence of disease decreased from 69% in Phase I to 54% in Phase II at all sites (p = .002) and 58% at the original four sites (p = .04). Treatment abandonment increased overall from 12% to 26% (p < .001), and was 20% (p = .04) at the original four sites. Disease-related events (5% vs. 6% vs. 6%) and deaths during treatment (14% vs. 14% vs. 17%) were similar. CONCLUSION: Provision of out-of-pocket costs was important to improve patient outcomes at the end of planned first-line treatment in WT. Prevention of treatment abandonment remains an important challenge.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE). METHODS: Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.

Pediatric cancer care in Africa: SIOP Global Mapping Program report on economic and population indicators.

INTRODUCTION: Inalignment with the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC), the International Society of Pediatric Oncology initiated a program to map global pediatric oncology services. As survival rates in Africa are low and data are scant, this continent was mapped first to identify areas with greatest need. METHODS: Beginning November 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all known stakeholders, followed by email communications and internet searches to verify data. Availability of pediatric oncologists, chemotherapy, surgical expertise, and radiotherapy was correlated with geographic region, World Bank income status, Universal Health Coverage, population < 15 and < 24 years, percentage of gross domestic product spent on healthcare, and Human Development Index (HDI). RESULTS: Responses were received from 48/54 African countries. All three treatment modalities were reportedly available in 9/48 countries, whereas seven countries reported no pediatric oncology services. Negative correlations were detected between provision of all three services and geographic region (P = 0.01), younger median population age (P = 0.002), low-income country status (P = 0.045), and lower HDI (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study provides a comprehensive overview of pediatric oncology care in Africa, emphasizing marked disparities between countries: some have highly specialized services, whereas others have no services. A long-term strategy to eliminate disparities in African pediatric cancer care should be aligned with the WHO GICC aims and facilitated by SIOP Africa. MEETING ABSTRACTS: SIOP maps pediatric oncology services in Africa to address inequalities in childhood cancer services. Geel J, Ranasinghe N, Davidson A, Challinor J, Howard S, Wollaert S, Myezo K, Renner L, Hessissen L, Bouffet E. 51st Annual Congress of the International Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOP), Lyon, France, October 2019. Pediatric Blood and Cancer Vol 66 S219-S219. Pediatric cancer care in Africa: SIOP Global Mapping Program report on economic and population indicators.

How to Cost the Implementation of Major System Change for Economic Evaluations: Case Study Using Reconfigurations of Specialist Cancer Surgery in Part of London, England.

BACKGROUND: Studies have been published regarding the impact of major system change (MSC) on care quality and outcomes, but few evaluate implementation costs or include them in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). This is despite large potential costs of MSC: change planning, purchasing or repurposing assets, and staff time. Implementation costs can influence implementation decisions. We describe our framework and principles for costing MSC implementation and illustrate them using a case study. METHODS: We outlined MSC implementation stages and identified components, using a framework conceived during our work on MSC in stroke services. We present a case study of MSC of specialist surgery services for prostate, bladder, renal and oesophagogastric cancers, focusing on North Central and North East London and West Essex. Health economists collaborated with qualitative researchers, clinicians and managers, identifying key reconfiguration stages and expenditures. Data sources (n = approximately 100) included meeting minutes, interviews, and business cases. National Health Service (NHS) finance and service managers and clinicians were consulted. Using bottom-up costing, items were identified, and unit costs based on salaries, asset costs and consultancy fees assigned. Itemised costs were adjusted and summed. RESULTS: Cost components included options appraisal, bidding process, external review; stakeholder engagement events; planning/monitoring boards/meetings; and making the change: new assets, facilities, posts. Other considerations included hospital tariff changes; costs to patients; patient population; and lifetime of changes. Using the framework facilitated data identification and collection. The total adjusted implementation cost was estimated at £7.2 million, broken down as replacing robots (£4.0 million), consultancy fees (£1.9 million), staff time costs (£1.1 million) and other costs (£0.2 million). CONCLUSIONS: These principles can be used by funders, service providers and commissioners planning MSC and researchers evaluating MSC. Health economists should be involved early, alongside qualitative and health-service colleagues, as retrospective capture risks information loss. These analyses are challenging; many cost factors are difficult to identify, access and measure, and assumptions regarding lifetime of the changes are important. Including implementation costs in CEA might make MSC appear less cost effective, influencing future decisions. Future work will incorporate this implementation cost into the full CEAs of the London Cancer MSC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Sustainable care for children with cancer: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

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

Diagnosis of cancer as an emergency: a critical review of current evidence.

Many patients with cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation, which is associated with inferior clinical and patient-reported outcomes compared with those of patients who are diagnosed electively or through screening. Reducing the proportion of patients with cancer who are diagnosed as emergencies is, therefore, desirable; however, the optimal means of achieving this aim are uncertain owing to the involvement of different tumour, patient and health-care factors, often in combination. Most relevant evidence relates to patients with colorectal or lung cancer in a few economically developed countries, and defines emergency presentations contextually (that is, whether patients presented to emergency health-care services and/or received emergency treatment shortly before their diagnosis) as opposed to clinically (whether patients presented with life-threatening manifestations of their cancer). Consistent inequalities in the risk of emergency presentations by patient characteristics and cancer type have been described, but limited evidence is available on whether, and how, such presentations can be prevented. Evidence on patients' symptoms and health-care use before presentation as an emergency is sparse. In this Review, we describe the extent, causes and implications of a diagnosis of cancer following an emergency presentation, and provide recommendations for public health and health-care interventions, and research efforts aimed at addressing this under-researched aspect of cancer diagnosis.

European Survey on Standards of Care in paediatric oncology centres.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the European Commission has supported an increased focus on rare cancers in order to improve quality of care, disseminate best practice and set up networks to improve access that is essential to continued progress. At European Union (EU) conference in 2009, an agreement was reached to create a 'European Standard of Care for Children with Cancer'. In 2013, the European Paediatric Oncology Society launched a Europe-wide survey in order to assess the implementation of the Standards. METHODS: Representative experts from 36 countries, including 27 EU members, were invited to complete a questionnaire describing the quality of treatment and care received by young cancer patients in their country, together with the characteristics of the health care infrastructure and paediatric haematology-oncology (PHO) teams. FINDINGS: Thirty-five European countries provided comprehensive responses. Within the responding countries, 341 PHO centres were identified. Only 18 countries consider they have full diagnostic services, all necessary drugs and supportive care. The annual incidence rate is approximately 146.1 new cancer cases/million children and adolescents. In 24 countries, paediatric haematology and oncology is officially recognised as a specific qualification. A total of 1178 specialists certified in PHO are currently working in Europe. Finally, 31 (88.6%) countries provide a multidisciplinary palliative care for terminally ill children. INTERPRETATION: This survey provides quantitative data that demonstrate the current healthcare inequalities for children and adolescents with cancer in Europe. This variability in care provision and quality is likely to underlie the variation in childhood cancer survival rate in these countries.

Towards reducing inequalities: European Standards of Care for Children with Cancer.

Despite the increase of cure rates in the treatment of children with cancer there is a significant discrepancy in the outcome within Europe. Data are showing us that there is a difference of 20% in outcomes for young people with cancer when comparing North and Western Europe with Central and Eastern Europe. One of the most important necessities, in order to be able to have comparable results and equitable outcomes about inequalities, is to have the Principle Treatment Centres, meeting a minimum level of standards and being accessible to continuously updated 'best practice'. The European Society of Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) has initiated a study in order to monitor the current situation of the European Standards of Paediatric Oncology Centres. The results of the study showed disparities of Standards of Care in the Treatment Centres across Europe. Therefore SIOPE initiated a project aimed at improving the Quality-of-Care of children and adolescents with cancer and to assess the relevant organisational aspects within paediatric oncology. At the first European Union (EU) Conference in Warsaw 2009, an agreement was obtained from all involved stakeholders to initiate the creation of Pan-European guidelines entitled 'European Standards of Care for Children with Cancer'. The guidelines outlined in this document represent the minimum standards of care that should be implemented at the EU level. Describing the different aspects of Care over 15 chapters and available in more than 16 different EU languages these guidelines are used as tools for both professionals and parent/patients groups in order to advocate 'improved standards across EU'.

New policies to address the global burden of childhood cancers.

Childhood cancer is a major global health issue. Every year, almost 100 000 children die from cancer before the age of 15 years, more than 90% of them in resource-limited countries. Here, we review the key policy issues for the delivery of better care, research, and education of professionals and patients. We present a key list of time-limited proposals focusing on change to health systems and research and development. These include sector and system reforms to make care affordable to all, policies to promote growth of civil society around both cancer and Millennium Development Goals, major improvements to public health services (particularly the introduction of national cancer plans), improved career development, and increased remuneration of specialist health-care workers and government support for childhood cancer registries. Research and development proposals focus on sustainable funding, the establishment of more research networks, and clinical research specifically targeted at the needs of low-income and middle-income countries. Finally, we present proposals to address the need for clinical trial innovation, the complex dichotomy of regulations, and the threats to the availability of data for childhood cancers.

PAX3/FOXO1 fusion gene status is the key prognostic molecular marker in rhabdomyosarcoma and significantly improves current risk stratification.

PURPOSE: To improve the risk stratification of patients with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) through the use of clinical and molecular biologic data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two independent data sets of gene-expression profiling for 124 and 101 patients with RMS were used to derive prognostic gene signatures by using a meta-analysis. These and a previously published metagene signature were evaluated by using cross validation analyses. A combined clinical and molecular risk-stratification scheme that incorporated the PAX3/FOXO1 fusion gene status was derived from 287 patients with RMS and evaluated. RESULTS: We showed that our prognostic gene-expression signature and the one previously published performed well with reproducible and significant effects. However, their effect was reduced when cross validated or tested in independent data and did not add new prognostic information over the fusion gene status, which is simpler to assay. Among nonmetastatic patients, patients who were PAX3/FOXO1 positive had a significantly poorer outcome compared with both alveolar-negative and PAX7/FOXO1-positive patients. Furthermore, a new clinicomolecular risk score that incorporated fusion gene status (negative and PAX3/FOXO1 and PAX7/FOXO1 positive), Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study TNM stage, and age showed a significant increase in performance over the current risk-stratification scheme. CONCLUSION: Gene signatures can improve current stratification of patients with RMS but will require complex assays to be developed and extensive validation before clinical application. A significant majority of their prognostic value was encapsulated by the fusion gene status. A continuous risk score derived from the combination of clinical parameters with the presence or absence of PAX3/FOXO1 represents a robust approach to improving current risk-adapted therapy for RMS.