Global Breast Cancer Initiative: A platform to address the psycho-oncology of cancer in low- and middle-income countries for improving global breast cancer outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Psycho-oncology is a clinical specialty in which the humanistic aspects of cancer diagnoses and treatment are addressed to reduce the psychological burden for patients and their caregivers to optimize patient participation, cancer outcomes and quality-of-life, which is especially critical in cultures where cancer is perceived as invariably fatal. Psycho-oncology programs face multiple barriers in low- and middle-income countries, including limited resource allocation and lack of training, both of which have been impediments to psycho-oncology programs becoming recognized as core competencies in cancer management and part of a standard medical curriculum. PURPOSE: This paper discusses the role of the Global Breast Cancer Initiative (GBCI) in helping to overcome inequities in breast cancer care and improve clinical outcomes from a psycho-oncology perspective as a model for improved cancer care in limited resource settings. FINDINGS: GBCI applies a comprehensive framework encompassing all phases of cancer care (defined through three pillars spanning the continuum of cancer management) and includes addressing the physical, psychological, and social needs of women throughout the life-course. Efforts to promote policies that increase access to early detection and treatment programs and improve health literacy among the public are important strategies to mitigate the most common emotional and physical challenges reported by people with cancer accessing care. CONCLUSIONS: Future efforts will focus on the integration of culturally appropriate guidance to promote early cancer detection and treatment completion through training programs for clinicians to establish core competencies in psycho-oncology. Emerging advocacy efforts in the oncology arena may help guide the integration of psycho-oncology services into routine care in countries where these services are not already integrated into the standard curriculum.

Essential medicines list in national cancer control plans: a secondary analysis from a global study.

With the advent of innovative therapeutics for and the rising costs of cancer management, low-income and middle-income countries face increasing challenges to deliver effective and sustainable health care. Understanding of how countries are selecting and prioritising essential cancer interventions is poor, including in the formulation of policies for essential medicines. We did an in-depth subanalysis from a global dataset of national cancer control plans (NCCPs), aiming to identify possible determinants of inclusion of policies related to essential medicines in the NCCP. The results showed poor global comprehensiveness of NCCPs, and substantial deficits in policies for financial hardships due to cancer care, specifically for access to cancer medicines. Specification of budget allocations, policy of protection from catastrophic health expenditure, and national treatment guidelines in the NCCPs contributed to more consistent policies on essential cancer medicines. The bedrock to deliver effective cancer programmes resides in the assurance of comprehensive, consistent, and coherent policy formulation, to orient resource selection and health investments, ultimately delivering equitable health for all.

Evolution of the joint International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and WHO cancer control assessments (imPACT Reviews).

Before 2005, cancer and other non-communicable diseases were not yet health and development agenda priorities. Since the 2005 World Health Assembly Resolution, which encouraged WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to jointly work on cancer control, progress was achieved in low-income and middle-income countries on a small scale. Recently, rapid acceleration in UN collaboration and global cancer activities has focused attention in global cancer control. This Policy Review presents the evolution of the IAEA, IARC, and WHO joint advisory service to help countries assess needs and capacities throughout the comprehensive cancer control continuum. We also highlight examples per country, showcasing a snapshot of global good practices to foster an exchange of experiences for continuous improvement in the integrated mission of Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (imPACT) reviews and follow-up support. The future success of progress in cancer control lies in the high-level political and financial commitments. Linking the improvement of cancer services to the strengthening of health systems after the COVID-19 pandemic will also ensure ongoing advances in the delivery of care across the cancer control continuum.

Cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), urgent action is needed to curb a growing crisis in cancer incidence and mortality. Without rapid interventions, data estimates show a major increase in cancer mortality from 520 348 in 2020 to about 1 million deaths per year by 2030. Here, we detail the state of cancer in SSA, recommend key actions on the basis of analysis, and highlight case studies and successful models that can be emulated, adapted, or improved across the region to reduce the growing cancer crises. Recommended actions begin with the need to develop or update national cancer control plans in each country. Plans must include childhood cancer plans, managing comorbidities such as HIV and malnutrition, a reliable and predictable supply of medication, and the provision of psychosocial, supportive, and palliative care. Plans should also engage traditional, complementary, and alternative medical practices employed by more than 80% of SSA populations and pathways to reduce missed diagnoses and late referrals. More substantial investment is needed in developing cancer registries and cancer diagnostics for core cancer tests. We show that investments in, and increased adoption of, some approaches used during the COVID-19 pandemic, such as hypofractionated radiotherapy and telehealth, can substantially increase access to cancer care in Africa, accelerate cancer prevention and control efforts, increase survival, and save billions of US dollars over the next decade. The involvement of African First Ladies in cancer prevention efforts represents one practical approach that should be amplified across SSA. Moreover, investments in workforce training are crucial to prevent millions of avoidable deaths by 2030. We present a framework that can be used to strategically plan cancer research enhancement in SSA, with investments in research that can produce a return on investment and help drive policy and effective collaborations. Expansion of universal health coverage to incorporate cancer into essential benefits packages is also vital. Implementation of the recommended actions in this Commission will be crucial for reducing the growing cancer crises in SSA and achieving political commitments to the UN Sustainable Development Goals to reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by a third by 2030.

National health system characteristics, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: In some countries, breast cancer age-standardised mortality rates have decreased by 2-4% per year since the 1990s, but others have yet to achieve this outcome. In this study, we aimed to characterise the associations between national health system characteristics and breast cancer age-standardised mortality rate, and the degree of breast cancer downstaging correlating with national age-standardised mortality rate reductions. METHODS: In this population-based study, national age-standardised mortality rate estimates for women aged 69 years or younger obtained from GLOBOCAN 2020 were correlated with a broad panel of standardised national health system data as reported in the WHO Cancer Country Profiles 2020. These health system characteristics include health expenditure, the Universal Health Coverage Service Coverage Index (UHC Index), dedicated funding for early detection programmes, breast cancer early detection guidelines, referral systems, cancer plans, number of dedicated public and private cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services. We tested for differences between continuous variables using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and for categorical variables using the Pearson χ2 test. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were fitted to identify associations between health system characteristics and age-standardised breast cancer mortality rates. Data on TNM stage at diagnosis were obtained from national or subnational cancer registries, supplemented by a literature review of PubMed from 2010 to 2020. Mortality trends from 1950 to 2016 were assessed using the WHO Cancer Mortality Database. The threshold for significance was set at a p value of 0·05 or less. FINDINGS: 148 countries had complete health system data. The following variables were significantly higher in high-income countries than in low-income countries in unadjusted analyses: health expenditure (p=0·0002), UHC Index (p<0·0001), dedicated funding for early detection programmes (p=0·0020), breast cancer early detection guidelines (p<0·0001), breast cancer referral systems (p=0·0030), national cancer plans (p=0·014), cervical cancer early detection programmes (p=0·0010), number of dedicated public (p<0·0001) and private (p=0·027) cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services (p<0·0001). In adjusted multivariable regression analyses in 141 countries, two health system characteristics were significantly associated with lower age-standardised mortality rates: higher UHC Index levels (ß=-0·12, 95% CI -0·16 to -0·08) and increasing numbers of public cancer centres (ß=-0·23, -0·36 to -0·10). These findings indicate that each unit increase in the UHC Index was associated with a 0·12-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rates, and each additional public cancer centre per 10 000 patients with cancer was associated with a 0·23-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rate. Among 35 countries with available breast cancer TNM staging data, all 20 that achieved sustained mean reductions in age-standardised mortality rate of 2% or more per year for at least 3 consecutive years since 1990 had at least 60% of patients with invasive breast cancer presenting as stage I or II disease. Some countries achieved this reduction without most women having access to population-based mammographic screening. INTERPRETATION: Countries with low breast cancer mortality rates are characterised by increased levels of coverage of essential health services and higher numbers of public cancer centres. Among countries achieving sustained mortality reductions, the majority of breast cancers are diagnosed at an early stage, reinforcing the value of clinical early diagnosis programmes for improving breast cancer outcomes. FUNDING: None.

Interventions Addressing Barriers to Delayed Cancer Diagnosis in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

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

Delays and Barriers to Cancer Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review.

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

Defining priority medical devices for cancer management: a WHO initiative.

Medical devices are indispensable for cancer management across the entire cancer care continuum, yet many existing medical interventions are not equally accessible to the global population, contributing to disparate mortality rates between countries with different income levels. Improved access to priority medical technologies is required to implement universal health coverage and deliver high-quality cancer care. However, the selection of appropriate medical devices at all income and hospital levels has been difficult because of the extremely large number of devices needed for the full spectrum of cancer care; the wide variety of options within the medical device sector, ranging from small inexpensive disposable devices to sophisticated diagnostic imaging and treatment units; and insufficient in-country expertise, in many countries, to prioritise cancer interventions and to determine associated technologies. In this Policy Review, we describe the methods, process, and outcome of a WHO initiative to define a list of priority medical devices for cancer management. The methods, approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee, can be used as a model approach for future endeavours to define and select medical devices for disease management. The resulting list provides ready-to-use guidance for the selection of devices to establish, maintain, and operate necessary clinical units within the continuum of care for six cancer types, with the goal of promoting efficient resource allocation and increasing access to priority medical devices, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.

National cancer control plans: a global analysis.

There is increasing global recognition that national cancer plans are crucial to effectively address the cancer burden and to prioritise and coordinate programmes. We did a global analysis of available national cancer-related health plans using a standardised assessment questionnaire to assess their inclusion of elements that characterise an effective cancer plan and, thereby, improve understanding of the strengths and limitations of existing plans. The results show progress in the development of cancer plans, as well as in the inclusion of stakeholders in plan development, but little evidence of their implementation. Areas of continued unmet need include setting of realistic priorities, specification of programmes for cancer management, allocation of appropriate budgets, monitoring and evaluation of plan implementation, promotion of research, and strengthening of information systems. We found that countries with a non-communicable disease (NCD) plan but no national cancer control plan (NCCP) were less likely than countries with an NCCP and NCP plan or an NCCP only to have comprehensive, coherent, or consistent plans. As countries move towards universal health coverage, greater emphasis is needed on developing NCCPs that are evidence based, financed, and implemented to ensure translation into action.

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.

Global cancer consortiums: moving from consensus to practice.

PURPOSE AND DESIGN: The failure to translate cancer knowledge into action contributes to regional, national, and international health inequities. Disparities in cancer care are the most severe in low-resource settings, where delivery obstacles are compounded by health infrastructure deficits and inadequate basic services. Global cancer consortiums (GCCs) have developed to strengthen cancer care expertise, advance knowledge on best practices, and bridge the cancer gap worldwide. Within the complex matrix of public health priorities, consensus is emerging on cost-effective cancer care interventions in low- and medium-resource countries, which include the critical role of surgical services. Distinct from traditional health partnerships that collaborate to provide care at the local level, GCCs collaborate more broadly to establish consensus on best practice models for service delivery. To realize the benefit of programmatic interventions and achieve tangible improvements in patient outcomes, GCCs must construct and share evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested in real world settings. REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS: Implementation research should inform consensus formation, program delivery, and outcome monitoring to achieve the goals articulated by GCCs. Fundamental steps to successful implementation are: (1) to adopt an integrated, multisectoral plan with local involvement; (2) to define shared implementation priorities by establishing care pathways that avoid prescriptive but suboptimal health care delivery; (3) to build capacity through education, technology transfer, and surveillance of outcomes; and (4) to promote equity and balanced collaboration. GCCs can bridge the gap between what is known and what is done, translating normative sharing of clinical expertise into tangible improvements in patient care.

Breast cancer in low and middle income countries (LMICs): a shifting tide in global health.

Cancer control planning has become a core aspect of global health, as rising rates of noncommunicable diseases in low-resource settings have fittingly propelled it into the spotlight. Comprehensive strategies for cancer control are needed to effectively manage the disease burden. As the most common cancer among women and the most likely reason a woman will die from cancer globally, breast cancer management is a necessary aspect of any comprehensive cancer control plan. Major improvements in breast cancer outcomes in high-income countries have not yet been mirrored in low-resource settings, making it a targeted priority for global health planning. Resource-stratified guidelines provide a framework and vehicle for designing programs to promote early detection, diagnosis, and treatment using existing infrastructure and renewable resources. Strategies for evaluating the current state and projecting future burden is a central aspect of developing national strategies for improving breast cancer outcomes at the national and international levels.

Obstacles to surgical services in a rural Cameroonian district hospital.

BACKGROUND: There are significant obstacles to the delivery of surgical care in low income countries. Few studies have defined or characterized these constraints. The present study aimed to identify financial and demographic factors limiting the utilization of surgical services in rural Cameroon. METHODS: A review was performed of all surgical records for patients presenting for surgery at the District Hospital of Kolofata in rural Cameroon over the 3-year study period (2004-2007). Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were calculated using disease- and patient-specific outcomes while accounting for postoperative morbidity. Univariate and multivariate analysis identified factors associated with failure to return for care. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,213 patients presented for preoperative evaluation, were informed of the cost to be paid preoperatively, and had surgery scheduled. Of these, 544 patients did not return for treatment, representing 2,163 DALYs potentially lost. Multivariate analysis revealed significant factors associated with increased likelihood of not returning for care as required preoperative payment >$US 310 (OR 0.44-0.86) and a recommended procedure for cancer (OR 0.47-0.86) or cutaneous disease (OR 0.28-0.95). Factors associated with increased odds of returning were male gender (OR 1.03-1.98), preoperative payment <$US 50 (OR 2.86-16.2), and a procedure with low DALYs (OR 1.71-9.89). The average cost per DALY for all operations performed was $US 27.13. CONCLUSIONS: Although surgery addresses a significant disease burden and is reported to be a cost-effective public health intervention, utilization is limited by high costs, demographic factors, and patient perceptions of surgical diseases.

Global challenges and policy solutions in breast cancer control.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer morbidity, disability and mortality in women, worldwide. Overall, in 2020, it was the most diagnosed malignancy. Differences in breast cancer mortality have been historically evidenced, as a result of disparities in access to diagnosis, treatment and palliative care. Epidemiologic trends in the last decades display three main patterns of breast cancer mortality: some high-income countries report continuous substantial improvements exceeding 2% annual mortality reduction; however, many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have stagnant or even increasing mortality rates. Population-based studies show that investing in breast cancer control, based on a primary health care approach, and expanding the cancer treatment capacity can portend population health benefits, with positive changes of the epidemiological adverse trajectories. Framed as part of the political commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals Agenda, World Health Organization (WHO) has recently launched a global initiative to tackle disparities in breast cancer mortality. The WHO-led Global Breast Cancer Initiative (GBCI) is framed across 3 pillars, to address key determinants of the cancer-related outcomes: health promotion and early detection, timely access to diagnosis and treatment, comprehensive breast cancer treatment, palliative and survivorship care. GBCI is a systematized approach, with the goal to (i) increase the fraction of newly diagnosed invasive cancers being stage 1 or 2 at diagnosis (60% or more), (ii) ensure diagnostic work-up to be completed within 60 days from the first connection with the primary healthcare providers to avoid delays in diagnosis and treatment and (iii) assure 80% or more women with breast cancer to undergo and complete multimodal treatments. GBCI will pursue a comprehensive and multisectoral approach, to deliver population health, social and economic benefits, ultimately intended as an entry point for health system strengthening and for the broader cancer control.

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.

The Global Landscape of Treatment Standards for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and disability for women worldwide. There is substantial variation in treatment outcomes, which is function of multiple variables, including access to treatment. Treatment standards can promote quality and improve survival; thus, their development should be a priority for the cancer-control planning. METHODS: We extracted the guidelines for the treatment of BC from a systematic review of the literature. We evaluated the development process, the methodology, and the recommendations formulated and surveyed the country resource stratification. Metrics of health-system capacity were selected to study the guidelines context appropriateness. RESULTS: We analyzed 49 distinct guidelines for BC, mostly in English language (n = 23), developed in upper-middle and high-income countries of the European and American regions (n = 39). A resource-stratified approach was identified in a quarter of the guidelines (n = 11), mostly from resource-constrained settings. Only one-half of the guidelines reached a gender balance of the authorship, and 10.2% were based on a multidisciplinary steering committee. A number of efforts and solutions of resource adaptations were recognized, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the national guidelines appeared not sensitive enough of the local health-system capacity in formulating recommendations, with possible exception for the radiation therapy availability. CONCLUSION: This global landscape of treatment standards for BC demonstrates that the majority is not context appropriate. Research on the formulation of cancer treatment standards is highly warranted, along with novel platforms for developing and disseminating resource-appropriate guidance.

Cancer Control at the District Hospital Level in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Educational and Resource Needs Assessment of General Practitioners.

PURPOSE: The WHO framework for early cancer diagnosis highlights the need to improve health care capacity among primary care providers. In Rwanda, general practitioners (GPs) at district hospitals (DHs) play key roles in diagnosing, initiating management, and referring suspected patients with cancer. We sought to ascertain educational and resource needs of GPs to provide a blueprint that can inform future early cancer diagnosis capacity-building efforts. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional survey study to GPs practicing in 42 Rwandan DHs to assess gaps in cancer-focused knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as delays in the referral process. Responses were aggregated and descriptive analysis was performed to identify trends. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 76% (73 of 96 GPs). Most responders were 25 to 29 years of age (n = 64 [88%]) and 100% had been practicing between 3 and 12 months. Significant gaps in cancer knowledge and physical exam skills were identified-88% of respondents were comfortable performing breast exams, but less than 10 (15%) GPs reported confidence in performing pelvic exams. The main educational resource requested by responders (n = 59 [81%]) was algorithms to guide clinical decision-making. Gaps in resource availability were identified, with only 39% of responders reporting breast ultrasound availability and 5.8% reporting core needle biopsy availability in DHs. Radiology and pathology resources were limited, with 52 (71%) reporting no availability of pathology services at the DH level. CONCLUSION: The current study reveals significant basic oncologic educational and resource gaps in Rwanda, such as physical examination skills and diagnostic tools. Capacity building for GPs in low- and middle-income countries should be a core component of national cancer control plans to improve accurate and timely diagnosis of cancer. Continuing professional development activities should address and focus on context-specific educational gaps, resource availability, and referral practice guidelines.