Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I2 = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I2 = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I2 = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I2 = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.

Mortality impact of achieving WHO cervical cancer elimination targets: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: WHO is developing a global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem, which proposes an elimination threshold of four cases per 100 000 women and includes 2030 triple-intervention coverage targets for scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to 90%, twice-lifetime cervical screening to 70%, and treatment of pre-invasive lesions and invasive cancer to 90%. We assessed the impact of achieving the 90-70-90 triple-intervention targets on cervical cancer mortality and deaths averted over the next century. We also assessed the potential for the elimination initiative to support target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) involves three independent, dynamic models of HPV infection, cervical carcinogenesis, screening, and precancer and invasive cancer treatment. Reductions in age-standardised rates of cervical cancer mortality in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) were estimated for three core scenarios: girls-only vaccination at age 9 years with catch-up for girls aged 10-14 years; girls-only vaccination plus once-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up; and girls-only vaccination plus twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up. Vaccination was assumed to provide 100% lifetime protection against infections with HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and to scale up to 90% coverage in 2020. Cervical screening involved HPV testing at age 35 years, or at ages 35 years and 45 years, with scale-up to 45% coverage by 2023, 70% by 2030, and 90% by 2045, and we assumed that 50% of women with invasive cervical cancer would receive appropriate surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy by 2023, which would increase to 90% by 2030. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: In 2020, the estimated cervical cancer mortality rate across all 78 LMICs was 13·2 (range 12·9-14·1) per 100 000 women. Compared to the status quo, by 2030, vaccination alone would have minimal impact on cervical cancer mortality, leading to a 0·1% (0·1-0·5) reduction, but additionally scaling up twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 34·2% (23·3-37·8), averting 300 000 (300 000-400 000) deaths by 2030 (with similar results for once-lifetime screening). By 2070, scaling up vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 61·7% (61·4-66·1), averting 4·8 million (4·1-4·8) deaths. By 2070, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 88·9% (84·0-89·3), averting 13·3 million (13·1-13·6) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 92·3% (88·4-93·0), averting 14·6 million (14·1-14·6) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). By 2120, vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 89·5% (86·6-89·9), averting 45·8 million (44·7-46·4) deaths. By 2120, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 97·9% (95·0-98·0), averting 60·8 million (60·2-61·2) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 98·6% (96·5-98·6), averting 62·6 million (62·1-62·8) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). With the WHO triple-intervention strategy, over the next 10 years, about half (48% [45-55]) of deaths averted would be in sub-Saharan Africa and almost a third (32% [29-34]) would be in South Asia; over the next 100 years, almost 90% of deaths averted would be in these regions. For premature deaths (age 30-69 years), the WHO triple-intervention strategy would result in rate reductions of 33·9% (24·4-37·9) by 2030, 96·2% (94·3-96·8) by 2070, and 98·6% (96·9-98·8) by 2120. INTERPRETATION: These findings emphasise the importance of acting immediately on three fronts to scale up vaccination, screening, and treatment for pre-invasive and invasive cervical cancer. In the next 10 years, a one-third reduction in the rate of premature mortality from cervical cancer in LMICs is possible, contributing to the realisation of the 2030 UN SDGs. Over the next century, successful implementation of the WHO elimination strategy would reduce cervical cancer mortality by almost 99% and save more than 62 million women's lives. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Germany Federal Ministry of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Compute Canada, and Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé.

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.

Paediatric cancer stage in population-based cancer registries: the Toronto consensus principles and guidelines.

Population-based cancer registries generate estimates of incidence and survival that are essential for cancer surveillance, research, and control strategies. Although data on cancer stage allow meaningful assessments of changes in cancer incidence and outcomes, stage is not recorded by most population-based cancer registries. The main method of staging adult cancers is the TNM classification. The criteria for staging paediatric cancers, however, vary by diagnosis, have evolved over time, and sometimes vary by cooperative trial group. Consistency in the collection of staging data has therefore been challenging for population-based cancer registries. We assembled key experts and stakeholders (oncologists, cancer registrars, epidemiologists) and used a modified Delphi approach to establish principles for paediatric cancer stage collection. In this Review, we make recommendations on which staging systems should be adopted by population-based cancer registries for the major childhood cancers, including adaptations for low-income countries. Wide adoption of these guidelines in registries will ease international comparative incidence and outcome studies.

Harnessing the law to advance equitable cancer care in South Africa: exploring the feasibility, desirability and added value of a dedicated national cancer act.

Background: The 2017 World Health Assembly resolution on integrated cancer prevention and control provided clear guidance on creating an enabling environment for cancer care. Through a variety of mechanisms, including civil society advocacy, some countries have secured overarching legislation in the form of national cancer acts to promote equitable access and outcomes for cancer patients. In South Africa, cancer incidence is set to double by 2030; and, while existing legislative and policy frameworks do address cancer prevention and control, these are fragmented, poorly implemented and have had limited success. Methods: This study assessed the feasibility and potential impact of promulgating a dedicated national cancer act in South Africa through exploratory in-depth interviews with 25 purposively selected key informants from various stakeholder groups, including cancer survivors; legal scholars; human rights advocates; health care providers; public health specialists and academicians. Findings: Following thematic analysis, three key themes were identified: the content of a dedicated national cancer act, the socio-political leveragability of an act and accountability mechanisms that would support such an act. Conclusion: While most respondents had not considered the possibility of a dedicated national cancer act, they were open to the concept for South Africa. Concerns about widening inequities, duplication, funding and accountability would need to be addressed against the current backdrop of health inequities and limited human rights leveraging for health.

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. RESULTS: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. CONCLUSION: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

Unification of Efforts to Improve Global Access to Cancer Therapeutics: Report From the 2022/2023 Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Summit.

PURPOSE: There is an urgent need to improve access to cancer therapy globally. Several independent initiatives have been undertaken to improve access to cancer medicines, and additional new initiatives are in development. Improved sharing of experiences and increased collaboration are needed to achieve substantial improvements in global access to essential oncology medicines. METHODS: The inaugural Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Meeting was organized by ASCO and convened at the June 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, with two subsequent meetings, Union for International Cancer Control World Cancer Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland, in October 2022 and at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June of 2023. Invited stakeholders included representatives from cancer institutes, physicians, researchers, professional societies, the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy organizations, funders, cancer organizations and foundations, policy makers, and regulatory bodies. The session was moderated by ASCO. Past efforts and current and upcoming initiatives were initially discussed (2022), updates on progress were provided (2023), and broad agreement on resulting action steps was achieved with participants. RESULTS: Summit participants recognized that while much work was ongoing to enhance access to cancer therapeutics globally, communication and synergy across projects and organizations could be enhanced by providing a platform for collaboration and shared expertise. CONCLUSION: The summit resulted in new cross-stakeholder insights and planned collaboration addressing barriers to accessing cancer medications. Specific actions and timelines for implementation and reporting were established.

Ten Years of the International Cancer Control Partnership: Promoting National Cancer Control Plans to Shape the Health System Response for Cancer Control.

Growing premature mortality because of cancer is an increasing public health concern in all countries. This article reviews 10 years of the International Cancer Control Partnership (ICCP) considering the themes of National Cancer Control Plan (NCCP) support, technical assistance, governance, and the renewed momentum of global calls to action. ICCP has provided key resources for the cancer community by hosting a portal with national cancer control and noncommunicable disease (NCD) plans, strategies, guidelines, and key implementation guides for a growing community of best practices. ICCP partners have responded to the changing needs of country planners, adjusting technical guidance as needs evolve from planning to implementation at the national level with an associated shift to peer-to-peer learning and knowledge exchange. The ICCP offer to assist countries in cancer planning continues to be relevant as countries focus on implementation of global initiatives for breast, cervical, and childhood cancers. These initiatives are important to drive priority actions and a systems approach in the emerging road map on NCDs-a message that will be supported by a second global review of NCCPs in 2023. This is critical for driving national action in all countries on cancer and other NCDs in line with global health commitments made for 2030 and adopted by the United Nations General Assemblies. ICCP sees robust systems and financial planning for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of NCCPs and protection from cancer-related catastrophic expenditure, as critical to longer-term sustainability and success. ICCP calls for national policymakers to prioritize integration of cancer prevention and control into emerging universal health care approaches, including pandemic preparedness/health system resilience and calls for an equity focus in new NCCPs.

Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities.

PURPOSE: The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation.

Redefining Cancer Research Priorities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in the Post-COVID-19 Global Context: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

PURPOSE: The post-COVID-19 funding landscape for cancer research globally has become increasingly challenging, particularly in resource-challenged regions (RCRs) lacking strong research ecosystems. We aimed to produce a list of priority areas for cancer research in countries with limited resources, informed by researchers and patients. METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives. RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18). CONCLUSION: Areas of strategic priority favored by cancer researchers in RCRs are related to adaptive treatment guidelines; sustainable implementation of cancer registries; prevention strategies; value-based and affordable cancer care; investments in research capacity building; epidemiologic work on local risk factors for cancer; and combatting inequities of prevention and care access.

ARCHERY: a prospective observational study of artificial intelligence-based radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck and prostate cancer - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy. METHODS: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.

Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis.

The UN High-Level Meeting on Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs) in September, 2011, is an unprecedented opportunity to create a sustained global movement against premature death and preventable morbidity and disability from NCDs, mainly heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease. The increasing global crisis in NCDs is a barrier to development goals including poverty reduction, health equity, economic stability, and human security. The Lancet NCD Action Group and the NCD Alliance propose five overarching priority actions for the response to the crisis--leadership, prevention, treatment, international cooperation, and monitoring and accountability--and the delivery of five priority interventions--tobacco control, salt reduction, improved diets and physical activity, reduction in hazardous alcohol intake, and essential drugs and technologies. The priority interventions were chosen for their health effects, cost-effectiveness, low costs of implementation, and political and financial feasibility. The most urgent and immediate priority is tobacco control. We propose as a goal for 2040, a world essentially free from tobacco where less than 5% of people use tobacco. Implementation of the priority interventions, at an estimated global commitment of about US$9 billion per year, will bring enormous benefits to social and economic development and to the health sector. If widely adopted, these interventions will achieve the global goal of reducing NCD death rates by 2% per year, averting tens of millions of premature deaths in this decade.

Gordon McVie: his legacy as a blueprint for cancer advocates as we strive towards the 2030 global health and sustainable development goals.

Cancer prevention and control services worldwide must actively rebuild and contribute to improved health systems resilience alongside and beyond the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus disease) pandemic, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Cancer advocacy groups should respond to this unprecedented challenge as an opportunity to bolster community and patient involvement in research and clinical practice that is adjusted to local needs and circumstances. This short communication provides a synthesis of these critical challenges and, stemming from the pioneering activities of Gordon McVie on patient empowerment, urges policy makers and researchers to develop new implementation strategies that start from the social, economic and health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic to overcome roadblocks in the access to cancer care. We propose that developing the domain of collaborative implementation research in national cancer control plans will be the key to consolidate patient-centred services with both an equity lens and a focus on integration of new technologies as all countries drive towards the 2030 goals of universal health coverage.