Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

Estimating the impact of treatment and imaging modalities on 5-year net survival of 11 cancers in 200 countries: a simulation-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate survival estimates are important for cancer control planning. Although observed survival estimates are unavailable for many countries, where they are available, wide variations are reported. Understanding the impact of specific treatment and imaging modalities can help decision makers to effectively allocate resources to improve cancer survival in their local context. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model of stage-specific cancer survival in 200 countries and territories for 11 cancers (oesophagus, stomach, colon, rectum, anus, liver, pancreas, lung, breast, cervix uteri, and prostate) comprising 60% of global diagnosed cancer cases. The model accounts for country-specific availability of treatment (chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy) and imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, single-photon emission CT), as well as quality of care. We calibrated the model to reported survival estimates from CONCORD-3 (which reports global trends in cancer survival in 2000-14). We estimated 5-year net survival for diagnosed cancers in each country or territory and estimated potential survival gains from increasing the availability of individual treatment and imaging modalities, and more comprehensive packages of scale-up of these interventions. We report the mean and 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for all outcomes, calculated as the 2·5 and 97·5 percentiles of the simulation results. FINDINGS: The estimated global 5-year net survival for all 11 cancers combined is 42·6% (95% uncertainty interval 40·3-44·3), with survival in high-income countries being an average of 12 times (range 4-17) higher than that in low-income countries. Expanding availability of surgery or radiotherapy or improving quality of care would yield the largest survival gains in low-income (2·5-3·4 percentage point increase in survival) and lower-middle-income countries (2·4-6·1 percentage point increase), whereas upper-middle-income and high-income countries are more likely to benefit from improved availability of targeted therapy (0·7 percentage point increase for upper-middle income and 0·4 percentage point increase for high income). Investing in medical imaging will also be necessary to achieve substantial survival gains, with traditional modalities estimated to provide the largest gains in low-income settings, while MRI and PET would yield the largest gains in higher-income countries. Simultaneous expansion of treatment, imaging, and quality of care could improve 5-year net survival by more than ten times in low-income countries (3·8% [95% UI 0·5-9·2] to 45·2% [40·2-52·1]) and could more than double 5-year net survival in lower-middle-income countries (20·1% [7·2-31·7] to 47·1% [42·8-50·8]). INTERPRETATION: Scaling up both treatment and imaging availability could yield synergistic survival gains for patients with cancer. Expanding traditional modalities in lower-income settings might be a feasible pathway to improve survival before scaling up more modern technologies. FUNDING: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health.

An Africa point of view on quality and safety in imaging.

Africa has seen an upsurge in diagnostic imaging utilization, with benefits of efficient and accurate diagnosis, but these could easily be offset by undesirable effects attributed to unjustified, unoptimized imaging and poor quality examinations. This paper aims to present Africa's position regarding quality and safety in imaging, give reasons for the rising interest in quality and safety, define quality and safety from an African context, list drivers for quality and safety in Africa, discuss the impact of COVID-19 on quality and safety, and review Africa's progress using the Bonn Call for Action framework while proposing a way forward for imaging quality and safety in Africa. In spite of a healthcare setting characterized by meagre financial, human and technology resources, a rapidly widening disease-burden spectrum, growing proportion of non-communicable diseases and resurgence of tropical and global infections, Africa has over the last ten years made significant strides in quality and safety for imaging. These include raising radiation-safety awareness, interest and application of evidence-based radiation safety recommendations and guidance tools, establishing facility and national diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) and strengthening end-user education and training. Major challenges are: limited human resource, low prioritization of imaging in relation to other health services, low level of integration of imaging into the entire health service delivery, insufficient awareness for radiation safety awareness, a radiation safety culture which is emerging, insufficient facilities and opportunities for education and training. Solutions to these challenges should target the entire hierarchy of health service delivery from prioritization, policy, planning, processes to procedures.