Premature mortality trends in 183 countries by cancer type, sex, WHO region, and World Bank income level in 2000-19: a retrospective, cross-sectional, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. By 2040, over 30 million new cancers are predicted, with the greatest cancer burden in low-income countries. In 2015, the UN passed the Sustainable Development Goal 3.4 (SDG 3.4) to tackle the rising burden of non-communicable diseases, which calls for a reduction by a third in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases, including cancer, by 2030. However, there is a paucity of data on premature mortality rates by cancer type. In this study, we examine annual rates of change for cancer-specific premature mortality and classify whether countries are on track to reach SDG 3.4 targets. METHODS: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional, population-based study investigating premature mortality trends from 2000-19 using the WHO Global Health Estimates data. All cancers combined and thirteen individual cancers in 183 countries were examined by WHO region, World Bank income level, and sex. The risk of premature mortality was calculated for ages 30-69 years, independent of other competing causes of death, using standard life table methods. The primary objective was to compute average annual rate of change in premature mortality from 2000 to 2019. Secondary objectives assessed whether this annual rate of change would be sufficient to reach SDG 3.4. targets for premature mortality by 2030. FINDINGS: This study was conducted using data retrieved for the years 2000-19. Premature mortality rates decreased in 138 (75%) of 183 countries across all World Bank income levels and WHO regions, however only eight (4%) countries are likely to meet the SDG 3.4 targets for all cancers combined. Cancers where early detection strategies exist, such as breast and colorectal cancer, have higher declining premature mortality rates in high-income countries (breast cancer 48 [89%] of 54 and colorectal cancer 45 [83%]) than in low-income countries (seven [24%] of 29 and four [14%]). Cancers with primary prevention programmes, such as cervical cancer, have more countries with declining premature mortality rates (high-income countries 50 [93%] of 54 and low-income countries 26 [90%] of 29). Sex-related disparities in premature mortality rates vary across WHO regions, World Bank income groups, and by cancer type. INTERPRETATION: There is a greater reduction in premature mortality for all cancers combined and for individual cancer types in high-income countries compared with lower-middle-income and low-income countries. However, most countries will not reach the SDG 3.4 target. Cancers with early detection strategies in place, such as breast and colorectal cancers, are performing poorly in premature mortality compared with cancers with primary prevention measures, such as cervical cancer. Investments toward prevention, early detection, and treatment can potentially accelerate declines in premature mortality. FUNDING: WHO.

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.

Global Cancer Surgery: pragmatic solutions to improve cancer surgery outcomes worldwide.

The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery was published in 2015 and serves as a landmark paper in the field of cancer surgery. The Commission highlighted the burden of cancer and the importance of cancer surgery, while documenting the many inadequacies in the ability to deliver safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgical care. This Commission builds on the first Commission by focusing on solutions and actions to improve access to cancer surgery globally, developed by drawing upon the expertise from cancer surgery leaders across the world. We present solution frameworks in nine domains that can improve access to cancer surgery. These nine domains were refined to identify solutions specific to the six WHO regions. On the basis of these solutions, we developed eight actions to propel essential improvements in the global capacity for cancer surgery. Our initiatives are broad in scope, pragmatic, affordable, and contextually applicable, and aimed at cancer surgeons as well as leaders, administrators, elected officials, and health policy advocates. We envision that the solutions and actions contained within the Commission will address inequities and promote safe, timely, and affordable cancer surgery for every patient, regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

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.

Task Shifting and Task Sharing to Strengthen the Surgical Workforce in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review of the Existing Literature.

BACKGROUND: A major constraint to surgical care delivery in low-resource settings is inadequate workforce availability. Surgical task shifting (TShifting) and task sharing (TSharing), in which non-surgeon clinicians (NSCs) are trained to perform select surgical procedures, have been proposed as one solution. However, patterns of safety and efficacy of surgical TShifting/TSharing are not well-established. This study aims to summarize the current literature and assess clinical outcomes and impact of surgical TShifting/TSharing in sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS: A two-tiered systematic, PRISMA-adherent literature review of surgical TShifting/TSharing in sub-Saharan Africa was conducted. Collected data included healthcare settings; types of surgeries performed; attitudes toward NSCs; and categories, training, capacity, clinical outcomes, safety, retention, cost-effectiveness, and supervision of NSCs. A random effects meta-analysis of morbidity and mortality rates between NSCs and surgeons was conducted. RESULTS: Among the 659 abstracts screened, 31 studies met inclusion criteria and were integrated in the final analysis. Eighteen studies (58%) report on the capacity and aptitude of NSCs, 16 (52%) on clinical outcomes and safety, and seven (23%) on attitudes. NSCs performed 1999 (61%) of 3304 total surgical cases studied. The most common operations reported were hernia repair (n = 12, 57%), acute abdominal (n = 12, 57%), and orthopedic procedures (n = 6, 29%). No differences were found between NSC and surgeon case morbidity [315 (16%) vs. 224 (17%); p > 0.05] and mortality [44 (2.2%) vs. 33 (2.5%); p > 0.05] rates. CONCLUSION: NSCs are increasingly performing surgical tasks in regions of sub-Saharan Africa deficient in trained surgeons and appear to have non-inferior safety outcomes in select programs.

Developing and sustaining high-quality care for children with cancer: the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer.

Cancer is a major public health concern, impacting nearly 20 million people each year, and it is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths worldwide. The burden of cancer is increasing rapidly, straining health systems that are unable to prevent and manage the disease. Childhood cancer constitutes a significant and relevant public health challenge; it was the ninth leading cause of childhood disease globally, according to findings by the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study. Almost 80% of all children diagnosed with cancer live in low- and middle-income countries where treatment is often unavailable or unaffordable. As a result, only about 15-45% of these children survive compared with more than 80% in high-income countries. This represents a great health inequity. Delivering on the mandate provided by World Health Assembly resolution 70.12, WHO together with St. Jude Children's Research Hospital and other global partners launched the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer at the United Nations General Assembly during the third High-level Meeting on the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases in September 2018. The Initiative aims to increase global survival for children with cancer to at least 60% by 2030, while reducing suffering for all children with cancer. Five years after launching the Initiative, more than 70 countries across the World Health Organization's 6 regions have advanced to different phases of action through implementation of the Initiative's CureAll framework for action. Many successful approaches to implementing the CureAll pillars and enablers have demonstrated that improving care for children with cancer in low- and middle-income countries is possible as long as there is strong political will, multisectoral commitments and strategic investment.

El cáncer es un importante problema de salud pública: afecta a cerca de 20 millones de personas cada año y es responsable de 1 de cada 6 muertes a nivel mundial. La carga del cáncer está aumentando rápidamente, lo que somete a una gran presión a los sistemas de salud que no pueden prevenir y manejar la enfermedad. El cáncer infantil constituye un importante problema de salud pública y tiene gran relevancia: fue la novena causa de enfermedad infantil a nivel mundial, según los hallazgos del estudio sobre la carga mundial de enfermedad correspondiente al 2017. Casi el 80% de todos los casos de cáncer infantil se registran en países de ingresos bajos o medianos, donde el tratamiento a menudo resulta inasequible o no está disponible. Por este motivo, solo sobreviven entre el 15% y el 45% de estos pacientes pediátricos, frente a más del 80% en los países de ingresos altos. Esto constituye una gran inequidad en materia de salud.En cumplimiento del mandato establecido en la resolución WHA70.12 de la Asamblea Mundial de la Salud, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) ­junto con el hospital pediátrico de investigación St. Jude y otros asociados mundiales­ puso en marcha la Iniciativa Mundial contra el Cáncer Infantil ante la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, en ocasión de la tercera reunión de alto nivel sobre la prevención y el control de las enfermedades no transmisibles, celebrada en septiembre del 2018. Esta iniciativa tiene como objetivo incrementar la tasa de supervivencia mundial de los pacientes pediátricos con cáncer hasta por lo menos el 60% para el 2030 y, simultáneamente, reducir el sufrimiento de toda la población infantil con cáncer. Transcurridos cinco años de la puesta en marcha de la iniciativa, más de 70 países de las seis regiones de la OMS han logrado avanzar a distintas fases de actuación mediante la aplicación del marco de acción de la iniciativa denominado CureAll. Ha habido muchos enfoques que han dado buenos resultados para la consecución de los pilares y los elementos facilitadores de CureAll y que han demostrado que es posible mejorar la atención de la población infantil con cáncer en los países de ingresos bajos y medianos, siempre que haya una férrea voluntad política, compromisos multisectoriales e inversiones estratégicas.

O câncer é um importante problema de saúde pública que afeta cerca de 20 milhões de pessoas a cada ano e é responsável por uma em cada seis mortes em todo o mundo. A carga do câncer está aumentando rapidamente, sobrecarregando os sistemas de saúde, que não conseguem prevenir e controlar a doença. O câncer infantil constitui um desafio significativo e relevante para a saúde pública: essa foi a nona principal causa de doenças infantis em todo o mundo, de acordo com os resultados do estudo Global Burden of Disease 2017. Quase 80% de todas as crianças diagnosticadas com câncer vivem em países de baixa e média renda, onde o tratamento geralmente não está disponível ou é inacessível. Como resultado, apenas cerca de 15% a 45% dessas crianças sobrevivem, em comparação com mais de 80% nos países de alta renda. Isso representa uma grande falta de equidade em saúde.Cumprindo o estabelecido pela Resolução 70.12 da Assembleia Mundial da Saúde, a Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS), juntamente com o Saint Jude Children's Research Hospital e outros parceiros mundiais, lançou a Iniciativa Global para o Câncer Infantil na Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas, durante a terceira Reunião de Alto Nível sobre prevenção e controle de doenças não transmissíveis, em setembro de 2018. A Iniciativa tem como objetivo aumentar a sobrevida global de crianças com câncer para pelo menos 60% até 2030 e, ao mesmo tempo, reduzir o sofrimento de todas as crianças com câncer. Cinco anos após o lançamento da Iniciativa, mais de 70 países das seis regiões da OMS avançaram para diferentes fases de ação por meio da implementação da estrutura CureAll da Iniciativa. O sucesso de muitas abordagens para implementação dos pilares e facilitadores da CureAll demonstraram que é possível melhorar o atendimento a crianças com câncer em países de baixa e média renda, desde que haja forte vontade política, compromissos multissetoriais e investimento estratégico.

Advances in the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer: implementation in Latin America and the Caribbean.

This report describes the status of childhood cancer control initiatives in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). Progress between 2017 and 2023 is measured using the outcome indicators from the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) childhood cancer logic model aligned with the World Health Organization Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer (GICC). This report also describes the advances, barriers, and facilitators for the implementation of the GICC at the Regional level. Methods used in this report encompassed a comprehensive approach, incorporating a literature review, interviews, surveys, and a Delphi study developed by the technical team of the PAHO Non-Communicable Diseases and Mental Health Department and by the GICC LAC working group. Since 2017, there has been a substantial increase in the number of countries that have included childhood cancer in their national regulations. Currently, 21 LAC countries are involved in the GICC implementation, activities, and dialogues. However, the objectives for 2030 will only be achieved if Member States overcome the barriers to accelerating the pace of initiative implementation. There is an urgent need to increase the efforts in childhood cancer control in LAC, especially regarding the prioritization of timely detection, essential diagnostics, access to cancer treatment, palliative care, and close follow-up of children and adolescents with cancer.

En este artículo se describe la situación de las iniciativas para el control del cáncer infantil en América Latina y el Caribe. Para medir los progresos entre el 2017 y el 2023, se utilizan los indicadores de resultados del modelo lógico del cáncer infantil de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud (OPS) que es coherente con la Iniciativa Mundial contra el Cáncer Infantil de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. También se describen los avances, los obstáculos y los elementos que han facilitado la aplicación de esa iniciativa en la Región Los métodos utilizados en este trabajo incluyeron un enfoque integral que incorporó una revisión bibliográfica, entrevistas, encuestas y un estudio de tipo Delfos llevado a cabo por el equipo técnico del Departamento de Enfermedades No Transmisibles y Salud Mental de la OPS y por el grupo de trabajo de América Latina y el Caribe de la Iniciativa Mundial contra el Cáncer Infantil de la Organización Mundial de la Salud.Desde el 2017 ha habido un incremento considerable en el número de países que incorporan el cáncer infantil en sus regulaciones nacionales. En la actualidad, 21 países de América Latina y el Caribe participan en la puesta en práctica, las actividades y las deliberaciones de la Iniciativa Mundial contra el Cáncer Infantil de la Organización Mundial de la Salud. No obstante, los objetivos para el 2030 solo podrán alcanzarse si los Estados Miembros son capaces de superar los obstáculos que dificultan la aceleración del ritmo de aplicación de esta iniciativa. Existe una necesidad urgente de aumentar las actividades dirigidas al control del cáncer infantil en América Latina y el Caribe, en especial en lo que respecta a priorizar la detección temprana, los medios de diagnóstico esenciales, el acceso a los tratamientos oncológicos, los cuidados paliativos y el seguimiento estricto de la población infantil y adolescente con cáncer.

Este relatório descreve a situação das iniciativas de controle do câncer infantil na Região da América Latina e do Caribe (ALC). O progresso alcançado entre 2017 e 2023 foi medido usando os indicadores de resultados intermediários do modelo lógico de câncer infantil da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (OPAS), em linha com a Iniciativa Global para o Câncer Infantil (GICC) da Organização Mundial da Saúde. O relatório também descreve os avanços, as barreiras e os facilitadores para a implementação da iniciativa em nível regional. Os métodos utilizados neste relatório aplicaram uma abordagem abrangente que incluiu revisão da literatura, entrevistas, levantamentos e um estudo Delphi desenvolvido pela equipe técnica do Departamento de Doenças Não Transmissíveis e Saúde Mental da OPAS e pelo grupo de trabalho da GICC para a ALC.Desde 2017, houve um aumento significativo no número de países que passaram a incluir o câncer infantil em regulamentações nacionais. Atualmente, 21 países da América Latina e do Caribe estão envolvidos na implementação da GICC, bem como em atividades e diálogos relacionados. No entanto, os objetivos para 2030 só serão alcançados se os Estados Membros superarem as barreiras ao aceleramento do ritmo de implementação da iniciativa. Existe uma necessidade urgente de intensificar os esforços de controle do câncer infantil na ALC, especialmente no tocante à priorização da detecção em tempo hábil, diagnósticos essenciais, acesso a tratamentos oncológicos, cuidados paliativos e acompanhamento cuidadoso de crianças e adolescentes com câncer.

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.

Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice. METHODS: This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries. FINDINGS: 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries. INTERPRETATION: These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines. FUNDING: None.

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.

How to reduce the impact of cervical cancer worldwide: Gaps and priority areas identified through the essential cancer and primary care packages: An analysis of effective interventions.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a preventable cancer; therefore, countries should provide strategic, evidence-based health services to reduce its incidence and impact on their populations. Two packages of health services that group together all the services related to cervical cancer, the Essential Cancer Package (9 interventions) and the Primary Care Package (5 interventions), are defined in this article with the aim of assessing the global status of the availability of health services and their coverage in 194 countries worldwide. METHODS: The study was based on the 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) Noncommunicable Disease Country Capacity Survey. Although the survey covered multiple noncommunicable diseases, this report examined only those results pertaining to cervical cancer in the 194 WHO member states divided by WHO region and World Bank income. RESULTS: Only 21% of the countries reported providing all 9 interventions of the Essential Cancer Package, with the highest proportions being found in Europe (45.3%) and among high-income countries (HICs; 54.3%). As for the Primary Care Package, only 19.1% of countries provided all 5 interventions, with the highest proportions being found in Europe (39.6%) and among HICs (45.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The complete development and appropriate coverage of each service listed in both the Essential Cancer Package and the Primary Care Package are essential to reduce the impact of cervical cancer worldwide, and they should be integrated into all cancer control planning efforts.

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.

Areca Nut and Betel Quid Control Interventions: Halting the Epidemic.

Background: Areca nut (AN) and betel quid (BQ) are classified as Group 1 carcinogens. There are approximately 600 million AN/BQ users globally; the majority of users live in the Asia-Pacific region which, correspondingly, has the highest rates of oral cancer. Despite significant disease burden associated with AN/BQ use, there have been no systematic reviews of interventions to reduce product use. Objectives: To analyze interventions that prevent use of AN/BQ, present a basis for a future systematic review on the topic, and provide decision makers with examples of strategies that have demonstrated reduced AN/BQ use. Methods: To identify publications, we searched the literature using terms for AN/BQ and related synonyms in three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Interventions that prevent AN/BQ use, that are published in English and that provide original data analysis, were included in this review. Interventions focused primarily on disease outcomes e.g. oral cancers (secondary prevention) were excluded. Results: Our search revealed 21 interventions targeting AN/BQ use between 1990 and 2018. Strategies include product bans, media campaigns, education, cessation, and taxation at individual and population levels, with varying evidence of impact. While these studies yielded some novel and promising findings, particularly regarding the impact of product bans, mass media campaigns, and cessation interventions, research on interventions specific to AN/BQ use remains limited. Conclusions: We have assessed published interventions that reduce AN/BQ use and identified future research priorities. These findings can be used to develop evidence-based interventions and help guide policymakers in implementing evidence-based policy to regulate these products.

Core elements of national cancer control plans: a tool to support plan development and review.

When developed and implemented effectively, national cancer control plans (NCCPs) improve cancer outcomes at the population level. However, many countries do not have a high-quality, operational NCCP, contributing to disparate cancer outcomes globally. Until now, a standard reference of NCCP core elements has not been available to guide development and evaluation across diverse countries and contexts. In this Policy Review, we describe the methods, process, and outcome of an initiative to develop an itemised and evidence-based comprehensive checklist of core elements for NCCP formulation. The final list provides a ready-to-use guide to support NCCP development and to facilitate internal and external critical appraisal of existing NCCPs for countries of all income levels and settings. Governments, policy makers, and stakeholders can utilise this checklist, while considering their own unique contexts and priorities, from the drafting through to the implementation of NCCPs.

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.