Outcomes of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical hysterectomy for locally advanced cervical cancer at Kigali University Teaching Hospital, Rwanda: a retrospective descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Half of countries in Africa lack access to radiation (RT), which is essential for standard treatment of locally advanced cervical cancers. We evaluated outcomes for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by radical hysterectomy in settings where no RT is available. METHODS: We performed a retrospective descriptive study of all patients with FIGO stage IB2-IIA2 and some exceptional stage IIB cases who received NACT and surgery at Kigali University Teaching Hospital in Rwanda. Patients were treated with NACT consisting of carboplatin and paclitaxel once every 3 weeks for 3-4 cycles before radical hysterectomy. We calculated recurrence rates and overall survival (OS) rate was determined by Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: Between May 2016 and October 2018, 57 patients underwent NACT and 43 (75.4%) were candidates for radical hysterectomy after clinical response assessment. Among the 43 patients who received NACT and surgery, the median age was 56 years, 14% were HIV positive, and FIGO stage distribution was: IB2 (32.6%), IIA1 (7.0%), IIA2 (51.2%) and IIB (9.3%). Thirty-nine (96%) patients received 3 cycles and 4 (4%) received 4 cycles of NACT. Thirty-eight (88.4%) patients underwent radical hysterectomy as planned and 5 (11.6%) had surgery aborted due to grossly metastatic disease. Two patients were lost to follow up after surgery and excluded from survival analysis. For the remaining 41 patients with median follow-up time of 34.4 months, 32 (78%) were alive with no evidence of recurrence, and 8 (20%) were alive with recurrence. One patient died of an unrelated cancer. The 3-year OS rate for the 41 patients who underwent NACT and surgery was 80.8% with a recurrence rate of 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with radical hysterectomy is a feasible treatment option for locally advanced cervical cancer in settings with limited access to RT. With an increase in gynecologic oncologists skilled at radical surgery, this approach may be a more widely available alternative treatment option in countries without radiation facilities.

Ethical dilemmas in prioritizing patients for scarce radiotherapy resources.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles. RESULTS: Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.

A roadmap to establishing global oncology as a priority initiative within a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center.

As the burden of cancers impacting low- and middle-income countries is projected to increase, formation of strategic partnerships between institutions in high-income countries and low- and middle-income country institutions may serve to accelerate cancer research, clinical care, and training. As the US National Cancer Institute and its Center for Global Health continue to encourage cancer centers to join its global mission, academic cancer centers in the United States have increased their global activities. In 2015, the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, responded to the call for international partnership in addressing the global cancer burden through the establishment of the Global Cancer Program as a priority initiative. In developing the Global Cancer Program, we galvanized institutional support to foster sustained, bidirectional, equitable, international partnerships in global cancer control. Our focus and intent in disseminating this commentary is to share experiences and lessons learned from the perspective of a US-based, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and to provide a roadmap for other high-income institutions seeking to strategically broaden their missions and address the complex challenges of global cancer control. Herein, we review the formative evaluation, governance, strategic planning, investments in career development, funding sources, program evaluation, and lessons learned. Reflecting on the evolution of our program during the first 5 years, we observed in our partners a powerful shift toward a locally driven priority setting, reduced dependency, and an increased commitment to research as a path to improve cancer outcomes in resource-constrained settings.

Delayed diagnostic evaluation of symptomatic breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative study of Tanzanian women.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa are commonly diagnosed at advanced stages. In Tanzania, more than 80% of women are diagnosed with stage III or IV disease, and mortality rates are high. This study explored factors contributing to delayed diagnostic evaluation among women with breast cancer in Tanzania. METHODS: A qualitative study was performed at Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Twelve women with symptomatic pathologically proven breast cancer were recruited. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted in Swahili. Interviews explored the women's journey from symptom recognition to diagnosis, including the influence of breast cancer knowledge and pre-conceptions, health seeking behaviors, psychosocial factors, preference for alternative treatments, and the contribution of culture and norms. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and translated into English. Thematic analysis was facilitated by a cloud-based qualitative analysis software. RESULTS: All women reported that their first breast symptom was a self-identified lump or swelling. Major themes for factors contributing to delayed diagnostic presentation of breast cancer included lack of basic knowledge and awareness of breast cancer and misconceptions about the disease. Participants faced barriers with their local primary healthcare providers, including symptom mismanagement and delayed referrals for diagnostic evaluation. Other barriers included financial hardships, fear and stigma of cancer, and use of traditional medicine. The advice and influence of family members and friends played key roles in healthcare-seeking behaviors, serving as both facilitators and barriers. CONCLUSION: Lack of basic knowledge and awareness of breast cancer, stigma, financial barriers, and local healthcare system barriers were common factors contributing to delayed diagnostic presentation of breast cancer. The influence of friends and family also played key roles as both facilitators and barriers. This information will inform the development of educational intervention strategies to address these barriers and improve earlier diagnosis of symptomatic breast cancer in Tanzania.

A Ten-Year Experience of Treating Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Rural Rwanda: Outcomes and Insights for a Changing Landscape.

PURPOSE: In describing our ten-year experience with treating chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) as part of the Glivec Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP) in rural Rwanda, we evaluate (1) patient characteristics and treatment outcomes, (2) resource-adapted management strategies, and (3) the impact of diagnostic capacity development. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients with BCR-ABL-positive CML enrolled in this GIPAP program between 2009 and 2018. Clinical data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier methods, proportional hazards regression, and the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four patients were included. The median age at diagnosis was 34 (range 8-81) years. On imatinib, 91% achieved complete hematologic response (CHR) after a median of 49 days. Seven (6%) and 12 (11%) patients had primary and secondary imatinib resistance, respectively. The 3-year overall survival was 80% (95% CI, 72 to 87) for the cohort, with superior survival in imatinib responders compared with those with primary and secondary resistance. The median time from imatinib initiation to CHR was 59 versus 38 days (P = .040) before and after in-country diagnostic testing, whereas the median time to diagnosis (P = .056) and imatinib initiation (P = .170) was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: Coupling molecular diagnostics with affordable access to imatinib within a comprehensive cancer care delivery program is a successful long-term strategy to treat CML in resource-constrained settings. Our patients are younger and have higher rates of imatinib resistance compared with historic cohorts in high-income countries. High imatinib resistance rates highlight the need for access to molecular monitoring, resistance testing, and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as systems to support drug adherence. Hematologic response is an accurate resource-adapted predictor of survival in this setting. Local diagnostic capacity development has allowed for continuous, timely CML care delivery in Rwanda.

Decision-making about clinical trial options among older patients with metastatic cancer who have exhausted standard therapies.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults under-enroll in early phase cancer clinical trials. There are limited data on their trial experiences, which hampers our ability to understand potential reasons and responses to under-enrollment. We aimed to explore older adults' experiences and deliberations with phase 1 trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 101 in-depth interviews with 39 adults (average 2.6 interviews per participant) about their experiences with phase 1 trials. All respondents were ≥ 65 years and had advanced cancer. Interviews lasted 60-90 min and were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify respondents' understanding of clinical research, perceptions of early phase trials, and experiences with enrollment. RESULTS: Clinical trial participation was an interactive process that unfolded over time. Older adults relied on ongoing guidance and discussion with their oncologist to navigate the process. Respondents were generally interested in life-prolonging therapies, including enrollment in early phase clinical trials, but did not necessarily state this explicitly to their oncologist. While respondents did not mention age as a limitation to trials participation, participants age > 70 were less enthusiastic about participation and more often discussed their quality of life and weighed benefits of trial participation in the context of their remaining months of life. CONCLUSION: Early phase clinical trial enrollment is complex, and older adults rely on their oncologist to navigate this process. Acknowledging this complexity through shared decision-making may ensure that older adults have appropriate opportunities to enroll in early phase clinical trials and guard against inappropriate under-enrollment.

Procedural fairness for radiotherapy priority setting in a low resource context.

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve their populations. This mismatch between demand and supply creates the need for priority setting. There is no widely accepted system to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in a low resource context. In the absence of consensus on allocation principles, fair procedures for priority setting should be established. Research is needed to understand what elements of procedural fairness are important to decision makers in diverse settings, assess the feasibility of implementing fair procedures for priority setting in low resource contexts, and improve these processes. This study presents the views of decision makers engaged in everyday radiotherapy priority setting at a cancer center in Rwanda. Semi-structured interviews with 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and advisors were conducted. Participants evaluated actual radiotherapy priority setting procedures at the program (meso) and patient (micro) levels, reporting facilitators, barriers, and recommendations. We discuss our findings in relation to the leading Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) framework. Participants emphasized procedural elements that facilitate adherence to normative principles, such as objective criteria that maximize lives saved. They ascribed fairness to AFR's substantive requirement of relevance more than transparency, appeals, and enforcement. They identified several challenges unresolved by AFR, such as conflicting relevant rationales and unintended consequences of publicity and appeals. Implementing fair procedure itself is resource intensive, a paradox that calls for innovative, context-appropriate solutions. Finally, socioeconomic and structural barriers to care that undermine procedural fairness must be addressed.

Cervical cancer treatment in Rwanda: Resource-driven adaptations, quality indicators, and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Most cervical cancer cases and deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, yet clinical research from these contexts is significantly underrepresented. We aimed to describe the treatment quality, resource-driven adaptations, and outcomes of cervical cancer patients in Rwanda. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer enrolled between April 2016 and June 2018. Data were abstracted from medical records and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan Meier methods, and Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: A total of 379 patients were included; median age 54 years, 21% HIV-infected. A majority (55%) had stage III or IV disease. Thirty-four early-stage patients underwent radical hysterectomy. Of 254 patients added to a waiting list for chemoradiation, 114 ultimately received chemoradiation. Of these, 30 (26%) received upfront chemoradiation after median 126 days from diagnosis, and 83 (73%) received carboplatin/paclitaxel while waiting, with a median 56 days from diagnosis to chemotherapy and 207 days to chemoradiation. There was no survival difference between the upfront chemoradiation and prior chemotherapy subgroups. Most chemotherapy recipients (77%) reported improvement in symptoms. Three-year event-free survival was 90% with radical hysterectomy (95% CI 72-97%), 66% with chemoradiation (95% CI 55-75%), and 12% with chemotherapy only (95% CI 6-20%). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-modality treatment of cervical cancer is effective in low resource settings through coordinated care and pragmatic approaches. Our data support a role for temporizing chemotherapy if delays to chemoradiation are anticipated. Sustainable access to gynecologic oncology surgery and expanded access to radiotherapy are urgently needed.

Views from Multidisciplinary Oncology Clinicians on Strengthening Cancer Care Delivery Systems in Tanzania.

BACKGROUND: In response to the increasing burden of cancer in Tanzania, the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children launched National Cancer Treatment Guidelines (TNCTG) in February 2020. The guidelines aimed to improve and standardize oncology care in the country. At Ocean Road Cancer Institute (ORCI), we developed a theory-informed implementation strategy to promote guideline-concordant care. As part of the situation analysis for implementation strategy development, we conducted focus group discussions to evaluate clinical systems and contextual factors that influence guideline-based practice prior to the launch of the TNCTG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In June 2019, three focus group discussions were conducted with a total of 21 oncology clinicians at ORCI, stratified by profession. A discussion guide was used to stimulate dialogue about facilitators and barriers to delivery of guideline-concordant care. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed, translated, and analyzed using thematic framework analysis. RESULTS: Participants identified factors both within the inner context of ORCI clinical systems and outside of ORCI. Themes within the clinical systems included capacity and infrastructure, information technology, communication, efficiency, and quality of services provided. Contextual factors external to ORCI included interinstitutional coordination, oncology capacity in peripheral hospitals, public awareness and beliefs, and financial barriers. Participants provided pragmatic suggestions for strengthening cancer care delivery in Tanzania. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight several barriers and facilitators within and outside of the clinical systems at ORCI that may affect uptake of the TNCTG. Our findings were used to inform a broader guideline implementation strategy, in an effort to improve uptake of the TNCTGs at ORCI. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study provides an assessment of cancer care delivery systems in a low resource setting from the unique perspectives of local multidisciplinary oncology clinicians. Situational analysis of contextual factors that are likely to influence guideline implementation outcomes is the first step of developing an implementation strategy for cancer treatment guidelines. Many of the barriers identified in this study represent actionable targets that will inform the next phases of our implementation strategy for guideline-concordant cancer care in Tanzania and comparable settings.

Moral Distress and Resilience Associated with Cancer Care Priority Setting in a Resource-Limited Context.

BACKGROUND: Moral distress and burnout are highly prevalent among oncology clinicians. Research is needed to better understand how resource constraints and systemic inequalities contribute to moral distress in order to develop effective mitigation strategies. Oncology providers in low- and middle-income countries are well positioned to provide insight into the moral experience of cancer care priority setting and expertise to guide solutions. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and clinical advisors at a cancer center in Rwanda. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method. RESULTS: Participants identified sources of moral distress at three levels of engagement with resource prioritization: witnessing program-level resource constraints drive cancer disparities, implementing priority setting decisions into care of individual patients, and communicating with patients directly about resource prioritization implications. They recommended individual and organizational-level interventions to foster resilience, such as communication skills training and mental health support for clinicians, interdisciplinary team building, fair procedures for priority setting, and collective advocacy for resource expansion and equity. CONCLUSION: This study adds to the current literature an in-depth examination of the impact of resource constraints and inequities on clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective interventions are urgently needed to address moral distress, reduce clinician burnout, and promote well-being among a critical but strained oncology workforce. Collective advocacy is concomitantly needed to address the structural forces that constrain resources unevenly and perpetuate disparities in cancer care and outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For many oncology clinicians worldwide, resource limitations constrain routine clinical practice and necessitate decisions about prioritizing cancer care. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first in-depth analysis of how resource constraints and priority setting lead to moral distress among oncology clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective individual and organizational interventions and collective advocacy for equity in cancer care are urgently needed to address moral distress and reduce clinician burnout among a strained global oncology workforce. Lessons from low-resource settings can be gleaned as high-income countries face growing needs to prioritize oncology resources.

Development of a theory-driven implementation strategy for cancer management guidelines in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent international efforts to develop resource-stratified clinical practice guidelines for cancer, there has been little research to evaluate the best strategies for dissemination and implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Guideline publication alone is insufficient. Extensive research has shown that structured, multifaceted implementation strategies that target barriers to guideline use are most likely to improve adherence; however, most of this research has been conducted in high-income countries. There is a pressing need to develop and evaluate guideline implementation strategies for cancer management in LMICs in order to address stark disparities in cancer outcomes. METHODS: In preparation for the launch of Tanzania's first National Cancer Treatment Guidelines, we developed a theory-driven implementation strategy for guideline-based practice at Ocean Road Cancer Institute (ORCI). Here, we use the Intervention Mapping framework to provide a detailed stepwise description of our process. First, we conducted a needs assessment to identify barriers and facilitators to guideline-based practice at ORCI. Second, we defined both proximal and performance objectives for our implementation strategy. Third, we used the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior/Behavior Change Wheel (COM-B/BCW) framework to categorize the barriers and facilitators, choose behavior change techniques most likely to overcome targeted barriers and leverage facilitators, and select a feasible mode of delivery for each technique. Fourth, we organized these modes of delivery into a phased implementation strategy. Fifth, we operationalized each component of the strategy. Sixth, we identified the indicators of the process, outcome, and impact of our intervention and developed an evaluation plan to measure them using a mixed methods approach. DISCUSSION: We developed a robust, multifaceted guideline implementation strategy derived from a prominent behavior change theory for use in Tanzania. The barriers and strategies we generated are consistent with those well established in the literature, enhancing the validity and generalizability of our process and results. Through our rigorous evaluation plan and systematic account of modifications and adaptations, we will characterize the transferability of "proven" guideline implementation strategies to LMICs. We hope that by describing our process in detail, others may endeavor to replicate it, meeting a widespread need for dedicated efforts to implement cancer guidelines in LMICs.

Applying Lessons Learned From Low-Resource Settings to Prioritize Cancer Care in a Pandemic.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced oncology clinicians and administrators in the United States to set priorities for cancer care owing to resource constraints. As oncology practices adapt to a contracted health care system, expertise gained from partnerships in low-resource settings can be used for guidance. This article provides a primer on priority setting in oncology and ethical guidance based on lessons learned from experience with cancer care priority setting in low-resource settings. Observations: Lessons learned from real-world experiences are myriad. First, in the setting of limited resources, a utilitarian approach to maximizing survival benefit should guide decision-making. Second, conflicting principles will often arise among stakeholders and decision makers. Third, fair decision-making procedures should be established to ensure moral legitimacy and accountability. Fourth, proactive safeguards must be implemented to protect vulnerable individuals, or disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes will only widen further. Fifth, communication with patients and families about priority setting decisions should be intentional and standardized. Sixth, moral distress among clinicians must be addressed to avoid burnout during a time when resilience is critical. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the need to triage cancer care may be new to those who underwent training and now practice oncology in high-resource settings, it is familiar for those who practice in low- and middle-income countries. Oncologists in the United States facing unprecedented decisions about prioritization can draw on ethical frameworks and lessons learned from real-world cancer care priority setting in resource-constrained environments.

Treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma With ABVD Chemotherapy in Rural Rwanda: A Model for Cancer Care Delivery Implementation.

PURPOSE: Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is highly curable in high-income countries (HICs), yet many patients around the world do not have access to therapy. In 2012, cancer care was established at a rural district hospital in Rwanda through international collaboration, and a treatment protocol using doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) without radiotherapy was implemented. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients with confirmed HL seen at Butaro Hospital from 2012 to 2018 to evaluate quality indicators and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were included (median age, 16.8 years; interquartile range, 11.0-30.5 years). Ten (12%) were HIV positive. Most had B symptoms (70%) and advanced stage (56%) on examination and limited imaging. Of 21 specimens evaluated for Epstein-Barr virus, 14 (67%) were positive. Median time from biopsy to treatment was 6.0 weeks. Of 73 patients who started ABVD, 54 (74%) completed 6 cycles; the leading reasons for discontinuation were treatment abandonment and death. Median dose intensity of ABVD was 92%. Of 77 evaluable patients, 33 (43%) are in clinical remission, 27 (36%) are deceased, and 17 (22%) were lost to follow-up; 3-year survival estimate is 63% (95% CI, 50% to 74%). Poorer performance status, advanced stage, B symptoms, anemia, dose intensity < 85%, and treatment discontinuation were associated with worse survival. CONCLUSION: Treating HL with standard chemotherapy in a low-resource setting is feasible. Most patients who completed treatment experienced a clinically significant remission with this approach. Late presentation, treatment abandonment, and loss to follow-up contribute to the discrepancy in survival compared with HICs. A strikingly younger age distribution in our cohort compared with HICs suggests biologic differences and warrants further investigation.

The role of dissemination and implementation science in global breast cancer control programs: Frameworks, methods, and examples.

Global disparities in breast cancer outcomes are attributable to a sizable gap between evidence and practice in breast cancer control and management. Dissemination and implementation science (D&IS) seeks to understand how to promote the systematic uptake of evidence-based interventions and/or practices into real-world contexts. D&IS methods are useful for selecting strategies to implement evidence-based interventions, adapting their implementation to new settings, and evaluating the implementation process as well as its outcomes to determine success and failure, and adjust accordingly. Process models, explanatory theories, and evaluation frameworks are used in D&IS to develop implementation strategies, identify implementation outcomes, and design studies to evaluate these outcomes. In breast cancer control and management, research has been translated into evidence-based, resource-stratified guidelines by the Breast Health Global Initiative and others. D&IS should be leveraged to optimize the implementation of these guidelines, and other evidence-based interventions, into practice across the breast cancer care continuum, from optimizing public education to promoting early detection, increasing guideline-concordant clinical practice among providers, and analyzing and addressing barriers and facilitators in health care systems. Stakeholder engagement through processes such as co-creation is critical. In this article, the authors have provided a primer on the contribution of D&IS to phased implementation of global breast cancer control programs, provided 2 case examples of ongoing D&IS research projects in Tanzania, and concluded with recommendations for best practices for researchers undertaking this work.