Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Oncology: Preliminary Insights From the Global ONCOTRUST-1 Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) between oncologists and industry might considerably influence how the presentation of the research results is delivered, ultimately affecting clinical decisions and policy-making. Although there are many regulations on reporting COI in high-income countries (HICs), little is known about their reporting in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Oncology Transparency Under Scrutiny and Tracking (ONCOTRUST-1) is a pilot global survey to explore the knowledge and perceptions of oncologists regarding COI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed an online 27-question-based survey in the English language to explore the perceptions and knowledge of oncologists regarding COI, with an emphasis on LMICs. Descriptive statistics and the Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies guidelines were used to report the findings. RESULTS: ONCOTRUST-1 surveyed 200 oncologists, 70.9% of them practicing in LMICs. Median age of the respondents was 36 (range, 26-84) years; 47.5% of them were women. Of the respondents, 40.5% reported weekly visits by pharmaceutical representatives to their institutions. Regarding oncologists' perceptions of COI that require disclosure, direct financial benefits, such as honoraria, ranked highest (58.5%), followed by gifts from pharmaceutical representatives (50%) and travel grants for attending conferences (44.5%). By contrast, personal or institutional research funding, sample drugs, consulting or advisory board, expert testimony, and food and beverage funded by pharmaceutical industry were less frequently considered as COI. Moreover, only 24% of surveyed oncologists could correctly categorize all situations representing a COI. CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the importance of clear guidelines, education, and transparency in reporting COI in oncology. This hypothesis-generating pilot survey provided the rationale for ONCOTRUST-2 study, which will compare perceptions of COI among oncologists in LMICs and HICs.

Growing the global cancer care system: success stories from around the world and lessons for the future.

Despite significant biomedical advancements in various realms of oncology, the benefits of these developments are not equitably distributed, particularly in under-resourced settings. While much work has described the challenges and systemic barriers in global cancer control, in this essay we focus on success stories. This piece describes clinical care delivered at Rwanda's Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence, the cancer research collaborations under India's National Cancer Grid, and the efforts of Latin America's Institute of Cancer of São Paulo in advancing cancer care and training. These examples highlight the potential of strategic collaborations and resource allocation strategies in improving cancer care globally. We emphasize the critical role of partnerships between physicians and allied health professionals, funders, and policymakers in enhancing access to treatment and infrastructure, advancing contextualized research and national guidelines, and establishing regional and global collaborations. We also draw attention to challenges faced in diverse global settings and outline benchmarks to measure success in the fight against cancer.

Financial Toxicity: Unveiling the Burden of Cancer Care on Patients in Rwanda.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is a major public health problem in Rwanda and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While there have been some improvements in access to cancer treatment, the cost of care has increased, leading to financial toxicity and treatment barriers for many patients. This study explores the financial toxicity of cancer care in Rwanda. METHODS: This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at 3 referral hospitals in Rwanda, which deliver most of the country's cancer care. Data were collected over 6 months from June 1 to December 1, 2022 by trained research assistants (RAs) using a modified validated data collection tool. RAs interviewed consecutive eligible patients with breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who were on active systemic therapy. The study aimed to identify sources of financial burden. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 239 patients were included; 75% (n = 180/239) were female and mean age was 51 years. Breast, cervix, and colorectal cancers were the most common diagnoses (42%, 100/239; 24%, 58/239; and 24%, 57/239, respectively) and 54% (n = 129/239) were diagnosed with advanced stage (stages III-IV). Financial burden was high; 44% (n = 106/239) of respondents sold property, 29% (n = 70/239) asked for charity from public, family, or friends, and 16% (n = 37/239) took loans with interest to fund cancer treatment. CONCLUSION: Despite health insurance which covers many elements of cancer care, a substantial proportion of patients on anti-cancer treatment in Rwanda experience major financial toxicity. Novel health financing solutions are needed to ensure accessible and affordable cancer care.

Mapping of Radiation Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology Services Available to Treat the Growing Burden of Cervical Cancer in Africa.

PURPOSE: To meet the demand for cervical cancer care in Africa, access to surgical and radiation therapy services needs to be understood. We thus mapped the availability of gynecologic and radiation therapy equipment and staffing for treating cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We collected data on gynecologic and radiation oncology staffing, equipment, and infrastructure capacities across Africa. Data was obtained from February to July 2021 through collaboration with international partners using Research Electronic Data Capture. Cancer incidence was taken from the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 database. Treatment capacity, including the numbers of radiation oncologists, radiation therapists, physicists, gynecologic oncologists, and hospitals performing gynecologic surgeries, was calculated per 1000 cervical cancer cases. Adequate capacity was defined as 2 radiation oncologists and 2 gynecologic oncologists per 1000 cervical cancer cases. RESULTS: Forty-three of 54 African countries (79.6%) responded, and data were not reported for 11 countries (20.4%). Respondents from 31 countries (57.4%) reported access to specialist gynecologic oncology services, but staffing was adequate in only 11 countries (20.4%). Six countries (11%) reported that generalist obstetrician-gynecologists perform radical hysterectomies. Radiation oncologist access was available in 39 countries (72.2%), but staffing was adequate in only 16 countries (29.6%). Six countries (11%) had adequate staffing for both gynecologic and radiation oncology; 7 countries (13%) had no radiation or gynecologic oncologists. Access to external beam radiation therapy was available in 31 countries (57.4%), and access to brachytherapy was available in 25 countries (46.3%). The number of countries with training programs in gynecologic oncology, radiation oncology, medical physics, and radiation therapy were 14 (26%), 16 (30%), 11 (20%), and 17 (31%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified areas needing comprehensive cervical cancer care infrastructure, human resources, and training programs. There are major gaps in access to radiation oncologists and trained gynecologic oncologists in Africa.

Allocation of authorship and patient enrollment among global clinical trials in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly global in scope. Whether authorship is equitably shared between investigators from high-income countries (HIC) and low-middle/upper-middle incomes countries (LMIC/UMIC) is not well described. The authors conducted this study to understand the allocation of authorship and patient enrollment across all oncology RCTs conducted globally. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of phase 3 RCTs (published 2014-2017) that were led by investigators in HIC and recruited patients in LMIC/UMIC. FINDINGS: During 2014-2017, 694 oncology RCTs were published; 636 (92%) were led by investigators from HIC. Among these HIC-led trials, 186 (29%) enrolled patients in LMIC/UMIC. One-third (33%, 62 of 186) of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC. Forty percent (74 of 186) of RCTs reported patient enrollment by country; in 50% (37 of 74) of these trials, LMIC/UMIC contributed <15% of patients. The relationship between enrollment and authorship proportion is very strong and is comparable between LMIC/UMIC and HIC (Spearman's ρ LMIC/UMIC 0.824, p < .001; HIC 0.823, p < .001). Among the 74 trials that report country enrollment, 34% (25 of 74) have no authors from LMIC/UMIC. CONCLUSIONS: Among trials that enroll patients in HIC and LMIC/UMIC, authorship appears to be proportional to patient enrollment. This finding is limited by the fact that more than half of RCTs do not report enrollment by country. Moreover, there are important outliers as a significant proportion of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC despite enrolling patients in these countries. The findings in this study reflect a complex global RCT ecosystem that still underserves cancer control outside high-income settings.

Highlights from the Second Choosing Wisely Africa conference: a roadmap to value-based cancer care in East Africa (9-10 February 2023, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania).

The ecancer Choosing Wisely conference was held for the second time in Africa in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, from the 9th to 10th of February 2023. ecancer in collaboration with the Tanzania Oncology Society organised this conference which was attended by more than 150 local and international delegates. During the 2 days of the conference, more than ten speakers from different specialties in the field of oncology gave insights into Choosing Wisely in oncology. Topics from all fields linked to cancer care such as radiation oncology, medical oncology, prevention, oncological surgery, palliative care, patient advocacy, pathology, radiology, clinical trials, research and training were presented to share and bring awareness to professionals in oncology, on how to choose wisely in their approach to their daily practice, based on the available resources, while trying to offer the maximum benefit to the patient. This report, therefore, shares the highlights of this conference.

Multidisciplinary approach to cancer care in Rwanda: the role of tumour board meetings.

Introduction: Cancer treatment is complex and necessitates a multidisciplinary approach. Tumour Board Meetings (TBMs) provide a multidisciplinary platform for health care providers to communicate about treatment plans for patients. TBMs improve patient care, treatment outcomes and, ultimately, patient satisfaction by facilitating information exchange and regular communication among all parties involved in a patient's treatment. This study describes the current status of case conference meetings in Rwanda including their structure, process and outcomes. Methods: The study included four hospitals providing cancer care in Rwanda. Data gathered included patients' diagnosis, number of attendance and pre-TBM treatment plan, as well as changes made during TBMs, including diagnostic and management plan changes. Results: From 128 meetings that took place at the time of the study, Rwanda Military Hospital hosted 45 (35%) meetings, King Faisal Hospital had 32 (25%), Butare University Teaching Hospital (CHUB) had 32 (25%) and Kigali University Teaching Hospital (CHUK) had 19 (15%). In all hospitals, General Surgery 69 (29%) was the leading speciality in presenting cases. The top three most presented disease site were head and neck 58 (24%), gastrointestinal 28 (16%) and cervix 28 (12%). Most (85% (202/239)) presented cases sought inputs from TBMs on management plan. On average, two oncologists, two general surgeons, one pathologist and one radiologist attended each meeting. Conclusion: TBMs in Rwanda are increasingly getting recognised by clinicians. To influence the quality of cancer care provided to Rwandans, it is crucial to build on this enthusiasm and enhance TBMs conduct and efficiency.

The first Choosing Wisely Africa conference: a roadmap to value-based cancer care in Africa (16th December 2022, Senegal).

The Choosing Wisely campaign was formally launched in 2012 and a decade later, the inaugural Choosing Wisely Africa conference was held in Dakar, Senegal on 16 December 2022 supported by ecancer. Academic partners included Ministere de la Sante et de I'Action Sociale, Senegalese Association of Palliative Care, Federation Internationale des Soins Palliatifs, Universite Cheikh Anta diop de Dakar, Societe Senegalaise de Cancerologie and King's College London. There were around 70 delegates attending in person mostly from Senegal and a further 30 joining virtually. Ten speakers gave insight into Choosing Wisely from an African perspective and Dr's Fabio Moraes and Frederic Ivan Ting shared the Choosing Wisely experience from Brazil and the Philippines, respectively. This report therefore shares the highlights of the first Choosing Wisely Africa conference guided by topics discussed.

Media coverage of cancer therapeutics: A review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Information and stories about cancer treatment are increasingly available to patients and the general public through lay media, websites, blogs and social media. While these resources may be helpful to supplement information provided during physician-patient discussions, there is growing concern about the extent to which media reports accurately reflect advances in cancer care. This review aimed to understand the landscape of published research which has described media coverage of cancer treatments. METHODS: This literature review included peer-reviewed primary research articles that reported how cancer treatments are portrayed in the lay media. A structured literature search of Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was performed. Potentially eligible articles were reviewed by three authors for inclusion. Three reviewers, each independently reviewed eligible studies; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included. The content of the eligible studies reflected two thematic categories: articles that reviewed specific drugs/cancer treatment (n = 7) and articles that described media coverage of cancer treatment in general terms (n = 7). Key findings include the media's frequent and unfounded use of superlatives and hype for new cancer treatments. Parallel to this, media reports over-emphasize potential treatment benefits and do not present a balanced view of risks of side effects, cost, and death. At a broad level, there is emerging evidence that media reporting of cancer treatments may directly impact patient care and policy-making. CONCLUSIONS: This review identifies problems in current media reports of new cancer advances - especially with undue use of superlatives and hype. Given the frequency with which patients access this information and the potential for it to influence policy, there is a need for additional research in this space in addition to educational interventions with health journalists. The oncology community - scientists and clinicians - must ensure that we are not contributing to these problems.

Pharmaceutical industry relationships with oncologists in sub-Saharan Africa.

Health-care systems in sub-Saharan Africa are considered to be new markets for pharmaceutical companies. This perception is particularly relevant within oncology, as the pharmaceutical industry has changed strategic priorities in the past 10 years to focus on cancer. Since the 1930s, pharmaceutical companies have used advertisements, sample drugs, gifts, paid speaking engagements, advisory boards, and trips to conferences to influence clinical practice and policy. A large amount of literature describes the commonness of these practices and their effects on the behaviour of doctors. However, these data come almost exclusively from high-income countries. Industry-doctor relationships are increasingly common in sub-Saharan Africa and other low-income and middle-income countries. Although there are undoubtedly risks of industry engagement in low-income and middle-income countries, many programmes with educational, research, and clinical value would not occur in these countries without industry support. Thus, what is known about these relationships in high-income countries will not necessarily apply in low-income and middle-income countries. There is a need for widespread discussion about industry-oncologist interactions across the African continent and context-specific data to understand the potential risks and benefits of these relationships.

An analysis of the African cancer research ecosystem: tackling disparities.

Disparities in cancer research persist around the world. This is especially true in global health research, where high-income countries (HICs) continue to set global health priorities further creating several imbalances in how research is conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cancer research disparities in Africa can be attributed to a vicious cycle of challenges in the research ecosystem ranging from who funds research, where research is conducted, who conducts it, what type of research is conducted and where and how it is disseminated. For example, the funding chasm between HICs and LMICs contributes to inequities and parachutism in cancer research. Breaking the current cancer research model necessitates a thorough examination of why current practices and norms exist and the identification of actionable ways to improve them. The cancer research agenda in Africa should be appropriate for the African nations and continent. Empowering African researchers and ensuring local autonomy are two critical steps in moving cancer research towards this new paradigm.

Human Papillomavirus-Associated Head and Neck Malignancies in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The proportion of head and neck cancers (HNCs) with human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is poorly characterized. Characterizing this has implications in staging, prognosis, resource allocation, and vaccination policies. This study aims to determine the proportion of HPV-associated HNC in SSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review included searches from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, African Index Medicus, Google Scholar, and African Journals Online. All English publications reporting the proportion of HNC specimens from SSA patients who tested positive for HPV and/or p16 were included. Study quality was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies. RESULTS: In this systematic review of 31 studies and 3,850 patients, the overall p16 positivity was 13.6% (41 of 1,037 patients tested) with the highest proportion among oropharyngeal cancers (20.3%, 78 of 384 patients) and the overall HPV polymerase chain reaction positivity was 15.3% (542 of 3,548 samples tested) with the highest proportion among nasopharyngeal cancers (16.5%, 23 of 139 patients). Among the 369 HPV strains detected, the most common genotypes were HPV 16 (226 patients, 59.2%) and HPV 18 (78, 20.4%). CONCLUSION: HPV was found to be associated with a significant proportion of HNC in SSA. The genotypes reported suggest that the nine-valent vaccine and gender-neutral vaccination policies should be considered. Given that these studies may not accurately capture prevalence nor causation of HPV in HNC subsites, additional research is needed to provide a more thorough epidemiologic understanding of HPV-associated HNC in SSA, including risk factors and clinical outcomes.

Assessing the utilization of cancer medicines in Rwanda: an analysis of treatment patterns.

Introduction: Cancer is a growing public health concern in Africa, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) like Rwanda. Increased cancer incidences translate into increased utilisation of cancer medicine. Access to affordable cancer medicines in Rwanda is a pressing issue as the National Health Insurance plan does not provide coverage for cancer medicines. In this study, we investigated the utilisation patterns of cancer medicines in Rwanda. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at all referral hospitals (n = 3) capable of delivering chemotherapy in Rwanda. The data collection was over a period of 6 months, during which a team of trained research assistants reviewed a convenience sample of selected patient charts. Both paper charts and electronic medical records were used to collect patients' data, including cancer type, stage, treatment setting, type of drugs or regimen used and completed cycles. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 630 patients received chemotherapy during the study period and were included. Seventy-seven percent (n = 486) were female and mean age was 51 (SD ± 13). Among all patients receiving chemotherapy, 43% (n = 270) had breast cancer, 22% (n = 140) had cervical cancer and 19% (n = 121) had colorectal cancer. The majority of patients (71%) had a community-based insurance. Butaro Cancer Centre treated the most patients (48%, n = 303). Thirty-six percent (221/630) had stage III cancer. The most common regimens within the cohort were adriamycin, cyclophosphamide and taxane, capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX), paclitaxel + carboplatin and a single agent cisplatin given concurrently with radiotherapy. The proportion of chemotherapy that was given in the curative and palliative setting was 72% and 28% respectively. Conclusion: Access to affordable cancer medicines remains a challenge in Rwanda. The study's findings provide valuable information on the utilisation patterns of cancer medicines in Rwanda, which can be used to guide policy decisions and improve cancer care in the country.

Participation of Lower and Upper Middle-Income Countries in Clinical Trials Led by High-Income Countries.

Importance: Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) led by high-income countries (HICs) now enroll patients from lower middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper middle-income countries (UMICs). Although enrolling diverse populations promotes research collaborations, there are issues regarding which countries participate in RCTs and how this participation may contribute to global research. Objective: To describe which UMICs and LMICs participate in RCTs led by HICs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of all oncology RCTs published globally during January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, was conducted. The study cohort was restricted to RCTs led by HICs that enrolled participants from LMICs and UMICs. Study analyses were conducted in November 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bibliometric approach (Web of Science 2007-2017) was used to explore whether RCT participation was proportional to other measures of cancer research activity. Participation in RCTs (ie, percentage of RCTs in the cohort in which each LMIC and UMIC participated) was compared with country-level cancer research bibliometric output (ie, percentage of total cancer research bibliometric output from the same group of countries that came from a specific LMIC and UMIC). Results: Among the 636 HIC-led RCTs, 186 trials (29%) enrolled patients in LMICs (n = 84 trials involving 11 LMICs) and/or UMICs (n = 181 trials involving 26 UMICs). The most common participating LMICs were India (42 [50%]), Ukraine (39 [46%]), Philippines (23 [27%]), and Egypt (12 [14%]). The most common participating UMICs were Russia (115 [64%]), Brazil (94 [52%]), Romania (62 [34%]), China (56 [31%]), Mexico (56 [31%]), and South Africa (54 [30%]). Several LMICs are overrepresented in the cohort of RCTs based on proportional cancer research bibliometric output: Ukraine (46% of RCTs but 2% of cancer research bibliometric output), Philippines (27% RCTs, 1% output), and Georgia (8% RCTs, 0.2% output). Overrepresented UMICs include Russia (64% RCTs, 2% output), Romania (34% RCTs, 2% output), Mexico (31% RCTs, 2% output), and South Africa (30% RCTs, 1% output). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of RCTs led by HICs enrolled patients in LMICs and UMICs. The LMICs and UMICs that participated in these trials did not match overall cancer bibliometric output as a surrogate for research ecosystem maturity. Reasons for this apparent discordance and how these data may inform future capacity-strengthening activities require further study.

Choosing Wisely Africa: Insights from the front lines of clinical care.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary Task Force of African oncologists and patient representatives published the Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) recommendations in 2020. These top 10 recommendations identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful practices that are frequently used in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In this study, we describe agreement and concordance with the recommendations from front-line oncologists across SSA. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the African Organization for Research & Training in Cancer (AORTIC) and oncology groups within SSA using a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their personal networks. The survey captured information about awareness of the CWA list, agreement with recommendations, and concordance with clinical practice. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study results. RESULTS: 52 individuals responded to the survey; 64% (33/52) were female and 58% (30/52) were clinical oncologists. Respondents represented 15 countries in SSA; 69% (36/52) practiced exclusively in the public system. Only 46% (24/52) were aware of the CWA list and 89% (46/52) agreed it would be helpful if the list was displayed in their clinic. There was generally a high agreement with the recommendations (range 84-98%); the highest agreement was related to staging/defining treatment intent (98%). The proportion of oncologists who implemented these recommendations in routine practice was somewhat lower (range 68-100%). Lowest rates of concordance related to: the use of shorter schedules of radiotherapy (67%); discussion of active surveillance forlow-risk prostate cancer (67%); only performing breast surgery for a mass that was proven to be malignant (70%); and seeking multidisciplinary input for curative intent treatment plans (73%). CONCLUSION: While most frontline SSA oncologists agree with CWA recommendations, efforts are needed to disseminate the list. Agreement with the recommendations is high but there are gaps in implementation in routine practice. Further work is needed to understand the barriers and enablers of implementation.