Addressing challenges in low-income and middle-income countries through novel radiotherapy research opportunities.

Although radiotherapy continues to evolve as a mainstay of the oncological armamentarium, research and innovation in radiotherapy in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces challenges. This third Series paper examines the current state of LMIC radiotherapy research and provides new data from a 2022 survey undertaken by the International Atomic Energy Agency and new data on funding. In the context of LMIC-related challenges and impediments, we explore several developments and advances-such as deep phenotyping, real-time targeting, and artificial intelligence-to flag specific opportunities with applicability and relevance for resource-constrained settings. Given the pressing nature of cancer in LMICs, we also highlight some best practices and address the broader need to develop the research workforce of the future. This Series paper thereby serves as a resource for radiation professionals.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Global colorectal cancer research, 2007-2021: Outputs and funding.

The purpose of this study was to provide an evidence base for colorectal cancer research activity that might influence policy, mainly at the national level. Improvements in healthcare delivery have lengthened life expectancy, but within a situation of increased cancer incidence. The disease burden of CRC has risen significantly, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Research is key to its control and reduction, but few studies have delineated the volume and funding of global research on CRC. We identified research papers in the Web of Science (WoS) from 2007 to 2021, and determined the contributions of the leading countries, the research domains studied, and their sources of funding. We identified 62 716 papers, representing 5.7% of all cancer papers. This percentage was somewhat disproportionate to the disease burden (7.7% in 2015), especially in Eastern Europe. International collaboration increased over the time period in almost all countries except in China. Genetics, surgery and prognosis were the leading research domains. However, research on palliative care and quality-of-life in CRC was lacking. In Western Europe, the main funding source was the charity sector, particularly in the UK, but in most other countries government played the leading role, especially in China and the USA. There was little support from industry. Several Asian countries provided minimal contestable funding, which may have reduced the impact of their CRC research. Certain countries must perform more CRC research overall, especially in domains such as screening, palliative care and quality-of-life. The private-non-profit sector should be an alternative source of support.

Preparation of bibliometrics papers.

Suggestions are made on how to write papers on bibliometrics.

The contribution of Cyprus to non-communicable diseases and biomedical research from 2002 to 2013: implications for evidence-based health policy.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading causes of disease burden and mortality at the European level and in Cyprus. This research was conducted to map the research activities of Cypriot institutions in five NCDs, namely oncology, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, mental health and respiratory conditions. METHODS: For the period 2002-2013, research in Cyprus was assessed on its biomedical outputs and compared to the rest of Europe relative to their GDP. The research output in the five NCDs was obtained and contrasted to their respective disease burdens. The results from each of the five NCDs showed the amount of cross-country collaboration with other researchers from other European countries and from the rest of the world, and the research level of the papers on a clinical to basic scale. For each NCD field the research application was assessed, whereas for oncology the research type was also assessed. Information was collected on the development of clinical guidelines, on Cypriot newspapers reporting on medical and policy documents and advisory committees' output as well as research and funding organisations available in Cyprus, for potential evaluation of impact in health policy on the five NCDs. RESULTS: Cypriot biomedical research output appeared appropriate in volume compared with its wealth and the expected value from a regression line for other European countries. However, it was focused particularly on the molecular mechanisms of transmittable or hereditary diseases, rather than on the five NCDs. Cyprus performs well in palliative care, which receives funding from several local charities and other non-profit organisations. Cyprus has the highest relative burden from diabetes in Europe, but the subject is largely neglected by researchers. Similarly, it suffers more from mental disorders than most of the rest of Europe, but the amount of research is relatively small. Respiratory conditions research is under-funded and under-researched too. CONCLUSIONS: The biomedical research portfolio in Cyprus is adequate in volume, but not well fitted to its pattern of disease. The means whereby research can be used to improve healthcare in the country are also unsatisfactory, although the Ministry of Health is now developing a comprehensive plan which will include the development of clinical guidelines and proposals for the evaluation of how healthcare is delivered on the island.

Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. METHODS: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. DISCUSSION: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spectrum of MHD research funding activity across Europe, this project aims to develop a broad, high-level perspective to inform priority setting for future research.

Cancer research in India: national priorities, global results.

Over the past 20 years, cancer research in India has grown in size and impact. Clinicians, scientists, and government and state policy makers in India have championed cancer research, from studies to achieve low-tech, large-scale health outcomes to some of the most advanced areas of fundamental cancer science. In this paper, we frame public policy discussions about cancer with use of an in-depth analysis of research publications from India. Cancer research in India is a complex environment that needs to balance public policy across many competing agendas. We identify major needs across these environments such as those for increased research capacity and training and protected time for clinical researchers; for more support from states and enhanced collaborative funding programmes from government; for development of national infrastructures across a range of domains (ie, clinical trials, tissue banking, registries, etc); and for a streamlined and rational regulatory environment. We also discuss improvements that should be made to translate research into improvements in cancer outcomes and public health.

Gender inequity in cancer research leadership in Europe: Time to act.

AIM: Cancer is one of Europe's key research missions, with gender equity a major policy pillar. To benchmark how well European countries perform for gender balance in cancer research, high quality intelligence is required. METHODS: For cancer research papers in Europe (EUR31; the 28 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) from two specific years (2009 and 2019), we evaluated the numbers of female authors overall and then the female last-author presence, as a proxy of female cancer research leadership. RESULTS: Overall, female authorship increased from 42% to 49%. In 2009, females represented 50% or more of cancer research authors in only five EUR31 countries. By 2019, that number had risen to 17. In Eastern European (EE) countries, females were more likely to be in the majority. The presence of female cancer research authors in the last (senior) author position increased from 24% to 34%. Five of the top six countries for female authorship in 2019 were from EE, whereas disappointingly four central European countries (Austria (AT), Czechia (CZ), Germany (DE) and Switzerland (CH)) were below the 25th percentile. A number of European powerhouses of cancer research (UK, DE, CH) underperformed in terms of female cancer research leadership. However, when cancer researchers from these countries worked abroad (e.g. Scandinavia, USA) the percentage of females was similar to that of their host countries. A factor potentially influencing female cancer research participation was availability and relative cost of child-care, which is more favourable in Scandinavia and EE than in central/western Europe. CONCLUSION: Our data show that Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission must ensure gender equity in its future research programmes and support the enhancement of female cancer research leadership opportunities.

The state of research and development in global cancer surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform an analysis of global cancer surgery research and development trends over the last 10 years across 21 countries. BACKGROUND: Surgery is the main modality for cancer cure and control globally. Yet, in comparison to other areas such as cancer drugs, we know little about ongoing research activities to inform policymakers. METHODS: Two subfield filters, surgery research and oncology, were developed and applied to Web of Science. The intersection of these 2 filters identified papers in surgical oncology, and their bibliographic details were downloaded for analysis. This included matching of 5-year citation counts to the papers, impact factor, geographical analysis by country, translational collaboration, involvement in clinical trials, citation on clinical guidelines, and percentage of reviews. RESULT: Surgical oncology represents about 9% of all cancer research-low in comparison with surgery's contribution to cancer treatment. The US published the most, followed by Japan which had a high relative commitment to surgery within cancer research, followed by the large West European countries. Although Sweden's papers were relatively basic, it participated the most in clinical trials. Its papers were also the most cited on clinical guidelines, but contained relatively few reviews, where the UK, Greece, and Belgium scored best. Surgical oncology papers are generally not well cited compared with cancer research overall, but on this measure the Netherlands, the US, and Sweden scored best. International collaboration was measured relative to what might have been expected, on this indicator Canada, Switzerland, and the US were the best performers. CONCLUSIONS: Globally, low activity-low funding cycle needs to be addressed by new national and supranational policies to support surgical oncology research.

Cancer research across Africa: a comparative bibliometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Research is a critical pillar in national cancer control planning. However, there is a dearth of evidence for countries to implement affordable strategies. The WHO and various Commissions have recommended developing stakeholder-based needs assessments based on objective data to generate evidence to inform national and regional prioritisation of cancer research needs and goals. METHODOLOGY: Bibliometric algorithms (macros) were developed and validated to assess cancer research outputs of all 54 African countries over a 12-year period (2009-2020). Subanalysis included collaboration patterns, site and domain-specific focus of research and understanding authorship dynamics by both position and sex. Detailed subanalysis was performed to understand multiple impact metrics and context relative outputs in comparison with the disease burden as well as the application of a funding thesaurus to determine funding resources. RESULTS: African countries in total published 23 679 cancer research papers over the 12-year period (2009-2020) with the fractional African contribution totalling 16 201 papers and the remaining 7478 from authors from out with the continent. The total number of papers increased rapidly with time, with an annual growth rate of 15%. The 49 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries together published just 5281 papers, of which South Africa's contribution was 2206 (42% of the SSA total, 14% of all Africa) and Nigeria's contribution was 997 (19% of the SSA total, 4% of all Africa). Cancer research accounted for 7.9% of all African biomedical research outputs (African research in infectious diseases was 5.1 times than that of cancer research). Research outputs that are proportionally low relative to their burden across Africa are paediatric, cervical, oesophageal and prostate cancer. African research mirrored that of Western countries in terms of its focus on discovery science and pharmaceutical research. The percentages of female researchers in Africa were comparable with those elsewhere, but only in North African and some Anglophone countries. CONCLUSIONS: There is an imbalance in relevant local research generation on the continent and cancer control efforts. The recommendations articulated in our five-point plan arising from these data are broadly focused on structural changes, for example, overt inclusion of research into national cancer control planning and financial, for example, for countries to spend 10% of a notional 1% gross domestic expenditure on research and development on cancer.

Mental health disorders research in the countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), 2008-17, and the disease burden: Bibliometric study.

The 57 countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation are suffering from an increasing burden from mental health disorders. We investigated their research outputs during 2008-17 in the Web of Science in order to compare them with the burden from different mental health disorders and in different countries. The papers were identified with a complex filter based on title words and journals. Their addresses were parsed to give fractional country counts, show international collaboration, and also reveal country concentration on individual disorders and types of research. We found 17,920 papers in the decade, with output quadrupling. Foreign contributions accounted for 15% of addresses; they were from Europe (7%), Canada + USA (5%) and elsewhere (3%). They were much greater for Qatar and Uganda (> 60%), but less than 10% for Iran and Turkey. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were over-researched, but suicide and self-harm were seriously neglected, relative to their mental health disorder burdens. Although OIC research has been expanding rapidly, some countries have published little on this subject, perhaps because of stigma. Turkey collaborates relatively little internationally and as a result its papers received few citations. Among the large OIC countries, it has almost the highest relative mental health disorders burden, which is also growing rapidly.

Lung cancer research and its citation on clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The impact of medical research is usually judged on the basis of citations in the serial literature. A better test of its utility is through its contribution to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness. This study aimed to compare the parameters of lung cancer research papers with those cited as references in lung cancer CPGs from 16 countries, and the Cochrane Collaboration. These comparisons were mainly based on bibliographic data compiled from the Web of Science (WoS). METHODOLOGY: We examined 7357 references (of which 4491 were unique) cited in a total of 77 lung cancer CPGs, and compared them with 73,214 lung cancer papers published in the WoS between 2004 and 2018. RESULTS: References used by lung CPGs were much more clinical than the overall body of research papers on this cancer, and their authors predominantly came from smaller northern European countries. However, the leading institutions whose papers were cited the most on these CPGs were from the USA, notably the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The types of research cited by the CPGs were primarily clinical trials, as well as three treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery). Genetics, palliative care and quality of life were largely neglected. The median time gap between papers cited on a lung CPG and its publication was 3.5 years longer than for WoS citations. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the references on CPGs allows an alternative means of research evaluation, and one that may be more appropriate for clinical research than citations in academic journals. Own-country references show the direct contribution of research to a country's health care, and other-country references show the esteem in which this research has been held internationally.

Cancer Research in the Time of COVID-19: A Colombian Narrative.

Cancer research is deficient in Colombia and efforts and resources diverted due to the COVID-19 pandemic could worsen the situation. We explore the impact of the pandemic on cancer research funding, output, and conduct. We sought information at national level and used the experience of an academic reference center to contrast the impact at institutional level. We searched databases and official documents of national governmental institutions, trial registries, hospital registries, and the Web of Science. We interviewed principal investigators (PIs) to retrieve information on the conduct of cancer research. A decline in resource availability and new proposals was observed at the national level with a shift to COVID-19 related research. However, at institutional level there was no decline in the number of cancer research proposals. The predominance of observational studies as opposed to the preponderance of clinical trials and basic science in high-income countries may be related to the lower impact at institutional level. Nevertheless, we found difficulties similar to previous reports for conducting research during the pandemic. PIs reported long recovery times and a great impact on research other than clinical trials, such as observational and qualitative studies. No significant impact on research output was observed. Alternatives to ensure research continuity such as telemedicine and remote data collection have scarcely been implemented given limited access and low technology literacy. In this middle-income setting the situation shows a notable dependency of international collaborations to develop research on COVID-19 and cancer and to overcome challenges for cancer research during the pandemic.

Global cancer research in the era of COVID-19: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer across the world have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased risk of infection and disruption to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Widening of healthcare disparities is expected as the gap between health systems with and without adequate resources to mitigate the pandemic become more apparent. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of research related to cancer and COVID-19 to understand (1) the type of research that has been conducted (e.g. patients, services and systems) and (2) whether the pandemic has impacted the state of global cancer research as measured by research outputs to date. METHODS: An existing filter for cancer research consisting of title words and the names of specialist cancer journals was used to identify cancer and COVID-19 related articles and reviews in the Web of Science (©Clarivate Analytics) between January 2019 and February 2021. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and forty-five publications were identified. The majority (57%) were reviews, opinion pieces or concerned with modelling impact of delays to diagnosis and treatment. The main research domains focused on managing or estimating COVID-19 risk to cancer patients accounting for 384 papers (25%). High Income countries contributed the largest volume (n = 1,115; 72%), compared to Upper Middle (n = 302; 20%), Lower Middle (n = 122; 8%) and Low Income countries (n = 2.4; 0.2%). No evidence of a reduction in global cancer research output was observed in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a shift in research focus rather than a decline in absolute output. However, there is variation based on national income and collaborations are minimal. There has been a focus on pan-cancer studies rather than cancer site-specific studies. Strengthening global multidisciplinary research partnerships with teams from diverse backgrounds with regard to gender, clinical expertise and resource setting is essential to prevent the widening of cancer inequalities.

Chinese Cancer Research in 2009-18 and the Disease Burden.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the correlation of cancer research in China with its disease burden and national or provincial wealth. We also compared China's research output with that of other Asian countries. METHODS: Chinese publications on cancer research for 2009-18 were retrieved from the Web of Science with a special filter giving high precision and recall. Their volume relative to gross domestic product (GDP) was compared with those of 14 Asian countries, and provincial outputs with provincial GDPs. Their distribution by anatomical site was compared with China's disease burden, and by research type with that of Europe. RESULTS: Chinese cancer research publications (including those from Taiwan) have grown rapidly in the last 10 years, and overtook those of the USA in 2018. Relative to other Asian countries, Chinese output was approximately proportionate to its wealth. Relative to its cancer burden (as a percentage of the total disease burden), China published an appropriate amount of cancer research in 2009-13, but almost one-third more in 2014-18. Its distribution between the provinces reflected their wealth, but with comparatively greater outputs from Beijing and Shanghai. The distribution of China's cancer research portfolio by anatomical site corresponded to its disease burden quite well, with a heavy emphasis on liver and stomach cancer. However, China did relatively less research on screening, diagnosis, palliative care, or quality of life. CONCLUSION: The national and provincial cancer research in China in the past 10 years correlated relatively well with its disease burden and economic level, but over-emphasised basic research compared with prevention, screening and end-of-life care.

Assessing the European impact of alcohol misuse and illicit drug dependence research: clinical practice guidelines and evidence-base policy.

BACKGROUND: Despite alcohol and illicit drug dependence being one of the most common diagnoses in Europe, there is heterogeneity of research evidence used in policy and practice. OBJECTIVE: We sought to (1) evaluate European research outputs on alcohol misuse and drug addiction in 2002-2018 in the Web of Science, (2) compare these with their burden of disease and (3) determine their impact in several ways. METHODS: A bibliometric research was undertaken including an assessment of the citation counts, the influence of research on members of national health advisory committees, and their contribution to the evidence base of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). FINDINGS: There were 3201 analysed references cited in 28 CPGs across 11 European Countries on alcohol misuse and illicit drug abuse. Research conducted in the USA dominated both sets of CPGs, while many European countries were overcited relative to their research presence. The illicit drug research appeared to be adequate relative to the evidence of harm in Europe. However, alcohol misuse research appeared grossly inadequate to the harm it causes by a factor of 20. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of research on illicit drug addiction is commensurate to the European burden, whereas alcohol misuse is far below what is needed to curb a significant source of harm. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The research asymmetries call for attention to the causes of the problem. Development of research-based solutions to a serious social harm is needed, including minimum pricing and collaborative work to harmonise efforts on disease management and treatment practices across European countries.

Analysis of Global Pediatric Cancer Research and Publications.

This study sought to investigate the amount of global research activity and investment in pediatric cancer research, using publications as a proxy measure, and to understand geographical differences in research activity. To do this, we used a quantitative method-bibliometrics-to analyze Web of Science publications in the 10 years from 2007 to 2016. We found that global pediatric cancer research outputs have increased from 2,937 in 2007 to 4,513 in 2016, at an annual growth rate of 4.3%. This rate is slower than for both cancer research as a whole and general pediatric research. The increase in output was due almost entirely to China. International collaboration was similar to that in cancer research overall, with the highest levels among countries in close geographical proximity. Hematological and CNS childhood cancers are the main areas for research. Genetics and prognosis were the main research domains, and there was little work on radiotherapy or palliative care. In terms of citations, the best-performing countries were the Netherlands, the United States, and the United Kingdom. On the basis of estimates of the cost of research papers in different countries, the total world pediatric cancer research expenditure is estimated to have been 1.54 billion US dollars (USD) in 2013, and 1.79 billion USD in 2016. Our data suggest that current global policy toward pediatric cancer needs significant review and change to increase investments, balance research portfolios, and improve research that is relevant to low- and middle-income countries.