Mentoring future Kenyan oncology researchers

This is a summary of the 1st Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) Oncology Institute research grant writing workshop organized in collaboration with the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) and held in Kisumu, Kenya from January 16th to 18th, 2013. The goal of this meeting was to mentor future Kenyan scientists and prioritize research topics that would lead to improved cancer care and survival for the citizens of Kenya

Global Health Equity: Cancer Care Outcome Disparities in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries

Breakthroughs in our global fight against cancer have been achieved. However, this progress has been unequal. In low- and middle-income countries and for specific populations in high-income settings, many of these advancements are but an aspiration and hope for the future. This review will focus on health disparities in cancer within and across countries, drawing from examples in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States. Placed in context with these examples, the authors also draw basic recommendations from several initiatives and groups that are working on the issue of global cancer disparities, including the US Institute of Medicine, the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, and the Union for International Cancer Control. From increasing initiatives in basic resources in low-income countries to rapid learning systems in high-income countries, the authors argue that beyond ethics and equity issues, it makes economic sense to invest in global cancer control, especially in low- and middle-income countries

Lay perceptions of breast cancer in Western Kenya

AIM: To explore lay perceptions of causes, severity, presenting symptoms and treatment of breast cancer. METHODS: In October-November 2012, we recruited men and women (18 years and older) from households and health facilities in three different parts of Western Kenya, chosen for variations in their documented burdens of breast cancer. A standardized and validated tool, the breast cancer awareness measure (BCAM), was administered in face-to-face interviews. Survey domains covered included socio-demographics, opinions about causes, symptoms, severity, and treatment of breast cancer. Descriptive analyses were done on quantitative data while open-ended answers were coded, and emerging themes were integrated into larger categories in a qualitative analysis. The open-ended questions had been added to the standard BCAM for the purposes of learning as much as the investigators could about underlying lay beliefs and perceptions. RESULTS: Most respondents were female, middle-aged (mean age 36.9 years), married, and poorly educated. Misconceptions and lack of knowledge about causes of breast cancer were reported. The following (in order of higher to lower prevalence) were cited as potential causes of the condition: Genetic factors or heredity (n = 193, 12.3%); types of food consumed (n = 187, 11.9%); witchcraft and curses (n = 108, 6.9%); some family planning methods (n = 56, 3.6%); and use of alcohol and tobacco (n = 46, 2.9%). When asked what they thought of breast cancer’s severity, the most popular response was “it is a killer disease” (n = 266, 19.7%) a lethal condition about which little or nothing can be done. While opinions about presenting symptoms and signs of breast cancer were able to be elicited, such as an increase in breast size and painful breasts, early-stage symptoms and signs were not widely recognized. Some respondents (14%) were ignorant of available treatment altogether while others felt breast cancer treatment is both dangerous and expensive. A minority reported alternative medicine as providing relief to patients. CONCLUSION: The impoverished knowledge in these surveys suggests that lay education as well as better screening and treatment should be part of breast cancer control in Kenya

Towards a unified approach for multiple myeloma care in Kenya - proceedings of the Inaugural Multiple Myeloma Congress

The rising burden of multiple myeloma in Kenya has not been met by a commensurate effort for control. Patients and practitioners struggle with unavailability and unaffordability of diagnostics, drugs and stem cell transplant leading to presentation at advanced stages and under-treatment with increased morbidities and mortality. A concerted effort among stakeholders is urgently needed to develop strategies for myeloma control. The scarcity of providers also carries grave consequences for Kenyan patients. The Academic Model Providing Access To Healthcare (AMPATH) multiple myeloma program organized the Inaugural Virtual Multiple Myeloma Congress to achieve both interactive specialist instruction and stakeholder engagement. Expert presenters and panellists from diverse disciplines were invited to offer in-depth presentations on myeloma care and case studies from panellists´ practice were used to contextualize learning points and form a basis for generating debate on the challenges facing providers and opportunities for care improvement. An audience of health professionals offering care to myeloma patients was invited. The underlying principle of recommendations developed during the congress was collaboration among in-country and international practitioners, researchers and policy experts from private and public sector. This partnership of stakeholders bears the potential of pooling scarce resources and for collective advocacy towards better patient care

Updating vital status by tracking in the community among patients with epidemic Kaposi sarcoma who are lost to follow-up in sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Throughout most of sub-Saharan Africa (and, indeed, most resource-limited areas), lack of death registries prohibits linkage of cancer diagnoses and precludes the most expeditious approach to determining cancer survival. Instead, estimation of cancer survival often uses clinical records, which have some mortality data but are replete with patients who are lost to follow-up (LTFU), some of which may be caused by undocumented death. The end result is that accurate estimation of cancer survival is rarely performed. A prominent example of a common cancer in Africa for which survival data are needed but for which frequent LTFU has precluded accurate estimation is Kaposi sarcoma (KS). METHODS: Using electronic records, we identified all newly diagnosed KS among HIV-infected adults at 33 primary care clinics in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, and Malawi from 2009 to 2012. We determined those patients who were apparently LTFU, defined as absent from clinic for ≥90 days at database closure and unknown to be dead or transferred. Using standardized protocols which included manual chart review, telephone calls, and physical tracking in the community, we attempted to update vital status amongst patients who were LTFU. RESULTS: We identified 1222 patients with KS, of whom 440 were LTFU according to electronic records. Manual chart review revealed that 18 (4.1%) were classified as LFTU due to clerical error, leaving 422 as truly LTFU. Of these 422, we updated vital status in 78%; manual chart review was responsible for updating in 5.7%, telephone calls in 26%, and physical tracking in 46%. Among 378 patients who consented at clinic enrollment to be tracked if they became LTFU and who had sufficient geographic contact/locator information, we updated vital status in 88%. Duration of LTFU was not associated with success of tracking, but tracking success was better in Kenya than the other sites. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to update vital status in a large fraction of patients with HIV-associated KS in sub-Saharan Africa who have become LTFU from clinical care. This finding likely applies to other cancers as well. Updating vital status amongst lost patients paves the way towards accurate determination of cancer survival

Global Health Equity: Cancer Care Outcome Disparities in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries

Breakthroughs in our global fight against cancer have been achieved. However, this progress has been unequal. In low- and middle-income countries and for specific populations in high-income settings, many of these advancements are but an aspiration and hope for the future. This review will focus on health disparities in cancer within and across countries, drawing from examples in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States. Placed in context with these examples, the authors also draw basic recommendations from several initiatives and groups that are working on the issue of global cancer disparities, including the US Institute of Medicine, the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, and the Union for International Cancer Control. From increasing initiatives in basic resources in low-income countries to rapid learning systems in high-income countries, the authors argue that beyond ethics and equity issues, it makes economic sense to invest in global cancer control, especially in low- and middle-income countries