Women, power, and cancer: a Lancet Commission

Women interact with cancer in complex ways, as healthy individuals participating in cancer prevention and screening activities, as individuals living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis, as caregivers for family members and friends, as patient advocates, as health workers and healthcare professionals, and as cancer researchers and policy makers. The topic of women and cancer spans broad terrain, beyond women’s cancers and the biomedical aspects of any type of cancer that women in all their diversities might experience. It is inclusive of the ways in which sex and gender influence exposures to cancer risk factors, interactions with the cancer health system, and specific challenges faced by health-care professionals, advocates, and caregivers. In all these domains, women experience gender bias, and are subject to overlapping forms of discrimination, such as due to age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, that render them structurally marginalised. These myriad factors can intersect and restrict a woman’s rights and opportunities to avoid modifiable cancer risks and impede their ability to seek and obtain a prompt diagnosis and quality cancer care. At the same time, they serve to unfairly burden and perpetuate an unpaid cancer caregiver workforce that is predominantly female, and hinder women’s professional advancement as leaders in cancer research, practice, and policy making. Howeve

Quantitative estimates of preventable and treatable deaths from 36 cancers worldwide: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of premature mortality globally. This study estimates premature deaths at ages 30-69 years and distinguishes these as deaths that are preventable (avertable through primary or secondary prevention) or treatable (avertable through curative treatment) in 185 countries worldwide. METHODS: For this population-based study, estimated cancer deaths by country, cancer, sex, and age groups were retrieved from the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 database. Crude and age-adjusted cancer-specific years of life lost (YLLs) were calculated for 36 cancer types. FINDINGS: Of the estimated all-ages cancer burden of 265·6 million YLLs, 182·8 million (68·8%) YLLs were due to premature deaths from cancer globally in 2020, with 124·3 million (68·0%) preventable and 58·5 million (32·0%) treatable. Countries with low, medium, or high human development index (HDI) levels all had greater proportions of YLLs at premature ages than very high HDI countries (68·9%, 77·0%, and 72·2% vs 57·7%, respectively). Lung cancer was the leading contributor to preventable premature YLLs in medium to very high HDI countries (17·4% of all cancers, or 29·7 million of 171·3 million YLLs), whereas cervical cancer led in low HDI countries (26·3% of all preventable cancers, or 1·83 million of 6·93 million YLLs). Colorectal and breast cancers were major treatable cancers across all four tiers of HDI (25·5% of all treatable cancers in combination, or 14·9 million of 58·5 million YLLs). INTERPRETATION: Alongside tailored programmes of early diagnosis and screening linked to timely and comprehensive treatment, greater investments in risk factor reduction and vaccination are needed to address premature cancer inequalities. FUNDING: Erasmus Mundus Exchange Programme and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. TRANSLATIONS: For the German, French, Spanish and Chinese translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section

Conceptual Framework to Guide Early Diagnosis Programs for Symptomatic Cancer as Part of Global Cancer Control.

Diagnosing cancer earlier can enable timely treatment and optimize outcomes. Worldwide, national cancer control plans increasingly encompass early diagnosis programs for symptomatic patients, commonly comprising awareness campaigns to encourage prompt help-seeking for possible cancer symptoms and health system policies to support prompt diagnostic assessment and access to treatment. By their nature, early diagnosis programs involve complex public health interventions aiming to address unmet health needs by acting on patient, clinical, and system factors. However, there is uncertainty regarding how to optimize the design and evaluation of such interventions. We propose that decisions about early diagnosis programs should consider four interrelated components: first, the conduct of a needs assessment (based on cancer-site-specific statistics) to identify the cancers that may benefit most from early diagnosis in the target population; second, the consideration of symptom epidemiology to inform prioritization within an intervention; third, the identification of factors influencing prompt help-seeking at individual and system level to support the design and evaluation of interventions; and finally, the evaluation of factors influencing the health systems' capacity to promptly assess patients. This conceptual framework can be used by public health researchers and policy makers to identify the greatest evidence gaps and guide the design and evaluation of local early diagnosis programs as part of broader cancer control strategies

Conceptual Framework to Guide Early Diagnosis Programs for Symptomatic Cancer as Part of Global Cancer Control

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research arises from the CanTest Collaborative, which is funded by Cancer Research UK (C8640/A23385), of which MMK and NC are Postdoctoral Researchers, GL is Associate Director, GPR is Chair and FMW is Director. GL is supported by Cancer Research UK Clinician Advanced Scientist Fellowship (grant number: C18081/A18180). The funder has had no role in the study, writing of the report, or decision to submit the paper for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Implementation of a large-scale breast cancer early detection program in a resource-constrained setting: real-world experiences from 2 large states in India

Background: The Breast Health Initiative (BHI) was launched to demonstrate a scalable model to improve access to early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. Methods: A package of evidence-based interventions was codesigned and implemented with the stakeholders, as part of the national noncommunicable disease program, through the existing primary health care system. Data from the first 18 months of the BHI are presented. Results: A total of 108,112 women received breast health education; 48% visited the health facilities for clinical breast examination (CBE), 3% had a positive CBE result, and 41% were referred to a diagnostic facility. The concordance of CBE findings between health care providers and adherence to follow-up care improved considerably, with more women visiting the diagnostic facilities and completing diagnostic evaluation within 1 month from initial screening, and with only 9% lost to follow-up. The authors observed a clinically meaningful decrease in time to complete diagnostic evaluation with biopsy, from 37 to 9 days. Conclusions: The results demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of implementing a large-scale, decentralized breast cancer early detection program delivered through the existing primary health care system in India

Barriers to family history collection among Spanish-speaking primary care patients: a BRIDGE qualitative study

Objects: Family history is an important tool for assessing disease risk, and tailoring recommendations for screening and genetic services referral. This study explored barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients. Methods: This qualitative study was conducted in two US healthcare systems. We conducted semi-structured interviews with medical assistants, physicians, and interpreters with experience collecting family history for Spanish-speaking patients. Results: The most common patient-level barrier was the perception that some Spanish-speaking patients had limited knowledge of family history. Interpersonal communication barriers related to dialectical differences and decisions about using formal interpreters vs. Spanish-speaking staff. Organizational barriers included time pressures related to using interpreters, and ad hoc workflow adaptations for Spanish-speaking patients that might leave gaps in family history collection. Conclusions: This study identified multi-level barriers to family history collection with Spanish-speaking patients in primary care. Findings suggest that a key priority to enhance communication would be to standardize processes for working with interpreters. Innovation: To improve communication with and care provided to Spanish-speaking patients, there is a need to increase healthcare provider awareness about implicit bias, to address ad hoc workflow adjustments within practice settings, to evaluate the need for professional interpreter services, and to improve digital tools to facilitate family history collection

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis

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