Sex and authorship in global cancer research

Introduction Research is an essential pillar of cancer control and key in shaping regional cancer control agendas. Imbalances in science and technology in terms of lack of female participation have been well documented. However, there is little evidence about country-level female participation in cancer research. Methodology Through a complex filter, cancer research papers were identified and grouped by countries and sex of the first and last authors of each paper and analysed by the percentage of females in these positions alongside other parameters. Results Our analysis of 56 countries’ outputs, in 2009, revealed that females were the first authors in 37.2% and last authors in 23.3% of papers. In 2019, females were the first author in 41.6% and last author in 29.4% of papers. Females increased as first authors by 26%, and as last authors by 12% between these two time periods. The top performing countries in terms female/male parity for first or last authorship were in Eastern and Southern Europe as well as Latin American countries.From 2009 to 2019, the highest proportion of females as first and last authors were from low-income and middle-income countries in Latin America and Eastern Europe.Females were more likely to publish in lower impact journals and were less likely to be cited compared to males. Conclusions Globally, progress in female’s authorship in oncology research has been uneven. More research is needed to understand the reasons behind this. Advancing diversity and equity in research leadership and authorship will be essential to address the complex challenges of cancer globally

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

Background: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. Results: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. Conclusion: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers

Early adoption of innovation in HPV prevention strategies: closing the gap in cervical cancer.

Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the highest prevailing causes of female cancer-related mortality globally. A significant discrepancy in incidence has been noted between high and low-middle-income countries. The origins of CC have been accredited to the human papillomavirus (HPV) with serotypes 16 and 18 being the most prevalent. HPV vaccines, with 90%-97% efficacy, have proven safe and currently function as the primary prevention method. In addition, secondary prevention by timely screening can potentially increase the 5-year survival rate by >90%. High-precision HPV DNA testing has proven to be both highly sensitive and specific for early detection and is advocated by the WHO. Lack of public awareness, poor screening infrastructure and access to vaccines, socio-cultural concerns, along with economic, workforce-associated barriers and the presence of marginalised communities unable to access services have contributed to a continued high incidence. This article comprehensively analyses the efficacy, coverage, benefits and cost-effectiveness of CC vaccines and screening strategies including the transition from cytological screening to HPV self-sampling, while simultaneously exploring the real-world disparities in their feasibility. Furthermore, it calls for the implementation of population-based approaches that address the obstacles faced in approaching the WHO 2030 targets for CC elimination. [Abstract copyright: © the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.

Quality indicators for systemic anticancer therapy services: a systematic review of metrics used to compare quality across healthcare facilities.

PURPOSE: The number of systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) regimens has expanded rapidly over the last decade. There is a need to ensure quality of SACT delivery across cancer services and systems in different resource settings to reduce morbidity, mortality, and detrimental economic impact at individual and systems level. Existing literature on SACT focuses on treatment efficacy with few studies on quality or how SACT is delivered within routine care in comparison to radiation and surgical oncology. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched and handsearching was undertaken to identify literature on existing quality indicators (QIs) that detect meaningful variations in the quality of SACT delivery across different healthcare facilities, regions, or countries. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: This review identified 63 distinct QIs from 15 papers. The majority were process QIs (n = 55, 87.3%) relating to appropriateness of treatment and guideline adherence (n = 28, 44.4%). There were few outcome QIs (n = 7, 11.1%) and only one structural QI (n = 1, 1.6%). Included studies solely focused on breast, colorectal, lung, and skin cancer. All but one studies were conducted in high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review highlight a significant lack of research on SACT QIs particularly those appropriate for resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries. This review should form the basis for future work in transforming performance measurement of SACT provision, through context-specific QI SACT development, validation, and implementation

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals

BACKGROUND: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. RESULTS: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. CONCLUSION: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers

ARCHERY: A Prospective Observational Study of Artificial Intelligence-Based Radiotherapy Treatment Planning for Cervical, Head and Neck and Prostate Cancer – Study Protocol

INTRODUCTION: Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy. METHODS: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners

Early adoption of innovation in HPV prevention strategies: closing the gap in cervical cancer

Cervical cancer (CC) is one of the highest prevailing causes of female cancer-related mortality globally. A significant discrepancy in incidence has been noted between high and low-middle-income countries. The origins of CC have been accredited to the human papillomavirus (HPV) with serotypes 16 and 18 being the most prevalent. HPV vaccines, with 90%-97% efficacy, have proven safe and currently function as the primary prevention method. In addition, secondary prevention by timely screening can potentially increase the 5-year survival rate by >90%. High-precision HPV DNA testing has proven to be both highly sensitive and specific for early detection and is advocated by the WHO. Lack of public awareness, poor screening infrastructure and access to vaccines, socio-cultural concerns, along with economic, workforce-associated barriers and the presence of marginalised communities unable to access services have contributed to a continued high incidence. This article comprehensively analyses the efficacy, coverage, benefits and cost-effectiveness of CC vaccines and screening strategies including the transition from cytological screening to HPV self-sampling, while simultaneously exploring the real-world disparities in their feasibility. Furthermore, it calls for the implementation of population-based approaches that address the obstacles faced in approaching the WHO 2030 targets for CC elimination

Global consultation on cancer staging: promoting consistent understanding and use

Disease burden is the most important determinant of survival in patients with cancer. This domain, reflected by the cancer stage and codified using the tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, is a fundamental determinant of prognosis. Accurate and consistent tumour classification is required for the development and use of treatment guidelines and to enable clinical research (including clinical trials), cancer surveillance and control. Furthermore, knowledge of the extent and stage of disease is frequently important in the context of translational studies. Attempts to include additional prognostic factors in staging classifications, in order to facilitate a more accurate determination of prognosis, are often made with a lack of knowledge and understanding and are one of the main causes of the inconsistent use of terms and definitions. This effect has resulted in uncertainty and confusion, thus limiting the utility of the TNM classification. In this Position paper, we provide a consensus on the optimal use and terminology for cancer staging that emerged from a consultation process involving representatives of several major international organizations involved in cancer classification. The consultation involved several steps: a focused literature review; a stakeholder survey; and a consultation meeting. This aim of this Position paper is to provide a consensus that should guide the use of staging terminology and secure the classification of anatomical disease extent as a distinct aspect of cancer classification

Global consultation on cancer staging: promoting consistent understanding and use

Disease burden is the most important determinant of survival in patients with cancer. This domain, reflected by the cancer stage and codified using the tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) classification, is a fundamental determinant of prognosis. Accurate and consistent tumour classification is required for the development and use of treatment guidelines and to enable clinical research (including clinical trials), cancer surveillance and control. Furthermore, knowledge of the extent and stage of disease is frequently important in the context of translational studies. Attempts to include additional prognostic factors in staging classifications, in order to facilitate a more accurate determination of prognosis, are often made with a lack of knowledge and understanding and are one of the main causes of the inconsistent use of terms and definitions. This effect has resulted in uncertainty and confusion, thus limiting the utility of the TNM classification. In this Position paper, we provide a consensus on the optimal use and terminology for cancer staging that emerged from a consultation process involving representatives of several major international organizations involved in cancer classification. The consultation involved several steps: a focused literature review; a stakeholder survey; and a consultation meeting. This aim of this Position paper is to provide a consensus that should guide the use of staging terminology and secure the classification of anatomical disease extent as a distinct aspect of cancer classification