Cancer disparities in Southeast Asia: intersectionality and a call to action.

Southeast Asia has a population of over 680 million people—approximately half the population of India and twice the population of the United States—and is a region marked by rich and complex histories and cultures, dynamic growth, and unique and evolving health challenges.1 Despite the momentum of economic development, health inequalities persist. These inequities have been aggravated since the COVID-19 pandemic, which pushed millions further into poverty, possibly exacerbating health disparities, especially among populations who suffer vulnerabilities.2 Particularly salient are the challenges associated with providing adequate care for people with cancer, a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the region.1,2 Cancer incidence and mortality in the region are projected to rise in the coming decades, given population growth and rapidly changing socioeconomic and geopolitical factors, as well as a host of interrelated and dynamic environmental, behavioral, and occupational risk factors.1, 2, 3 Large epidemiologic studies have demonstrated differences among Southeast Asian countries in terms of cancer incidence and mortality.3 Epidemiologic patterns can be attributed to variations in complex risk factors, access to screening and cancer care, and likely genetic predisposition.1, 2, 3 However, these differences also underscore that within each country exist richly diverse populations that experience disparities in cancer risk, screening, care access, outcomes, and survivorship in ways that require further examination. We draw attention to disparities in cancer in Southeast Asian countries. We highlight the need to study cancer disparities affecting minoritised groups in Southeast Asia—not only along lines of race/ethnicity, but also people minoritised along lines of sex/gender, socioeconomic status, religion, geography, and others. We highlight the intersectionality of elements of an individual's identity. Intersectionality, developed by critical race theorist Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, is an analytic framework borne out of Black American feminist scholarship, that examines how a person's sociopolitical identities lead to disparate balances of privilege and discrimination.4 An intersectional approach would demonstrate that an individual or a community does not only experience economic poverty as the sole barrier to improved health; such an approach would examine how other identities such as religion or immigration status affect access to care. These different social determinants of health are not mutually exclusive; their interrelationships are complex, with consequences for health.5 We leverage the intersectional approach, which parallels the inherently syncretic cultures and histories of Southeast Asian nations, and explore how these identities impact access to cancer care. Meaningful cancer research focusing on peoples of Southeast Asia could present many opportunities for intervention and improvement

Transcranial magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound pallidothalamic tractotomy for patients with X-linked dystonia-parkinsonism: a study protocol

Abstract Transcranial magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) is a noninvasive method for controlling tremor and has recently been used in patients with X-linked dystonia-parkinsonism (XDP). This study aims to determine the improvement in dystonia and parkinsonism in patients with XDP after MRgFUS pallidothalamic tractotomy. This prospective study will be conducted at the Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila. The primary outcome measure is the change in the pre- and post-treatment XDP-Movement Disorder Society of the Philippines Scale scores. In addition, demographic and clinical data will be collected, including the Burke-Fahn-Marsden Dystonia Rating Scale, Part III of the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson’s disease Rating Scale score, XDP clinical and functional stage, the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, MRgFUS treatment parameters, and adverse events. Patients will be assessed within 24 hours of treatment, then at 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months post-treatment. This protocol was approved by the University of the Philippines Manila Research Ethics Board (UPMREB 2022-0271-01). Data collection began in January 2023. This protocol has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: Trial Registration number: NCT05592028

Leveraging national and global political determinants of health to promote equity in cancer care

Health and politics are deeply intertwined. In the context of national and global cancer care delivery, political forces -the political determinants of health-influence every level of the cancer care continuum. We explore the "three-i" framework-which structures the upstream political forces that impact policy choices in the context of actors' interests, ideas, and institutions-to examine how political determinants of health underlie cancer disparities. Interests are "the agendas of societal groups, elected officials, civil servants, researchers, and policy entrepreneurs." Ideas manifest in "knowledge or beliefs about what is (eg, research knowledge), views about what ought to be (eg, values), or combinations of the two." And institutions are "the rules of the game." We provide examples from around the world. Political interests have helped to fuel the establishment of cancer centers in India and have galvanized the 2022 Cancer Moonshot in the United States. The politics of ideas underlie global disparities in cancer clinical trials, that is, in the distribution of epistemic power. Ideas also influence which interventions are tested in costly trials. Lastly, historical institutions have helped to perpetuate disparities related to racist and colonialist legacies. Current institutions have also been leveraged to improve access for those in greatest need, as exemplified by the experience in Rwanda. In providing these global examples, we demonstrate how interests, ideas, and institutions influence access to cancer care, across the breadth of the cancer continuum. We argue that these forces can be leveraged to promote cancer care equity nationally and globally

Leveraging National and Global Political Determinants of Health to Promote Equity in Cancer Care

Health and politics are deeply intertwined. In the context of national and global cancer care delivery, political forces-the political determinants of health-influence every level of the cancer care continuum. We explore the 3-I framework, which structures the upstream political forces that affect policy choices in the context of actors\u27 interests, ideas, and institutions, to examine how political determinants of health underlie cancer disparities. Borrowing from the work of PA Hall, M-P Pomey, CJ Ho, and other thinkers, interests are the agendas of individuals and groups in power. Ideas represent beliefs or knowledge about what is or what should be. Institutions define the rules of play. We provide examples from around the world: Political interests have helped fuel the establishment of cancer centers in India and have galvanized the 2022 Cancer Moonshot in the United States. The politics of ideas underlie global disparities in cancer clinical trials-that is, in the distribution of epistemic power. Finally, historical institutions have helped perpetuate disparities related to racist and colonialist legacies. Present institutions have also been used to improve access for those in greatest need, as exemplified by the Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence in Rwanda. In providing these global examples, we demonstrate how interests, ideas, and institutions influence access to cancer care across the breadth of the cancer continuum. We argue that these forces can be leveraged to promote cancer care equity nationally and globally

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

Critical care admission following elective surgery was not associated with survival benefit: prospective analysis of data from 27 countries

This was an investigator initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant, and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by RP. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London