8 research outputs found

    Building Capacity for Cancer Research in the Era of COVID-19: Implementation and Results From an International Virtual Clinical Research Training Program in Zambia

    Get PDF
    DOI: 10.1200/GO.21.00372 JCO Global Oncology no. 8 (2022) Published online May 20, 2022. PMID: 35594499https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mozart/1024/thumbnail.jp

    Perspectives of Zambian Clinical Oncology Trainees in the MD Anderson and Zambia Virtual Clinical Research Training Program (MOZART)

    Get PDF
    Published in The Oncologist, 2022;, oyac110, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac110 PMID 35689473https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mozart/1025/thumbnail.jp

    Secondary Prevention of Cervical Cancer : ASCO Resource–Stratified Guideline Update

    Get PDF
    Q2Q2PURPOSE: To update resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on secondary prevention of cervical cancer globally. METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel to produce recommendations reflecting four resource-tiered settings. A review of existing guidelines, formal consensus-based process, and modified ADAPTE process to adapt existing guidelines was conducted. Other experts participated in formal consensus. RESULTS: This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five existing guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness analyses provided indirect evidence to inform consensus, which resulted in ≥ 75% agreement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is recommended in all resource settings; visual inspection with acetic acid may be used in basic settings. Recommended age ranges and frequencies vary by the following setting: maximal: age 25-65 years, every 5 years; enhanced: age 30-65 years, if two consecutive negative tests at 5-year intervals, then every 10 years; limited: age 30-49 years, every 10 years; basic: age 30-49 years, one to three times per lifetime. For basic settings, visual assessment is used to determine treatment eligibility; in other settings, genotyping with cytology or cytology alone is used to determine treatment. For basic settings, treatment is recommended if abnormal triage results are obtained; in other settings, abnormal triage results followed by colposcopy is recommended. For basic settings, treatment options are thermal ablation or loop electrosurgical excision procedure; for other settings, loop electrosurgical excision procedure or ablation is recommended; with a 12-month follow-up in all settings. Women who are HIV-positive should be screened with HPV testing after diagnosis, twice as many times per lifetime as the general population. Screening is recommended at 6 weeks postpartum in basic settings; in other settings, screening is recommended at 6 months. In basic settings without mass screening, infrastructure for HPV testing, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed.https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7187-9946Revista Internacional - IndexadaCN

    Research Types and Study Designs

    No full text
    What is research? What is data vs. information? Methodologies Video created as part of the MD Anderson and Zambia Clinical Research Training Program (MOZART).https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mozart/1002/thumbnail.jp

    Defining Essential Childhood Cancer Medicines to Inform Prioritization and Access:Results From an International, Cross-Sectional Survey

    Get PDF
    PURPOSE: Access to essential cancer medicines is a major determinant of childhood cancer outcomes globally. The degree to which pediatric oncologists deem medicines listed on WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) essential is unknown, as is the extent to which such medicines are accessible on the front lines of clinical care. METHODS: An electronic survey developed was distributed through the International Society of Pediatric Oncology mailing list to members from 87 countries. Respondents were asked to select 10 cancer medicines that would provide the greatest benefit to patients in their context; subsequent questions explored medicine availability and cost. Descriptive and bivariate statistics compared access to medicines between low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs). RESULTS: Among 159 respondents from 44 countries, 43 (27%) were from LMICs, 79 (50%) from UMICs, and 37 (23%) from HICs. The top five medicines were methotrexate (75%), vincristine (74%), doxorubicin (74%), cyclophosphamide (69%), and cytarabine (65%). Of the priority medicines identified, 87% (27 of 31) are represented on the 2021 EMLc and 77% (24 of 31) were common to the lists generated by LMIC, UMIC, and HIC respondents. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability for each of the top medicines ranged from 9% to 46% for LMIC, 25% to 89% for UMIC, and 67% to 100% for HIC. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was more common in LMIC (8%-20%), compared with UMIC (0%-28%) and HIC (0%). CONCLUSION: Most medicines that oncologists deem essential for childhood cancer treatment are currently included on the EMLc. Barriers remain in access to these medicines, characterized by gaps in availability and risks of catastrophic expenditure for families that are most pronounced in low-income settings but evident across all income contexts

    Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer researchers in 2020 : a qualitative study of events to inform mitigation strategies

    Get PDF
    Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on global health systems and economies. With ongoing and future challenges posed to the field due to the pandemic, re-examining research priorities has emerged as a concern. As part of a wider project aiming to examine research priorities, here we aimed to qualitatively examine the documented impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer researchers.Materials and Methods: We conducted a literature review with the aim of identifying non-peer-reviewed journalistic sources and institutional blog posts which qualitatively documented the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer researchers. We searched on 12th January 2021 using the LexisNexis database and Google, using terms and filters to identify English-language media reports and blogs, containing references to both COVID-19 and cancer research. The targeted search returned 751 results, of which 215 articles met the inclusion criteria. These 215 articles were subjected to a conventional qualitative content analysis, to document the impacts of the pandemic on the field of cancer research.Results: Our analysis yielded a high plurality of qualitatively documented impacts, from which seven categories of direct impacts emerged: (1) COVID measures halting cancer research activity entirely; (2) COVID measures limiting cancer research activity; (3) forced adaptation of research protocols; (4) impacts on cancer diagnosis, cases, and services; (5) availability of resources for cancer research; (6) disruption to the private sector; and (7) disruption to supply chains. Three categories of consequences from these impacts also emerged: (1) potential changes to future research practice; (2) delays to the progression of the field; and (3) potential new areas of research interest.Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic had extensive practical and economic effects on the field of cancer research in 2020 that were highly plural in nature. Appraisal of cancer research strategies in a post-COVID world should acknowledge the potential for substantial limitations (such as on financial resources, limited access to patients for research, decreased patient access to cancer care, staffing issues, administrative delays, or supply chain issues), exacerbated cancer disparities, advances in digital health, and new areas of research related to the intersection of cancer and COVID-19

    Mapping of Radiation Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology Services Available to Treat the Growing Burden of Cervical Cancer in Africa

    No full text
    Purpose: To meet the demand for cervical cancer care in Africa, access to surgical and radiation therapy services needs to be understood. We thus mapped the availability of gynecologic and radiation therapy equipment and staffing for treating cervical cancer. Methods and Materials: We collected data on gynecologic and radiation oncology staffing, equipment, and infrastructure capacities across Africa. Data was obtained from February to July 2021 through collaboration with international partners using Research Electronic Data Capture. Cancer incidence was taken from the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 database. Treatment capacity, including the numbers of radiation oncologists, radiation therapists, physicists, gynecologic oncologists, and hospitals performing gynecologic surgeries, was calculated per 1000 cervical cancer cases. Adequate capacity was defined as 2 radiation oncologists and 2 gynecologic oncologists per 1000 cervical cancer cases. Results: Forty-three of 54 African countries (79.6%) responded, and data were not reported for 11 countries (20.4%). Respondents from 31 countries (57.4%) reported access to specialist gynecologic oncology services, but staffing was adequate in only 11 countries (20.4%). Six countries (11%) reported that generalist obstetrician-gynecologists perform radical hysterectomies. Radiation oncologist access was available in 39 countries (72.2%), but staffing was adequate in only 16 countries (29.6%). Six countries (11%) had adequate staffing for both gynecologic and radiation oncology; 7 countries (13%) had no radiation or gynecologic oncologists. Access to external beam radiation therapy was available in 31 countries (57.4%), and access to brachytherapy was available in 25 countries (46.3%). The number of countries with training programs in gynecologic oncology, radiation oncology, medical physics, and radiation therapy were 14 (26%), 16 (30%), 11 (20%), and 17 (31%), respectively. Conclusions: We identified areas needing comprehensive cervical cancer care infrastructure, human resources, and training programs. There are major gaps in access to radiation oncologists and trained gynecologic oncologists in Africa.</p

    Mapping of Radiation Oncology and Gynecologic Oncology Services Available to Treat the Growing Burden of Cervical Cancer in Africa

    No full text
    Purpose: To meet the demand for cervical cancer care in Africa, access to surgical and radiation therapy services needs to be understood. We thus mapped the availability of gynecologic and radiation therapy equipment and staffing for treating cervical cancer. Methods and Materials: We collected data on gynecologic and radiation oncology staffing, equipment, and infrastructure capacities across Africa. Data was obtained from February to July 2021 through collaboration with international partners using Research Electronic Data Capture. Cancer incidence was taken from the International Agency for Research on Cancer's GLOBOCAN 2020 database. Treatment capacity, including the numbers of radiation oncologists, radiation therapists, physicists, gynecologic oncologists, and hospitals performing gynecologic surgeries, was calculated per 1000 cervical cancer cases. Adequate capacity was defined as 2 radiation oncologists and 2 gynecologic oncologists per 1000 cervical cancer cases. Results: Forty-three of 54 African countries (79.6%) responded, and data were not reported for 11 countries (20.4%). Respondents from 31 countries (57.4%) reported access to specialist gynecologic oncology services, but staffing was adequate in only 11 countries (20.4%). Six countries (11%) reported that generalist obstetrician-gynecologists perform radical hysterectomies. Radiation oncologist access was available in 39 countries (72.2%), but staffing was adequate in only 16 countries (29.6%). Six countries (11%) had adequate staffing for both gynecologic and radiation oncology; 7 countries (13%) had no radiation or gynecologic oncologists. Access to external beam radiation therapy was available in 31 countries (57.4%), and access to brachytherapy was available in 25 countries (46.3%). The number of countries with training programs in gynecologic oncology, radiation oncology, medical physics, and radiation therapy were 14 (26%), 16 (30%), 11 (20%), and 17 (31%), respectively. Conclusions: We identified areas needing comprehensive cervical cancer care infrastructure, human resources, and training programs. There are major gaps in access to radiation oncologists and trained gynecologic oncologists in Africa.</p
    corecore