Engaging Patients for Clinical Trials in Africa: Patient-Centered Approaches

Clinical trials in oncology are an emergent field in sub-Saharan Africa. There is a long history of clinical trials in high-income countries (HICs), with increasing attempts to develop patient-centric approaches and to evaluate patient-centered outcomes. The challenge remains as to how these trends could be adopted in low-resource settings and adapted to best fit the different health ecosystems that coexist on the African continent. Models that evaluate patient-related outcomes and measures and that are used in HICs must be modified, adopted, and adapted to suit the diverse populations and the low-resource settings in most of the continent. Patient engagement in clinical trials in Africa must be well nuanced, and it demands innovation and application of models that consider established but tailored notions/principles of patient and community engagement and the unique sociocultural aspects of different populations. It also must be linked to strategies that aim to improve patient education, health literacy, and access to services and to encourage and protect patient autonomy

Innovative Use of mHealth and Clinical Technology for Oncology Clinical Trials in Africa

Utilization of clinical technology and mobile health (mHealth) is expanding globally. It is important to reflect on how their usage and application could translate in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings. With the exponential growth and advancements of mobile and wireless technologies, LMICs are prime to adapt such technologies to potentially democratize and create solutions to health-related challenges. The role of these technologies in oncology clinical trials continues to expand. The lure of mHealth promises disruptive technology that may change the way clinical trials are designed and conducted in many settings. Its applicability in the African context is currently under consideration. Although potentially of expanding benefit, the role of these technologies requires careful and nuanced evaluation of the context in which they might be applied to harness their full potential, while mitigating possible harms or preventing further deepening of disparities within populations. Moreover, technology and digital innovations are no substitute for poor referral pathways and dysfunctional health systems and can only complement or enhance definite strategies aimed at strengthening these health system

CA19-9 as a predictor of tumor response and survival in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine based chemotherapy

The aim of this study was to determine the predictive role of pretreatment carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) measurement and its change after one cycle of gemcitabine-based therapy for response, time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS).Analyses were derived from three consecutive gemcitabine-containing phase II clinical trials between 1997 and 2004.A total of 111 patients with pancreas cancer was studied. Baseline CA19-9 concentrations were dichotomized near the median. Lower baseline CA19-9 levels were positively associated with OS (median 9.1 vs 6.1 months, P  = 0.0057) and TTP (median 6.4 vs 4.2 months, P  = 0.0044).The covariate adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for progression among patients with baseline CA19-9 ≥ 1000 ng/mL was HR = 1.94 (95% CI 1.24–3.02), with P  = 0.0035. The covariate adjusted risk of death among patients with baseline CA19-9 ≥ 1000 ng/ml was similarly elevated: HR = 1.90 (95% CI 1.23–2.94), with P  = 0.0039. Change in CA19-9 levels from baseline to the end of treatment cycle 1 did not predict objective response ( P  = 0.75). There was somewhat longer OS (median 8.7 vs 7.1 months) and TTP (median 7.1 vs 5.4 months) in patients with ≥50% reduction in serum CA19-9 concentrations, but this was not statistically significant ( P  = 0.74 and 0.81, respectively).Baseline CA19-9 levels may predict survival in patients with advanced pancreas cancer. The change in CA19-9 levels determined within 1 month of the initiation of therapy did not predict treatment outcome.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/79310/1/j.1743-7563.2010.01290.x.pd

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

Dix conseils pour réussir la conception et la mise en œuvre d'un programme d’éducation médicale axée sur les compétences

Background: Globally there is a move to adopt competency-based medical education (CBME) at all levels of the medical training system. Implementation of a complex intervention such as CBME represents a marked paradigm shift involving multiple stakeholders. Methods: This article aims to share tips, based on review of the available literature and the authors’ experiences, that may help educators implementing CBME to more easily navigate this major undertaking and avoid “black ice” pitfalls that educators may encounter. Results: Careful planning prior to, during and post implementation will help programs transition successfully to CBME. Involvement of key stakeholders, such as trainees, teaching faculty, residency training committee members, and the program administrator, prior to and throughout implementation of CBME is critical. Careful and selective choice of key design elements including Entrustable Professional Activities, assessments and appropriate use of direct observation will enhance successful uptake of CBME. Pilot testing may help engage faculty and learners and identify logistical issues that may hinder implementation. Academic advisors, use of curriculum maps, and identifying and leveraging local resources may help facilitate implementation. Planned evaluation of CBME is important to ensure choices made during the design and implementation of CBME result in the desired outcomes. Conclusion: Although the transition to CBME is challenging, successful implementation can be facilitated by careful design and strategic planning.Contexte : Partout dans le monde, on observe une tendance en faveur de l’éducation médicale axée sur les compétences (EMAC) à tous les niveaux du système d’éducation médicale. Une intervention complexe comme l’élaboration d’un programme d’EMAC représente un important changement de paradigme qui nécessite l’implication de plusieurs parties prenantes. Méthode : L’objectif de cet article est de partager des conseils dégagés par les auteurs d’une revue de la littérature et de leur propre expérience afin d’aider les éducateurs à mieux s’orienter dans cette entreprise de taille qu’est la mise en œuvre de l’EMAC et à éviter les écueils. Résultats : Une planification minutieuse avant, pendant et après la transition des programmes vers l’EMAC contribue à garantir son succès. L'implication des principales parties prenantes, telles que les stagiaires, le corps enseignant, les membres du comité du programme de résidence et l'administrateur du programme, avant et pendant la mise en œuvre est essentielle. La sélection attentive des éléments clés, comme les activités professionnelles confiables, les évaluations et l'utilisation appropriée de l'observation directe, favorisera l'adoption de l’EMAC. Des tests pilotes peuvent permettre la participation du corps professoral et des apprenants, et à déceler les problèmes logistiques qui peuvent entraver la mise en œuvre. Les conseillers pédagogiques, le recours à la cartographie des programmes d'études et le repérage et la mobilisation de ressources locales peuvent faciliter la mise en œuvre des programmes d’EMAC. L’évaluation planifiée de ces programmes est importante pour garantir que les choix faits lors de leur conception et mise en œuvre aboutissent aux résultats souhaités. Conclusion : Puisque la transition vers l’EMAC peut comporter de nombreux défis, elle peut néanmoins être opérée avec succès grâce à une conception et une planification stratégique minutieuses

Participation of Lower and Upper Middle-Income Countries in Clinical Trials Led by High-Income Countries.

Importance: Many randomized clinical trials (RCTs) led by high-income countries (HICs) now enroll patients from lower middle-income countries (LMICs) and upper middle-income countries (UMICs). Although enrolling diverse populations promotes research collaborations, there are issues regarding which countries participate in RCTs and how this participation may contribute to global research. Objective: To describe which UMICs and LMICs participate in RCTs led by HICs. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study of all oncology RCTs published globally during January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017, was conducted. The study cohort was restricted to RCTs led by HICs that enrolled participants from LMICs and UMICs. Study analyses were conducted in November 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: A bibliometric approach (Web of Science 2007-2017) was used to explore whether RCT participation was proportional to other measures of cancer research activity. Participation in RCTs (ie, percentage of RCTs in the cohort in which each LMIC and UMIC participated) was compared with country-level cancer research bibliometric output (ie, percentage of total cancer research bibliometric output from the same group of countries that came from a specific LMIC and UMIC). Results: Among the 636 HIC-led RCTs, 186 trials (29%) enrolled patients in LMICs (n = 84 trials involving 11 LMICs) and/or UMICs (n = 181 trials involving 26 UMICs). The most common participating LMICs were India (42 [50%]), Ukraine (39 [46%]), Philippines (23 [27%]), and Egypt (12 [14%]). The most common participating UMICs were Russia (115 [64%]), Brazil (94 [52%]), Romania (62 [34%]), China (56 [31%]), Mexico (56 [31%]), and South Africa (54 [30%]). Several LMICs are overrepresented in the cohort of RCTs based on proportional cancer research bibliometric output: Ukraine (46% of RCTs but 2% of cancer research bibliometric output), Philippines (27% RCTs, 1% output), and Georgia (8% RCTs, 0.2% output). Overrepresented UMICs include Russia (64% RCTs, 2% output), Romania (34% RCTs, 2% output), Mexico (31% RCTs, 2% output), and South Africa (30% RCTs, 1% output). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, a substantial proportion of RCTs led by HICs enrolled patients in LMICs and UMICs. The LMICs and UMICs that participated in these trials did not match overall cancer bibliometric output as a surrogate for research ecosystem maturity. Reasons for this apparent discordance and how these data may inform future capacity-strengthening activities require further study

Allocation of authorship and patient enrollment among global clinical trials in oncology

BACKGROUND: Oncology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly global in scope. Whether authorship is equitably shared between investigators from high-income countries (HIC) and low-middle/upper-middle incomes countries (LMIC/UMIC) is not well described. The authors conducted this study to understand the allocation of authorship and patient enrollment across all oncology RCTs conducted globally. METHODS: A cross-sectional retrospective cohort study of phase 3 RCTs (published 2014-2017) that were led by investigators in HIC and recruited patients in LMIC/UMIC. FINDINGS: During 2014-2017, 694 oncology RCTs were published; 636 (92%) were led by investigators from HIC. Among these HIC-led trials, 186 (29%) enrolled patients in LMIC/UMIC. One-third (33%, 62 of 186) of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC. Forty percent (74 of 186) of RCTs reported patient enrollment by country; in 50% (37 of 74) of these trials, LMIC/UMIC contributed <15% of patients. The relationship between enrollment and authorship proportion is very strong and is comparable between LMIC/UMIC and HIC (Spearman's ρ LMIC/UMIC 0.824, p < .001; HIC 0.823, p < .001). Among the 74 trials that report country enrollment, 34% (25 of 74) have no authors from LMIC/UMIC. CONCLUSIONS: Among trials that enroll patients in HIC and LMIC/UMIC, authorship appears to be proportional to patient enrollment. This finding is limited by the fact that more than half of RCTs do not report enrollment by country. Moreover, there are important outliers as a significant proportion of RCTs had no authors from LMIC/UMIC despite enrolling patients in these countries. The findings in this study reflect a complex global RCT ecosystem that still underserves cancer control outside high-income settings

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

Characterization of the association between 8q24 and colon cancer: gene-environment exploration and meta-analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Genome-wide association studies and subsequent replication studies have shown that single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the chromosomal region 8q24 are associated with colorectal cancer susceptibility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined 11 SNP markers in the 8q24 region between 128.47 and 128.54 Mb, using a total of 1,987 colon cases and 2,339 controls who self-reported as white from two independent, well-characterized study populations. Analysis was performed separately within each study, and combined using random effects meta-analysis. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and to test for effect modification by known colon cancer risk factors. We also performed a meta-analysis combining our results with previous studies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We observed evidence of association for four SNPs in low to high linkage disequilibrium (r²ranging from 0.18 to 0.93) localized in a 16.2 kb region defined by rs10505477 and rs1056368. The combined results for our two studies of colon cancer showed an OR of 1.10 (95% CI: 1.01-1.20, P_trend= 0.023), and a meta-analysis of our results with previously reported studies of colon and colorectal cancer strongly support the association for this SNP (combined OR for rs6983267 = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.18-1.24, p = 5.5 × 10^-44). We did not observe any notable evidence of effect modification by known colon cancer risk factors, and risk did not differ significantly by tumor site or stage.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our study confirms the association between polymorphisms on chromosome 8q24 and colon cancer risk and suggests that the susceptibility locus in region 8q24 is not strongly modified by various lifestyle, environmental, and demographic risk factors for colon cancer.</p

Choosing Wisely—Barriers and Solutions to Implementation in Low and Middle-Income Countries

Globally, there is increasing emphasis on value-based cancer care. Rising healthcare costs and reduced health care spending and budgets, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), call for patients, providers, and healthcare systems to apply the Choose Wisely (CW) approach. This approach seeks to advance a dialogue on avoiding unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures. Several factors have been described as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Choosing Wisely recommendations in high-income countries but none for LMICs. In this review, we attempt to classify potential barriers to the Choose Wisely implementation relative to the sources of behavior and potential intervention functions that can be implemented in order to reduce these barriers