Contingency planning for cancer care in low- and middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic : a rapid assessment for future disaster resilience

Q3Q3Background: Many countries appear to be ill-prepared in their emergency responses towards the Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly in managing chronic diseases such as cancer. We aimed to gain insight on the preparedness of health systems within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in maintaining delivery of cancer care amid the pandemic. Methods: We performed a rapid review of publications focusing on emergency contingency plans for cancer care during the pandemic in LMICs. An online desk research was conducted to identify relevant policy documents, guidelines or scientific publications. Results: Very few LMICs had readily accessible documents to ensure continuity in delivery of cancer care during the pandemic. A majority of publications were focused on delivery of cancer treatment whereas early detection, diagnosis and delivery of supportive and survivorship care received very little attention. Far fewer of the published guidelines appear to have been formulated at the national level by governmental agencies. A vast majority of publications constituted consensus guidelines from professional societies, followed by sharing of best practices from local institutions. Overall, three main strategies have been recommended to maintain delivery of cancer care amid the pandemic in LMICs: 1) Modification of cancer treatment regimens, 2) Changes in methods of administration of curative and supportive cancer care and 3) Implementation of generic measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infection in healthcare settings. Conclusion: All LMICs should consider collating best practices from the current pandemic and translating them into an explicit cancer preparedness plan, which can be escalated during future disasters.https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7187-9946https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4656-6064Revista Internacional - IndexadaBN

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

The predictive accuracy of PREDICT: A personalized decision-making tool for southeast Asian women with breast cancer

10.1097/MD.0000000000000593Medicine (United States)948e59

High-value breast cancer care within resource limitations

Breast cancer care is a costly global health issue where effective management depends on early detection and treatment. A breast cancer diagnosis can result in financial catastrophe especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Large inequities in breast cancer care are observed and represent a global challenge to caregivers and patients. Strategies to improve early diagnosis include awareness and clinical breast examination in LMIC, and screening in high-income countries (HIC). The use of clinical guidelines for the management of breast cancer is needed. Adapted guidelines from HIC can address disparities in populations with limited resources. Locally developed strategies still provide effective guidance in improving survival. Integrated practice units (IPU) with timely multidisciplinary breast care conferences and patient navigators are required to achieve high-value, personalized breast cancer management in HIC as well as LMIC. Breast cancer patient care should include a quality of life evaluation using ideally patient-reported outcomes (PROM) and experience measurements (PREM). Evaluation of breast cancer outcomes must include the financial cost of delivered care. The resulting value perspective should guide resource allocation and program priorities. The value of care must be improved by translating the findings of social and economic research into practice and resolving systemic inequity in clinical breast cancer research. Cancer survivorship programs must be put in place everywhere. The treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer must require more attention in the future, especially in LMIC

Attitudes and factors affecting acceptability of self-administered cervicovaginal sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping as an alternative to Pap testing among multiethnic Malaysian women.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the attitudes and acceptability of self-administered cervicovaginal sampling compared with conventional physician-acquired Papanicolaou (Pap) smear among multiethnic Malaysian women. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was carried out via interviewer-administered surveys from August 2013 through August 2015 at five government-run, urban health clinics in the state of Selangor. Subjects were participants from an ongoing community-based human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence study who answered a standard questionnaire before and after self-sampling. The cervicovaginal self-sampling for HPV genotyping was performed using a simple brush (\u27Just for Me\u27; Preventive Oncology International, Hong Kong). Detailed data on sociodemographics, previous Pap smear experience, and attitudes towards self-administered cervicovaginal sampling were collected and analysed. Acceptability was inferred using a five-item Likert scale that included six different subjective descriptives: experience, difficulty, convenience, embarrassment, discomfort or pain, and confidence in collecting one\u27s own sample. RESULTS: Of the 839 participants, 47.9% were Malays, followed by 30.8% Indians, 18.8% Chinese and 2.5% from other ethnicities. The median age of the participants was 38 years (IQR 30-48). Some 68.2% of participants indicated a preference for self-sampling over the Pap test, with 95% indicating willingness to follow-up a positive result at the hospital. Age, ethnicity and previous Pap test experience were significant independent factors associated with preference for self-sampling. The older the individual, the less likely they were to prefer self-sampling (adjusted OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.98). The Chinese were less likely to prefer self-sampling (72.6%) than the Malays (85.1%) (adjusted OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.98, p=0.004). Participants who had never undergone a Pap smear were also more likely to prefer self-sampling (88.5%) than women who had undergone a previous Pap (80.9%) (adjusted OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, urban Malaysian women from multiethnic backgrounds found self-sampling to be an acceptable alternative to Pap smear

Does the Axillary Lymph Node Ratio Have Any Added Prognostic Value over pN Staging for South East Asian Breast Cancer Patients?

10.1371/journal.pone.0045809PLoS ONE79

Time-dependent risk and predictors of venous thromboembolism in breast cancer patients: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication of cancer and its treatment. The current study assessed the risk and clinical predictors of VTE in breast cancer patients by time since diagnosis. METHODS: This Swedish population-based study included 8338 breast cancer patients diagnosed from 2001 to 2008 in the Stockholm-Gotland region with complete follow-up until 2012. Their incidence of VTE was compared with the incidence among 39,013 age-matched reference individuals from the general population. Cox and flexible parametric models were used to examine associations with patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, accounting for time-dependent effects. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 7.2 years, 426 breast cancer patients experienced a VTE event (cumulative incidence, 5.1%). The VTE incidence was 3-fold increased (hazard ratio [HR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.87-3.74) in comparison with the incidence in the general population and was highest 6 months after diagnosis (HR, 8.62; 95% CI, 6.56-11.33) with a sustained increase in risk thereafter (HR at 5 years, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.80-2.67). Independent predictors of VTE included the following: older age, being overweight, preexisting VTE, comorbid disease, tumor size > 40 mm, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative status, more than 4 affected lymph nodes, and receipt of chemo- and endocrine therapy. The impact of chemotherapy was limited to early-onset VTE, whereas comorbid disease and PR-negative status were more strongly associated with late-onset events. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the long-term risk of VTE in breast cancer patients and identifies a comprehensive set of clinical risk predictors. Temporal associations with patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics provide insight into the time-dependent etiology of VTE.Swedish Research CouncilFORTESwedish Cancer SocietyAccepte

Ethnic Differences in Survival after Breast Cancer in South East Asia

Background: The burden of breast cancer in Asia is escalating. We evaluated the impact of ethnicity on survival after breast cancer in the multi-ethnic region of South East Asia. Methodology/Principal Findings Using the Singapore-Malaysia hospital-based breast cancer registry, we analyzed the association between ethnicity and mortality following breast cancer in 5,264 patients diagnosed between 1990 and 2007 (Chinese: 71.6%, Malay: 18.4%, Indian: 10.0%). We compared survival rates between ethnic groups and calculated adjusted hazard ratios (HR) to estimate the independent effect of ethnicity on survival. Malays (n = 968) presented at a significantly younger age, with larger tumors, and at later stages than the Chinese and Indians. Malays were also more likely to have axillary lymph node metastasis at similar tumor sizes and to have hormone receptor negative and poorly differentiated tumors. Five year overall survival was highest in the Chinese women (75.8%; 95%CI: 74.4%–77.3%) followed by Indians (68.0%; 95%CI: 63.8%–72.2%), and Malays (58.5%; 95%CI: 55.2%–61.7%). Compared to the Chinese, Malay ethnicity was associated with significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.34; 95%CI: 1.19–1.51), independent of age, stage, tumor characteristics and treatment. Indian ethnicity was not significantly associated with risk of mortality after breast cancer compared to the Chinese (HR: 1.14; 95%CI: 0.98–1.34). Conclusion: In South East Asia, Malay ethnicity is independently associated with poorer survival after breast cancer. Research into underlying reasons, potentially including variations in tumor biology, psychosocial factors, treatment responsiveness and lifestyle after diagnosis, is warranted

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

Priorities for cancer research in low- and middle-income countries: a global perspective

Cancer research currently is heavily skewed toward high-income countries (HICs), with little research conducted in, and relevant to, the problems of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This regional discordance in cancer knowledge generation and application needs to be rebalanced. Several gaps in the research enterprise of LMICs need to be addressed to promote regionally relevant research, and radical rethinking is needed to address the burning issues in cancer care in these regions. We identified five top priorities in cancer research in LMICs based on current and projected needs: reducing the burden of patients with advanced disease; improving access and affordability, and outcomes of cancer treatment; value-based care and health economics; quality improvement and implementation research; and leveraging technology to improve cancer control. LMICs have an excellent opportunity to address important questions in cancer research that could impact cancer control globally. Success will require collaboration and commitment from governments, policy makers, funding agencies, health care organizations and leaders, researchers and the public