Methodology: We identified all cancer research papers from OIC countries in the Web of Science from 2008 to 2017 with a filter based on journal names and title words, with high precision and recall. We analysed the country outputs, the cancer sites investigated, the types of research, sources of funding and the citations to the papers.

Results: There were 49,712 cancer research papers over this period. The leading countries in terms of output were Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Malaysia, but the most cited papers were from Qatar, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. International collaboration was low, except in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. The site-specific cancers accounting for most research were breast and blood, correlating with their disease burden in the OIC countries, but lung, cervical and oesophageal cancers were relatively under-researched. Most funding from within the OIC countries was from their own university sector.

Methods: This study employed a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with key opinion leaders from 14 countries. The participants were predominantly members of the International COVID-19 and Cancer Taskforce, who convened in March 2020 to address delivery of cancer care in the context of the pandemic. The Framework Method was employed to analyse the positive changes of the pandemic with corresponding challenges to their maintenance post-pandemic.

Results: Ten themes of positive changes were identified which included: value in cancer care, digital communication, convenience, inclusivity and cooperation, decentralisation of cancer care, acceleration of policy change, human interactions, hygiene practices, health awareness and promotion and systems improvement. Impediments to the scale-up of these positive changes included resource disparities and variation in legal frameworks across regions. Barriers were largely attributed to behaviours and attitudes of stakeholders.

METHODS AND MATERIALS: This retrospective cohort study identified all phase three RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. RCTs were classified according to anticancer modality and country of origin. Descriptive statistics were used to compare key characteristics of radiotherapy RCT studies according to study design characteristics, tumor types evaluated, types of intervention appraised, treatment intent and main funding sources.

RESULTS: The study cohort included 694 RCTs of which 64 were radiotherapy RCTs (9%) compared to 601 (87%) systemic therapy RCTs. 47% of all radiotherapy RCTs focused on two areas of evaluation; combining radiotherapy with systemic agents (25%) and changes in dose fractionation (22%). The most common cancers studied were head and neck (22%), lung (22%) and breast (14%) with cervical cancer trials only representing 3% of the cohort. 33% of radiotherapy RCTs met their primary end point. 62% of radiotherapy RCTs assessed interventions in the curative setting compared to 31% in systemic therapy RCTs. 77% of the radiotherapy RCTs were performed in high-income countries (HIC), 13% in low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC) and 11% in both HIC and LMICs. 17% of radiotherapy RCTs received funding from industry compared to 79% of systemic therapy RCTs.

METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.

RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).