Displaying all 8 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Teoh SP, Hoo YY, Murillo R, Zuluaga M, Tsunoda A, Lombe D, et al.
    Ecancermedicalscience, 2022;16:1339.
    PMID: 35242220 DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2022.1339
    BACKGROUND: 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.

  2. Horton S, Camacho Rodriguez R, Anderson BO, Aung S, Awuah B, Delgado Pebé L, et al.
    Cancer, 2020 05 15;126 Suppl 10:2353-2364.
    PMID: 32348567 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32871
    The adoption of the goal of universal health coverage and the growing burden of cancer in low- and middle-income countries makes it important to consider how to provide cancer care. Specific interventions can strengthen health systems while providing cancer care within a resource-stratified perspective (similar to the World Health Organization-tiered approach). Four specific topics are discussed: essential medicines/essential diagnostics lists; national cancer plans; provision of affordable essential public services (either at no cost to users or through national health insurance); and finally, how a nascent breast cancer program can build on existing programs. A case study of Zambia (a country with a core level of resources for cancer care, using the Breast Health Global Initiative typology) shows how a breast cancer program was built on a cervical cancer program, which in turn had evolved from the HIV/AIDS program. A case study of Brazil (which has enhanced resources for cancer care) describes how access to breast cancer care evolved as universal health coverage expanded. A case study of Uruguay shows how breast cancer outcomes improved as the country shifted from a largely private system to a single-payer national health insurance system in the transition to becoming a country with maximal resources for cancer care. The final case study describes an exciting initiative, the City Cancer Challenge, and how that may lead to improved cancer services.
  3. Arrossi S, Temin S, Garland S, Eckert LO, Bhatla N, Castellsagué X, et al.
    J Glob Oncol, 2017 Oct;3(5):611-634.
    PMID: 29094100 DOI: 10.1200/JGO.2016.008151
    PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified (four tiers), evidence-based recommendations on the primary prevention of cervical cancer globally.

    METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of oncology, obstetrics/gynecology, public health, cancer control, epidemiology/biostatistics, health economics, behavioral/implementation science, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (consensus ratings group) for one round of formal ratings.

    RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from five guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations formed the evidence base. Five systematic reviews, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of ≥ 75%.

    RECOMMENDATIONS: In all resource settings, two doses of human papillomavirus vaccine are recommended for girls age 9 to 14 years, with an interval of at least 6 months and possibly up to 12 to 15 months. Individuals with HIV positivity should receive three doses. Maximal and enhanced settings: if girls are age ≥ 15 years and received their first dose before age 15 years, they may complete the series; if no doses were received before age 15 years, three doses should be administered; in both scenarios, vaccination may be through age 26 years. Limited and basic settings: if sufficient resources remain after vaccinating girls age 9 to 14 years, girls who received one dose may receive additional doses between age 15 and 26 years. Maximal, enhanced, and limited settings: if ≥ 50% coverage in the priority female target population, sufficient resources, and cost effectiveness, boys may be vaccinated to prevent other noncervical human papillomavirus-related cancers and diseases. Basic settings: vaccinating boys is not recommended.

    It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.

  4. Shastri SS, Temin S, Almonte M, Basu P, Campos NG, Gravitt PE, et al.
    JCO Glob Oncol, 2022 Sep;8:e2200217.
    PMID: 36162041 DOI: 10.1200/GO.22.00217
    PURPOSE: 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.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

  5. Yip CH, Cazap E, Anderson BO, Bright KL, Caleffi M, Cardoso F, et al.
    Breast, 2011 Apr;20 Suppl 2:S12-9.
    PMID: 21388811 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2011.02.015
    In middle resource countries (MRCs), cancer control programs are becoming a priority as the pattern of disease shifts from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases such as breast cancer, the most common cancer among women in MRCs. The Middle Resource Scenarios Working Group of the BHGI 2010 Global Summit met to identify common issues and obstacles to breast cancer detection, diagnosis and treatment in MRCs. They concluded that breast cancer early detection programs continue to be important, should include clinical breast examination (CBE) with or without mammography, and should be coupled with active awareness programs. Mammographic screening is usually opportunistic and early detection programs are often hampered by logistical and financial problems, as well as socio-cultural barriers, despite improved public educational efforts. Although multidisciplinary services for treatment are available, geographical and economic limitations to these services can lead to an inequity in health care access. Without adequate health insurance coverage, limited personal finances can be a significant barrier to care for many patients. Despite the improved availability of services (surgery, pathology, radiology and radiotherapy), quality assurance programs remain a challenge. Better access to anticancer drugs is needed to improve outcomes, as are rehabilitation programs for survivors. Focused and sustained government health care financing in MRCs is needed to improve early detection and treatment of breast cancer.
  6. Munksgaard NC, Kurita N, Sánchez-Murillo R, Ahmed N, Araguas L, Balachew DL, et al.
    Sci Rep, 2019 10 08;9(1):14419.
    PMID: 31595004 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-50973-9
    We present precipitation isotope data (δ2H and δ18O values) from 19 stations across the tropics collected from 2012 to 2017 under the Coordinated Research Project F31004 sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Rainfall samples were collected daily and analysed for stable isotopic ratios of oxygen and hydrogen by participating laboratories following a common analytical framework. We also calculated daily mean stratiform rainfall area fractions around each station over an area of 5° x 5° longitude/latitude based on TRMM/GPM satellite data. Isotope time series, along with information on rainfall amount and stratiform/convective proportions provide a valuable tool for rainfall characterisation and to improve the ability of isotope-enabled Global Circulation Models to predict variability and availability of inputs to fresh water resources across the tropics.
  7. Ginsburg O, Yip CH, Brooks A, Cabanes A, Caleffi M, Dunstan Yataco JA, et al.
    Cancer, 2020 May 15;126 Suppl 10(Suppl 10):2379-2393.
    PMID: 32348566 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32887
    When breast cancer is detected and treated early, the chances of survival are very high. However, women in many settings face complex barriers to early detection, including social, economic, geographic, and other interrelated factors, which can limit their access to timely, affordable, and effective breast health care services. Previously, the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) developed resource-stratified guidelines for the early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. In this consensus article from the sixth BHGI Global Summit held in October 2018, the authors describe phases of early detection program development, beginning with management strategies required for the diagnosis of clinically detectable disease based on awareness education and technical training, history and physical examination, and accurate tissue diagnosis. The core issues address include finance and governance, which pertain to successful planning, implementation, and the iterative process of program improvement and are needed for a breast cancer early detection program to succeed in any resource setting. Examples are presented of implementation, process, and clinical outcome metrics that assist in program implementation monitoring. Country case examples are presented to highlight the challenges and opportunities of implementing successful breast cancer early detection programs, and the complex interplay of barriers and facilitators to achieving early detection for breast cancer in real-world settings are considered.
  8. Huang J, Zagai U, Hallmans G, Nyrén O, Engstrand L, Stolzenberg-Solomon R, et al.
    Int J Cancer, 2017 Apr 15;140(8):1727-1735.
    PMID: 28032715 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30590
    The association between H. pylori infection and pancreatic cancer risk remains controversial. We conducted a nested case-control study with 448 pancreatic cancer cases and their individually matched control subjects, based on the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, to determine whether there was an altered pancreatic cancer risk associated with H. pylori infection and chronic corpus atrophic gastritis. Conditional logistic regression models were applied to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for matching factors and other potential confounders. Our results showed that pancreatic cancer risk was neither associated with H. pylori seropositivity (OR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.70, 1.31) nor CagA seropositivity (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.77, 1.48). We also did not find any excess risk among individuals seropositive for H. pylori but seronegative for CagA, compared with the group seronegative for both antibodies (OR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.38). However, we found that chronic corpus atrophic gastritis was non-significantly associated with an increased pancreatic cancer risk (OR = 1.35; 95% CI: 0.77, 2.37), and although based on small numbers, the excess risk was particularly marked among individuals seronegative for both H. pylori and CagA (OR = 5.66; 95% CI: 1.59, 20.19, p value for interaction 
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links