ObjectiveTo evaluate medical resource utilisation and timeliness of access to specific aspects of a standard care pathway for breast cancer at tertiary centres in sub-Saharan Africa.DesignData were retrospectively abstracted from records of patients with breast cancer treated within a prespecified 2-year period between 2014 and 2017. The study protocol was approved by local institutional review boards.SettingSix tertiary care institutions in Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria were included.ParticipantsHealth records of 862 patients with breast cancer were analysed: 299 in Ghana; 314 in Kenya; and 249 in Nigeria.InterventionsAs directed by the treating physician.Outcome measuresParameters selected for evaluation included healthcare resource and use, medical procedure turnaround times and out-of-pocket (OOP) payment patterns.ResultsUse of mammography or breast ultrasonography was <45% in all three countries. Across the three countries, 78%–88% of patients completed tests for hormone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Most patients underwent mastectomy (64%–67%) or breast-conserving surgery (15%–26%). Turnaround times for key procedures, such as pathology, surgery and systemic therapy, ranged from 1 to 5 months. In Ghana and Nigeria, most patients (87%–93%) paid for diagnostic tests entirely OOP versus 30%–32% in Kenya. Similarly, proportions of patients paying OOP only for treatments were high: 45%–79% in Ghana, 8%–20% in Kenya and 72%–89% in Nigeria. Among patients receiving HER2-targeted therapy, the average number of cycles was five for those paying OOP only versus 14 for those with some insurance coverage.ConclusionsPatients with breast cancer treated in tertiary facilities in sub-Saharan Africa lack access to timely diagnosis and modern systemic therapies. Most patients in Ghana and Nigeria bore the full cost of their healthcare and were more likely to be employed and have secondary or postsecondary education. Access to screening/diagnosis and appropriate care is likely to be substantively lower for the general population.

6562 Background: Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed malignancy and the most common cause of cancer-related death in women in Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria. We evaluated healthcare resource use and financial burden for patients treated at tertiary cancer centers in these countries. Methods: Records of breast cancer patients treated at the following government/private tertiary centers were included – Ghana: Korle-Bu Teaching Hospital and Sweden Ghana Medical Centre; Kenya: Kenyatta National Hospital and Aga Khan University Hospital; Nigeria: National Hospital Abuja and Lakeshore Cancer Center. Patients presenting within a prespecified 2-year period were followed until death or loss to follow-up. Results: The study included 299 patient records from Ghana, 314 from Kenya, and 249 from Nigeria. The use of common screening modalities (eg, mammogram, breast ultrasound) was < 45% in all 3 countries. Use of core needle biopsy was 76% in Kenya and Nigeria, but only 50% in Ghana. Across the 3 countries, 91-98% of patients completed blood count/chemistry, whereas only 78-88% completed tests for hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Most patients underwent surgery: mastectomy (64-67%) or breast-conserving Most patients in Ghana and Nigeria (87-93%) paid for their diagnostic tests entirely out of pocket (OOP) compared with 30-32% in Kenya. Similar to diagnostic testing, the proportion of patients paying OOP only for treatments was high: 72-89% in Nigeria, 45-79% in Ghana, and 8-20% in Kenya. Among those receiving HER2-targeted therapy, average number of cycles was 5 for patients paying OOP only vs 14 for patients with some level of insurance coverage. Conclusions: Patients treated in tertiary facilities in sub-Saharan African countries lack access to common imaging modalities and systemic therapies. Most patients in Ghana and Nigeria bore the full cost of their breast cancer care, suggestive of privileged financial status. Access to screening/diagnosis and appropriate care is likely to be substantively lower for the general population.

The quality and accuracy of the data provided by cancer registries has a significant impact on decision making. Over decades, high-income countries have been successful in monitoring their cancer burden because of well-established data abstraction techniques such as digital systems. Conversely, in low-and middle-income countries, sparsely distributed cancer registries, using alternative less costly, but imprecise methods are struggling to capture all cancer cases. A population-based cancer registry in South Africa covering a resource-limited rural population is faced with challenges in case finding yet the quality and accuracy of the data provided has a significant impact on decision making. The objective of this study was to assess data quality using two data quality attributes 'completeness and accuracy' and also to determine the benefits of using active and passive case-finding methods for cancer registration in this population. Data used were collected between January 2014 and December 2015 from four hospitals to compare the quality of both active and passive case-finding methods. From all four hospitals during the same period, a first set of data obtained through passive reporting was compared with a second set of data obtained through active case finding. Covering multiple facilities during active case finding can significantly improve quality of data, while passive case finding is challenged by data collection being confined to one specific health facility, only. Better investment in active case finding is recommended in settings with resource-distribution disparities.

Background While the lung cancer (LC) treatment landscape has rapidly evolved in recent years, easing symptom burden and treatment side effects remain central considerations in disease control. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the relative importance of dimensions of LC care to patients, and to explore the disease burden, including socioeconomic aspects not commonly covered in patient-reported outcomes instruments. Methods A questionnaire was sent to patients with LC and their caregivers to rate the value of a diverse set of quality of life dimensions in care, to evaluate communication between health care professionals (HCPs) and patients, and to explore the economic impact on respondents. The survey included questions on the dimensions of care covered by patient-reported outcomes instruments for quality-of-life evaluation (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Lung scale, EQ-5D, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer’s Core Quality of Life questionnaire, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer’s Core Quality of Life in lung cancer 13-item questionnaire), as well as the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set of patient-centered outcomes for LC. The survey respondents were participants on Carenity’s patient community platform, living either in France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, or Spain. Results The survey included 150 respondents (115 patients and 35 caregivers). “Physical well-being” and “end-of-life care” (median scores of 9.6, IQR 7.7-10, and 9.7, IQR 8.0-10, on a 10-point scale) were rated highest among the different value dimensions assessed. “Physical well-being and functioning” was the dimension most frequently discussed with health care professionals (82/150, 55%), while only (17/100, 17%) reported discussing “end-of-life care.” After diagnosis, 43% (49/112) of patients younger than 65 years stopped working. Among respondents who indicated their monthly household income before and after diagnosis, 55% (38/69) reported a loss of income. Conclusions Our results showed the relevance of a broad range of aspects of care for the quality of life of patients with LC. End-of-life care was the dimension of care rated highest by patients with LC, irrespective of stage at diagnosis; however, this aspect is least frequently discussed with HCPs. The results also highlight the considerable socioeconomic impact of the disease, despite insurance coverage of direct costs.

No abstract