No abstract

PURPOSE Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) builds on Choosing Wisely (CW) in the United States, Canada, and India and aims to identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful cancer practices that are frequently used on the African continent. The aim of this work was to use physicians and patient advocates to identify a short list of low-value practices that are frequently used in African low- and middle-income countries. METHODS The CWA Task Force was convened by the African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer and included representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, the private and public sectors, and patient advocacy groups. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process, shortening a long list of practices to a short list, and then to a final list. A voting threshold of ≥ 60% was used to include an individual practice on the short list. A consensus was reached after a series of teleconferences and voting processes. RESULTS Of the 10 practices on the final list, one is a new suggestion and 9 are revisions or adaptations of practices from previous CW campaign lists. One item relates to palliative care, 8 concern treatment, and one relates to surveillance. CONCLUSION The CWA initiative has identified 10 low-value, common interventions in Africa’s cancer practice. The success of this campaign will be measured by how the recommendations are implemented across sub-Saharan Africa and whether this improves the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

Rwanda is a densely populated low-income country in East Africa. Previously considered a failed state after the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, Rwanda has seen remarkable growth over the past 2 decades. Health care in Rwanda is predominantly delivered through public hospitals and is emerging in the private sector. More than 80% of patients are covered by community-based health insurance (Mutuelle de Santé). The cancer unit at the Rwanda Biomedical Center (a branch of the Ministry of Health) is responsible for setting and implementing cancer care policy. Rwanda has made progress with human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B vaccination. Recently, the cancer unit at the Rwanda Biomedical Center launched the country’s 5-year National Cancer Control Plan. Over the past decade, patients with cancer have been able to receive chemotherapy at Butaro Cancer Center, and recently, the Rwanda Cancer Center was launched with 2 linear accelerator radiotherapy machines, which greatly reduced the number of referrals for treatment abroad. Palliative care services are increasing in Rwanda. A cancer registry has now been strengthened, and more clinicians are becoming active in cancer research. Despite these advances, there is still substantial work to be done and there are many outstanding challenges, including the need to build capacity in cancer awareness among the general population (and shift toward earlier diagnosis), cancer care workforce (more in-country training programs are needed), and research.

No abstract

PurposeChildren with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in low-income countries have disproportionately lower cure rates than those in high-income countries. At Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence (BCCOE), physicians treated patients with ALL with the first arm of the Hunger Protocol, a graduated-intensity method tailored for resource-limited settings. This article provides the first published outcomes, to our knowledge, of patients with ALL treated with this protocol.MethodsThis is a retrospective descriptive study of patients with ALL enrolled at BCCOE from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014; data were collected through December 31, 2015. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate patient demographics, disease characteristics, and outcomes; event-free survival was assessed at 2 years using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsForty-two consecutive patients with ALL were included. At the end of the study period, 19% (eight) were alive without evidence of relapse: three completed treatment and five were continuing treatment. Among the remaining patients, 71% (30) had died and 10% (four) were lost to follow-up. A total of 83% (25) of the deaths were disease related, 3% (one) treatment-related, and 13% (four) unclear. Event-free survival was 22% (95% CI, 11% to 36%), considering lost to follow-up as an event, and 26% (95% CI, 13% to 41%) if lost to follow-up is censored.ConclusionAs expected, relapse was the major cause of failure with this low-intensity regimen. However, toxicity was acceptably low, and BCCOE has decided to advance to intensity level 2. These results reflect the necessity of a data-driven approach and a continual improvement process to care for complex patients in resource-constrained settings.

ImportanceMany 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.ObjectiveTo describe which UMICs and LMICs participate in RCTs led by HICs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA 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 MeasuresA 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).ResultsAmong 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 RelevanceIn 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.

Background East Africa is one of the fastest growing regions in the world and faces a rising burden of cancer; however, few people are equipped to effectively conduct research in this area. Materials and Methods A 31‐item questionnaire was distributed to current trainees and recent graduates of the Master in Medicine in Clinical Oncology Program at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences in Tanzania. Areas that were assessed included (a) demographic information, (b) prior research training, (c) prior and current research activities, (d) attitudes toward the importance of research, and (e) supports and barriers to inclusion of research in an oncology career path. Results A total of 30 individuals responded to the survey, of whom 53% (n = 16) were male and 70% (n = 21) identified as current trainees. Among the majority of respondents, attitudes toward research were strongly favorable. Although only 37% (n = 11) reported receiving any formal training in research methodology, 87% (n = 26) reported intentions to incorporate research into their careers. The absence of protected time for research and lack of access to research funding opportunities were identified by a majority of respondents as critical barriers. Conclusion A majority of current or recent oncology trainees in Tanzania desire to incorporate research into their careers, but most also lack adequate training in research methodology and longitudinal mentorship. Our future collaboration will focus on creation of appropriate research training curriculums and fostering an environment that catalyzes interprofessional development and transforms and extends context‐specific cancer research in East Africa. Implications for Practice Current and recent oncology trainees in East Africa expressed a high enthusiasm for research, driven by a sense of urgency related to the burden from cancer that the region faces. This highlights the need for cancer research training and mentorship in this setting. This work hypothesizes that African principal investigators can operate effectively if proper attention is given to selection and provision of high‐quality foundational didactic training to learn the theory and implementation of research as well as to the development of an environment conducive to mentoring.

No abstract