Discrepancies Between Canadian Cancer Research Funding and Site-Specific Cancer Burden: A Spotlight on Ten Disease Sites

Coronado, Andrea; Finley, Christian; Badovinac, Kimberly; Han, Jing; Niu, Jin; Rahal, Rami

doi:10.3747/co.25.4230

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The distribution of publication by cancer type also highlights the well-known mismatch between disease burden and funding allocation. 25 , 26 Publication outputs can be used as a proxy measure for funding and investment. 26 In Australia, the cancer type with the greatest difference between incidence and mortality is liver cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013–2019

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: General practice plays a critical role in the prevention, diagnosis, management, and survivorship care of cancer patients. Mapping research outputs over time provides valuable insights into the evolving role of general practice in cancer care. Aim: To describe and compare the distribution of cancer in general practice research publications by country, cancer type, area of the cancer continuum, author gender and journal impact factor. Design and setting: Bibliometric analysis. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published between 2013-2019, that reported on cancer in general practice. Included studies were mapped to the cancer continuum framework. Descriptive statistics were used to present data from the included studies. Results: We included 2798 publications from 714 journals, spanning 79 countries. The publication rate remained stable over this period. Overall, the United States of America produced the most publications, although per general population capita, Denmark produced ten times more publications. Research across the cancer continuum varied by country, but overall, the majority of studies focused on cancer screening, diagnosis and survivorship. More than half of included studies used observational study designs. Females made up 66.5% of first authors, but only 47.0% of last authors. Conclusion: Cancer in general practice is a stable field where research is predominately observational. There is geographical variation in the focus of cancer in general practice research which may reflect different priorities and levels of investment between countries. Overall, these results support future consideration of how to improve under-represented research areas and the design, conduct, and translation of interventional resear

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 25 , 26 Publication outputs can be used as a proxy measure for funding and investment. 26 In Australia, the cancer type with the greatest difference between incidence and mortality is liver cancer. 27 It is the 15th most common cancer type but represents the eighth most common cause of cancer-related deaths.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013–2019

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like other parts of the world, most clinical research funding in Canada now comes from industry sources as it has become increasingly difficult for independent Canadian investigators to support the increasing costs of clinical trial infrastructure [ 8 ]. Several groups have demonstrated that the volume of research output is associated with allocation of research funds rather than burden of disease [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prior studies have described global research spending by country (including that of Canada) [ 6 , 7 ]. Other studies have examined the allocation of cancer research funds within Canada across disease sites [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. However, there is a lack of data that describes RCT output from Canada compared to other high-income countries (HICs).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cancer, Clinical Trials, and Canada: Our Contribution to Worldwide Randomized Controlled Trials

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Canada has a long tradition of leading practice-changing clinical trials in oncology. Here, we describe methodology, results, and interpretation of oncology RCTs with Canadian involvement compared to RCTs from other high-income countries (HICs). A literature search identified all RCTs evaluating anti-cancer therapies published 2014–2017. RCTs were classified based on the country affiliation of first authors. The study cohort included 636 HIC-led RCTs; 155 (24%) had Canadian authors. Three-quarters (112/155, 72%) of Canadian RCTs were conducted in the palliative setting, compared to two thirds (299/481, 62%) of RCTs from other HICs (p = 0.022). Canadian RCTs were more likely than those from other HICs to be supported by industry (85% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). The proportion of positive Canadian trials that met the ESMO-MCBS threshold for substantial clinical benefit was comparable to RCTs without Canadian authors (29% vs. 32%, p = 0.137). Thirteen percent (20/155) of all Canadian trials were affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG). Canada plays a meaningful role in the global cancer research ecosystem but is overly reliant on industry support. The very low proportion of trials that identify a new treatment with substantial clinical benefit is worrisome. A renewed investment in cancer clinical trials is needed in Canada.

show abstract

“… 2 , 3 Beyond a high mortality rate, people treated for lung cancer often experience psychological distress, physical disability, and increased health care needs. 4 Despite the burden of lung cancer on Canadians and high mortality rates, it receives less research funding 5 , 6 and charitable donations 7 compared to other cancers. This speaks to a larger problem of a lack of support for people with lung cancer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Outcomes Pilot Evaluation of Inspire Now: A Program for People with Lung Cancer

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Canada, yet patients are often under-supported. A six-week program called Inspire Now, created to address unmet supportive care needs, was evaluated in this study. Feasibility and preliminary outcomes were assessed in order to inform future changes to the program. Objectives: (1) Assess the feasibility of the program and its evaluation; (2) pilot the collection of patient-reported outcomes; (3) identify outcomes that may be positively influenced; and (4) inform program modifications. Methods: Participants were recruited from the first session of Inspire Now for an observational pilot study. The primary outcome was feasibility. Secondary outcomes included within-person changes in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Lung (FACT-L) and Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW), and program satisfaction and qualitative experiences of participants and facilitators through internally-developed questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Analysis was primarily descriptive, within person changes in FACT-L and MYCaW were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and qualitative data was assessed for common themes. Results: The program and its evaluation were feasible; 8 of 9 (89%) participants consented to the study, median attendance was 6 of 6 sessions (IQR 4.5-6), and questionnaire completion was 100% at baseline and 75% at follow-up. There were clinically meaningful improvements in MYCaW concern 1 (−1.2, 95% CI −2.0 to −0.4) and overall wellbeing (−0.9, 95% CI −2.1 to 0.4). Seven of eight FACT-L sub-sections trended toward improvement, with absolute changes ranging from −1.7 to 10.8%. Participant feedback was overwhelmingly positive; group support and social interactions were highly valued. Conclusions: The group intervention for people with lung cancer was feasible to both run and evaluate. Participants responded positively to the program. Findings will inform changes to future sessions and an analysis of multiple sessions is planned.

show abstract

Discrepancies Between Canadian Cancer Research Funding and Site-Specific Cancer Burden: A Spotlight on Ten Disease Sites

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013–2019

General practice-based cancer research publications: a bibliometric analysis 2013–2019

Cancer, Clinical Trials, and Canada: Our Contribution to Worldwide Randomized Controlled Trials

A Prospective Outcomes Pilot Evaluation of Inspire Now: A Program for People with Lung Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About