Joining forces for children with cancer in Latin America

González-Ramella, Óscar; Freigeiro, D; Castellanos, Mauricio; Arancibia, Alejandro Mauricio; Rodríguez‐Galindo, Carlos; Metzger, Monika L.

doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(16)30133-4

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The burden of childhood cancer falls heavily on LMIC where the survival rates continue to be less than 40% 15 . The widening gap between mortality in HIC and LMIC has magnified the need for improved management strategies in this population, more specifically in the countries that have varying access to resources both nationally and regionally.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, dependent upon geographical location, access to resources may be limited. Financial burden, availability of medications and services, and travel constraints can hinder appropriate therapies after an accurate diagnosis is made and may require migration to urban areas for access to tertiary care centers 15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Long‐term sustainability is one of the central challenges faced when trying to maintain cancer registries, mainly requiring retention of the highly trained staff necessary for obtaining and recording data 26 . Brazil is part of the 21% of Latin America that maintains a population‐based cancer registry 15,26 . IOP/GRAACC/UNIFESP has an established hospital archive that is reported to Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo (FOSP) who then shares this data with the National Institute of Câncer Brazil (INCA) 27…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Validated quantitative needs assessment differences in the management of children with central nervous system cancer between Brazil, an upper middle‐income country, and the United States of America, a high income country

Fischer

Roecker

Silva

et al. 2021

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Pediatric cancer cure rates differ among high‐income countries (HIC) and upper middle‐income countries (UMIC). We have compared individual capacities of two major referral pediatric centers from a HIC and an UMIC caring for children with central nervous system (CNS) cancer. Methods A quantitative needs assessment questionnaire and key informant interviews, distributed in March of 2017, were used to evaluate the treatment of children with CNS cancer at Grupo de Apoio ao Adolescente e à Criança com Câncer (GRAACC) children's cancer center in São Paulo, Brazil and Nationwide Children's Hospital (NCH) in Columbus, Ohio, United States of America (USA). Results Both hospitals had 24‐hour pediatric oncology, nursing and intensivist coverage. Supportive care available at both institutions included social workers, psychologists, child life specialists, and physical/occupational/speech therapists. Differences included two part‐time neuroradiologists and one pathologist specializing in neuropathology at IOP/GRAACC/UNIFESP, whereas eight full‐time neuroradiologists and two neuropathologists at NCH/OSU. There were four pediatric neurosurgeons on staff at each hospital; however, there were only 2 operative days per week at IOP/GRAACC/UNIFESP, compared with 7 days at NCH/OSU. Additionally, time to initiation of radiation therapy at IOP/GRAACC/UNIFESP extended 2–4 weeks compared with less than 1 week at NCH/OSU. Conclusions Center‐specific differences in resources exist in highly specialized hospitals caring for children with CNS cancer in HIC and UMIC. This quantitative needs assessment may facilitate the development of targeted strategies for effective interventions to improve on the management of children with CNS cancers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validated quantitative needs assessment differences in the management of children with central nervous system cancer between Brazil, an upper middle‐income country, and the United States of America, a high income country

Fischer

Roecker

Silva

et al. 2021

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[30][31][32] GATLA has developed multiple international collaborative relationships, including codevelopment of protocols with the International Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (I-BFM) group 33,34 and the International Consortium for Childhood Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia. 35 In 2015, GATLA assisted in the founding of the multinational clinical trial consortium Consorcio Latinoamericano de Enfermedades Hematooncol ógicas Pedi átricas (CLEHOP), [36][37][38] which has created several of its own collaborative clinical trial protocols. 39,40 Brazil has been a major contributor to pediatric oncology through the Sociedade Brasileira de Oncologia Pedi átrica (SOBOPE) founded in 1981.…”

Section: Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial Collaborative Groups By Re...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial Collaborative Groups on the Global Stage

Major

Palese

Ermis

et al. 2022

JCO Global Oncology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE The global pediatric oncology clinical research landscape, particularly in Central and South America, Africa, and Asia, which bear the highest burden of global childhood cancer cases, is less characterized in the literature. Review of how existing pediatric cancer clinical trial groups internationally have been formed and how their research goals have been pursued is critical for building global collaborative research and data-sharing efforts, in line with the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer. METHODS A narrative literature review of collaborative groups performing pediatric cancer clinical research in each continent was conducted. An inventory of research groups was assembled and reviewed by current pediatric cancer regional and continental leaders. Each group was narratively described with identification of common structural and research themes among consortia. RESULTS There is wide variability in the structure, history, and goals of pediatric cancer clinical trial collaborative groups internationally. Several continental regions have longstanding endogenously-formed clinical trial groups that have developed and published numerous adapted treatment regimens to improve outcomes, whereas other regions have consortia focused on developing foundational database registry infrastructure supported by large multinational organizations or twinning relationships. CONCLUSION There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing collaboration between international pediatric cancer clinical trial groups, as this requires a nuanced understanding of local stakeholders and resources necessary to form partnerships. Needs assessments, performed either by local consortia or in conjunction with international partners, have generated productive clinical trial infrastructure. To achieve the goals of the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer, global partnerships must be sufficiently granular to account for the distinct needs of each collaborating group and should incorporate grassroots approaches, robust twinning relationships, and implementation science.

show abstract

“…It is critical to understand that HIC funding for the construction of a ward, expensive diagnostic equipment, or salary for a few staff members is superficially attractive but can wreak havoc within the LMIC site, creating friction that is corrosive. The trend toward regional partnerships will continue to increase, as such partners often have better insight into local dynamics and constraints 14 . Local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have also become key stakeholders worldwide: e.g., in India, Cankids…kidscan, created in 2004, recently signed MOUs with two state/provincial governments to improve access to care for childhood cancer, covering over 10% of the population of India 15…”

Section: Stakeholder Involvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of twinning in sustainable care for children with cancer: A TIPPing point? SIOP PODC Working Group on Twinning, Collaboration, and Support

Kanwar

Schwartz

Salifu

et al. 2020

Pediatric Blood & Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer, there is renewed interest in sustainable interventions to improve childhood cancer care in low-/middle-income countries (LMICs). Practitioners in LMICs have traditionally practiced "twinning," i.e., targeted international pediatric oncology partnerships (TIPPs) between one or more institutions in a high-income country (HIC) and an LMIC, to improve care for children with cancer in the latter. The International Society of Paediatric Oncology Committee for Paediatric Oncology in Developing Countries Working Group on Twinning, Collaboration, and Support reviewed guidelines from https: //cancerpointe.com and the current literature, gathered input from practitioners in LMICs, and in this article discuss the role of TIPPs in the WHO initiative.

show abstract

Joining forces for children with cancer in Latin America

Cited by 4 publications

References 7 publications

Validated quantitative needs assessment differences in the management of children with central nervous system cancer between Brazil, an upper middle‐income country, and the United States of America, a high income country

Validated quantitative needs assessment differences in the management of children with central nervous system cancer between Brazil, an upper middle‐income country, and the United States of America, a high income country

Mapping Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial Collaborative Groups on the Global Stage

The role of twinning in sustainable care for children with cancer: A TIPPing point? SIOP PODC Working Group on Twinning, Collaboration, and Support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About