scholarly journals Global Oncology Research and Training Collaborations Led by the National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers: Results From the 2018 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NCI-Designated Cancer Centers

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 1-1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalina Duncan ◽  
Rachel Abudu ◽  
Mishka K. Cira ◽  
Doug H.M. Pyle
Keyword(s):  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Diagnosis And Prognosis ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
And Training

PURPOSE The National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs) are active in global oncology research and training, leading collaborations that contribute to the evidence to support global cancer control. To better understand global oncology activities led by NDCCs, the National Cancer Institute Center for Global Health (NCI-CGH) collaborated with ASCO to conduct the 2018 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NDCCs. METHODS The 70 NDCCs received a two-part survey that focused on global oncology programs at NDCCs and non–National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded global oncology projects with an international collaborator led by the NDCCs. Sixty-five NDCCs responded to the survey, and 57 reported non–NIH-funded global oncology projects. Data were cleaned, coded, and analyzed by NCI-CGH staff. RESULTS Thirty NDCCs (43%) report having a global oncology program, and 538 non–NIH-funded global oncology projects were reported. Of the NDCCs with global oncology programs, 17 report that trainees complete rotations outside the United States, and the same number enroll trainees from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In addition, 147 (28%) of the non–NIH-funded projects focused on capacity building or training, the second highest category after research. Of the 30 top project collaborator countries, 17 were LMICs. Compared with the NCI-funded international grant portfolio, non–NIH-funded global oncology projects were more likely to focus on prevention (12% NCI-funded v 20% non–NIH-funded); early detection, diagnosis, and prognosis (23% v 30%); and cancer control, survivorship, and outcomes research (13% v 22%). CONCLUSION This survey shows that there is a substantial amount of global oncology research and training supported by NDCCs, and much of this is happening in LMICs. Results of the 2018 Global Oncology Survey can be used to foster opportunities for NDCCs to work collaboratively on activities and to share their findings with relevant stakeholders in their LMIC collaborator countries.

scholarly journals Landscape of Global Oncology Research and Training at National Cancer Institute–Designated Cancer Centers: Results of the 2018 to 2019 Global Oncology Survey

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Rachel M. Abudu ◽  
Mishka K. Cira ◽  
Doug H.M. Pyle ◽  
Kalina Duncan
Keyword(s):  
Global Health ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Oncology Research ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
And Training

PURPOSE The National Cancer Institute (NCI)–Designated Cancer Centers (NDCCs) are active in global oncology research and training, leading collaborations to support global cancer control. To better understand global oncology activities led by NDCCs, the NCI Center for Global Health collaborated with ASCO to conduct the 2018/2019 NCI/ASCO Global Oncology Survey of NDCCs. METHODS Seventy NDCCs received a two-part survey that focused on global oncology programs at NDCCs and non–National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded global oncology projects with an international collaborator led by the NDCCs. Sixty-seven NDCCs responded to the survey. Data were coded and analyzed by NCI-Center for Global Health staff. RESULTS Thirty-three NDCCs (47%) reported having a global oncology program, and 61 (87%) reported a collective total of 613 non–NIH-funded global oncology projects. Of the NDCCs with global oncology programs, 17 reported that trainees completed rotations outside the United States and the same number enrolled trainees from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Primary focus areas of non–NIH-funded projects were research (469 [76.5%]) and capacity building or training (197 [32.1%]). Projects included collaborators from 110 countries; 68 of these were LMIC. CONCLUSION This survey shows that there is a substantial amount of global oncology research and training conducted by NDCCs and that much of this is happening in LMIC. Trends in these data reflect those in recent literature: The field of global oncology is growing, advancing scientific knowledge, contributing to building research and training capacity in LMIC, and becoming a recognized career path. Results of the 2018 Global Oncology Survey can be used to foster opportunities for NDCCs to work collaboratively on activities and to share their findings with relevant stakeholders in their LMIC collaborator countries.

scholarly journals Global Health Equity: Cancer Care Outcome Disparities in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas A. de Souza ◽  
Bijou Hunt ◽  
Fredrick Chite Asirwa ◽  
Clement Adebamowo ◽  
Gilberto Lopes
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Income ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Breakthroughs in our global fight against cancer have been achieved. However, this progress has been unequal. In low- and middle-income countries and for specific populations in high-income settings, many of these advancements are but an aspiration and hope for the future. This review will focus on health disparities in cancer within and across countries, drawing from examples in Kenya, Brazil, and the United States. Placed in context with these examples, the authors also draw basic recommendations from several initiatives and groups that are working on the issue of global cancer disparities, including the US Institute of Medicine, the Global Task Force on Expanded Access to Cancer Care and Control in Developing Countries, and the Union for International Cancer Control. From increasing initiatives in basic resources in low-income countries to rapid learning systems in high-income countries, the authors argue that beyond ethics and equity issues, it makes economic sense to invest in global cancer control, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

Analysis of Mammography Screening Schedules under Varying Resource Constraints for Planning Breast Cancer Control Programs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Mathematical Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-378
Author(s):  
Shifali Bansal ◽  
Vijeta Deshpande ◽  
Xinmeng Zhao ◽  
Jeremy A. Lauer ◽  
Filip Meheus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
United States ◽  
Mammography Screening ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Control Programs ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Optimal Screening ◽  
Current Guidelines

Background. Low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs) have higher mortality-to-incidence ratio for breast cancer compared to high-income countries (HICs) because of late-stage diagnosis. Mammography screening is recommended for early diagnosis, however, the infrastructure capacity in LMICs are far below that needed for adopting current screening guidelines. Current guidelines are extrapolations from HICs, as limited data had restricted model development specific to LMICs, and thus, economic analysis of screening schedules specific to infrastructure capacities are unavailable. Methods. We applied a new Markov process method for developing cancer progression models and a Markov decision process model to identify optimal screening schedules under a varying number of lifetime screenings per person, a proxy for infrastructure capacity. We modeled Peru, a middle-income country, as a case study and the United States, an HIC, for validation. Results. Implementing 2, 5, 10, and 15 lifetime screens would require about 55, 135, 280, and 405 mammography machines, respectively, and would save 31, 62, 95, and 112 life-years per 1000 women, respectively. Current guidelines recommend 15 lifetime screens, but Peru has only 55 mammography machines nationally. With this capacity, the best strategy is 2 lifetime screenings at age 50 and 56 years. As infrastructure is scaled up to accommodate 5 and 10 lifetime screens, screening between the ages of 44-61 and 41-64 years, respectively, would have the best impact. Our results for the United States are consistent with other models and current guidelines. Limitations. The scope of our model is limited to analysis of national-level guidelines. We did not model heterogeneity across the country. Conclusions. Country-specific optimal screening schedules under varying infrastructure capacities can systematically guide development of cancer control programs and planning of health investments.

Survey of the provision of supportive care services at National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 756-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
P H Coluzzi ◽  
M Grant ◽  
J H Doroshow ◽  
M Rhiner ◽  
B Ferrell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Private Industry ◽  
Cancer Society ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services

PURPOSE The purpose of this survey was to determine the scope of supportive care services (SCS) designed to promote quality of life during cancer therapies at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. METHODS A survey was mailed to the medical directors and nursing directors of 52 NCI-designated comprehensive (n = 26), clinical (n = 11), and planning cancer centers (n = 15) in the United States. Only one survey was completed from each institution. Survey questions identified services provided such as pain management, terminal care, psychosocial programs, and spiritual care. RESULTS Thirty-nine questionnaires were received for a total response rate of 75%. Of the respondents, 45% were comprehensive cancer centers, 24% clinical cancer centers, and 29% planning centers. One center did not identify their NCI designation. Sixty-one percent of the centers reported research programs in supportive care. Outside funding was reported in 51% of the respondents, with 39% having American Cancer Society (ACS) or National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding and 28% having private industry funding. Overall SCS self-ratings improved from a 21% rating of excellent to very good 5 years ago to the current 54% rating. CONCLUSION Survey results provide data on SCS across a representative sample of NCI cancer centers and can be used to develop standards for future cancer control programs.

scholarly journals Role of Private Enterprise in Cancer Control in Low to Middle Income Countries

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chukwumere E. Nwogu ◽  
Martin Mahoney ◽  
Ifeoma Okoye ◽  
Kenneth Ejiogu ◽  
Saby George ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Capacity Building ◽  
Private Enterprise ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Academic Institutions ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Grant Support

Background. About 65% of cancer deaths globally occur in low to middle income countries (LMICs) where prioritization and allocation of resources to cancer care are often quite poor. In the absence of governmental focus on this problem, public-private partnerships may be an avenue to provide effective cancer control. Methods. This manuscript highlights the establishment of a nongovernmental organization (NGO) to stimulate the development of partnerships between oncology professionals, private enterprise, and academic institutions, both locally and internationally. Examples of capacity building, grant support, establishment of collaborative networks, and the development of a facility to provide clinical care are highlighted. Results. Collaborations were established between oncology professionals at academic institutions in the US and Nigeria. Cancer control workshops were conducted in Nigeria with grant support from the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). A monthly tumor board conference was established at LASUTH in Lagos, and further capacity building is underway with grant support from the United States NCI. An outpatient, privately funded oncology clinic in Lagos has been launched. Conclusion. In LMICs, effective partnership between public and private institutions can lead to tangible strides in cancer control. The use of creative healthcare financing models can also support positive change.

scholarly journals Leveraging the National Cancer Institute Cancer Centers Program to Advance Cancer Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Outcomes of Two Funding Initiatives

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 38s-38s
Author(s):  
Amanda L. Vogel ◽  
Shannon L. Silkensen ◽  
Catherine Hidalgo
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Research ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Capacity Development ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Abstract 45 Background: The National Cancer Institute Cancer Centers Program is one of the anchors of the US cancer research effort. The National Cancer Institute’s Center for Global Health (CGH) has supported several initiatives that leverage this national resource to advance cancer research and related activities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In 2013, CGH awarded 1-year contracts to 15 cancer centers and partner institutions in LMICs to advance cancer research capacity in LMICs through research, training, and capacity building in a range of areas, including informatics, data sharing, and biorepositories. In 2015, CGH awarded 2-year administrative grant supplements to 10 cancer centers and partner institutions in LMICs to support cancer prevention and control research. Domains included clinical and translational research, detection and diagnosis, surveillance and registries, knowledge sharing, implementation science, informatics and mHealth, and malignancies associated with HIV and chronic infection. The aim of this work was to assess the outcomes and impacts of these investments, including scientific progress, capacity development for cancer research and related activities in LMICs, and capacity development for future partnerships among cancer centers and LMIC institutions, as well as to reflect on how initiative characteristics, such as scope and mechanism, influence outcomes and impacts. Methods: We performed qualitative content analysis of progress reports and final reports. Results: Findings highlight the outcomes and impacts of these investments in partnerships among cancer centers and LMIC institutions, and shed light on the influence of funding initiative characteristics. Conclusion: Findings reflect the value of these investments to advance cancer research and related activities in LMICs, and help to inform future CGH engagement with cancer centers. AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST No COIs from the authors.

scholarly journals Barriers to training in laparoscopic surgery in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
pp. 004947552199818
Author(s):  
Ellen Wilkinson ◽  
Noel Aruparayil ◽  
J Gnanaraj ◽  
Julia Brown ◽  
David Jayne
Keyword(s):  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Local Access ◽  
And Training ◽  
Low And Middle Income

Laparoscopic surgery has the potential to improve care in resource-deprived low- and-middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aims to analyse the barriers to training in laparoscopic surgery in LMICs. Medline, Embase, Global Health and Web of Science were searched using ‘LMIC’, ‘Laparoscopy’ and ‘Training’. Two researchers screened results with mutual agreement. Included papers were in English, focused on abdominal laparoscopy and training in LMICs. PRISMA guidelines were followed; 2992 records were screened, and 86 full-text articles reviewed to give 26 key papers. Thematic grouping identified seven key barriers: funding; availability and maintenance of equipment; local access to experienced laparoscopic trainers; stakeholder dynamics; lack of knowledge on effective training curricula; surgical departmental structure and practical opportunities for trainees. In low-resource settings, technological advances may offer low-cost solutions in the successful implementation of laparoscopic training and improve access to surgical care.

scholarly journals Pediatric neurosurgical workforce, access to care, equipment and training needs worldwide

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. E13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Dewan ◽  
Ronnie E. Baticulon ◽  
Abbas Rattani ◽  
James M. Johnston ◽  
Benjamin C. Warf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
International Collaboration ◽  
Eastern Mediterranean ◽  
Training Needs ◽  
High Income ◽  
Low Income Countries ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Surgical Workforce ◽  
And Training

OBJECTIVEThe presence and capability of existing pediatric neurosurgical care worldwide is unknown. The objective of this study was to solicit the expertise of specialists to quantify the geographic representation of pediatric neurosurgeons, access to specialist care, and equipment and training needs globally.METHODSA mixed-question survey was sent to surgeon members of several international neurosurgical and general pediatric surgical societies via a web-based platform. Respondents answered questions on 5 categories: surgeon demographics and training, hospital and practice details, surgical workforce and access to neurosurgical care, training and equipment needs, and desire for international collaboration. Responses were anonymized and analyzed using Stata software.RESULTSA total of 459 surgeons from 76 countries responded. Pediatric neurosurgeons in high-income and upper-middle-income countries underwent formal pediatric training at a greater rate than surgeons in low- and lower-middle-income countries (89.5% vs 54.4%). There are an estimated 2297 pediatric neurosurgeons in practice globally, with 85.6% operating in high-income and upper-middle-income countries. In low- and lower-middle-income countries, roughly 330 pediatric neurosurgeons care for a total child population of 1.2 billion. In low-income countries in Africa, the density of pediatric neurosurgeons is roughly 1 per 30 million children. A higher proportion of patients in low- and lower-middle-income countries must travel > 2 hours to seek emergency neurosurgical care, relative to high-income countries (75.6% vs 33.6%, p < 0.001). Vast basic and essential training and equipment needs exist, particularly low- and lower-middle-income countries within Africa, South America, the Eastern Mediterranean, and South-East Asia. Eighty-nine percent of respondents demonstrated an interest in international collaboration for the purposes of pediatric neurosurgical capacity building.CONCLUSIONSWide disparity in the access to pediatric neurosurgical care exists globally. In low- and lower-middle-income countries, wherein there exists the greatest burden of pediatric neurosurgical disease, there is a grossly insufficient presence of capable providers and equipped facilities. Neurosurgeons across income groups and geographic regions share a desire for collaboration and partnership.

scholarly journals Global neurosurgery: a scoping review detailing the current state of international neurosurgical outreach

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Anthony T. Fuller ◽  
Ariana Barkley ◽  
Robin Du ◽  
Cyrus Elahi ◽  
Ali R. Tafreshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Medical Personnel ◽  
The United States ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Gray Literature ◽  
Current State ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Research And Education

OBJECTIVEGlobal neurosurgery is a rapidly emerging field that aims to address the worldwide shortages in neurosurgical care. Many published outreach efforts and initiatives exist to address the global disparity in neurosurgical care; however, there is no centralized report detailing these efforts. This scoping review aims to characterize the field of global neurosurgery by identifying partnerships between high-income countries (HICs) and low- and/or middle-income countries (LMICs) that seek to increase neurosurgical capacity.METHODSA scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. A search was conducted in five electronic databases and the gray literature, defined as literature not published through traditional commercial or academic means, to identify studies describing global neurosurgery partnerships. Study selection and data extraction were performed by four independent reviewers, and any disagreements were settled by the team and ultimately the team lead.RESULTSThe original database search produced 2221 articles, which was reduced to 183 final articles after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. These final articles, along with 9 additional gray literature references, captured 169 unique global neurosurgery collaborations between HICs and LMICs. Of this total, 103 (61%) collaborations involved surgical intervention, while local training of medical personnel, research, and education were done in 48%, 38%, and 30% of efforts, respectively. Many of the collaborations (100 [59%]) are ongoing, and 93 (55%) of them resulted in an increase in capacity within the LMIC involved. The largest proportion of efforts began between 2005–2009 (28%) and 2010–2014 (17%). The most frequently involved HICs were the United States, Canada, and France, whereas the most frequently involved LMICs were Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya.CONCLUSIONSThis review provides a detailed overview of current global neurosurgery efforts, elucidates gaps in the existing literature, and identifies the LMICs that may benefit from further efforts to improve accessibility to essential neurosurgical care worldwide.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document