Explore the vast range of titles available.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been unprecedented and has led to drastic reductions in non-urgent medical visits. Deferral of these visits may have critical health impact, including delayed diagnosis for melanoma and other skin cancers. We examined the influence of the pandemic on skin biopsy rates in a large population-based cohort. Using a universal health care claims dataset from Ontario, we examined skin biopsies from January 6, 2020 to September 27, 2020, and compared these to the same period for 2019. Those diagnosed with anogenital cancers, younger than 20 years, residing out-of-province and with lapses in coverage were excluded. The sensitivity and specificity of claims diagnoses compared to a validated algorithm to identify keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), or to the cancer registry for melanoma was evaluated. Factors associated with biopsy during the early pandemic were investigated with modified Poisson regression. A precipitous drop in total skin biopsies (15% of expected), biopsies for KC (18%) and melanoma (27%) was seen with the onset of COVID-19 cases (p<0.01). Claims diagnoses were of high specificity for KC (99%), and for melanoma (98%), though sensitivity was less (61%, 28% respectively). In adjusted analysis, the elderly (80+ years), females and residents of certain regions were less likely to be biopsied during the pandemic. Subsequently, there were substantial improvements in biopsy rates over 10 weeks. However, compared to 2019, a large backlog of expected cases still remained 28 weeks after lockdown (45,710 all biopsy, 9,104 KC, 595 melanoma). A drastic reduction in skin biopsies is noted early in the COVID-19 pandemic; this disproportionately affected the elderly, females and certain geographic regions. Though biopsies subsequently increased, a large backlog of cases remained after almost half a year. This will have implications for downstream care of skin cancer. Efforts should be made to limit diagnostic delay.

AbstractObjectiveTo quantify the association of cancer treatment delay and mortality for each four week increase in delay to inform cancer treatment pathways.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPublished studies in Medline from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesCurative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant indications for surgery, systemic treatment, or radiotherapy for cancers of the bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck were included. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio for overall survival for each four week delay for each indication. Delay was measured from diagnosis to first treatment, or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next. The primary analysis only included high validity studies controlling for major prognostic factors. Hazard ratios were assumed to be log linear in relation to overall survival and were converted to an effect for each four week delay. Pooled effects were estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models.ResultsThe review included 34 studies for 17 indications (n=1 272 681 patients). No high validity data were found for five of the radiotherapy indications or for cervical cancer surgery. The association between delay and increased mortality was significant (P<0.05) for 13 of 17 indications. Surgery findings were consistent, with a mortality risk for each four week delay of 1.06-1.08 (eg, colectomy 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.12; breast surgery 1.08, 1.03 to 1.13). Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range 1.01-1.28). Radiotherapy estimates were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (0.98, 0.88 to 1.09), and cervix cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (1.23, 1.00 to 1.50). A sensitivity analysis of studies that had been excluded because of lack of information on comorbidities or functional status did not change the findings.ConclusionsCancer treatment delay is a problem in health systems worldwide. The impact of delay on mortality can now be quantified for prioritisation and modelling. Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers. Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes.

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015–35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015–35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries—a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015–35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015–35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015–35 (–$14·9 billion in low-income countries; –$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (–$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

To identify inequalities in cancer survival rates for patients with a history of severe psychiatric illness (SPI) compared to those with no history of mental illness and explore differences in the provision of recommended cancer treatment as a potential explanation. The universal healthcare system in Ontario, Canada. Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients diagnosed between April 1st, 2007 and December 31st, 2012. SPI history (schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorders, other psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders or major depressive disorders) was determined using hospitalization, emergency department, and psychiatrist visit data and categorized as 'no history of mental illness, 'outpatient SPI history', and 'inpatient SPI history'. Cancer-specific survival, non-receipt of surgical resection, and non-receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation. 24,507 CRC patients were included; 482 (2.0%) had an outpatient SPI history and 258 (1.0%) had an inpatient SPI history. Individuals with an SPI history had significantly lower survival rates and were significantly less likely to receive guideline recommended treatment than CRC patients with no history of mental illness. The adjusted HR for cancer-specific death was 1.69 times higher for individuals with an inpatient SPI (95% CI 1.36-2.09) and 1.24 times higher for individuals with an outpatient SPI history (95% CI 1.04-1.48). Stage II and III CRC patients with an inpatient SPI history were 2.15 times less likely (95% CI 1.07-4.33) to receive potentially curative surgical resection and 2.07 times less likely (95% CI 1.72-2.50) to receive adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy. These findings were consistent across multiple sensitivity analyses. Individuals with an SPI history experience inequalities in colorectal cancer care and survival within a universal healthcare system. Increasing advocacy and the availability of resources to support individuals with an SPI within the cancer system are warranted to reduce the potential for unnecessary harm.

Continuous quality improvement is important for cancer systems. However, collecting and compiling quality indicator data can be time-consuming and resource-intensive. Here we explore the utility and feasibility of linked routinely collected health data to capture key elements of quality of care for melanoma in a single-payer, universal health care setting. This pilot study utilized a retrospective population-based cohort from a previously developed linked administrative data set, with a 65% random sample of all invasive cutaneous melanoma cases diagnosed 2007-2012 in the province of Ontario. Data from the Ontario Cancer Registry was utilized, supplemented with linked pathology report data from Cancer Care Ontario, and other linked administrative data describing health care utilization. Quality indicators identified through provincial guidelines and international consensus were evaluated for potential collection with administrative data and measured where possible. A total of 7,654 cases of melanoma were evaluated. Ten of 25 (40%) candidate quality indicators were feasible to be collected with the available administrative data. Many indicators (8/25) could not be measured due to unavailable clinical information (e.g. width of clinical margins). Insufficient pathology information (6/25) or health structure information (1/25) were less common reasons. Reporting of recommended variables in pathology reports varied from 65.2% (satellitosis) to 99.6% (body location). For stage IB-II or T1b-T4a melanoma patients where SLNB should be discussed, approximately two-thirds met with a surgeon experienced in SLNB. Of patients undergoing full lymph node dissection, 76.2% had adequate evaluation of the basin. We found that use of linked administrative data sources is feasible for measurement of melanoma quality in some cases. In those cases, findings suggest opportunities for quality improvement. Consultation with surgeons offering SLNB was limited, and pathology report completeness was sub-optimal, but was prior to routine synoptic reporting. However, to measure more quality indicators, text-based data sources will require alternative approaches to manual collection such as natural language processing or standardized collection. We recommend development of robust data platforms to support continuous re-evaluation of melanoma quality indicators, with the goal of optimizing quality of care for melanoma patients on an ongoing basis.

Radiotherapy is standard of care for cervical cancer, but major global gaps in access exist, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. We modelled the health and economic benefits of a 20-year radiotherapy scale-up to estimate the long-term demand for treatment in the context of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. We applied the Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control investment framework to model the health and economic benefits of scaling up external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy for cervical cancer in upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries between 2015 and 2035. We estimated the unique costs of external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy and included a specific valuation of women's caregiving contributions. Model outcomes life-years gained and the human capital and full income net present value of investment. We estimated the effects of stage at diagnosis, radiotherapy delivery system, and simultaneous HPV vaccination (75% coverage) up to a time horizon set at 2072. For the period from 2015 to 2035, we estimated that 9·4 million women in low-income and middle-income countries required treatment with external-beam radiotherapy, of which 7·0 million also required treatment with brachytherapy. Incremental scale-up of radiotherapy in these countries from 2015 to meet optimal radiotherapy demand by 2035 yielded 11·4 million life-years gained, $59·3 billion in human capital net present value (−$1·5 billion in low-income, $19·9 billion in lower-middle-income, and $40·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries), and $151·5 billion in full income net present value ($1·5 billion in low-income countries, $53·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $96·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Benefits increased with advanced stage of cervical cancer and more efficient scale up of radiotherapy. Bivalent HPV vaccination of 12-year-old girls resulted in a 3·9% reduction in incident cases from 2015–2035. By 2072, when the first vaccinated cohort of girls reaches 70 years of age, vaccination yielded a 22·9% reduction in cervical cancer incidence, with 38·4 million requiring external-beam radiotherapy and 28·8 million requiring brachytherapy. Effective cervical cancer control requires a comprehensive strategy. Even with HPV vaccination, radiotherapy treatment scale-up remains essential and produces large health benefits and a strong return on investment to countries at different levels of development. None.

Similarly to several other upper-middle-income countries, there is a major shortfall in radiotherapy services for the treatment of cancer in Brazil. In this study, we developed the linear accelerator (LINAC) shortage index to assess the LINAC shortage and support the prioritisation of new LINAC distribution in Brazil. This cross-sectional, population-based study used data from the National Cancer Institute 2020 Cancer estimates, the Ministry of Health 2019 radiotherapy census, the Minister of Health radiotherapy expansion programme progress reports, and the Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo public database of the Cancer Hospital Registry of the State of São Paulo to calculate the LINAC shortage index. Data collected were number of new cancer cases in Brazil, number of LINACs per region and state, number of cancer cases treated with radiotherapy, patient state of residence, and radiotherapy treatment centre and location. National, regional, and state-level data were collected for analysis. LINAC numbers, cancer incidence, geographical distribution, and radiotherapy needs were estimated. A LINAC shortage index was calculated as a relative measure of LINAC demand compared with supply based on number of new cancer cases, number of patients requiring radiotherapy, and the number of LINCAS in the region or state. We then built a prioritisation framework using the LINAC shortage index, cancer incidence, and geographical factors. Finally, using patient-level public cancer registry data from the Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo and Google maps, we estimated the geospatial distance travelled by patients with cancer from their state of residence to radiotherapy treatment in São Paulo from 2005–14. Non-parametric statistics were used for analysis. Data were collected between Feb 2 and Dec 31, 2021. In 2020, there were 625 370 new cancer cases in Brazil and 252 LINAC machines. The number of LINACs was inadequate in all Brazilian regions, with a national LINAC shortage index of 221 (ie, 121% less than the required radiotherapy capacity). The LINAC shortage index was higher in the midwest (326), north (313), and northeast (237) regions, than the southeast (210) and south (192) regions. Four states (Tocantins, Acre, Amapá, and Roraima) in the north region were ranked first on the prioritisation rank due to no availability of LINACs. There was an association between LINAC shortage index and the number of patients who travelled to receive radiotherapy (p<0·0001). Patients living in the midwest (793 km), north (2835 km), and northeast (2415 km) regions travelled significantly longer average distances to receive radiotherapy treatment in São Paulo than patients living in the southeast or south regions (p=0·032). The reduced number of LINACs in these regions was associated with longer distance travelled (p=0·032). There is substantial discordance between distribution of cancer cases and LINAC availability in Brazil. We developed a tool using the LINACs shortage index to help prioritise the development of radiotherapy infrastructure across Brazil; this approach might also be useful in other health systems. None.

The Linear Accelerator Shortage Index (LSI) is a practical tool for prioritising the deployment of linear accelerators (LINACs) in various regions within a country. The LSI reflects the ratio of LINAC demand to current availability. The aim of this study was to use the LSI to predict global LINAC needs and classify countries according to the degree of radiotherapy shortage (LINAC shortage grade). In this cross-sectional, population-based study of globally representative, country-level data, we sourced regional LINAC distribution, numbers of radiotherapy centres, and cancer incidence data for 181 countries from the Directory of Radiotherapy Centers and Global Cancer Observatory 2022 databases. Current gross domestic product and gross national income per capita in US dollars were obtained from the World Bank. We calculated an LSI for each country to assess the relative demand and supply of radiotherapy by dividing LINAC use by 450 and multiplying by 100. An LSI of 100 or less indicates no shortage (450 or fewer patients per LINAC), whereas an LSI greater than 100 signals a shortage, with higher values indicating more severe deficits. We categorised countries by LINAC shortage grade: grade 0 (LSI ≤100, no shortage), grade 1 (LSI 101–130, low need), grade 2 (LSI 131–300, high need), grade 3 (LSI >300, excessive need), or grade 4 (no existing LINACs). We estimated LINAC requirements until 2045 using the LSI and Global Cancer Observatory data. We determined future investment costs according to the LSI for each country. As of the data cutoff on Sept 15, 2024, the global median LSI was 130 (IQR 96–319), suggesting a shortage of 30% in radiotherapy capacity. Significant disparities in median LSI were observed across income levels: low-income countries had a median LSI of 1523 (528–2247), lower-middle-income countries 399 (183–685), upper-middle-income countries 133 (104–198), and high-income countries 96 (83–127; p<0·0001). The distribution of countries across LINAC shortage grades was 40 (22%) of 181 as grade 0, 32 (18%) as grade 1, 35 (19%) as grade 2, 38 (21%) as grade 3, and 36 (20%) as grade 4 (no LINACs). Most LINAC shortage grade 4 countries were low income (12 [33%]) or lower-middle income (16 [44%]). The median number of new LINACs needed per country by 2045 was estimated at 6 (1–13) for grade 0, 21 (4–102) for grade 1, 22 (8–80) for grade 2, 52 (26–113) for grade 3, and three (2–14) for grade 4. To meet these demands, also including the replacement of obsolete devices, an estimated 30 470 LINACs will be needed by 2045. The median total investment required for new and replacement machines and radiotherapy centres to meet the 2045 demand is projected at US$162 million (49–369) for grade 0, $216 million (54–772) for grade 1, $143 million (64–580) for grade 2, $238 million (126–561) for grade 3, and $16 million (9–59) for grade 4. A significant change in LINAC shortage grade composition between 2020 and 2045 is predicted, with distribution of 40 (22%) versus seven (4%) for grade 0, 32 (18%) versus 23 (13%) for grade 1, 35 (19%) versus 63 (35%) for grade 2, 38 (21%) versus 52 (29%) for grade 3, and 38 (20%) versus 38 (20%) for grade 4 (p<0·0001). The LSI and LINAC shortage grade systems are effective for evaluating, monitoring, and forecasting global LINAC needs. The LSI and LINAC shortage grade highlight the substantial disparities in radiotherapy availability and underscore the urgent need for investment in radiotherapy capacity building, particularly in many low-income and middle-income countries. None.

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, the cancer community faces many difficult questions. We will first discuss safety considerations for patients with cancer requiring treatment in SARS-CoV-2 endemic areas. We will then discuss a general framework for prioritizing cancer care, emphasizing the precautionary principle in decision making.

Background The 8 th edition UICC/AJCC TNM8 (Tumour, Nodes, Metastasis) melanoma staging system introduced several modifications from the 7 th edition (TNM7), resulting in changes in survival and subgroup composition. We set out to address the limited validation of TNM8 (stages I-IV) in large population-based datasets. Methods This retrospective cohort-study included 6,414 patients from the population-based Ontario Cancer Registry diagnosed with cutaneous melanoma between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2012. Kaplan–Meier curves estimated the melanoma-specific survival (MSS) and overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for MSS and OS across stage groups. The Schemper-Henderson measure was used to assess the variance explained in the Cox regression. Results In our sample, 21.3% of patients were reclassified with TNM8 from TNM7; reclassifications in stage II were uncommon, and 44.1% of patients in stage III were reclassified to a higher subgroup. Minimal changes in MSS curves were observed between editions, but the stage IIB curve decreased and the stage IIIC curve increased. For TNM8, Stage I ( n  = 4,556), II ( n  = 1,206), III ( n  = 598), and IV ( n  = 54) had an estimated 5-year MSS of 98.4%, 82.5%, 66.4%, and 14.4%, respectively. Within stage III, IIIA 5-year MSS was 91.7% while stage IIID was 23.5%. HRs indicated that TNM8 more evenly separates subgroups once adjusted for patient- and disease-characteristics. The variance in MSS explained by TNM7 and TNM8 is 18.9% and 19.7%, respectively. Conclusion TNM8 performed well in our sample, with more even separation of stage subgroups and a modest improvement in predictive ability compared to TNM7.