Global public and philanthropic investment in childhood cancer research: systematic analysis of research funding, 2008-16

NHS cancer services and systems-ten pressure points a UK cancer control plan needs to address

In this Policy Review we discuss ten key pressure points in the NHS in the delivery of cancer care services that need to be urgently addressed by a comprehensive national cancer control plan. These pressure points cover areas such as increasing workforce capacity and its productivity, delivering effective cancer survivorship services, addressing variation in quality, fixing the reimbursement system for cancer care, and balancing of the cancer research agenda. These areas have been selected based on their relative importance to ensuring sustainable cancer services, persistence as key issues in the NHS, and their impact on delivering better and more equitable and affordable patient outcomes. Many of these pressure points are not acknowledged explicitly in any current discourse. The evidence we provide points to their impact on the ability to deliver world class cancer care, but also to their amenability to affordable solutions if given the relevant prioritisation and investment. The current narrative needs to move away from a technocentric approach to improving care, to one focused on understanding the complexity of cancer services and the wider health system to drive improvements in survival, quality of life, and experience for patients.

Pediatric Oncology Hospice: A Comprehensive Review

Pediatric hospice is a new terminology in current medical literature. Implementation of pediatric hospice care in oncology setting is a vast but subspecialized field of research and practice. However, it is accompanied by substantial uncertainties, shortages and unexplored sections. The lack of globally established definitions, principles, and guidelines in this field has adversely impacted the quality of end-of-life experiences for children with hospice needs worldwide. To address this gap, we conducted a comprehensive review of scientific literature, extracting and compiling the available but sparse data on pediatric oncology hospice from the PubMed database. Our systematic approach led to development of a well-organized structure introducing the foundational elements, highlighting complications, and uncovering hidden gaps in this critical area. This structured framework comprises nine major categories including general ideology, population specifications, role of parents and family, psychosocial issues, financial complications, service locations, involved specialties, regulations, and quality improvement. This platform can serve as a valuable resource in establishing a scientifically reliable foundation for future experiments and practices in pediatric oncology hospice.

Using a Modern Linked Research Database to Examine Gender Disparities in Orthopaedic Grant Funding from 2010 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Gender disparities in research grant funding persist in many disciplines. With use of the Dimensions database, we sought to examine the extent of gender disparities in U.S. orthopaedic grant funding from 2010 onward. Our aim was to provide insights into the extent of gender disparities in the field of orthopaedic research and to highlight the potential need for future action to address these disparities.

METHODS

Using orthopaedic-related search terms, we queried all U.S. grants awarded for orthopaedic research from 2010 to 2022. A total of 22,326 results were then manually screened to exclude those without a direct focus on orthopaedic research. The amounts received per principal investigator were reported in U.S. dollars and adjusted for inflation. Author gender was predicted with use of the Genderize.io algorithm application programming interface. The iCite Relative Citation Ratio (RCR) was utilized to assess the impact of the publications linked to each grant.

RESULTS

A total of 1,723 grants were included. Men principal investigators received significantly higher median funding per grant in 2011, 2012, and 2013; however, this trend reversed with women receiving nonsignificantly higher funding in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2021, and 2022. In 2020, women received significantly higher median funding per grant than men ($166,234 versus $121,384; p = 0.04). Throughout the 13-year period, men principal investigators accounted for approximately 71% of grants, with a very weak increasing trend in the percent of grants attributed to women (R 2 = 0.16; p < 0.001). Grants with men principal investigators resulted in more publications than those with women principal investigators (mean publications, 11.1 versus 6.6; p = 0.001). Publications resulting from grants awarded to men had a significantly higher mean RCR than those resulting from grants awarded to women (2.42 versus 2.09; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the median amounts of funding per grant awarded to men and to women in 7 of the past 8 years, despite significantly greater funding per grant having been awarded to men from 2011 to 2013. Men principal investigators accounted for the majority of grants received during the study period, although this proportion was lower than the proportion of men among orthopaedic surgeons in 2022. This study could inform initiatives aimed at promoting equity in grant funding for orthopaedic research.

Research funding for newborn health and stillbirths, 2011-20: a systematic analysis of levels and trends

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, an estimated 4·4 million newborn deaths and stillbirths occurred in 2020, and 98% of these deaths occurred in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to analyse new research grants for newborns and stillbirth awarded by major funders in 2019-20, and all research funding allocated to LMIC-based institutions in 2011-20.

METHODS

For this systematic analysis, we searched Dimensions, the world's largest research funding database, for grants relevant to neonatal and stillbirth research. Included grants were categorised by in-depth content analysis, with descriptive quantitative analyses by funder and recipient countries, research pipeline, topic, and year.

FINDINGS

Globally, in 2019-20, major funders awarded a mean annual total of US$577·1 million per year for newborn and stillbirth research (mean total of 550 grants per year). $166·3 million (28·8%) of $577·1 million was directed to small and vulnerable newborn research, but only $8·4 million (1·5%) was directed to stillbirth research. The majority of funding, $537·0 million (93·0%), was allocated to organisations based in high-income countries. Between 2011 and 2020, LMIC-based recipients were named on 1985 grants from all funders worth $486·7 million, of which $73·1 million (15·0%) was allocated to small and vulnerable newborn research and $12·0 million (2·5%) was allocated to stillbirth research. Most LMIC funding supported preclinical or observational studies ($236·8 million [48·7%] of $486·7 million), with implementation research receiving only $13·9 million (2·9%).

INTERPRETATION

Although investment in research related to neonatal health and stillbirths has increased between 2011 and 2020, there are marked disparities in distribution geographically, between major causes of mortality, and among research pipeline types. Stillbirth research received minimal funding in both high-income countries and LMICs, despite a similar number of deaths compared with neonates. Direct investment in LMIC-led research, especially for implementation research, could accelerate the slow global progress on stillbirth prevention and newborn survival.

FUNDING

None.

TRANSLATIONS

For the French, German and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Building a Foundation for the Care of Children with Cancer in Rural North India

One of India's biggest challenges is to improve its global standing by increasing healthcare access and outcomes for children with cancer, with inferior overall survivorship compared with its Western counterparts. In conjunction with the government's efforts, private enterprise is crucial in delivering optimal cancer care consistently to its vast and diverse pediatric population, despite existing limitations. This article describes the successful implementation of a value-based, collaborative clinical and research framework by a philanthropic foundation in a rural Northern Indian city to establish and run a local childhood cancer service. It is proof of concept that substantial change could be brought about at grass roots level through resourceful partnerships and reduce prevailing imbalance in pediatric oncology service provision.

Childhood cancer drugs in China: An overview and comparison of regulatory approvals in China and the United States

Different from less developed countries, 80% of children with cancers in the United States are cured. Traditional chemotherapy drugs are the mainstay of therapies; new targeted medications have become available recently. Using publicly available data, we created a database of cancer drugs with paediatric malignancy indications approved by 31 October 2020 in China and the United States. We compared numbers, type, indications and listing on the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (WHO EMLc) between the two countries, assessed the correlation between paediatric indications and cancer incidences, and described evidence supporting approvals of targeted medications in the two settings. Our study showed that by 31 October 2020, 31 and 39 cancer drugs available in China and the United States were approved for use in children, corresponding to 137 and 102 paediatric cancer indications, respectively. About half of these drugs (17 in China and 18 in the United States) were listed on the WHO EMLc. The correlation between indications and burden of disease was higher in the United States (r = 0.68) than China (r = 0.59). More traditional chemotherapy drugs were approved in China (n = 27) than the United States (n = 19). Of 20 targeted childhood anticancer medicines approved in the United States, mainly on the basis of single arm trials (27/32 indications, 84.4%), only four were approved for paediatric indications in China, at a median of 2.8 years after US Food and Drug Administration approval. A harmonised, evidence-based regulatory framework is needed to ensure approvals of needed, safe and efficacious childhood cancer drugs across the world.

Real-world outcomes associated with new cancer medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: A retrospective cohort study

Purpose

Real-World Data (RWD) studies are increasingly used to support regulatory approvals, reimbursement decisions, and changes in clinical practice for novel cancer drugs. However, few studies have systematically appraised their quality or compared outcomes to pivotal trials.

Methods

All RWD studies (2010–2019) for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2010 to 2015 for solid organ tumours in the non-curative setting were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Survival differences between each RWD study and the pivotal trial were determined using a related sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

293 RWD studies for 45 of the 57 drug indications approved by the FDA/EMA were identified. The most common tumour types were prostate cancer (29%, n = 86) and melanoma (15%, n = 43). A quarter of the studies had industry funding. No high-quality studies were identified, and 78% were low quality. Comparative survival analysis between RWD and pivotal trials was possible for 224 studies (37 drug indications). Differences in median survival between the RWD studies and their corresponding trial ranged from −32 months to 21 months (IQR –4·2 months to 1·6 months). Low-quality studies were more likely to report superior survival outcomes (23%) compared to higher quality studies (8%) (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

RWD study quality for novel cancer drugs is low and of insufficient rigour to inform reimbursement decisions and clinical practice. RWD studies seeking publication should provide a completed quality assessment tool on submission. Greater investment in properly designed RWD studies is required.

•

Study provides a systematic appraisal of FDA/EMA approved drugs in real-world practice.

•

Most novel FDA/EMA cancer drugs have real-world data (RWD) studies, but the quality is low.

•

Variability in survival outcomes exists, and findings should be applied cautiously.

•

Most RWD studies reported inferior survival outcomes compared to the pivotal trial.

•

Pre-publication critical appraisal checklists should be used for RWD studies.

Trends in International Cancer Research Investment 2006-2018

The International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) is an active network of cancer research funding organizations, sharing information about funded research projects in a common database. Data are publicly available to enable the cancer research community to find potential collaborators and avoid duplication. This study presents an aggregated analysis of projects funded by 120 partner organizations and institutes in 2006-2018, to highlight trends in cancer research funding. Overall, the partners’ funding for cancer research increased from $5.562 billion (bn) US dollars (USD) in 2006 to $8.511bn USD in 2018, an above-inflation increase in funding. Analysis by the main research focus of projects using Common Scientific Outline categories showed that Treatment was the largest investment category in 2018, followed by Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis; Cancer Biology; Etiology; Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes; and Prevention. Over the 13 years covered by this analysis, research funding into Treatment and Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis had increased in terms of absolute investment and as a proportion of the portfolio. Research funding in Cancer Biology and Etiology declined as a percentage of the portfolio, and funding for Prevention and Control, Survivorship and Outcomes remained static. In terms of cancer site–specific research, funding for breast cancer and colorectal cancer had increased in absolute terms but declined as a percentage of the portfolio. By contrast, investment for brain cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer increased both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the portfolio.

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission

The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.

The Care of Children With Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has considerably changed health services for children with cancer worldwide by creating barriers throughout the care continuum. Reports available at this time suggest that asymptomatic and mild upper and lower respiratory tract syndromes are the most common presentation of COVID-19 in children with cancer. Nonetheless, severe cases of COVID-19 and deaths secondary to the infection have been reported. In addition to the direct effects of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, children with cancer have suffered from the collateral consequences of the pandemic, including decreased access to diagnosis and cancer-directed therapy. The COVID-19 pandemic has presented unprecedented challenges to safe and effective care of children with cancer, including their enrollment in therapeutic clinical trials. Data from the Children's Oncology Group and Cancer Research U.K. Clinical Trials Unit show variability in the enrollment of children with cancer in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the overall effects on outcomes for children with cancer undergoing care during the pandemic remain largely unknown. In this article, we review the current knowledge about the direct and collateral effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including on clinical trial enrollment and operations.

Pediatric Solid Tumor Care and Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards in Low- and Middle-Income Countries in Southeast Asia

PURPOSE

Pediatric solid tumors require coordinated multidisciplinary specialist care. However, expertise and resources to conduct multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) are lacking in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to profile the landscape of pediatric solid tumor care and practices and perceptions on MDTBs among pediatric solid tumor units (PSTUs) in Southeast Asian LMICs.

METHODS

Using online surveys, availability of specialty manpower and MDTBs among PSTUs was first determined. From the subset of PSTUs with MDTBs, one pediatric surgeon and one pediatric oncologist from each center were queried using 5-point Likert scale questions adapted from published questionnaires.

RESULTS

In 37 (80.4%) of 46 identified PSTUs, availability of pediatric-trained specialists was as follows: oncologists, 94.6%; surgeons, 91.9%; radiologists, 54.1%; pathologists, 40.5%; radiation oncologists, 29.7%; nuclear medicine physicians, 13.5%; and nurses, 81.1%. Availability of pediatric-trained surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists was significantly associated with the existence of MDTBs (P = .037, .005, and .022, respectively). Among 43 (89.6%) of 48 respondents from 24 PSTUs with MDTBs, 90.5% of oncologists reported > 50% oncology-dedicated workload versus 22.7% of surgeons. Views on benefits and barriers did not significantly differ between oncologists and surgeons. The majority agreed that MDTBs helped to improve accuracy of treatment recommendations and team competence. Complex cases, insufficient radiology and pathology preparation, and need for supplementary investigations were the top barriers.

CONCLUSION

This first known profile of pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia found that availability of pediatric-trained subspecialists was a significant prerequisite for pediatric MDTBs in this region. Most PSTUs lacked pediatric-trained pathologists and radiologists. Correspondingly, gaps in radiographic and pathologic diagnoses were the most common limitations for MDTBs. Greater emphasis on holistic multidisciplinary subspecialty development is needed to advance pediatric solid tumor care in Southeast Asia.

Sustainable care for children with cancer: a Lancet Oncology Commission

We estimate that there will be 13·7 million new cases of childhood cancer globally between 2020 and 2050. At current levels of health system performance (including access and referral), 6·1 million (44·9%) of these children will be undiagnosed. Between 2020 and 2050, 11·1 million children will die from cancer if no additional investments are made to improve access to health-care services or childhood cancer treatment. Of this total, 9·3 million children (84·1%) will be in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. This burden could be vastly reduced with new funding to scale up cost-effective interventions. Simultaneous comprehensive scale-up of interventions could avert 6·2 million deaths in children with cancer in this period, more than half (56·1%) of the total number of deaths otherwise projected. Taking excess mortality risk into consideration, this reduction in the number of deaths is projected to produce a gain of 318 million life-years. In addition, the global lifetime productivity gains of US$2580 billion in 2020-50 would be four times greater than the cumulative treatment costs of $594 billion, producing a net benefit of $1986 billion on the global investment: a net return of $3 for every $1 invested. In sum, the burden of childhood cancer, which has been grossly underestimated in the past, can be effectively diminished to realise massive health and economic benefits and to avert millions of needless deaths.