Global oncology research and training at US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centres: results of the 2021 Global Oncology Survey

Engineering Stimuli-Responsive Materials for Precision Medicine

Over the past decade, precision medicine has garnered increasing attention, making significant strides in discovering new therapeutic drugs and mechanisms, resulting in notable achievements in symptom alleviation, pain reduction, and extended survival rates. However, the limited target specificity of primary drugs and inter-individual differences have often necessitated high-dosage strategies, leading to challenges such as restricted deep tissue penetration rates and systemic side effects. Material science advancements present a promising avenue for these issues. By leveraging the distinct internal features of diseased regions and the application of specific external stimuli, responsive materials can be tailored to achieve targeted delivery, controllable release, and specific biochemical reactions. This review aims to highlight the latest advancements in stimuli-responsive materials and their potential in precision medicine. Initially, we introduce disease-related internal stimuli and capable external stimuli, elucidating the reaction principles of responsive functional groups. Subsequently, we provide a detailed analysis of representative pre-clinical achievements of stimuli responsive materials across various clinical applications, including enhancements in the treatment of cancers, injury diseases, inflammatory diseases, infection diseases, and high-throughput microfluidic biosensors. Finally, we discuss some clinical challenges, such as off-target effects, long-term impacts of nano-materials, potential ethical concerns, and offer insights into future perspectives of stimuli-responsive materials.

Barriers to Implementing a Quality Improvement Program in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Adequacy of Resources

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) report disproportionally worse cancer mortality. Current global cancer control efforts focus predominantly on expanding access to multimodality treatment for patients, whereas less attention has been spent on implementing strategies to ensure sustained quality assessment and improvement across the cancer care continuum. The goal of this focused review was to examine specific resource barriers to the development and implementation of quality improvement programs in LMICs. In this article, we use a nonsystematic review process to discuss the existing literature on four resource barriers within the context of cancer care delivery in LMICs, focusing on staff, time allocated for quality improvement work, research infrastructure, and funding. We provide possible solutions to address these barriers and share examples of specific quality improvement initiatives implemented across different world regions. Possible solutions to address these resource barriers include investment in human resources by increasing recruitment and training of the workforce, engagement of medical trainees and patients in quality improvement work, establishment of cancer registries and electronic medical records, and prioritization by large international funding agencies to invest in quality improvement research in LMICs. This review highlights four prevalent resources barriers to quality improvement in LMICs. Using examples from Botswana, Colombia, India, and Rwanda, we demonstrate solutions that may help overcome these barriers.

Survey of Hematology/Oncology Program Leaders on Equity and Global Health Opportunities for Fellows

PURPOSE

The study assesses the current state of global oncology (GO)/hematology training opportunities in US fellowship programs.

METHODS

We developed a comprehensive survey of 64-Likert multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The survey was electronically distributed to fellowship program leaders at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited adult hematology/oncology fellowships. Program directors received three reminders after which survey was sent to assistant program directors or division heads for programs not represented.

RESULTS

A total of 171 programs were eligible for the survey. We received 42 (24.6%) responses; 40 were included in the analysis, and two were excluded for declined consent and incomplete responses. The programs include large academic (81.6%) and community hospitals (10.5%). Of the respondents, 18 (48.6%) reported offering some opportunities for global health training, and half reported interest among current fellows. Most programs (29, 82.9%) had three or fewer faculty engaged in GO research. Institutional training grants were available in 15 (39.5%) programs, of which six (40%) allowed for global health research. Of the 18 programs offering global health training activities, most (15, 83.3%) report less than a quarter of their trainees currently participate in GO experiences. The most commonly perceived barriers to GO opportunities include competing priorities (85.3%) and lack of faculty mentors with GO-related experience (82.4%). Conversely, the most commonly perceived facilitators include established partnerships outside the United States (97.0%) and dedicated institutional funding (93.9%).

CONCLUSION

Our survey demonstrates that although there is significant interest among fellowship trainees, a minority of the fellowship programs offer GO opportunities. Providing GO opportunities would require programs to establish partnerships with institutions outside the United States and to have systematic approaches of addressing other barriers, including enhancing funding and mentorship.

A roadmap to establishing global oncology as a priority initiative within a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center

As the burden of cancers impacting low- and middle-income countries is projected to increase, formation of strategic partnerships between institutions in high-income countries and low- and middle-income country institutions may serve to accelerate cancer research, clinical care, and training. As the US National Cancer Institute and its Center for Global Health continue to encourage cancer centers to join its global mission, academic cancer centers in the United States have increased their global activities. In 2015, the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of California, San Francisco, responded to the call for international partnership in addressing the global cancer burden through the establishment of the Global Cancer Program as a priority initiative. In developing the Global Cancer Program, we galvanized institutional support to foster sustained, bidirectional, equitable, international partnerships in global cancer control. Our focus and intent in disseminating this commentary is to share experiences and lessons learned from the perspective of a US-based, National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and to provide a roadmap for other high-income institutions seeking to strategically broaden their missions and address the complex challenges of global cancer control. Herein, we review the formative evaluation, governance, strategic planning, investments in career development, funding sources, program evaluation, and lessons learned. Reflecting on the evolution of our program during the first 5 years, we observed in our partners a powerful shift toward a locally driven priority setting, reduced dependency, and an increased commitment to research as a path to improve cancer outcomes in resource-constrained settings.