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

Building Capacity for Global Cancer Research: Existing Opportunities and Future Directions

Cancer incidence and mortality are increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where more than 75% of global cancer burden will occur by the year 2040. The primary drivers of cancer morbidity and mortality in LMICs are environmental and behavioral risk factors, inadequate prevention and early detection services, presence of comorbidities, and poor access to treatment and palliation. These same drivers also contribute to marked cancer health disparities in high-income countries. Studying cancer in LMICs provides opportunities to better understand and address these drivers to benefit populations worldwide, and reflecting this, global oncology as an academic discipline has grown substantially in recent years. However, sustaining this growth requires a uniquely trained workforce with the skills to pursue relevant, rigorous, and equitable global oncology research. Despite this need, dedicated global cancer research training programs remain somewhat nascent and uncoordinated. In this paper, we discuss efforts to address these gaps in global cancer research training at the US National Institutes of Health.

Strengthening capacity for cancer research in conflict settings: key informant insights from the Middle East

Background

Management of cancer in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is accompanied by multiple challenges including heterogeneous access to early detection and treatment options and limited implementation of national cancer control plans. Furthermore, protracted armed conflicts across the region have had dramatic effects, including disruption of healthcare systems and the migration of healthcare professionals. Strengthening capacity for cancer research has been identified as a key intervention to correct data poverty, inform policy, manage limited resources and improve health outcomes.

Objective

The main objective of this study is to gain insights into the landscape, barriers and enablers of cancer training, research and care in the MENA region.

Method

We utilised purposive sampling to interview 16 key informants from a diverse academic, medical and research background originating from countries affected by conflicts, such as Lebanon, and from active conflict zones including Iraq and Syria.

Results

The themes that emerged from the interviews focused on the barriers to cancer care, barriers to cancer research and training, strengths and importance of cancer research and training recommendations. The detrimental effect of conflict on cancer provision and research was a cross-cutting sub-theme disrupting cancer care provision and research due to unsafe environments, fragmented facilities, absence of drugs and migration of personnel. When asked about perceived optimal training format for cancer research, most informants recommended a post-graduate, face-to-face training focusing on cancer research methods and concepts.

Conclusion

This study offers a unique insight into the barriers affecting cancer research and capacity-strengthening priorities from oncologists and researchers working in conflict-affected areas of the MENA region. These data will form the base for future capacity-strengthening initiatives addressing specific regional challenges.

Recommendations from the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force

In recognition of the rising incidence and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has prioritized efforts to enhance its engagement at a global level. Among the recommendations included in the 2016 Global Oncology Leadership Task Force report to the ASCO Board of Directors was that ASCO should promote the recognition of global oncology as an academic field. The report suggested that ASCO could serve a role in transitioning global oncology from an informal field of largely voluntary activities to a more formal discipline with strong research and well-defined training components. As a result of this recommendation, in 2017, ASCO formed the Academic Global Oncology Task Force (AGOTF) to guide ASCO’s contributions toward formalizing the field of global oncology. The AGOTF was asked to collect and analyze key issues and barriers toward the recognition of global oncology as an academic discipline, with an emphasis on training, research, and career pathways, and produce a set of recommendations for ASCO action. The outcome of the AGOTF was the development of recommendations designed to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline.

Global Health Perspectives Among Radiation Oncology Residency Program Directors: A Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Survey

PURPOSE

Interest in global health has risen among medical students applying to and residents training in radiation oncology, often outpacing available educational offerings. The Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Global Health Subcommittee sought to determine the perceptions of program directors (PDs) in radiation oncology and their current or planned global health curricular opportunities.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A standardized, Knowledge-Attitudes-Practices survey composed of 32 binary items was sent to PDs for all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiation oncology programs.

RESULTS

The program response rate was 60% (55 of 91). Responding programs were distributed evenly geographically and included a range of training program sizes. Most PDs (77%) knew that most nations did not meet standard minimum benchmarks for radiation therapy access. Although 89% would support residents in pursuing global health rotations, only 22% would support departmental funding of such rotations. Furthermore, 94% believed that global health was a field worthy of an academic career, but only 39% believed that it had appropriate rigor. Only 8% of programs had dedicated global health rotations.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiation oncology PDs largely expressed favorable views of global health as a pursuit and affirmed a high degree of resident and medical student interest. However, faculty commitment and program offerings currently lag behind the interest level. In particular, a substantial number of PDs do not perceive global health to be a rigorous academic endeavor. Future progress in academic global health in radiation oncology will require strategies to systematically support pathways for the development of experience and scholarship both within and beyond residency.