WHO Priority List of Medical Devices for Cancer Management

Susan Mayor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30407-2

IF: 54.433

2017-01-01

The Lancet Oncology

Abstract:WHO has developed a model reference list of medical devices recommended as basic and priority requirements for managing cancer in member states. The priority list is designed to increase access to these devices, especially in low-income and middle-income countries.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

WHO Includes 16 New Cancer Drugs on List of Essential Medicines.

Susan Mayor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(15)70240-8

IF: 54.433

2015-01-01

The Lancet Oncology

Abstract:16 new drugs, including imatinib and trastuzumab, have been added to WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines. This addition is the largest to any therapeutic area since the list began in 1977, and is a major initiative to increase access to drugs that can improve public health by increasing survival in common cancers or achieving high cure rates in rarer cancers.
Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey

Adam Fundytus,Manju Sengar,Dorothy Lombe,Wilma Hopman,Matthew Jalink,Bishal Gyawali,Dario Trapani,Felipe Roitberg,Elisabeth G E De Vries,Lorenzo Moja,André Ilbawi,Richard Sullivan,Christopher M Booth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00463-0

Abstract:Background: The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice. Methods: This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries. Findings: 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries. Interpretation: These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines. Funding: None.
A multidisciplinary review of the policy, intellectual property rights, and international trade environment for access and affordability to essential cancer medications

Sangita M Baxi,Reed Beall,Joshua Yang,Tim K Mackey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-019-0497-3

2019-09-18

Global Health

Abstract:In 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Committee approved the addition of 16 cancer medicines to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), bringing the total number of cancer medicines on the list to 46. This change represented the first major revision to the EML oncology section in recent history and reinforces international recognition of the need to ensure access and affordability for cancer treatments. Importantly, many low and middle-income countries rely on the EML, as well as the children's EML, as a guide to establish national formularies, and moreover use these lists as tools to negotiate medicine pricing. However, EML inclusion is only one component that impacts cancer treatment access. More specifically, factors such as intellectual property rights and international trade agreements can interact with EML inclusion, drug pricing, and accessibility. To better understand this dynamic, we conducted an interdisciplinary review of the patent status of EML cancer medicines compared to other EML noncommunicable disease medicines using the 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st editions of the list. We also explored the interaction of intellectual property rights with the international trade regime and how trade agreements can and do impact cancer treatment access and affordability. Based on this analysis, we conclude that patent status is simply one factor in the complex international environment of health systems, IPR policies, and trade regimes and that aligning these oftentimes disparate interests will require shared global governance across the cancer care continuum.
Essential cancer medicines and cancer outcomes: Cross-sectional study of 124 countries

Oghenefejiro Theresa Ikpeni,Darshanand Maraj,Hannah Woods,Aine Workentin,Christopher M Booth,Nav Persaud

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.6642

Abstract:Background: Cancer is the second leading cause of death worldwide. Alongside other interventions, access to certain medicines may decrease cancer-associated mortality. Listing medicines on national essential medicines lists may improve health outcomes. We examine the association between cancer mortality amenable to care and the listing of cancer medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) of 124 countries. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we determined the number of medicines used to treat eight cancers on NEMLs and used multiple linear regression to analyze the association between cancer health outcome scores and the number of medicines on NEMLs while controlling for GDP. A sensitivity analysis was also conducted using selected medicines. Findings: The number of cancer medicines on NEMLs was not associated with cancer health outcome scores when GDP was controlled for non-melanoma skin (p = 0.224), uterine (p = 0.221), breast (p = 0.145), Hodgkin's lymphoma (p = 0.697), colon (p = 0.299), leukemia (p = 0.103), cervical (p = 0.834), and testicular cancers (p = 0.178). Interpretation: There was a weak association between listing medicines for eight cancers in NEMLs and amenable mortality. Further studies are required to explore association between cancer health outcomes and other factors such as actual availability of medicines listed, access to surgeries, accurate diagnosis, radiotherapy, and early detection.
Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 2015–2021

Yue Zhou,Huseyin Naci,Dingyi Chen,Lin Bai,Luwen Shi,Xiaodong Guan,Anita Katharina Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012899

IF: 8.056

2023-01-01

BMJ Global Health

Abstract:INTRODUCTION:We examined overall survival (OS) benefits for targeted cancer drugs recommended for List of Essential Medicines (EMLs) since 2015. We assessed consistency of decisions in 2019 and 2021 with more specific criteria: OS benefit >4 months and high scores on European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).METHODS:We identified applications for cancer drug in WHO EMLs from 2015 to 2021. We extracted evidence of OS benefit documented in WHO Technical Report Series (TRS) and compared it to evidence from pivotal trial(s) documented in Food and Drug Administration-approved labels. We retrieved published ESMO-MCBS scores. We summarised availability and magnitude of OS benefit and ESMO-MCBS scores and assessed consistency of inclusion decisions against WHO criteria.RESULTS:22/54 targeted cancer drug indications were recommended. Among them, 68.2% and 31.8% had OS benefit evidence documented in WHO-TRS and pivotal trials, respectively. Among those not recommended, 59.4% and 56.3% had OS benefit evidence documented in WHO-TRS and pivotal trials, respectively. Of 11 cancer drug indications recommended in 2019 and 2021, 54.5% and 9.1% had evidence of OS benefit >4 months in WHO-TRS and pivotal trials, respectively; 45.5% met ESMO-MCBS criteria. Ten targeted cancer drugs had more than one application for the same indications. Five of those were eventually recommended, including three without new evidence of OS benefit. Additional factors, such as reduced cost, and increased treatment options, seemed to be important factors in the selection.CONCLUSION:While WHO has defined approval criteria for cancer drugs EML, we identified areas where adherence of these criteria and communication of the EML approval decision-making processes can be improved.
WHO Model list of essential medicines: visions for the future

Thomas Piggott,Lorenzo Moja,Benedikt Huttner,Patrick Okwen,Mario Carlo B Raviglione,Tamara Kredo,Holger J Schünemann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.24.292359

2024-10-01

Abstract:The first version of the World Health Organization Model list of essential medicines contained 186 medicines in 1977 and has evolved to include 502 medicines in 2023. Over time, different articles criticized the methods and process for decisions; however, the list holds global relevance as a model list to over 150 national lists. Given the global use of the model list, reflecting on its future role is imperative to understand how the list should evolve and respond to the needs of Member States. In 2023, the model list Expert Committee recommended the World Health Organization (WHO) to initiate a process to revise the procedures for updating the model list and the criteria guiding decisions. Here, we offer an agenda outlining priority areas and a vision for an authoritative model list. The main areas include improving transparency and trustworthiness of the recommendations; strengthening connection to national lists; and continuing the debate on the principles that should guide the model list, in particular the role of cost and price of essential medicines. These reflections are intended to support efforts ensuring the continued impact of this policy tool.
ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Breast Cancer

Evandro de Azambuja,Dario Trapani,Sibylle Loibl,Suzette Delaloge,Elzbieta Senkus,Carmen Criscitiello,Philip Poortman,Michael Gnant,Serena Di Cosimo,Javier Cortes,Fatima Cardoso,Shani Paluch-Shimon,Giuseppe Curigliano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/esmoopen-2020-000793

IF: 6.883

ESMO Open

Abstract:The global preparedness and response to the rapid escalation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV)-2-related disease (COVID-19) to a pandemic proportion has demanded the formulation of a reliable, useful and evidence-based mechanism for health services prioritisation, to achieve the highest quality standards of care to all patients. The prioritisation of high value cancer interventions must be embedded in the agenda for the pandemic response, ensuring that no inconsistency or discrepancy emerge in the health planning processes.The aim of this work is to organise health interventions for breast cancer management and research in a tiered framework (high, medium, low value), formulating a scheme of prioritisation per clinical cogency and intrinsic value or magnitude of benefit. The public health tools and schemes for priority setting in oncology have been used as models, aspiring to capture clinical urgency, value in healthcare, community goals and fairness, while respecting the principles of benevolence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice.We discuss the priority health interventions across the cancer continuum, giving a perspective on the role and meaning to maintain some services (undeferrable) while temporarily abrogate some others (deferrable). Considerations for implementation and the essential link to pre-existing health services, especially primary healthcare, are addressed, outlining a framework for the development of effective and functional services, such as telemedicine.The discussion covers the theme of health systems strategising, and why oncology care, in particular breast cancer care, should be maintained in parallel to pandemic control measures, providing a pragmatic clinical model within the broader context of public healthcare schemes.
OP107 Streamlining Health Technology Assessment Of Medical Devices Through Development Of The Philippine Essential Medical Device List

Patrick Wincy Reyes,Lara Alyssa Liban,Ma. Cecilia Victoria Arellano,Joshua Santillan,Sheena Jasley Samonte,Anne Julienne Marfori,Anna Melissa Guerrero,Marc James delos Santos,Catherine Manuela Lee-Ramos,Agnette Peralta,Health Technology Assessment Council Department of Health – Medical Device Unit,Department of Health – Medical Device Unit, Health Technology Assessment Council

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462323001198

2023-12-15

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:Introduction Pursuant to the Universal Health Care Act of 2019, the Health Technology Assessment Council (HTAC) in the Philippines was mandated to make recommendations for government financing of health technologies, including medical devices. The development of a Philippine Essential Medical Device List (PEMDL) will serve as a guide for the procurement of medical devices and supplies in government health facilities and as the basis for creating a price reference index. Methods The HTAC and a team of medical device experts (the Expert Advisory Committee) developed a streamlined pathway and guidelines using a Delphi technique with the Philippine Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health (DOH) to determine the necessary criteria for fast tracking the inclusion of medical devices. The pathway was also revised throughout a pilot processing of commonly procured medical devices (e.g., consumables) that were either already covered by existing national health insurance packages or funded by DOH programs, among others. Results The final pathway consisted of validating whether the device was already approved by the Philippine FDA and whether it was already part of standard of care. Similar to the usual HTA nomination requirement, the local FDA approval attested to the safety and quality of the device. Meanwhile, the inclusion of the device in the standard of care guaranteed that it was essential in the healthcare setting. This can be written in the World Health Organization technical documents and databases such as the Medical Devices Information System, health facility listing requirements, or locally adopted clinical practice guidelines. The initial PEMDL for release contained a total of 307 medical devices across 16 categories. Conclusions Unlike the mandate for the Philippine National Formulary, government health facilities are not yet required to base their procurement on the PEMDL because the list is still in its infancy. Moving forward, the list will include big ticket items and will be updated through consultations with specialty centers and hospitals.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Measuring the value of the WHO Model list of essential medicines

Elizabeth Peacocke,Elina Dale,Amani Thomas Mori,Augustina Koduah,Unni Gopinathan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.24.292521

IF: 13.831

2024-10-03

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Abstract:Bull World Health Organ . 2024 Oct 1;102(10):684-684A. doi: 10.2471/BLT.24.292521. NO

public, environmental & occupational health
Differences in reimbursement listing of anticancer therapies in China: an observational study

Xiaodong Guan,Yichen Zhang,Haishaerjiang Wushouer,Luwen Shi,Dennis Ross-Degnan,Anita Katharina Wagner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031203

IF: 3.006

2020-01-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective Access to highly priced anticancer medications usually requires insurance coverage. A first step towards coverage of such medications is their inclusion in reimbursement lists. We assessed listing for reimbursement in China between 2009 and 2018 of anticancer medications on the WHO's Essential Medicines List. Setting and study design Using publicly available data, we assessed which anticancer medications listed in the 20th WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) were included in China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL). For five targeted anticancer medications on the WHO EML, we also assessed inclusion in the 31 Chinese Provincial Reimbursement Drug Lists (PRDLs). Logistic regression was used to test whether inclusion of targeted anticancer medications was associated with provincial economic levels. Primary outcome measures Inclusion of five targeted anticancer medications in the NRDL and PRDLs before and after 2017. Results The 2017 NRDL included all anticancer medications on the WHO EML (except for one not approved in China at the time), and by 2018, all 31 PRDLs listed the targeted anticancer medications except for nilotinib; four provinces had covered all five targeted medications before the 2017 NRDL coverage mandate. Provincial economic level and regional incidence of specific cancers seemed unrelated to the inclusion of five targeted anticancer medications in PRDLs. Conclusion Our findings suggest that by including medications in the national and provincial reimbursement lists, China has taken an important first step in promoting access to targeted anticancer medications. Further research is needed to determine whether inclusion in PRDLs improved the availability, appropriate use and affordability of highly priced targeted anticancer medications in China.
An approach to prioritization of medical devices in low-income countries: an example based on the Republic of South Sudan

Richard J Lilford,Samantha L Burn,Karin D Diaconu,Peter Lilford,Peter J Chilton,Victoria Bion,Carole Cummins,Semira Manaseki-Holland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-014-0027-3

2015-01-10

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation

Abstract:BackgroundEfficient and evidence-based medical device and equipment prioritization is of particular importance in low-income countries due to constraints in financing capacity, physical infrastructure and human resource capabilities.MethodsThis paper outlines a medical device prioritization method developed in first instance for the Republic of South Sudan. The simple algorithm offered here is a starting point for procurement and selection of medical devices and can be regarded as a screening test for those that require more labour intensive health economic modelling.ConclusionsA heuristic method, such as the one presented here, is appropriate for reaching many medical device prioritization decisions in low-income settings. Further investment and purchasing decisions that cannot be reached so simply require more complex health economic modelling approaches.

health policy & services
A global priority list of the TOp TEn resistant Microorganisms (TOTEM) study at intensive care: a prioritization exercise based on multi-criteria decision analysis

Jordi Rello,Vandana Kalwaje Eshwara,Leo Lagunes,Joana Alves,Richard G. Wunderink,Andrew Conway-Morris,Jose Nicolas Rojas,Emine Alp,Zhongheng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-018-3428-y

2018-01-01

Abstract:The World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a global priority pathogen list (PPL) of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria. Our current objective was to provide global expert ranking of the most serious MDR bacteria present at intensive care units (ICU) that have become a threat in clinical practice. A proposal addressing a PPL for ICU, arising from the WHO Global PPL, was developed. Based on the supporting data, the pathogens were grouped in three priority tiers: critical, high, and medium. A multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was used to identify the priority tiers. After MCDA, mortality, treatability, and cost of therapy were of highest concern (scores of 19/20, 19/20, and 15/20, respectively) while dealing with PPL, followed by healthcare burden and resistance prevalence. Carbapenem-resistant (CR) Acinetobacter baumannii , carbapenemase-expressing Klebsiella pneumoniae (KPC), and MDR Pseudomonas aeruginosa were identified as critical organisms. High-risk organisms were represented by CR Pseudomonas aeruginosa , methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus , and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) Enterobacteriaceae . Finally, ESBL Serratia marcescens , vancomycin-resistant Enterococci , and TMP-SMX-resistant Stenotrophomonas maltophilia were identified as medium priority. We conclude that education, investigation, funding, and development of new antimicrobials for ICU organisms should focus on carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative organisms.
Evidence of Clinical Benefit of WHO Essential Anticancer Medicines for Children, 2011–2021

Lin Bai,Yuqi Zhan,Yue Zhou,Yichen Zhang,Luwen Shi,Sumit Gupta,Avram Denburg,Xiaodong Guan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101966

IF: 15.1

2023-01-01

EClinicalMedicine

Abstract:Background Access to essential cancer medicines is a key determinant of childhood cancer survival. WHO published the Model List of Essential Medicine for Children (EMLc) and updated it every two years since 2007 to promote better access to medicines for children. This study aimed to assess whether the inclusion of essential anticancer medicines for respective indications for children was based on evidence of significant clinical benefit between 2011 and 2021.Methods We identified all anticancer medicine indications added to the WHO EMLc Section 8 since 2011 and extracted evidence of benefit documented in the corresponding technical reports. Evidence in children was defined as evidence that included participants under 12, and graded into five levels, according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. We analyzed whether each anticancer medicine indication was listed with documented OS benefit or improvements in surrogate measures based on the highest level of documented evidence in children.Findings A total of 115 anticancer medicine indications were added to the EMLc from 2011 to 2021, of which 101 (87.8%) had some clinical evidence in children and 4 (3.5%) were added without any clinical evidence. Among the 101 medicine indications, none were added with level-1 evidence in children, and 43 (42.6%), 11 (10.9%), 41 (40.6%), and 6 (5.9%) were listed with level-2, level-3, level-4, and level-5 evidence in children, respectively. Only eight (7.9%) medicine indications were reported to have OS benefit, another 12 (11.9%) were reported to have improvements on surrogate measures, and 81 (80.2%) were listed in the EMLc without documented improvements in either OS or surrogate measures.Interpretation Most anticancer medicine indications of the WHO EMLc were added based on limited evidence of statistically significant clinical benefit in children. Our results suggest that WHO should refine requirements for clinical benefit criteria and permissible forms, quality, and reporting of evidence of essential anticancer medicines for children, specify whether anticancer medicine indications have required evidence of clinical benefit in children, and provide further details in its technical reports that summarise the available evidence.Copyright & COPY; 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
High-value breast cancer care within resource limitations

Didier Verhoeven,Sabine Siesling,Claudia Allemani,Pankaj Gupta Roy,Luzia Travado,Nirmala Bhoo-Pathy,Clifford Rhayns,Hans Junkermann,Seigo Nakamura,Nwamaka Lasebikan,Forrest Lee Tucker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae080

2024-07-05

Abstract:Breast cancer care is a costly global health issue where effective management depends on early detection and treatment. A breast cancer diagnosis can result in financial catastrophe especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Large inequities in breast cancer care are observed and represent a global challenge to caregivers and patients. Strategies to improve early diagnosis include awareness and clinical breast examination in LMIC, and screening in high-income countries (HIC). The use of clinical guidelines for the management of breast cancer is needed. Adapted guidelines from HIC can address disparities in populations with limited resources. Locally developed strategies still provide effective guidance in improving survival. Integrated practice units (IPU) with timely multidisciplinary breast care conferences and patient navigators are required to achieve high-value, personalized breast cancer management in HIC as well as LMIC. Breast cancer patient care should include a quality of life evaluation using ideally patient-reported outcomes (PROM) and experience measurements (PREM). Evaluation of breast cancer outcomes must include the financial cost of delivered care. The resulting value perspective should guide resource allocation and program priorities. The value of care must be improved by translating the findings of social and economic research into practice and resolving systemic inequity in clinical breast cancer research. Cancer survivorship programs must be put in place everywhere. The treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer must require more attention in the future, especially in LMIC.
Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission

Hedvig Hricak,May Abdel-Wahab,Rifat Atun,Miriam Mikhail Lette,Diana Paez,James A Brink,Lluís Donoso-Bach,Guy Frija,Monika Hierath,Ola Holmberg,Pek-Lan Khong,Jason S Lewis,Geraldine McGinty,Wim J G Oyen,Lawrence N Shulman,Zachary J Ward,Andrew M Scott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30751-8

Abstract: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.
Breast cancer management in middle-resource countries (MRCs): Consensus statement from the Breast Health Global Initiative

Cheng-Har Yip,Eduardo Cazap,Benjamin O. Anderson,Kristin L. Bright,Maira Caleffi,Fatima Cardoso,Ahmed M. Elzawawy,Joe B. Harford,Gabriel D. Krygier,Shahla Masood,Raul Murillo,Ignacio M. Muse,Isabel V. Otero,Leigh J. Passman,Luiz A. Santini,Ronaldo Corrêa Ferreira da Silva,David B. Thomas,Soledad Torres,Ying Zheng,Hussein M. Khaled

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2011.02.015

IF: 4.254

2011-04-01

The Breast

Abstract:In middle resource countries (MRCs), cancer control programs are becoming a priority as the pattern of disease shifts from infectious diseases to non-communicable diseases such as breast cancer, the most common cancer among women in MRCs. The Middle Resource Scenarios Working Group of the BHGI 2010 Global Summit met to identify common issues and obstacles to breast cancer detection, diagnosis and treatment in MRCs. They concluded that breast cancer early detection programs continue to be important, should include clinical breast examination (CBE) with or without mammography, and should be coupled with active awareness programs. Mammographic screening is usually opportunistic and early detection programs are often hampered by logistical and financial problems, as well as socio-cultural barriers, despite improved public educational efforts. Although multidisciplinary services for treatment are available, geographical and economic limitations to these services can lead to an inequity in health care access. Without adequate health insurance coverage, limited personal finances can be a significant barrier to care for many patients. Despite the improved availability of services (surgery, pathology, radiology and radiotherapy), quality assurance programs remain a challenge. Better access to anticancer drugs is needed to improve outcomes, as are rehabilitation programs for survivors. Focused and sustained government health care financing in MRCs is needed to improve early detection and treatment of breast cancer.
Which Drugs Should Be on the Essential Medicines List?

Courtney Perlino,Hilary Daniel,Amy B Cadwallader

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2024.282

2024-04-01

AMA Journal of Ethics

Abstract:The World Health Organization (WHO) published its first Essential Medicines List (EML) in 1977, and it is updated biennially. One might reasonably think drugs on the EML are there because they are critical to effective, evidence-based patient care and intervention. One might not reasonably guess, however, that a particular drug's supply chain vulnerabilities that make it a shortage risk would contribute to a drug's listing on the EML. This commentary on a case first describes why the WHO makes the EML and suggests reasons why it might be important to consider a drug's shortage risk when revising and updating it. This commentary also suggests how distinguishing "essential" drugs from "vulnerable" drugs could bolster supply chain resiliency and mitigate drug shortages' disruptions to patient care.
Non-Breast Implantable Medical Devices and Associated Malignancies: A Systematic Review

Natalia Ziolkowski,John Milkovich,Alexandra D’Souza,Ryan E Austin,Patricia McGuire,Frank Lista,Jamil Ahmad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjae178

2024-08-08

Aesthetic Surgery Journal

Abstract:Abstract Innovation in healthcare has led to the development of numerous implantable medical devices (IMDs). However, advances in our knowledge of breast implant–associated malignancies have raised questions about the prevalence, etiology, and management of malignancies associated with non-breast IMDs. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and characteristics of malignancies associated with non-breast IMDs. An expert medical librarian developed the search strategy for this review. Databases included MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In addition, gray literature sources were searched, and relevant references from systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. The PRISMA guideline was followed for the review. Risk of bias was evaluated with the JBI Critical Appraisal tools. A total of 12,230 articles were reviewed, with a total of 77 meeting inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was highest with case reports (moderate, average of 65.1% with range of 37.5% to 100%) and low for the remaining study types. In total, 616 cases of IMD-associated malignancies were identified. Malignancies associated with IMDs were reported in the head and neck (543, 88.1%), lower extremity (57, 9.6%), thorax (9, 1.4%), abdomen (3, 0.5%), and genitourinary system (2, 0.3%). The most common malignancy type in the lower extremity was sarcoma, in the head and neck was squamous cell carcinoma, and in the thorax was lymphoma. This study is the first comprehensive systematic review of its kind. Overall, the oncologic risk of IMDs is low. The discussion of malignancy is an important part of the overall consent process, and malignancy should be considered with any new signs or symptoms in the anatomic area of an implant. More data are needed to better understand how primary malignancies occur around IMDs and how to reduce this risk. Level of Evidence: 3

surgery
Global disparities in cancer care: Bridging the gap in affordability and access to medications between high and low‐income countries

Arafat H. Tfayli,Laura N. El‐Halabi,Fadlo R. Khuri

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35590

IF: 6.9209

2024-11-24

Cancer

Abstract:Background Cancer remains a significant challenge for health care systems, despite notable progress in the field. These advancements have significant financial implications that disproportionately affect low‐income countries. This review article aims to explore the present state of drug development, assessing the availability of drugs in different income countries, and proposing potential solutions to address the inequality in access to new cancer treatments. Methods A search was conducted on MEDLINE and PubMed on October 2, 2023 and updated on December 14, 2023, limited to English language articles. Results There is a projected rise in cancer cases worldwide, particularly in low‐income countries where most cancer‐related deaths are expected. Although the approval rate of cancer treatments has risen, their excessive cost and lack of affordability pose significant barriers to widespread access. Disparities in the costs of crucial cancer medications are influenced by geographic location and procurement connections. Potential solutions to address the inequity in drug distribution include sharing production secrets, implementing price discrimination, international funding, improved primary health care measures, and the implementation of cost‐effective screening methods. Conclusion Preventing, screening for, and treating cancer should be a global priority with minimal differences in access to therapy among various countries.

oncology
A Multidisciplinary Consensus‐Building Exercise to Define and Prioritize Topics in Supportive Care of Children With Cancer at a Global Level

Elizabeth Sniderman,Tea Reljic,Manoo Bhakta,Miguel Bonilla,Julie Clyce,Jessica Farmer,Monica Key,Sergio Licona,Jennifer L. Pauley,Alondra Torres‐Gonzalez,Michael Sullivan,Nickhill Bhakta,Ambuj Kumar,Sheena Mukkada

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.70377

IF: 4.711

2024-11-07

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:High‐quality supportive care is critical to improve outcomes for childhood cancer and mitigate the treatment‐related toxicity and mortality of increasingly potent treatment regimens. Sixty‐two supportive care topics were identified and rank‐ordered by a global, multidisciplinary panel of pediatric oncology clinicians to guide development of resource‐adapted clinical practice recommendations; morbidity and mortality were identified as the key criteria for prioritizing topics. Introduction Optimal outcomes during childhood cancer treatment require effective management of toxicities, often called supportive care. A lack of agreement on what comprises supportive care limits the development and provision of comprehensive guidance (for this work, we have defined supportive care as any disease‐ or treatment‐related condition experienced by children with cancer, excluding psychosocial conditions, palliative care, survivorship, or procedural topics). To address this gap, we conducted a consensus‐building exercise among global experts to define and prioritize topics for supportive care. Methods Two rounds of brainstorming and prioritization exercises were conducted. A multidisciplinary panel nominated by professional societies and cooperative groups was formed to ensure geographic and resource representation using snowball sampling. An internal expert panel generated an initial list of supportive care topics. In round one, the multidisciplinary panel reviewed the initial list and recommended additional topics, followed by prioritization in round two using a seven‐point Likert scale. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results The multidisciplinary panel consisted of 57 members representing 32 countries. The initial list included 46 topics; 161 additional topics were suggested. After removing duplicates and out‐of‐scope additions, the final list contained 62 topics. Febrile neutropenia, sepsis, bloodstream infections, and pain were ranked highest priority. Mortality, morbidity, and frequency of the event were identified as the most important factors influencing prioritization. Conclusion Through a multidisciplinary and globally representative process, we identified core supportive care topics and factors influencing their prioritization for childhood cancer. Outputs from this work will inform efforts to generate resource‐adapted recommendations for a global audience. This supports ongoing WHO CureAll work to develop a health systems‐level policy brief of supportive care requirements in the management of children with cancer.

oncology

WHO Priority List of Medical Devices for Cancer Management

WHO Includes 16 New Cancer Drugs on List of Essential Medicines.

Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey

A multidisciplinary review of the policy, intellectual property rights, and international trade environment for access and affordability to essential cancer medications

Essential cancer medicines and cancer outcomes: Cross-sectional study of 124 countries

Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 2015–2021

WHO Model list of essential medicines: visions for the future

ESMO Management and treatment adapted recommendations in the COVID-19 era: Breast Cancer

OP107 Streamlining Health Technology Assessment Of Medical Devices Through Development Of The Philippine Essential Medical Device List

Measuring the value of the WHO Model list of essential medicines

Differences in reimbursement listing of anticancer therapies in China: an observational study

An approach to prioritization of medical devices in low-income countries: an example based on the Republic of South Sudan

A global priority list of the TOp TEn resistant Microorganisms (TOTEM) study at intensive care: a prioritization exercise based on multi-criteria decision analysis

Evidence of Clinical Benefit of WHO Essential Anticancer Medicines for Children, 2011–2021

High-value breast cancer care within resource limitations

Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission

Breast cancer management in middle-resource countries (MRCs): Consensus statement from the Breast Health Global Initiative

Which Drugs Should Be on the Essential Medicines List?

Non-Breast Implantable Medical Devices and Associated Malignancies: A Systematic Review

Global disparities in cancer care: Bridging the gap in affordability and access to medications between high and low‐income countries

A Multidisciplinary Consensus‐Building Exercise to Define and Prioritize Topics in Supportive Care of Children With Cancer at a Global Level