Objectives

Older adults under-enroll in early phase cancer clinical trials. There are limited data on their trial experiences, which hampers our ability to understand potential reasons and responses to under-enrollment. We aimed to explore older adults' experiences and deliberations with phase 1 trials.

Materials and methods

We analyzed 101 in-depth interviews with 39 adults (average 2.6 interviews per participant) about their experiences with phase 1 trials. All respondents were ≥ 65 years and had advanced cancer. Interviews lasted 60-90 min and were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify respondents' understanding of clinical research, perceptions of early phase trials, and experiences with enrollment.

Results

Clinical trial participation was an interactive process that unfolded over time. Older adults relied on ongoing guidance and discussion with their oncologist to navigate the process. Respondents were generally interested in life-prolonging therapies, including enrollment in early phase clinical trials, but did not necessarily state this explicitly to their oncologist. While respondents did not mention age as a limitation to trials participation, participants age > 70 were less enthusiastic about participation and more often discussed their quality of life and weighed benefits of trial participation in the context of their remaining months of life.

Conclusion

Early phase clinical trial enrollment is complex, and older adults rely on their oncologist to navigate this process. Acknowledging this complexity through shared decision-making may ensure that older adults have appropriate opportunities to enroll in early phase clinical trials and guard against inappropriate under-enrollment.

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve their populations. This mismatch between demand and supply creates the need for priority setting. There is no widely accepted system to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in a low resource context. In the absence of consensus on allocation principles, fair procedures for priority setting should be established. Research is needed to understand what elements of procedural fairness are important to decision makers in diverse settings, assess the feasibility of implementing fair procedures for priority setting in low resource contexts, and improve these processes. This study presents the views of decision makers engaged in everyday radiotherapy priority setting at a cancer center in Rwanda. Semi-structured interviews with 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and advisors were conducted. Participants evaluated actual radiotherapy priority setting procedures at the program (meso) and patient (micro) levels, reporting facilitators, barriers, and recommendations. We discuss our findings in relation to the leading Accountability for Reasonableness (AFR) framework. Participants emphasized procedural elements that facilitate adherence to normative principles, such as objective criteria that maximize lives saved. They ascribed fairness to AFR's substantive requirement of relevance more than transparency, appeals, and enforcement. They identified several challenges unresolved by AFR, such as conflicting relevant rationales and unintended consequences of publicity and appeals. Implementing fair procedure itself is resource intensive, a paradox that calls for innovative, context-appropriate solutions. Finally, socioeconomic and structural barriers to care that undermine procedural fairness must be addressed.

Background

Moral distress and burnout are highly prevalent among oncology clinicians. Research is needed to better understand how resource constraints and systemic inequalities contribute to moral distress in order to develop effective mitigation strategies. Oncology providers in low- and middle-income countries are well positioned to provide insight into the moral experience of cancer care priority setting and expertise to guide solutions.

Methods

Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology physicians, nurses, program leaders, and clinical advisors at a cancer center in Rwanda. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the framework method.

Results

Participants identified sources of moral distress at three levels of engagement with resource prioritization: witnessing program-level resource constraints drive cancer disparities, implementing priority setting decisions into care of individual patients, and communicating with patients directly about resource prioritization implications. They recommended individual and organizational-level interventions to foster resilience, such as communication skills training and mental health support for clinicians, interdisciplinary team building, fair procedures for priority setting, and collective advocacy for resource expansion and equity.

Conclusion

This study adds to the current literature an in-depth examination of the impact of resource constraints and inequities on clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective interventions are urgently needed to address moral distress, reduce clinician burnout, and promote well-being among a critical but strained oncology workforce. Collective advocacy is concomitantly needed to address the structural forces that constrain resources unevenly and perpetuate disparities in cancer care and outcomes.

Implications for practice

For many oncology clinicians worldwide, resource limitations constrain routine clinical practice and necessitate decisions about prioritizing cancer care. To the authors' knowledge, this study is the first in-depth analysis of how resource constraints and priority setting lead to moral distress among oncology clinicians in a low-resource setting. Effective individual and organizational interventions and collective advocacy for equity in cancer care are urgently needed to address moral distress and reduce clinician burnout among a strained global oncology workforce. Lessons from low-resource settings can be gleaned as high-income countries face growing needs to prioritize oncology resources.

Background

Women with breast cancer in sub-Saharan Africa are commonly diagnosed at advanced stages. In Tanzania, more than 80% of women are diagnosed with stage III or IV disease, and mortality rates are high. This study explored factors contributing to delayed diagnostic evaluation among women with breast cancer in Tanzania.

Methods

A qualitative study was performed at Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Twelve women with symptomatic pathologically proven breast cancer were recruited. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted in Swahili. Interviews explored the women's journey from symptom recognition to diagnosis, including the influence of breast cancer knowledge and pre-conceptions, health seeking behaviors, psychosocial factors, preference for alternative treatments, and the contribution of culture and norms. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and translated into English. Thematic analysis was facilitated by a cloud-based qualitative analysis software.

Results

All women reported that their first breast symptom was a self-identified lump or swelling. Major themes for factors contributing to delayed diagnostic presentation of breast cancer included lack of basic knowledge and awareness of breast cancer and misconceptions about the disease. Participants faced barriers with their local primary healthcare providers, including symptom mismanagement and delayed referrals for diagnostic evaluation. Other barriers included financial hardships, fear and stigma of cancer, and use of traditional medicine. The advice and influence of family members and friends played key roles in healthcare-seeking behaviors, serving as both facilitators and barriers.

Conclusion

Lack of basic knowledge and awareness of breast cancer, stigma, financial barriers, and local healthcare system barriers were common factors contributing to delayed diagnostic presentation of breast cancer. The influence of friends and family also played key roles as both facilitators and barriers. This information will inform the development of educational intervention strategies to address these barriers and improve earlier diagnosis of symptomatic breast cancer in Tanzania.

Background

In response to the increasing burden of cancer in Tanzania, the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly and Children launched National Cancer Treatment Guidelines (TNCTG) in February 2020. The guidelines aimed to improve and standardize oncology care in the country. At Ocean Road Cancer Institute (ORCI), we developed a theory-informed implementation strategy to promote guideline-concordant care. As part of the situation analysis for implementation strategy development, we conducted focus group discussions to evaluate clinical systems and contextual factors that influence guideline-based practice prior to the launch of the TNCTG.

Materials and methods

In June 2019, three focus group discussions were conducted with a total of 21 oncology clinicians at ORCI, stratified by profession. A discussion guide was used to stimulate dialogue about facilitators and barriers to delivery of guideline-concordant care. Discussions were audio recorded, transcribed, translated, and analyzed using thematic framework analysis.

Results

Participants identified factors both within the inner context of ORCI clinical systems and outside of ORCI. Themes within the clinical systems included capacity and infrastructure, information technology, communication, efficiency, and quality of services provided. Contextual factors external to ORCI included interinstitutional coordination, oncology capacity in peripheral hospitals, public awareness and beliefs, and financial barriers. Participants provided pragmatic suggestions for strengthening cancer care delivery in Tanzania.

Conclusion

Our results highlight several barriers and facilitators within and outside of the clinical systems at ORCI that may affect uptake of the TNCTG. Our findings were used to inform a broader guideline implementation strategy, in an effort to improve uptake of the TNCTGs at ORCI.

Implications for practice

This study provides an assessment of cancer care delivery systems in a low resource setting from the unique perspectives of local multidisciplinary oncology clinicians. Situational analysis of contextual factors that are likely to influence guideline implementation outcomes is the first step of developing an implementation strategy for cancer treatment guidelines. Many of the barriers identified in this study represent actionable targets that will inform the next phases of our implementation strategy for guideline-concordant cancer care in Tanzania and comparable settings.

Purpose

In describing our ten-year experience with treating chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) as part of the Glivec Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP) in rural Rwanda, we evaluate (1) patient characteristics and treatment outcomes, (2) resource-adapted management strategies, and (3) the impact of diagnostic capacity development.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed all patients with BCR-ABL-positive CML enrolled in this GIPAP program between 2009 and 2018. Clinical data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier methods, proportional hazards regression, and the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Results

One hundred twenty-four patients were included. The median age at diagnosis was 34 (range 8-81) years. On imatinib, 91% achieved complete hematologic response (CHR) after a median of 49 days. Seven (6%) and 12 (11%) patients had primary and secondary imatinib resistance, respectively. The 3-year overall survival was 80% (95% CI, 72 to 87) for the cohort, with superior survival in imatinib responders compared with those with primary and secondary resistance. The median time from imatinib initiation to CHR was 59 versus 38 days (P = .040) before and after in-country diagnostic testing, whereas the median time to diagnosis (P = .056) and imatinib initiation (P = .170) was not significantly different.

Conclusion

Coupling molecular diagnostics with affordable access to imatinib within a comprehensive cancer care delivery program is a successful long-term strategy to treat CML in resource-constrained settings. Our patients are younger and have higher rates of imatinib resistance compared with historic cohorts in high-income countries. High imatinib resistance rates highlight the need for access to molecular monitoring, resistance testing, and second-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, as well as systems to support drug adherence. Hematologic response is an accurate resource-adapted predictor of survival in this setting. Local diagnostic capacity development has allowed for continuous, timely CML care delivery in Rwanda.

Background

Radiotherapy is an essential component of cancer treatment, yet many countries do not have adequate capacity to serve all patients who would benefit from it. Allocation systems are needed to guide patient prioritization for radiotherapy in resource-limited contexts. These systems should be informed by allocation principles deemed relevant to stakeholders. This study explores the ethical dilemmas and views of decision-makers engaged in real-world prioritization of scarce radiotherapy resources at a cancer center in Rwanda in order to identify relevant principles.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 22 oncology clinicians, program leaders, and clinical advisors. Interviews explored the factors considered by decision-makers when prioritizing patients for radiotherapy. The framework method of thematic analysis was used to characterize these factors. Bioethical analysis was then applied to determine their underlying normative principles.

Results

Participants considered both clinical and non-clinical factors relevant to patient prioritization for radiotherapy. They widely agreed that disease curability should be the primary overarching driver of prioritization, with the goal of saving the most lives. However, they described tension between curability and competing factors including age, palliative benefit, and waiting time. They were divided about the role that non-clinical factors such as social value should play, and agreed that poverty should not be a barrier.

Conclusions

Multiple competing principles create tension with the agreed upon overarching goal of maximizing lives saved, including another utilitarian approach of maximizing life-years saved as well as non-utilitarian principles, such as egalitarianism, prioritarianism, and deontology. Clinical guidelines for patient prioritization for radiotherapy can combine multiple principles into a single allocation system to a significant extent. However, conflicting views about the role that social factors should play, and the dynamic nature of resource availability, highlight the need for ongoing work to evaluate and refine priority setting systems based on stakeholder views.