SummaryBackgroundGlobal inequalities in access to health care are reflected in differences in cancer survival. The CONCORD programme was designed to assess worldwide differences and trends in population-based cancer survival. In this population-based study, we aimed to estimate survival inequalities globally for several subtypes of childhood leukaemia.MethodsCancer registries participating in CONCORD were asked to submit tumour registrations for all children aged 0–14 years who were diagnosed with leukaemia between Jan 1, 1995, and Dec 31, 2009, and followed up until Dec 31, 2009. Haematological malignancies were defined by morphology codes in the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third revision. We excluded data from registries from which the data were judged to be less reliable, or included only lymphomas, and data from countries in which data for fewer than ten children were available for analysis. We also excluded records because of a missing date of birth, diagnosis, or last known vital status. We estimated 5-year net survival (ie, the probability of surviving at least 5 years after diagnosis, after controlling for deaths from other causes [background mortality]) for children by calendar period of diagnosis (1995–99, 2000–04, and 2005–09), sex, and age at diagnosis (<1, 1–4, 5–9, and 10–14 years, inclusive) using appropriate life tables. We estimated age-standardised net survival for international comparison of survival trends for precursor-cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) and acute myeloid leukaemia (AML).FindingsWe analysed data from 89 828 children from 198 registries in 53 countries. During 1995–99, 5-year age-standardised net survival for all lymphoid leukaemias combined ranged from 10·6% (95% CI 3·1–18·2) in the Chinese registries to 86·8% (81·6–92·0) in Austria. International differences in 5-year survival for childhood leukaemia were still large as recently as 2005–09, when age-standardised survival for lymphoid leukaemias ranged from 52·4% (95% CI 42·8–61·9) in Cali, Colombia, to 91·6% (89·5–93·6) in the German registries, and for AML ranged from 33·3% (18·9–47·7) in Bulgaria to 78·2% (72·0–84·3) in German registries. Survival from precursor-cell ALL was very close to that of all lymphoid leukaemias combined, with similar variation. In most countries, survival from AML improved more than survival from ALL between 2000–04 and 2005–09. Survival for each type of leukaemia varied markedly with age: survival was highest for children aged 1–4 and 5–9 years, and lowest for infants (younger than 1 year). There was no systematic difference in survival between boys and girls.InterpretationGlobal inequalities in survival from childhood leukaemia have narrowed with time but remain very wide for both ALL and AML. These results provide useful information for health policy makers on the effectiveness of health-care systems and for cancer policy makers to reduce inequalities in childhood cancer survival.FundingCanadian Partnership Against Cancer, Cancer Focus Northern Ireland, Cancer In...

The distribution of ovarian cancer histology varies widely worldwide. Type I epithelial, germ cell and sex cord-stromal tumours are generally associated with higher survival than type II tumours, so the proportion of these tumours may influence survival estimates for all ovarian cancers combined. The distribution of histological groups should be considered when comparing survival between countries and regions.

Cancer is a growing global health issue, and many countries are ill-prepared to deal with their current cancer burden let alone the increased burden looming on the horizon. Growing and aging populations are projected to result in dramatic increases in cancer cases and cancer deaths particularly in low- and middle-income countries. It is imperative that planning begin now to deal not only with those cancers already occurring but also with the larger numbers expected in the future. Unfortunately, such planning is hampered, because the magnitude of the burden of cancer in many countries is poorly understood owing to lack of surveillance and monitoring systems for cancer risk factors and for the documentation of cancer incidence, survival and mortality. Moreover, the human resources needed to fight cancer effectively are often limited or lacking. Cancer diagnosis and cancer care services are also inadequate in low- and middle-income countries. Late-stage presentation of cancers is very common in these settings resulting in less potential for cure and more need for symptom management. Palliative care services are grossly inadequate in low- and middle-income countries, and many cancer patients die unnecessarily painful deaths. Many of the challenges faced by low- and middle-income countries have been at least partially addressed by higher income countries. Experiences from around the world are reviewed to highlight the issues and showcase some possible solutions.

No abstract

Over the past few decades, there has been growing support for the idea that cancer needs an interdisciplinary approach. Therefore, the international cancer community has developed several strategies as outlined in the WHO non-communicable diseases Action Plan (which includes cancer control) as the World Health Assembly and the UICC World Cancer Declaration, which both include primary prevention, early diagnosis, treatment, and palliative care. This paper highlights experiences/ideas in cancer control for international collaborations between low, middle, and high income countries, including collaborations between the European Union (EU) and African Union (AU) Member States, the Latin-American and Caribbean countries, and the Eastern Mediterranean countries. These proposals are presented within the context of the global vision on cancer control set forth by WHO in partnership with the International Union Against Cancer (UICC), in addition to issues that should be considered for collaborations at the global level: cancer survival (similar to the project CONCORD), cancer control for youth and adaptation of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Since cancer control is given lower priority on the health agenda of low and middle income countries and is less represented in global health efforts in those countries, EU and AU cancer stakeholders are working to put cancer control on the agenda of the EU-AU treaty for collaborations, and are proposing to consider palliative care, population-based cancer registration, and training and education focusing on primary prevention as core tools. A Community of Practice, such as the Third International Cancer Control Congress (ICCC-3), is an ideal place to share new proposals, learn from other experiences, and formulate new ideas. The aim of the ICCC-3 is to foster new international collaborations to promote cancer control actions in low and middle income countries. The development of supranational collaborations has been hindered by the fact that cancer control is not part of the objectives of the Millennium Development Goals (MGGs). As a consequence, less resources of development aids are allocated to control NCDs including cancer.