Mapping cancer research across Central and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation and Central Asia: Implications for future national cancer control planning

Begum, Mursheda; Lewison, Grant; Jassem, Jacek; Mixich, V.; Čufer, Tanja; Nurgozhin, Talgat; Шабалкин, П. И.; Kutluk, Tezer; Vokó, Zoltán; Radosavljević, Davorin; Vrdoljiak, Eduard; Eniu, Alexandru; Walewski, Jan; Aggarwal, Ajay; Lawler, Mark; Sullivan, Richard

doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2018.08.024

Cited by 22 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a dedicated cancer research fund is not available in many countries. In addition, the number of clinical trials (in particular early clinical trials and investigator-initiated trials) is lagging in this region [90]. Hence, innovation in prevention, early detection and treatment could have a significant impact on cancer incidence and survival in many Central and Eastern European countries.…”

Section: Inequalities In Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive translational cancer research approach focused on personalized and precision medicine, and covering the entire cancer researchcare-prevention continuum has the potential to achieve in 2030 a 10-year cancer-specific survival for 75% of patients diagnosed in European Union (EU) member states with a well-developed healthcare system. Concerted actions across this continuum that spans from basic and preclinical research through clinical and prevention research to outcomes research, along with the establishment of interconnected high-quality infrastructures for translational research, clinical and prevention trials and outcomes research, will ensure that science-driven and social innovations benefit patients and individuals at risk across the EU. European infrastructures involving comprehensive cancer centres (CCCs) and CCC-like entities will provide researchers with access to the required critical mass of patients, biological materials and technological resources and can bridge research with healthcare systems. Here, we prioritize research areas to ensure a balanced research portfolio and provide recommendations for achieving key targets. Meeting these targets will require harmonization of EU and national priorities and policies, improved research coordination at the national, regional and EU level and increasingly efficient and flexible funding mechanisms. Long-term support by the EU and commitment of Member States to specialized schemes are also needed for the establishment and sustainability of trans-border infrastructures and networks. In addition to effectively engaging policymakers, all relevant stakeholders within the entire continuum should consensually inform policy through evidencebased advice.

show abstract

Section: Inequalities In Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To ensure the reliability of the data, we acquired data about funding projects directly from official funding organizations (as shown in the 'Data acquisition and cleaning' of Figure 1). This study could be regarded as a complementary study of previous work using publication data (Begum et al, 2016;Begum et al, 2018;Kalita et al 2015). The two national organizations selected were the NSFC in China and the MRC in the UK.…”

Section: Funding Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several previous studies have adopted bibliometric methods that rely on publication data to analyze research on disease and its effects on society in various countries/regions (Agarwal & Searls, 2009;Begum et al, 2016;Yegros et al, 2019). For example, Begum et al (2018) mapped research activity using publications and compared the disease burden of different cancers in 29 countries over a 10-year period (2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016). Another study using publication data from 2002-2013, which considered outputs and funding related to European noncommunicable respiratory disease and its disease burden, indicated that this was a severely under-researched health condition (Begum et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden?: Observations from China and the UK

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent years have witnessed an incipient shift in science policy from a focus mainly on academic excellence to a focus that also takes into account "societal impact". This shift raises the question as to whether medical research has given proper attention to the diseases imposing the greatest burden on society. Therefore, with the aim of identifying correlations between research funding priorities and public demand in health, we examine grants issued by the major medical research funding bodies of China and the UK during the decade 2006-2017 and compare the focus of their funded projects with the diseases that carry the highest burden of death, risk, or loss of health. The results indicate that the funding decisions of both nations do correspond to the illnesses with the highest health impact on their citizens. For both regions, the greatest health concerns surround non-communicable diseases, and neoplasms and cardiovascular disease in particular. In China, national health priorities have remained focused on these illnesses for the benefit of its own population, whereas the UK has funded a wider variety of research, extending to projects with impacts outside its borders to some developing countries. Additionally, despite an increased incidence of mental illness and HIV/AIDs in China, there is evidence that less priority has been given to these conditions. Both of these health areas seem to require more attention from China's national funding agencies and the society in general. Methodologically, this study can serve as an example of how to conduct analyses related to public health issues by combining informetric methods and data with data and tools from other fields, thereby inspiring other scientometrics studies.

show abstract

“…Thus far, several regional and national studies on breast cancer incidence and mortality have been performed, and the results of these multifarious studies from different parts of the world present an inclusive picture. Epidemiological studies from Arab countries [6], India [7], Latin America [8], and Europe [9] show an alarmingly rising burden with associated incidence and mortality. However, specific studies of breast cancer burden at a global level are lacking.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global burden of breast cancer and attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2017: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Statistical data on the incidence, mortality, and burden of breast cancer and the relevant risk factors are valuable for policy-making. We aimed to estimate breast cancer incidence, deaths, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) by country, gender, age group, and social-demographic status between 1990 and 2017. Methods: We extracted breast cancer data from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study from 1990 through 2017 in 195 countries and territories. Data about the number of breast cancer incident cases, deaths, DALYs, and the age-standardized rates were collected. We also estimated the risk factors attributable to breast cancer deaths and DALYs using the comparative risk assessment framework of the GBD study. Results: In 2017, the global incidence of breast cancer increased to 1,960,681 cases. The high social-development index (SDI) quintile included the highest number of breast cancer death cases. Between 2007 and 2017, the ASDR of breast cancer declined globally, especially in high SDI and high middle SDI countries. The related DALYs were 17, 708,600 in 2017 with high middle SDI quintile as the highest contributor. Of the deaths and DALYs, alcohol use was the greatest contributor in most GBD regions and other contributors included high body mass index (BMI) and high fasting plasma glucose. Conclusion: The increasing global breast cancer burden is mainly observed in lower SDI countries; in higher SDI countries, the breast cancer burden tends to be relieving. Therefore, steps against attributable risk factors should be taken to reduce breast cancer burden in lower SDI countries.

show abstract

Mapping cancer research across Central and Eastern Europe, the Russian Federation and Central Asia: Implications for future national cancer control planning

Cited by 22 publications

References 26 publications

Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations

Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations

Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden?: Observations from China and the UK

Global burden of breast cancer and attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, from 1990 to 2017: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About