Cited by 278Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer

Global childhood cancer survival estimates and priority-setting: A simulation-based analysis

Open access
Ward, Zachary J, Yeh, Jennifer M, Bhakta, Nickhill, Frazier, A Lindsay, Girardi, Fabio, Atun, Rifat·2019·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background Accurate childhood cancer survival estimates are crucial for policy makers and clinicians for priority-setting and planning decisions. However, observed survival estimates are lacking for many countries, and when available, wide variation in outcomes is reported. Understanding the barriers to optimising survival can help improve childhood cancer outcomes. We aimed to provide estimates of global childhood cancer survival, accounting for the impact of multiple factors that affect cancer outcomes in children.Methods We developed a microsimulation model to simulate childhood cancer survival for 200 countries and territories worldwide, accounting for clinical and epidemiologic factors, including country-specific treatment variables, such as availability of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. To ensure model results were consistent with reported survival data, we calibrated the model to estimates from the CONCORD-2 and CONCORD-3 studies using an Approximate Bayesian Computation approach. We estimated 5-year net survival for diagnosed cases of childhood cancer in each country and territory and estimated potential survival gains of seven policy interventions focused on improving treatment availability and delivery (ie, increasing the availability of chemotherapy, radiation, general surgery, neurosurgery, or ophthalmic surgery, reducing treatment abandonment, and improving the quality of care to the mean of high-income countries) implemented in isolation or as packages.Findings Our model estimated that, for diagnosed cases, global 5-year net childhood cancer survival is currently 37·4% (95% uncertainty interval 34·7-39·8), with large variation by region, ranging from 8·1% (4·4-13·7) in eastern Africa to 83·0% (81·6-84·4) in North America. Among the seven policy interventions modelled, each individually provided small gains, increasing global 5-year net survival to between 38·4% (35·8-40·9) and 44·6% (41·7-47·4). 5-year net survival increased more substantially when policy interventions were bundled into packages that improved service delivery (5-year net survival 50·2% [47·3-53·0]) or that expanded treatment access (54·1% [50·1-58·5]). A comprehensive systems approach consisting of all policy interventions yielded superadditive gains with a global 5-year net survival of 53·6% (51·5-55·6) at 50% scale-up and 80·8% (79·5-82·1) at full implementation.Interpretation Childhood cancer survival varies widely by region, with especially poor survival in Africa. Although expanding access to treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery) and addressing financial toxicity are essential, investments that improve the quality of care, at both the health-system and facility level, are needed to improve childhood cancer outcomes globally.Funding Boston Children's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, National Cancer Institute, SickKids, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Union for International Cancer Control, Children with Cancer UK Davidson and O'Gorman Fellowship.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30273-6

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ward, Z. J., Yeh, J. M., Bhakta, N., Frazier, A. L., Girardi, F., & Atun, R.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
  • Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Ward, Zachary J
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-07
Volume
20
Issue
7
Pages
972-983
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2944851513
Cited by
277
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 3
FWCI
8.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Harvard Dataverse
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Advances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Keywords
childhood cancer survival, priority setting, health policy interventions, treatment access, neurosurgery, ophthalmic surgery, treatment discontinuation, quality of care, microsimulation model, approximate Bayesian computation, net survival, health system strengthening, health equity
MeSH terms
Child, Computer Simulation, Delivery of Health Care, Health Priorities, Humans, Neoplasms, Statistics as Topic, Global Health, Survival Rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review