Zachary J Ward1, Surbhi Grover2, Andrew M Scott3, Sungmin Woo4, Dina H Salama5, Elizabeth C Jones6, Tarek El-Diasty7, Bradley R Pieters8, Edward L Trimble9, H Alberto Vargas4, Hedvig Hricak4, Rifat Atun10. 1. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: zward@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Molecular Imaging and Therapy, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia; School of Cancer Medicine, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. National Center for Radiation Research and Technology, Egyptian Atomic Energy Authority, Cairo, Egypt. 6. Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Urology and Nephrology Center, University of Mansoura, Mansoura, Egypt. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 9. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Washington DC, USA. 10. Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide, causing more than 300 000 deaths globally each year. In addition to screening and prevention, effective cancer treatment is needed to reduce cervical cancer mortality. We discuss the role of imaging in cervical cancer management and estimate the potential survival effect of scaling up imaging in several different contexts. METHODS: Using a previously developed microsimulation model of global cancer survival, we estimated stage-specific cervical cancer 5-year net survival in 200 countries and territories. We evaluated the potential survival effect of scaling up treatment (chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy), and imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, and single photon emission CT [SPECT]) to the mean level of high-income countries, both individually and in combination. FINDINGS: We estimate global cervical cancer 5-year net survival as 42·1% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 33·8-48·5). Among individual imaging modalities, expanding MRI would yield the largest 5-year survival gains globally (data are absolute percentage point increase in survival 0·6, 95% UI 0·1-2·1), scaling up ultrasound would yield the largest gains in low-income countries (0·5, 0·0-3·7), expanding CT and x-ray would have the greatest effect in Latin America (0·8, 0·0-3·4) and Oceania (0·4, 0·0-3·2), and expanding PET would yield the largest gains in high-income countries (0·2, 0·0-0·8). Scaling up SPECT did not show major changes in any region. Among individual treatment modalities, scaling up radiotherapy would yield the largest absolute percentage point gains in low-income countries (5·2, 0·3-13·5), and expanding surgery would have the largest effect in lower-middle-income countries (7·4, 0·3-21·1) and upper-middle-income countries (0·8, 0·0-2·9). Estimated survival gains in high-income countries were very modest. However, the gains from expanding any single treatment or imaging modality individually were small across all income levels and geographical settings. Scaling up all treatment modalities could improve global 5-year net survival to 52·4% (95% UI 44·6-62·0). In addition to expanding treatment, improving quality of care could raise survival to 57·5% (51·2-63·5), and the cumulative effect of scaling up all imaging modalities together with expanded treatment and quality of care could improve 5-year net survival for cervical cancer to 62·5% (57·7-67·8). INTERPRETATION: Comprehensive scale-up of treatment, imaging, and quality of care could substantially improve global cervical cancer 5-year net survival, with quality of care and imaging improvements each contributing about 25% of the total potential gains. These findings suggest that a narrow focus on the availability of treatment modalities could forgo substantial survival gains. Investments in imaging equipment, personnel, and quality of care efforts will also be needed to successfully scale up cervical cancer treatment worldwide. FUNDING: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health and National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND:Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide, causing more than 300 000 deaths globally each year. In addition to screening and prevention, effective cancer treatment is needed to reduce cervical cancer mortality. We discuss the role of imaging in cervical cancer management and estimate the potential survival effect of scaling up imaging in several different contexts. METHODS: Using a previously developed microsimulation model of global cancer survival, we estimated stage-specific cervical cancer 5-year net survival in 200 countries and territories. We evaluated the potential survival effect of scaling up treatment (chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy), and imaging modalities (ultrasound, x-ray, CT, MRI, PET, and single photon emission CT [SPECT]) to the mean level of high-income countries, both individually and in combination. FINDINGS: We estimate global cervical cancer 5-year net survival as 42·1% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 33·8-48·5). Among individual imaging modalities, expanding MRI would yield the largest 5-year survival gains globally (data are absolute percentage point increase in survival 0·6, 95% UI 0·1-2·1), scaling up ultrasound would yield the largest gains in low-income countries (0·5, 0·0-3·7), expanding CT and x-ray would have the greatest effect in Latin America (0·8, 0·0-3·4) and Oceania (0·4, 0·0-3·2), and expanding PET would yield the largest gains in high-income countries (0·2, 0·0-0·8). Scaling up SPECT did not show major changes in any region. Among individual treatment modalities, scaling up radiotherapy would yield the largest absolute percentage point gains in low-income countries (5·2, 0·3-13·5), and expanding surgery would have the largest effect in lower-middle-income countries (7·4, 0·3-21·1) and upper-middle-income countries (0·8, 0·0-2·9). Estimated survival gains in high-income countries were very modest. However, the gains from expanding any single treatment or imaging modality individually were small across all income levels and geographical settings. Scaling up all treatment modalities could improve global 5-year net survival to 52·4% (95% UI 44·6-62·0). In addition to expanding treatment, improving quality of care could raise survival to 57·5% (51·2-63·5), and the cumulative effect of scaling up all imaging modalities together with expanded treatment and quality of care could improve 5-year net survival for cervical cancer to 62·5% (57·7-67·8). INTERPRETATION: Comprehensive scale-up of treatment, imaging, and quality of care could substantially improve global cervical cancer 5-year net survival, with quality of care and imaging improvements each contributing about 25% of the total potential gains. These findings suggest that a narrow focus on the availability of treatment modalities could forgo substantial survival gains. Investments in imaging equipment, personnel, and quality of care efforts will also be needed to successfully scale up cervical cancer treatment worldwide. FUNDING: Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health and National Cancer Institute.
Authors: Christine H Holschneider; Daniel G Petereit; Christina Chu; I-Chow Hsu; Yevgeniya J Ioffe; Ann H Klopp; Bhavana Pothuri; Lee-May Chen; Catheryn Yashar Journal: Brachytherapy Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: J van der Zee; D González González; G C van Rhoon; J D van Dijk; W L van Putten; A A Hart Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-04-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Neerja Bhatla; Jonathan S Berek; Mauricio Cuello Fredes; Lynette A Denny; Seija Grenman; Kanishka Karunaratne; Sean T Kehoe; Ikuo Konishi; Alexander B Olawaiye; Jaime Prat; Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan; James Brierley; David Mutch; Denis Querleu; David Cibula; Michael Quinn; Hennie Botha; Lax Sigurd; Laurel Rice; Hee-Sug Ryu; Hextan Ngan; Johanna Mäenpää; Andri Andrijono; Gatot Purwoto; Amita Maheshwari; Uttam D Bafna; Marie Plante; Jayashree Natarajan Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Claudia Allemani; Tomohiro Matsuda; Veronica Di Carlo; Rhea Harewood; Melissa Matz; Maja Nikšić; Audrey Bonaventure; Mikhail Valkov; Christopher J Johnson; Jacques Estève; Olufemi J Ogunbiyi; Gulnar Azevedo E Silva; Wan-Qing Chen; Sultan Eser; Gerda Engholm; Charles A Stiller; Alain Monnereau; Ryan R Woods; Otto Visser; Gek Hsiang Lim; Joanne Aitken; Hannah K Weir; Michel P Coleman Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-01-31 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Zachary J Ward; Andrew M Scott; Hedvig Hricak; May Abdel-Wahab; Diana Paez; Miriam Mikhail Lette; H Alberto Vargas; T Peter Kingham; Rifat Atun Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: James A Dickinson; Agata Stankiewicz; Cathy Popadiuk; Lisa Pogany; Jay Onysko; Anthony B Miller Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kenneth A Fleming; Susan Horton; Michael L Wilson; Rifat Atun; Kristen DeStigter; John Flanigan; Shahin Sayed; Pierrick Adam; Bertha Aguilar; Savvas Andronikou; Catharina Boehme; William Cherniak; Annie Ny Cheung; Bernice Dahn; Lluis Donoso-Bach; Tania Douglas; Patricia Garcia; Sarwat Hussain; Hari S Iyer; Mikashmi Kohli; Alain B Labrique; Lai-Meng Looi; John G Meara; John Nkengasong; Madhukar Pai; Kara-Lee Pool; Kaushik Ramaiya; Lee Schroeder; Devanshi Shah; Richard Sullivan; Bien-Soo Tan; Kamini Walia Journal: Lancet Date: 2021-10-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hedvig Hricak; Ada Muellner; Zachary J Ward; Rifat Atun; May Abdel-Wahab; Andrew M Scott Journal: Radiology Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: 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 Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-03-04 Impact factor: 41.316