Situation analysis of problems and prospects of the pediatric hematology-oncology in the CIS countries: the experience of a joint working group

Relevance. Continuous work in the field of optimization of approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of malignant neoplasms (MNP) in children has contributed to increase in overall survival (OS) to 80 % and higher in developed countries. Whereas in resource-limited countries there are some difficulties in access to the medical care leading to significantly lower OS. The key parameters in the improvement of the OS are improving the accessibility of diagnosis and treatment, application of advanced protocols of therapy, early diagnosis and other aspects. 

All these issues can be solved within the working group with the assistance of the leadership of the countries.

The article reflects the results of the work of the expert group on children's oncology for the first half of 2018 on the analysis of the situation in the field of pediatric hematology and oncology of the Commonwealth of Independent countries (CIS).

The view to analyzing has been the identification of the problems of the pediatric hematology-oncology in the CIS countries.

Materials and methods. It was a two steps analysis: 1. There has been an online meeting in February–April, 2018. 2. There has been a master class in Moscow at the venue of the Dmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology on April, 23–25, 2018. The initiators of the formation of the working group were World Health Organization, Children’s research hospital of St. Jude, Dmitry Rogachev National Medical Research Center of Pediatric Hematology, Oncology and Immunology and National Society of Pediatric Hematologists and Oncologists. The analysis has been carried out with the use of SWOT technology (S – strengths, W – weaknesses, O – opportunities and T – threats) by which have been identified strengths and weaknesses, potential threats and development prospects for each of the participating countries of the analysis and for the CIS in general. What is more, data on the incidence of MNP in children among the member States were received and outlined the promising avenues for the development. On the master class in Moscow there have been formed 4 working groups in the following areas: scientific work, health organization, developing of the educational technologies and introducing technologies aimed at improving the practical support for the patients.  

Results. Situation analyses of 11 CIS countries have been reviewed and it showed a different level of the development of pediatric hematology-oncology related to differences in the organization of the children’s health care system. Nevertheless, the key ways of the development of the service of pediatric hematology and oncology in the region have been determined: the development of early diagnosis and formation of oncological alertness, the development of uniform approaches to diagnosis and treatment based on the multicentre protocols, elaboration of the unified approaches to registering and recording children with MNP, creation of the unified educational programs for secondary and medical personnel, further elaboration of steps to optimize the children’s health care system.

Conclusion. It has been shown that despite the difference in the organization of the pediatric hematology-oncology service the joint working group had succeed in determining the common problems and development prospects. There have been set out the specific proposals reflected in the master class resolution and have been identified subsequent stages of the work for the joint working group.

children, oncology, hematology, countries with limited resources, health development

1. Hudson M.M., Link M.P., Simone J.V. Milestones in the curability of pediatric cancers. J Clin Oncol 2014;32(23):2391–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.55.6571.

2. Rodriguez-Galindo C., Friedrich F., Alcasabas P. et al. Toward the Cure of All Children With Cancer Through Collaborative Efforts: Pediatric Oncology As a Global Challenge. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(27):3065–73. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.60.6376.

3. Pritchard-Jones K., Pieters R., Reaman G.H. et al. Sustaining innovation and improvement in the treatment of childhood cancer: lessons from high-income countries. Lancet Oncology 2013;14(3):e95–e103. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70010-X.

4. Agha M.M., Williams J.I., Marrett L. et al. Congenital abnormalities and childhood cancer. Cancer 2005;103(9):1939–48. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20985.

5. Ferlay J., Shin H.R., Bray F. et al. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010;127(12):2893–917. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25516.

6. Farmer P., Frenk J., Knaul F.M. et al. Expansion of cancer care and control in countries of low and middle income: a call to action. Lancet 2010;376(9747):1186–93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61152-X.

7. Howard S.C., Metzger M.L., Wilimas J.A. et al. Childhood cancer epidemiology in low-income countries. Cancer 2008;112(3):461–72. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23205.

8. Christian O., Idoko O., Nzekwe J. Organization’s stability and productivity: the role of SWOT analysis an acronym for strength, weakness, opportunities and threat. Int J Innovat Appl Res 2014;2–9:23–32.

9. van Wijngaarden J.D., Scholten G.R., van Wijk K.P. Strategic analysis for health care organizations: the suitability of the SWOT-analysis. Int J Health Plann Manage 2012;27(1):34–49. doi: 10.1002/hpm.1032.

10. Buttigieg S.C., Schuetz M., Bezzina F. Value Chains of Public and Private Healthcare Services in a Small EU Island State: A SWOT Analysis. Front Public Health 2016;4:201. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00201.

11. Niederwieser D., Baldomero H., Szer J. et al. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation activity worldwide in 2012 and a SWOT analysis of the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Group including the global survey. Bone Marrow Transplant 2016;51(6):778–85. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2016.18.

12. Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Ervik M. et al. GLOBOCAN 2012 v.1.0. Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2013.

13. Pui C.H., Evans W.E. A 50-year journey to cure childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Semin Hematol 2013;50(3):185–96. doi: 10.1053/j.seminhematol.2013.06.007.

14. Rumyantsev A.G., Varfolomeeva S.R., Grachev N.S. et al. Principles and tools of evidence-based medicine in pediatric hematology/oncology. Doctor.ru 2015;10(111):6–13. (In Russ.).

15. Smirnova N.V., Myakova N.V., Belogurova M.B. et al. Treatment of B-cells non-Hodgkin lymphomas with combined immunochemotherapy: ability to treatment optimization. Onkogematologiya = Oncohematology 2015;(4):15–24. (In Russ.). doi: 10.17650/1818-8346-2015-10-4-15-24.

16. Kachanov D., Muftakhova G., Olshanskaya Y. et al. Neuroblastoma in infants < 12 month: single center experience in Russia. Pediatric Blood Cancer 2013;60(Issue S3):114–5.

17. Mostert S., Arora R.S., Arreola M. et al. Abandonment of treatment for childhood cancer: position statement of a SIOP PODC Working Group. Lancet Oncol 2011;12(8):719–20. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70128-0.

18. Rodriguez-Galindo C., Friedrich P., Morrissey L., Frazier L. Global challenges in pediatric oncology. Curr Opin Pediatr 2013;25(1):3–15. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32835c1cbe.