SIOP 2012 - Prize winning presentation from India

It is always a pleasure to get together at SIOP and meet the large contingent from India. I enjoy the interaction and exchange of ideas. I attended my first SIOP conference in Mumbai in 2007 and have gradually turned from spectator to participant. What has been noticeable is the excellent representation from India, both in context of conference participants as well as scientific abstracts.

In 2012 the conference was held at the Barbican in London and among the excellent presentations from across the world, what stood out for me (and I suspect for lots of others) was Shalini Jatia's (a volunteer social worker at Tata Memorial Hospital) clear and passionate presentation on “Predictors of Treatment Refusal and Abandonment and Impact of Personalised Psycho-Socioeconomic Support in Childhood Cancer in a Tertiary Cancer Centre in India”. She received a well deserved ovation and prize.

The key findings are as follows - The prevailing abandonment rates at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai had been 15-20%. In 2009 a data manager was recruited and in 2010 a multi-disciplinary psychosocial support group was set-up with the remit of reducing abandonment of treatment. By a combination of interventions including partial financial support, free accommodation, travel and food support, psycho-social counselling, support for transfusions, the abandonment rate decreased from 10.9% in 2010 to 5.3% in 2011. The risk factors significantly associated with abandonment included age less than 5 years, female gender, educational level of parent, and economic status. Other factors like cancer type, prognosis, treatment duration, distance from centre, family size and language were not associated. Around half of these abandoned families were contacted and the top 3 reasons given for abandonment included – belief in complementary and alternative medicine, financial challenges, and belief in incurability of cancer. Based on the findings of this study, TMH now provides full financial support to all children less than 5 years as well as all female children with cancer.

Abandonment of treatment for childhood cancer: A Position Statement by the SIOP PODC Working Group

When I look at the outcomes of children with cancer in developing countries including India and try to understand the survival gap with that seen in the developed world, the one fact which strikes me most is the high level of children with cancer who abandon treatment. This is as much a social issue as it is a medical one. There is a need to recognise this, measure it, report it and then tackle it. In this regard, I would like to bring to your attention, the recently published position statement of the SIOP PODC Abandonment of Treatment of Working Group (Mostert et al, 2011).

"Almost 80% of children with cancer in resource-rich countries can be cured by timely, intensive multimodality treatment and robust supportive care. However, only 20% of the world's children with cancer live in these countries; the remaining 80% reside in resource-poor nations and have a substantially lower chance of survival. Abandonment of treatment is a major cause of therapeutic failure in these resource-poor countries, affecting up to 50—60% of cases.4 Abandonment constitutes failure to start or complete curative treatment (except in situations when such treatment is contraindicated for medical reasons—eg, the patient is too ill).

At the 2010 Congress of the International Society of Pediatric Oncology (SIOP), the Abandonment of Treatment Working Group was established as one of 12 new working groups within the Pediatric Oncology in Developing Countries (PODC) structure. Its aims are to: heighten awareness of abandonment as a major cause of treatment failure in resource-poor countries; to elucidate the contributing factors; and to identify and widely disseminate effective solutions. To enable comparisons of studies worldwide, the international paediatric oncology community must adopt consistent terminology and reliably identify and document abandonment. Only in this way can the magnitude of the global problem be measured accurately, the underlying causes ascertained, and solutions devised.

For these reasons, the Working Group offers five recommendations. First, we recommend that abandonment of treatment be documented as an adverse event in childhood cancer studies in resource-poor countries. Patients who do not begin or complete treatment should not be excluded from survival analyses. Event-free survival should be analysed in two ways: by treating abandonment as an adverse event and by censoring cases at the time of abandonment. Because some children might be cured if they abandon treatment after completing most of their planned therapy, these two estimates will reflect the upper and lower bounds of the true event-free survival estimate. Second, we propose that abandonment of treatment be defined as failure either to begin (conventionally termed refusal) or to continue the planned course (abandonment), because both are likely to have related underlying causes and could benefit from similar interventions. However, the timing of abandonment should be documented to help to identify related factors. Third, treatment in resource-poor settings might be interrupted for various reasons, including financial and transportation difficulties. When such interruptions herald full abandonment and what the effect on outcomes will be are difficult to predict. We suggest that abandonment of treatment be defined as a hiatus of 4 or more weeks in the scheduled treatment; this period is based on empirical evidence and on anecdotal observations that, after an absence of this length, patients are unlikely to return. In the rare event that patients do return after a prolonged interruption, the treatment options might be limited in the setting of refractory disease or imminent death. Further research will help to establish whether this 4-week working definition needs revision. Fourth, we recommend that abandonment of treatment should be used only in the context of treatment given with the intention of cure. However, if palliation is the only achievable goal because of disease factors or poor socioeconomic conditions (particularly relevant in resource-poor countries), these children must be documented carefully, tracked, and analysed to elucidate the reasons underlying the administration of solely palliative, symptomatic, or end-of-life care to children with curable cancers. Finally, the Working Group recognises that some might perceive the term abandonment of treatment as implying that the patients and their parents are solely responsible; we emphasise that this is not the case. Abandonment of treatment is as much a socioeconomic issue as a medical one, and is often the result of various factors beyond the control of the patients and parents.

Abandonment of treatment can no longer be ignored by the international paediatric oncology community. The members of our Working Group offer these recommendations in the belief that all children with cancer have the right to an equitable chance of survival."

What is the outcome of children with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) in India?

The answer to this question, depends on whose asking it and to what purpose. At an individual level (when access to treatment is not a barrier), currently the standard 5-year survival in most of the developed world is 80-90% with that for low-risk ALL even higher than 90%. The best published results from India are 59% 5-year survival for children with ALL treated from 1985 to 2003 in CMC Vellore (Bajel et al, 2008), and of 57% in those treated from 1990 to 1993 in Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai (Advani et al, 1999). For low-risk ALL, these survival figures are around 73-77%. It is important to point out, that these results from India are calculated after censoring (removing) those children with ALL who refused to start treatment or abandoned ongoing active treatment. There are some unpublished data suggesting better outcomes - 70% 4-year survival of children with ALL treated at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi (Sachdeva et al, SIOP 2007); and 94% survival after median follow-up of two years of children with ALL treated at Apollo Hospital in Delhi (Mahajan et al, SIOP 2008). A more accurate reflection of outcomes of children with ALL in India can be obtained when we include all those who refused and abandoned treatment and then calculate the survival. This is particularly relevant to clinicians, epidemiologists and health planners. To my knowledge, the recent paper from PGI in Chandigarh is the only one to publish such data. It shows a 4-year overall survival of 33% and a 10-year overall survival of 30% for children with ALL diagnosed at that institute from 1990 to 2006 (Kulkarni et al, 2009). Other sources of such information are the population-based cancer registries. Only two reports have ever been published looking at population-based 5-year survival in children with cancer and these were 35% from Bangalore for the period 1982 to 1987 (Nandakumar et al, 1996); and 39% for Chennai for the period 1990 to 2001 (Swaminathan et al, 2008). In a nutshell, 6 out of 10 children with ALL in India will have long term survival (and cure) if they are compliant with their treatment. If treatment uptake and compliance is variable, only 1 out of 3 children in such settings would be cured. These outcomes apply only to those treated in specialist tertiary centres in urban areas. For those in rural areas or non-specialist centres, the outlook is certain to be worse.

Treatment Refusal and Abandonment

The outlook of childhood cancer has improved enormously in the developed world with 5 year survival overall ~80%. Unfortunately we have not been unable to translate this success to much of the developing world including India. Treatment related mortality and relapse are important causes of treatment failure. However they are overshadowed by the widespread prevalence of treatment refusal and abandonment which are the main causes of treatment failure. These are as much a social problem as they are a medical problem. Any attempts to improve the outlook of children with cancer in a country like India has to have at its core strategies to deal with this problem. Such successful models are now being increasingly reported from Central and South America. Most notable has been the reduction of treatment abandonment in children with acute leukaemia as a result of the “twinning programs” between St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis USA and Instituto Materno Infantil de Pernambuco in Recife, Brazil (see graph below)

Ref - Howard et al, JAMA, May 2004

Attempts have been made in the past to contact the children and families of those who abandon treatment. There are a very few studies looking at this and their dissemination has been limited to scientific proceedings. The recently published paper from Indonesia (Ref - Sitaresmi et al, Psycho-Oncology, April 2010) is the first extensive analysis of child and parent attitudes and behaviour to explain this complex problem. The authors conducted home-visits to interview families of 37 acute leukaemia patients, diagnosed between January 2004 and August 2007, who refused or abandoned treatment. There was no relation of abandonment with age, risk stratification of leukaemia, class of hospitalization (marker of economic status), parental education level and travel time. Girls abandoned slightly more often but this difference did not reach statistical significance.

Financial difficulties and a belief in the incurability of acute leukemia were the leading reasons given by parents for abandoning treatment. Additionally, treatment-related toxicity, painful procedures performed with inadequate analgesia and sedation, inadequate communication provided by health care providers and transportation difficulties were contributing reasons.

Childhood Cancer in India: An Introduction

Globally, it is estimated that 250,000 children under the age of 15 years develop cancer every year. Around 50,000 (20% or 1/5th) of these children are in India.
Both the above estimates are based on the incidence of childhood cancer being 125 to 150 per million per year.

We do not know, how many of these 50,000 children with cancer in India get diagnosed. Of those who are diagnosed, we do not know how many of them seek treatment. A significant proportion of those who do seek treatment, either refuse treatment when it is offered or abandon treatment within the first few weeks. Based on information derived from published studies and presentations at scientific meets we know that treatment refusal and abandonment rates vary from 17 to 62% depending on the type of cancer and treatment center.
Ref – Arora et al, Pediatric Blood Cancer, Dec 2007

Currently, nearly 8 out of 10 children with cancer get cured in resource-rich countries like those in North American and Europe. If we exclude those who refuse or abandon treatment, comparable outcomes for specific cancers are achieved in India in those treated at tertiary institutes like the Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai. However, at a population level, the five-year overall survival for all childhood cancers combined has been reported to be 37-40% from Bangalore and Chennai. This cancer registry data is a much more accurate representation of cancer outcomes across India although as it is from urban areas, it is also likely to be an over-estimate of the true survival.
Ref – Arora et al, Indian Journal of Cancer, Oct-Dec 2009