METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis guided by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was conducted. Four electronic databases were searched to identify studies of any design that reported on the preferred and actual place of care and death of patients with cancer in LMICs. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated pooled prevalences, with 95% CI, with subgroup analyses for region and risk of bias.

RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Of 3,837 patients with cancer, 62% (95% CI, 49 to 75) preferred to die at home; however, the prevalence of actual home death was 37% (95% CI, 13 to 60). Subgroup analyses found that preferences for home as place of death varied from 55% (95% CI, 41 to 69) for Asia to 64% (95% CI, 57 to 71) for South America and 72% (95% CI, 48 to 97) for Africa. The concordance between the preferred and actual place of death was 48% (95% CI, 41 to 55) for South Africa and 92% (95% CI, 88 to 95) for Malaysia. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of preferred home death included performance status and patients with breast cancer.

Methods: This study employed a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted with key opinion leaders from 14 countries. The participants were predominantly members of the International COVID-19 and Cancer Taskforce, who convened in March 2020 to address delivery of cancer care in the context of the pandemic. The Framework Method was employed to analyse the positive changes of the pandemic with corresponding challenges to their maintenance post-pandemic.

Results: Ten themes of positive changes were identified which included: value in cancer care, digital communication, convenience, inclusivity and cooperation, decentralisation of cancer care, acceleration of policy change, human interactions, hygiene practices, health awareness and promotion and systems improvement. Impediments to the scale-up of these positive changes included resource disparities and variation in legal frameworks across regions. Barriers were largely attributed to behaviours and attitudes of stakeholders.

METHODS: Cancer experts in lower-resource health care systems (as defined by the World Bank as low- and middle-income countries; N = 151) were contacted to participate in a modified consensus-seeking Delphi survey, comprising two rounds. In round 1, participants (n = 69) rated predetermined areas of potential research priority (ARPs) for importance and suggested missing ARPs. In round 2, the same participants (n = 49) rated an integrated list of predetermined and suggested ARPs from round 1, then undertook a forced choice priority ranking exercise. Composite voting scores (T-scores) were used to rank the ARPs. Importance ratings were summarized descriptively. Findings were discussed with international patient advocacy organization representatives.

RESULTS: The top ARP was research into strategies adapting guidelines or treatment strategies in line with available resources (particularly systemic therapy) (T = 83). Others included cancer registries (T = 62); prevention (T = 52); end-of-life care (T = 53); and value-based and affordable care (T = 51). The top COVID-19/cancer ARP was strategies to incorporate what has been learned during the pandemic that can be maintained posteriorly (T = 36). Others included treatment schedule interruption (T = 24); cost-effective reduction of COVID-19 morbidity/mortality (T = 19); and pandemic preparedness (T = 18).