Avon Breast cancer in LMICs: Meeting the challenge 131011

8/2/2019 Avon Breast cancer in LMICs: Meeting the challenge 131011

1/50

Breast Cancer in LMICs:Meeting the Challenge

Felicia Marie KnaulOctober 13, 2011

The 2011 Breast Cancer Global CongressA partnership of the US Department of

State and the Avon Foundation for Women


2/50

From anecdote

to evidence


3/50


4/50

January, 2008

June, 2007


5/50


6/50


7/50


8/50


9/50


10/50


11/50


12/50

Con jf en harvard

Harvard School of Public Health


13/50

Global Task Force on Expanded

Access to Cancer Care and Control


14/50

From anecdote

to evidence


15/50

Challenge and disprove the

myths about cancerM1. Unnecessary

M2. Unaffordable

M3. Impossible

M4: Inappropriate

Expanding access to cancer careand control in LMICs:

Should, Could, and Can be done


16/50

Breast cancer: myths and realities

It is a disease ofdeveloped countries

It is a disease ofolder women

It is of lower prioritythan cervical cancer

The majority of cases anddeaths occur in the

developing world

A large proportion of casesand deathsperhaps the

majorityhappens in

women


17/50Source: Knaul, Arreola, Mendez. estimates based on IHME, 2011.

The cancer transition in LMICs:

breast and cervical cancer 1980-2010

53%47%

20%24%

19%

-31%

60%

-40%

0%

40%

80%

LMICs High income

BC cases

BC deaths

CC cases

CC deaths

% Change in incidence and mortality

Th i i i LMIC


18/50Source: Knaul Arreola Mende . estimates based on IHME 2011.

LMICs as % of global incidence and mortality

Breast

Cervical

The cancer transition in LMICs:


0%

30%

60%

90%

1980 2010 1980 2010

52%

59%

49%

63%

79%

87%82%

88%


19/50

Source: Knaul et al., 2008. Reproductive Health Matters, and updated byKnaul, Arreola-Ornelas and Mndez based on WHO data, WHOSIS (1955-

1978), and Ministry of Health in Mexico (1979-2006)

1995 2000 2005

Costa Rica 1995 - 2005

Breast cancer

Cervical cancerSource: Instituto Nacional de Estadstica y Censos, Ministerio de Salud,Unidad de Estadstica, Registro Nacional de Tumores de Costa Rica.

The Cancer Transition, Mexico and Costa Rica:

breast and cervical cancer, mortality time series.

0

4

8

12

16

1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005


20/50

Source: Lozano, Knaul, Gmez-Dants, Arreola-Ornelas y Mndez, 2008, Tendencias en la mortalidad por cncer de Mama en Mxico, 1979-2008.

FUNSALUD, Documento de trabajo. Observatorio de la Salud.

1979

1985 1995

Nuevo Len

2008

0

Oaxaca

5

10

15

20

25

1979 1985 1995

2008

The cancer transition within Mexico:



21/50

Adults

Breast

Cervix Prostate

Testis

HL

N HL

Leukaemia

All cancers

Source: Knaul, Arreola, Mendez. estimates based on IARC, Globocan, 2010.

Children

LOW

INCOME

HIGH

INCOME

Survival

inequalitygap

LOW

INCOME

HIGH

INCOME

100%

The opportunity to survive (M/I)

should not be defined by income.

Yet it is.


22/50

The divide is the result of concentrating riskfactors, preventable disease, suffering,impoverishment from ill health and deathamong poor populations.

fueled by progress in cutting-edge science andmedicine in high-income countries.

The Cancer Divide:disparities in outcomes

between poor and rich directly related to inequitiesin access and differences in underlying socio-

economic and health conditions.


23/50

Cancer is a disease of both rich and poor;

yet it is increasingly the poor who suffer:

Exposure to risk factors

Cancers of infectious origin

Death from treatable cancer

Stigma and discrimination

Avoidable pain and suffering

Impoverishment

The Cancer Divide:

An Equity Imperative


24/50


minimalists:

myths about cancer

M1. Unnecessary NECESSARY

M2. Unaffordable: .for the poorM3. Impossible

M4: Inappropriate: either/or

Challenging cancer implies taking

resources away from other diseases of

the poor


25/50

`5/80 Cancer Disequilibrium

Almost 80% of the DALYs (disability-adjustedlife-years) lost worldwide to cancer are in LMICs,yet these countries have only a very small share of

global resources for cancer ~ 5% or less.

Africa

1% of global spending on health64% of new cancer cases

15% of the global population.


26/50

Investing in CCC:

We cannot afford not toHealth is an investment, not a cost

World Economic Forum: chronic disease is 1

of the 3 leading global economic risksEconomic value of lost DALYs: $921 million

VSL losses: $2.5 billion

Total economic cost of cancer, 2010

2-4% global GDP


27/50

80% of total

75+% ofbreast

95% of cervical

Avoidable cancer deaths:

1/3 to 1/2 or 2.4-3.7 million

Income Region% of all cancer deaths

considered avoidableBreast

Low income 52% 79%

Lower middle

income44% 73%

Upper middle

income33% 56%

High income 21% 40%

LMICs: Avoidable

deaths

i i CCC


28/50

Investing in CCC:

we cannot afford not to

Assuming that between 50% of

deaths are avoidable

Total annual cost: $310 billionInvesting in CCC yields an annual

return on prevention and treatment of

between 1.5:1 to 3.7:1.

Economic cost of inaction, 2009

$US 2010 billion130-850


29/50

Second-line TB Drugs

(Farmer, 2009)% Decline in price 1997-9

Amikacin 90%

Ethionamide 84%

Capreomycin 97%

Ofloxacin 98%

Reduced drug and vaccine prices

HPV vaccine in LMICs: Before 2011: from $US 30 to $US 100 per dose PAHO Revolving Fund: decreased from US$ 32 per dose inJanuary 2010 to US$ 14 per dose in April 2011. GAVI: June 2011 Merck offers vaccine at US$ 5 per dose for

low income countries.

Hep B vaccine: decline from a 1982 launch price of over $100to $0.20 a dose has enabled developing countries to dramatically

increase vaccination rates with support from GAVI

Ch ll d di th


30/50


minimalists:

myths about cancer

M1. Unnecessary

M2. Unaffordable:M3. Impossible POSSIBLE


Challenging cancer implies taking

resources away from other diseases of

the poor

Harvard Breast Cancer in Developing Countries Nov 4 `09


31/50

Harvard, Breast Cancer in Developing Countries, Nov 4, 09

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen,

Cancer survivor,

diagnosed in India 50 years ago

Drew G Faust

President of Harvard University,

Breast Cancer survivor, 20+ yrs

Initial views on MDR TB treatment


32/50

In developing countries, people with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis usually

die, because effective treatment is often impossible in poor countries. WHO 1996

Initial views on MDR-TB treatment,c. 1996-97

Source: Paul Farmer., 2009

cured

83%

abandon

therapy

2%

failed

therapy

8%

died

8%

Mitnick et al, Community-based therapy for multidrug-resistanttuberculosis in Lima, Peru. NEJM 2003; 348(2): 119-28.

Outcomes in MDR-TB patients in Lima,

Peru receiving at least 4 months of therapy

MDR-TB is too expensive to treat in poor

countries; it detracts attention and resources from

treating drug-susceptible disease. WHO 1997

PIH DFCI BWH


33/50

Rural Rwanda, Burkitts lymphoma

Source: Paul Farmer., 2009

Regimen ofvincristine,

cyclophosphamide,

intrathecal

methotrexate

Status post-CHOPin Central Haiti:

Still in remission

three years later

Central Haiti

0

oncolo

gists

PIH, DFCI, BWH

M t lit f b t d i l i


34/50

Source:Lozano, Knaul, Gmez-Dants, Arreola-Ornelas y Mndez, 2008, Tendencias en la mortalidad por cncer de mama en Mxico, 1979-2007.

FUNSALUD, Documento de trabajo. Observatorio de la Salud, con base en datos de la OMS y la Secretara de Salud de Mxico.

Mortality from breast and cervical cancer inMexico,1955-2008: less death from cervical

Age-adjusted rate per 100,000women

0

4

8

12

16

1955

1965

1975

1985

1995

2005


35/50

There are many opportunities and

alternatives for action

~Leth

ality(mortality

/incidence)

Source: Author estimates based on IARC, Globocan 2010

Low income

countries

Lower middleincome

Upper middleincome

High incomecountries

0

20

40

6048%

40% 38%

24%~ Lethality Low income: 48%

Lower middle income: 40%

Upper middle income: 38% High income: 24%

Breast Inequality gapin survival

Mxico

Ch ll d di th


36/50


minimalists:

Myths about cancer& NCD

M1. Unnecessary NECESSARY

M2.Unaffordable AFFORDABLE

M2. Impossible POSSIBLE


Challenging cancer implies takingresources away from other diseases of

the poor

Women and mothers are at risk for


37/50

LMICs

Mortality ofmothers inchildbirth

(-35% 1980-2008)

342,900

Breast andcervical cancer

166,577+142,744

=309,321

Women and mothers are at risk for

many reasons (15-59)

40% occur in pre menopausal


38/50

~40% occur in pre-menopausal

women (55

Age of

Diagnosis

Age ofDeath

Source: Author estimates based on IARC, Globocan, 2008 and 2010.

33%

20%54%

66.6%

34.2% 65%


39/50

Cases:

Juanita

Mexico

i


40/50

The diagonal approach to

health system strengthening

Rather than focusing on disease-specific vertical

programs or only horizontally on system constraints,

harness synergies that provide opportunities to tackle

disease-specific priorities while addressing systemicgaps.

Optimize available resources so that the whole is more

than the sum of the parts.

Bridge the divides as patients suffer diseases over a

lifetime, most of it chronic.


41/50

1. Harness platforms: Integrate prevention,screening and survivorship into MCH, SRH,

HIV/AIDs, social welfare/anti-poverty programs.

2. Delivery: Catalyze, employ and deploycommunity health workers and expert patients.

Harness ICT.

3. Financing: Social protection strategies that

include horizontal and vertical coverage.

4. Stewardship: Improve regulatory frameworks to

remove non-price barriers to pain control.

Diagonal Strategies

Mexico Seguro Popular Insurance


42/50

Mexico Seguro Popular Insurance

a diagonal strategy that includes financial

protection for catastrophic illness

Accelerated universal vertical coverage by disease

with a specified package of interventions

2004/5: ALL in children, cervical, HIV/AIDS

2006: All pediatric cancers

2007: Breast cancer

2011: Testicular cancer and NHL


43/50

Mexico: summary of facts

Since 2006, breast cancer is the second leading cause ofdeath among women aged 30 to 54 years of age and the

principal cause of death due to tumors.

Seguro Popular: since 2007 all women diagnosed with

breast cancer have very complete access to treatmentwith financial protection

Only 5-10% of cases in Mexico aredetected in Stage 1 or in situ

Stage at diagnosis by level of municipal


44/50

Stage at diagnosis by level of municipal

marginalization, Mexico, IMSS 2006(Mxico, IMSS 2006)

Source: Authors estimation based on IMSS data, 2006.

N=221(3.8%)

N=1737(30%)

N=2877(49.8%)

N=946(16.4%)

% diagnosed

in Stage 4

Late detection by state

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Poor (High) Middle Low Very low

Stage 1 Stage 2

Stage 3 Stage 4

< low

> mid

> high

Why?


45/50

Why?

Social and health systems

barriers to early detection

and

non-price barriers to

treatment


46/50

br

Juanita:Advanced metastatic breast

cancer is the result of a series of

missed opportunities

M i H i h i l l f


47/50

Mexico: Harnessing the primary level of

care for improving BC detection and care



48/50

Challenge and disprove theminimalists:

Myths about breast cancer,cancer& NCD

M1. Unnecessary NECESSARYM2. Impossible POSSIBLE

M3.Unaffordable AFFORDABLE

M4. Inappropriate : APPROPRIATE

B


49/50

Be an

optimistoptimalist.

Economics

of hope.Expanding access to cancer care and control in

LMICs: Should, Could, and Can be done


50/50

Breast Cancer in LMICs:Meeting the Challenge

Felicia Marie KnaulOctober 13, 2011

The 2011 Breast Cancer Global CongressA partnership of the US Department of

State and the Avon Foundation for Women

Avon Breast cancer in LMICs: Meeting the challenge 131011

Documents

Transcript of Avon Breast cancer in LMICs: Meeting the challenge 131011