ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2022
Cancer burden and status of cancer control measures in fragile states: a comparative analysis of 31 countries.
Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of diagnostic artificial intelligence models for prostate pathology in a Middle Eastern cohort.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Prevalence of cervical cancer and its associated factors among women living with HIV attending public referral hospitals in Amhara Region, Ethiopia, 2025, a cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes Through Quality Care: Call to Action for the Implementation of the Breast Cancer Care Quality Index (BCCQI).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Diagnosis of cancer in the South and North of Nigeria: duration and causes of delay.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A Comprehensive Pan-cancer Analysis Identified that TRIB3 was Associated with Immune Cell Infiltration and Poor Prognosis.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Article
- Survey of current policies towards widening cervical screening coverage among vulnerable women in 22 European countries.European journal of public health · 2023Article
- A Sulfur-Bridging Sulfonate-Modified Zinc(II) Phthalocyanine Nanoliposome Possessing Hybrid Type I and Type II Photoreactions with Efficient Photodynamic Anticancer Effects.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Providers' Understanding of Cancer Aetiology and Supportive Features for Indigenous Palliative Cancer Care Service Provision in Kenya.Global advances in integrative medicine and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInformation on cancer statistics and cancer control policies is limited in fragile states. This paper describes the cancer burden and status of cancer control measures in these countries.
methodsIn this comparative analysis, fragile states presenting with a Fragile States Index (FSI) score of 90·0 or more (alert for fragility) for at least 10 years during the 2006-20 period were selected. States with fewer than 10 years of data were selected if they were in alert for fragility during all years. Information on cancer burden, prevalence of cancer risk factors, population-attributable fraction, and on political commitment, health financing, and health system capacity was collected. Cancer incidence and mortality was calculated on the basis of data from population-based cancer registries, estimated with modelling that used mortality-to-incidence ratios and incidence-to-mortality ratios derived from cancer registries in neighbouring countries, or average of rates in selected neighbouring countries. For statistical comparison, fragile states were grouped according to the annual percent change (APC) of the FSI, with group 1 showing an increasing fragility trend (APC 0·2% or higher), group 2 a relatively stable fragility trend (APC between 0·2% and -0·2%), and group 3 a decreasing fragility trend (APC of -0·2% or lower).
findingsOverall, the estimated cancer burden in the 31 selected fragile states was lower than worldwide rates, except for cervical and prostate cancer. Cancer cases were attributed to infections (22·40% in group 1, 21·20% in group 2, and 18·80% in group 3) at a higher proportion in fragile states than globally (13·0%). Group 1 and 2 showed a significantly higher exposure to household air pollution (97·70% in group 1 and 94·90% in group 2), whereas current tobacco use in men increased from group 1 to group 3, with lung cancer incidence and mortality being higher in group 3. However, 25 countries had implemented only one or no MPOWER measures for tobacco control. Countries showed an out-of-pocket expenditure of 48·72% in group 1, 42·68% in group 2, and 51·07% in group 3, and only half of the countries had an updated cancer control plan or cancer management guidelines.
interpretationFragile states have started the epidemiological transition but are still not implementing enough cancer control measures. There is a need to develop reliable cancer control plans and guidelines, and to create financial mechanisms for implementation.
fundingNone. TRANSLATIONS: For the Arabic and French translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.