Breast cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related death among women worldwide, with case fatality rates highest in low- and middle-income countries (LMCs). Globally, breast cancer is the most common female cancer, comprising 23% of all cancers that are newly diagnosed, in more than 1.1 million women each year. More than 411,000 breast cancer deaths occur each year, accounting for more than 1.6% of female deaths from all causes. The annual global burden of new breast cancer cases is projected to be 1.5 million this year, with an ever-increasing majority from LMCs. Approximately 4.4 million women diagnosed with breast cancer in the last five years are currently alive, making breast cancer the single most prevalent cancer in the world.
In most LCMs, breast cancer incidence rates are increasing more rapidly than in regions where incidence rates are already high. Despite the younger age structure of most developing countries, LMCs already account for 45% of the incident breast cancer cases and cause 54% of the annual breast cancer deaths around the globe. Even assuming that there will be no change in underlying age-specific rates, a nearly 50% increase in breast cancer global incidence and mortality is anticipated between the years 2002 and 2020—due simply to the aging of current global populations. These rising cancer rates will be disproportionately greater among countries in the developing world, projected in LMCs to reach a 55% increased incidence and 58% increased mortality in fewer than 20 years. In reality these projected statistics probably underestimate future cancer rates, since the little data that is available from LMCs reveals increasing age-specific breast cancer incidence and mortality rates, especially among recent birth cohorts. This is especially true for urban women in LMCs and is partially attributable to the adoption of Western lifestyles.[4,5]
Evidence-based guidelines outlining optimal approaches to breast cancer detection, diagnosis, and treatment have been well-developed and disseminated in several high-resource countries.[6,7] However, these guidelines define optimal practice, and therefore have limited utility in LMCs. Optimal practice guidelines may be inappropriate for LMCs for numerous reasons, including inadequate personal resources, limited health care infrastructure, lack of pharmaceuticals, and cultural barriers. Hence, there is a need to develop clinical practice guidelines oriented specifically toward LMCs, and these guidelines need to take into consideration existing health care resources.
Cosponsored by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) strives to develop evidence-based, economically feasible, and culturally appropriate guidelines that can be used in nations with limited health care resources, with the aim of improving breast cancer outcomes. The BHGI held three Global Summits to address specific topics as they relate to breast cancer in LMCs: health care disparities (Seattle, Washington, 2002); evidence-based resource allocation (Bethesda, Maryland, 2005); and guideline implementation (Budapest, Hungary, 2007). Modeled after the approach of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), BHGI developed and applied a consensus panel process that is now formally endorsed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)  to create resource-sensitive guidelines for breast cancer early detection, diagnosis, treatment  and health care systems  as related to breast health care in LMCs. These BHGI guidelines are intended to assist ministers of health, policymakers, administrators, and institutions in prioritizing resource allocation as breast cancer treatment programs are implemented and developed in their resource-constrained countries (Table 1).
The dominant paradigm in the medical community is that good research and publication should be sufficient to ensure the translation of scientific findings into general practice. Unfortunately, a landmark IOM report from 2001 clearly identified the failure of much scientific innovation to be translated into practice.[17,18] More recently, Rubenstein and Pugh separated the IOM’s second translational block — clinical research to practice — into two parts: clinical research to guidelines, and guidelines to practice. Implementation researchers maintain that the process is complex, and they have begun to identify factors and processes critical to the adoption of new technologies and practices. Although there has already been some research assessing readiness for change, it has usually focused on just one component, such as providers or health units, or has focused on intention without considering self-efficacy or environment. As a conclusion in her extensive review of the implementation literature, Greenhalgh notes the need for more research on system readiness for innovation and for more studies evaluating implementation of specific interventions.
A review of available information strongly suggests that research could play a crucial role in applying the experience and knowledge of high-income societies to the challenges of women and breast cancer throughout the world. A recent survey of oncology experts from Latin American countries found that 94% of the surveyed experts consider clinical-epidemiologic research development on breast cancer insufficient in their country. The main reasons identified were insufficient funding and lack of available time.
Very little research on guideline implementation has been done in LMCs. It is necessary to determine whether the basic frameworks and instruments described in high-income countries apply in these very different environments, and what adaptation is needed to make them both valid and feasible. A systematic program of research to develop appropriate readiness-assessment instruments and to identify effective implementation strategies is now needed in a variety of LMCs. As we move toward the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the new evidence-based principles embodied in the BHGI guidelines, it is critical that careful evaluation is incorporated in the efforts, to ensure that lessons about effectiveness and efficiency are captured. It is precisely because resources are scarce in these countries that it is even more imperative that LMCs adopt effective practices as quickly as possible, and that implementation approaches are designed with limited resources in mind.
1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin. 2005 Mar-Apr;55(2):74-108.
2. Stewart B, Kleihues P. World cancer report 2003. Lyon: IARCPress; 2003.
3. Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, et al. GLOBOCAN 2002: Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide. IARC CancerBase No. 5. version 2.0. Lyon: IARCPress; 2004 [December 13, 2008]; Last accessed December 13, 2008]. Available from: http://www-dep.iarc.fr/.
4. Parkin DM, Fernandez LM. Use of statistics to assess the global burden of breast cancer. Breast J. 2006 Jan-Feb;12 Suppl 1:S70-80.
5. Porter P. “Westernizing” women’s risks? Breast cancer in lower-income countries. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 17;358(3):213-6.
6. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RDet al. Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol. 2005 Oct;16(10):1569-83.
7. Carlson RW, Allred DC, Anderson BOet al. Breast cancer. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009 Feb;7(2):122-92.
8. Anderson BO, Braun S, Carlson RW et al. Overview of breast health care guidelines for countries with limited resources. Breast J. 2003 May-Jun;9 Suppl 2:S42-50.
9. Anderson BO, Shyyan R, Eniu A et al. Breast cancer in limited-resource countries: an overview of the Breast Health Global Initiative 2005 guidelines. Breast J. 2006 Jan-Feb;12 Suppl 1:S3-15.
10. Anderson BO, Jakesz R. Breast cancer issues in developing countries: an overview of the breast health global initiative. World J Surg. 2008 Dec;32(12):2578-85.
11. Sloan FA, Gelband H, editors. Cancer Control Opportunities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (summary). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2007. p. 1-16.
12. Yip CH, Smith RA, Anderson BO et al. Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: early detection resource allocation. Cancer. 2008 Oct 15;113(8 Suppl):2244-56.
13. Shyyan R, Sener SF, Anderson BO et al. Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: diagnosis resource allocation. Cancer. 2008 Oct 15;113(8 Suppl):2257-68.
14. Eniu A, Carlson RW, El Saghir NS et al. Guideline implementation for breast healthcare in low- and middle-income countries: treatment resource allocation. Cancer. 2008 Oct 15;113(8 Suppl):2269-81.
15. Harford J, Azavedo E, Fischietto M. Breast health guideline implementation in low- and middle-income countries (LMCs): Breast healthcare program resource allocation. Cancer. 2008;113(8 suppl):2282-96.
16. McCannon CJ, Berwick DM, Massoud MR. The science of large-scale change in global health. JAMA. 2007 Oct 24;298(16):1937-9.
17. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century (Executive Summary). Washington: National Academy Press; 2001. p. 1 - 22.
18. IOM committee calls for complete revamping of health care system to achieve better quality. Qual Lett Healthc Lead. 2001 Mar;13(3):14-5.
19. Rubenstein LV, Pugh J. Strategies for promoting organizational and practice change by advancing implementation research. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S58-64.
20. Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Thomas R et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement. Evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966-1998. J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S14-20.
21. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581-629.
22. Cazap E, Buzaid A, Garbino C et al. Breast Cancer in Latin America: Results of the Latin American and Caribbean Society of Medical Oncology/Breast Cancer Research Foundation Expert Survey. Cancer. 2008;113(8 suppl):2359-65.
23. Hisham AN, Yip CH. Spectrum of breast cancer in Malaysian women: overview. World J Surg. 2003 Aug;27(8):921-3.
24. Chopra R. The Indian scene. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Sep 15;19(18 Suppl):106S-11S.
25. Sant M, Allemani C, Berrino F et al. Breast carcinoma survival in Europe and the United States. Cancer. 2004 Feb 15;100(4):715-22.
26. Pisani P, Parkin DM, Ngelangel C et al. Outcome of screening by clinical examination of the breast in a trial in the Philippines. Int J Cancer. 2006 Jan 1;118(1):149-54.
27. Azaiza F, Cohen M, Awad M et al. Factors associated with low screening for breast cancer in the Palestinian Authority: Relations of availability, environmental barriers and cancer-related fatalism. Cancer. 2010; In press.
28. Thomas DB, Gao DL, Ray RM et al. Randomized trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai: final results. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002 Oct 2;94(19):1445-57.
29. Mittra I, Mishra GA, Singh S et al. A cluster randomized, controlled trial of breast and cervix cancer screening in Mumbai, India: methodology and interim results after three rounds of screening. Int J Cancer. 2010 Feb 15;126(4):976-84.
30. Stalsberg H, Awuah B, Ibarra JA, et al.. Re-establishing a surgical pathology service in Kumasi, Ghana: case report and discussion of barriers and key elements of a successful collaboration between low- and high-resource countries. Cancer. 2008;113:2338-2346.
31. Weir HK, Thun MJ, Hankey BF et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2000, featuring the uses of surveillance data for cancer prevention and control. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003 Sep 3;95(17):1276-99.
32. Clarke M. Meta-analyses of adjuvant therapies for women with early breast cancer: the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group overview. Ann Oncol. 2006 Sep;17 Suppl 10:x59-62.
33. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al. Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009 Jul-Aug;59(4):225-49.
34. Bach PB, Schrag D, Brawley OW et al.. Survival of blacks and whites after a cancer diagnosis. JAMA. 2002 Apr 24;287(16):2106-13.