2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Investing in cancer care in the UK: why aren't we acting on the evidence?

      , , , ,
      The Lancet Oncology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references6

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Medical imaging and nuclear medicine: a Lancet Oncology Commission

          The diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer requires access to imaging to ensure accurate management decisions and optimal outcomes. Our global assessment of imaging and nuclear medicine resources identified substantial shortages in equipment and workforce, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). A microsimulation model of 11 cancers showed that the scale-up of imaging would avert 3·2% (2·46 million) of all 76·0 million deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide between 2020 and 2030, saving 54·92 million life-years. A comprehensive scale-up of imaging, treatment, and care quality would avert 9·55 million (12·5%) of all cancer deaths caused by the modelled cancers worldwide, saving 232·30 million life-years. Scale-up of imaging would cost US$6·84 billion in 2020-30 but yield lifetime productivity gains of $1·23 trillion worldwide, a net return of $179·19 per $1 invested. Combining the scale-up of imaging, treatment, and quality of care would provide a net benefit of $2·66 trillion and a net return of $12·43 per $1 invested. With the use of a conservative approach regarding human capital, the scale-up of imaging alone would provide a net benefit of $209·46 billion and net return of $31·61 per $1 invested. With comprehensive scale-up, the worldwide net benefit using the human capital approach is $340·42 billion and the return per dollar invested is $2·46. These improved health and economic outcomes hold true across all geographical regions. We propose actions and investments that would enhance access to imaging equipment, workforce capacity, digital technology, radiopharmaceuticals, and research and training programmes in LMICs, to produce massive health and economic benefits and reduce the burden of cancer globally.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Impact of national cancer policies on cancer survival trends and socioeconomic inequalities in England, 1996-2013: population based study.

            To assess the effectiveness of the NHS Cancer Plan (2000) and subsequent national cancer policy initiatives in improving cancer survival and reducing socioeconomic inequalities in survival in England.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Global costs, health benefits, and economic benefits of scaling up treatment and imaging modalities for survival of 11 cancers: a simulation-based analysis

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Lancet Oncology
                The Lancet Oncology
                Elsevier BV
                14702045
                December 2024
                December 2024
                : 25
                : 12
                : 1522-1524
                Article
                10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00634-X
                39542007
                5182823d-c7ff-463a-8b11-84cc1102218c
                © 2024

                https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                https://www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-017

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-037

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-012

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-029

                https://doi.org/10.15223/policy-004

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log