CLOSING THE GLOBAL PEDIATRIC CANCER SURVIVAL GAP: A PRECISION AND HEALTH-SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK FOR EQUITABLE DIAGNOSIS, ACCESSIBLE TREATMENT, CONTEXT ADAPTED INNOVATION, AND LIFELONG SURVIVORSHIP

Emmanuel Ifeanyi Obeagu1,2,3*image, George Okuma Achar4image, Enayi Onaji5image

f Molecular Medicine and Haematology, School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. 3Department of Haematology and Immunohaematology, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. 4Institute of Theology, Africa University, Mutare, Zimbabwe. 5Department of Pharmaecutical and Medicinal Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ahmedu Bello University, Zaria, Kaduna, Nigeria.

 

Abstract

Childhood cancer is increasingly curable, yet profound disparities in survival persist between and within high-resource and low-resource settings. These disparities reflect not only differences in tumour biology but also delayed diagnosis, limited pathology and molecular diagnostics, treatment interruptions, shortages of essential medicines, inadequate transfusion and supportive-care capacity, workforce constraints, financial hardship, and fragmented survivorship services. This narrative review examines a precision and health-systems framework for closing the global pediatric cancer survival gap by integrating equitable diagnosis, accessible treatment, context-adapted innovation, and lifelong survivorship. Precision pediatric oncology is conceptualized beyond genomic medicine to encompass accurate diagnosis, risk stratification, measurable residual disease assessment, individualized treatment intensity, toxicity monitoring, and patient-centred supportive care. Tiered diagnostic pathways, regional referral networks, digital pathology, tele-oncology, task-sharing, essential-medicine strategies, and strengthened laboratory and blood-transfusion systems can expand access while adapting advanced care to local realities. Treatment completion requires attention to transportation, socioeconomic barriers, family education, and financial protection. Equally, survival must extend beyond remission through risk-stratified surveillance for relapse, cardiotoxicity, endocrine dysfunction, infertility, neurocognitive impairment, psychosocial consequences, and secondary malignancies. Sustainable progress requires locally generated evidence, childhood cancer registries, implementation research, equitable research partnerships, and data-driven quality improvement. Closing the survival gap therefore demands coordinated investment across cancer biology, clinical care, health-system infrastructure, financing, workforce development, and survivorship. The goal is not identical care everywhere, but equitable access to effective, safe, context-appropriate, and sustainable pediatric cancer care capable of producing durable survival and healthy adulthood.

Keywords: cancer survival disparities, childhood cancer survivorship, pediatric oncology, precision medicine, health systems. 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Childhood cancer is one of the most consequential non-communicable diseases affecting children, with implications extending beyond mortality to physical development, education, psychosocial wellbeing, family stability, and future socioeconomic parti-cipation1. Major advances in pediatric oncology have transformed the prognosis of many childhood malignancies, particularly acute lymphoblastic leukemia, Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms tumour, and several other highly curable cancers2. Contemporary management increasingly incorporates molecular classification, measurable residual disease assessment, risk-adapted therapy, targeted agents, immunotherapy, improved supportive care, and multidisciplinary survivorship programmes. Nevertheless, these advances have not translated into equivalent outcomes globally. A substantial survival divide persists between children treated in well-resourced health systems and those living in settings where diagnostic, therapeutic, supportive, and survivorship capacity remains constrained3. The global pediatric cancer survival gap is a complex systems problem rather than a consequence of cancer biology alone. Children in resource-constrained settings may experience prolonged intervals between symptom onset, referral, diagnostic confirmation, and treatment initiation. Limited access to pathology, immunophenotyping, cytogenetics, molecular diagnostics, imaging, blood products, essential medicines, antimicrobial therapy, radio-therapy, surgery, intensive care, and appropriately trained personnel can compromise otherwise curable disease. Treatment abandonment may further occur when families encounter transportation difficulties, accommodation costs, loss of household income, treatment-related expenses, inadequate communication, or prolonged separation from other children. Consequently, mortality may result from a combination of advanced disease, treatment complications, interruptions in therapy, and broader socioeconomic vulnerabilities2. The concept of precision pediatric oncology offers an important opportunity to address these challenges, but its meaning must be broadened. Precision oncology is often associated with sophisticated genomic profiling and molecularly targeted therapies. Although these technologies are increasingly important for selected pediatric malignancies, a globally relevant precision framework must begin with accurate diagnosis, appropriate risk stratification, individualized treatment intensity, reliable monitoring, and high-quality supportive care. A child cannot benefit from molecularly precise treatment if the diagnosis is delayed, essential chemotherapy is unavailable, febrile neutropenia cannot be managed promptly, or blood products cannot be provided safely. Thus, precision should encompass the right diagnosis, right treatment, right intensity, right supportive care, and right follow-up for the individual child within the realities of the local health system3,4. Health-system capacity is consequently central to pediatric cancer outcomes. Effective cancer care requires an interconnected continuum extending from community recognition and referral to specialist diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, rehabilitation, and long-term survivorship. Strengthening individual components without addressing the wider system may produce limited gains. For example, sophisticated diagnostic technologies have little population-level effect when treatment access remains restricted, while expanded chemotherapy capacity without adequate laboratory, transfusion, infection-control, pharmacy, and emergency-care systems may increase treatment-related risks. An integrated approach is therefore required to align clinical innovation with infrastructure, workforce, financing, supply chains, quality assurance, and data systems5,6. Context-adapted innovation provides an important pathway for achieving this integration. Digital pathology, teleoncology, electronic clinical decision support, regional referral networks, decentralized monitoring, task sharing, and centralized access to highly specialized diagnostics can extend expertise without requiring every facility to reproduce the infrastructure of major cancer centres in high-income countries. Such strategies should be designed around local epidemiology, available resources, workforce characteristics, geography, health financing, and cultural context. Innovation should therefore be evaluated not solely by technological sophistication but by its capacity to improve diagnostic accuracy, treatment continuity, safety, affordability, and outcomes at population level7,8. The survival agenda must also extend beyond remission. As increasing numbers of children survive cancer, survivorship has become an essential component of pediatric oncology. Treatment can produce late cardiovascular, endocrine, reproductive, neurological, renal, pulmonary, musculo-skeletal, psychosocial, and educational consequences. Some survivors remain at risk of secondary malignancies and chronic health conditions decades after treatment. In resource-constrained settings, these late effects may remain under recognized because survivorship programmes are often limited and transition from pediatric to adult healthcare may be poorly coordinated. Incorporating survivorship planning from the beginning of cancer treatment can facilitate risk-stratified follow-up and earlier identification of preventable complications9,10.

Closing the global pediatric cancer survival gap therefore requires a shift from a disease-centred model toward an integrated precision and health-systems framework. Such a framework must connect early detection, equitable diagnosis, accessible and safe treatment, supportive care, context-adapted innovation, research, financial protection, and lifelong survivor-ship. The objective is not to impose identical models of care across countries with fundamentally different resources, but to establish equitable opportunities for cure and healthy survival through evidence-based approaches that are feasible, adaptable, sustainable, and responsive to local needs. This narrative review examines these interconnected priorities and considers how precision medicine and health-system strength-ening can be jointly leveraged to transform global pediatric oncology outcomes.

 

METHODS

 

This narrative review synthesized current evidence on global pediatric cancer survival disparities, precision oncology, equitable diagnosis, accessible treatment, context-adapted innovation, health-system strength-ening, and survivorship. Relevant peer-reviewed literature, international cancer reports, clinical guidelines, and policy documents were considered, with emphasis on recent evidence and seminal studies that informed contemporary pediatric oncology practice. Literature was identified through searches of major biomedical databases, including PubMed/ MEDLINE, Scopus and Web of Science, using combinations of terms related to pediatric/ childhood cancer, survival disparities, global oncology, precision oncology, low- and middle-income countries, health systems, treatment access, supportive care, and survivorship. Evidence was narratively synthesized to identify major barriers, emerging innovations, and practical strategies for reducing inequities across the pediatric cancer care continuum. Particular attention was given to applicability across diverse resource settings, sustainability, implementation feasibility, and opportunities for integrating precision medicine with health-system strengthening. 

The global pediatric cancer survival gap

The global pediatric cancer survival gap represents one of the clearest inequities in contemporary cancer care. Although many childhood malignancies are potentially curable with timely diagnosis and protocol-based treatment, survival remains substantially higher in well-resourced health systems than in many low- and middle-income settings. This disparity reflects differences in access to diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, specialist expertise, essential medicines, radiotherapy, surgery, blood products, and long-term follow-up rather than cancer biology alone 11,12. The gap develops across the entire cancer-care continuum. Delayed recognition of nonspecific symptoms can postpone referral and diagnosis, while limited pathology, immunophenotyping, molecular testing, and imaging may further delay accurate classification and risk stratification. After diagnosis, treatment may be compromised by medicine shortages, inadequate laboratory monitoring, limited transfusion capacity, infection-related complications, insufficient intensive care, and shortages of trained pediatric oncology personnel. These constraints can transform potentially curable disease into preventable mortality13,14.

Socioeconomic vulnerability is an additional determinant. Families may travel long distances to specialist centres and encounter transportation, accom-modation, food, and income-loss costs. Treatment abandonment may consequently reflect structural barriers rather than lack of commitment to care. Effective strategies must therefore combine clinical interventions with financial protection, family education, social navigation, and decentralized follow-up. The survival gap also extends beyond initial treatment. Limited survivorship services can leave survivors without systematic surveillance for cardiotoxicity, endocrine dysfunction, infertility, neurocognitive effects, psychosocial difficulties, and secondary malignancies. Consequently, global pediatric oncology must shift from a narrow focus on treatment delivery toward continuity of high-quality care from early detection through lifelong survivorship. Closing this gap requires integrated investment in diagnostic capacity, essential medicines, transfusion and laboratory services, multidisciplinary workforce development, regional cancer networks, digital health, locally relevant research, and sustainable financing. The objective is not identical infrastructure in every setting, but equitable access to accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, safe supportive care, and durable healthy survival15,16.

 

Survival disparities

Global pediatric cancer survival disparities are driven less by biological differences between children than by profound differences in the conditions under which cancer is recognized, diagnosed, treated, and followed. In high-resource settings, many childhood cancers achieve survival exceeding 80%, whereas outcomes remain substantially poorer in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where late presentation, diagnostic delays, treatment interruptions, toxicity, abandonment of therapy, inadequate supportive care, and limited survivorship services remain major barriers. These disparities are interconnected rather than isolated; a delay at one stage of the care pathway can amplify vulnerabilities at subsequent stages17,18. Delayed diagnosis and inaccurate classification are fundamental contributors. Childhood cancers may initially resemble common infections, malnutrition, inflammatory disorders, or benign conditions, parti-cularly where primary-care providers have limited oncology training. Restricted access to pathology, flow cytometry, cytogenetics, molecular diagnostics, imaging, and specialist interpretation can further delay definitive diagnosis and risk stratification. Consequently, children may enter treatment with advanced disease or without the biological information needed to select appropriately intensive or targeted therapy19.Treatment accessibility and continuity represent another major determinant. Essential anticancer medicines, radiotherapy, surgery, blood products, antimicrobial agents, analgesics, and nutritional support may be unavailable, unaffordable, or geo-graphically inaccessible. Treatment interruptions can arise from medicine stock-outs, transportation costs, hospitalization expenses, inadequate family accommo-dation, or loss of household income. These barriers are particularly consequential for prolonged multimodal regimens requiring repeated hospital visits and sustained caregiver participation20,21. Health-system capacity and workforce limitations magnify these challenges. Pediatric oncology requires coordinated multi-disciplinary teams involving oncologists, hematologists, pathologists, radiologists, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses, laboratory scientists, psycho-logists, nutritionists, social workers, and rehabi-litation specialists. In resource-constrained environ-ments, shortages of trained personnel and inadequate referral networks can compromise diagnosis, treatment delivery, toxicity monitoring, infection prevention, transfusion support, and emergency care22,23.

Treatment abandonment and socioeconomic vulnera-bility remain closely intertwined. Families may face catastrophic out-of-pocket expenditure, food insecurity, unstable housing, long travel distances, competing care giving responsibilities, and limited understanding of treatment requirements24. Rather than viewing abandonment simply as a failure of adherence, it should be understood as a measurable consequence of interacting social, financial, geographical, and health-system barriers25. Survival inequity extends beyond initial treatment. Children who complete therapy may have limited access to surveillance for relapse, endocrine dysfunction, cardiotoxicity, neurocognitive effects, infertility, secondary malignancies, psycho-social consequences, and other late effects. Thus, closing the survival gap requires more than increasing access to anticancer drugs. It requires an integrated continuum encompassing early recognition, accurate diagnosis, risk-adapted treatment, reliable supportive care, financial and social protection, treatment completion, and lifelong survivorship care. 

Precision pediatric oncology for global equity

Precision pediatric oncology offers an opportunity to reduce survival disparities by matching diagnostic and therapeutic decisions to the biological characteristics of each child's cancer while simultaneously adapting care to the resources and circumstances of the health system. Unlike a technology-centered model of precision medicine, global precision oncology should encompass biological precision, clinical precision, and contextual precision. The objective is not simply to provide the most sophisticated molecular test or targeted drug, but to identify the most informative, feasible, safe, and actionable intervention for each child within their care environment26. At the biological level, genomic, transcriptomic, cytogenetic, immune-phenotypic, and molecular profiling can improve tumour classification, prognostic assessment, risk strat-ification, and identification of actionable alterations. However, implementation must recognize that comprehensive sequencing is not universally feasible or necessary. Tiered diagnostic pathways can prioritize high-impact investigations, using conventional mor-phology, immunophenotyping, cytogenetics, focused molecular assays, and progressively broader genomic testing according to disease type, clinical need, local capacity, and treatment availability. This approach can prevent precision oncology from becoming synon-ymous with expensive technology that benefits only a small proportion of patients27.

Context-adapted precision is particularly important in low- and middle-income countries. Treatment selection should incorporate not only tumour biology but also age, nutritional status, infection burden, organ function, treatment toxicity, availability of blood products, antimicrobial support, radiotherapy, surgery, medicines, and the family's ability to maintain prolonged treatment. Standardized protocols therefore need sufficient flexibility to preserve evidence-based efficacy while allowing clinically appropriate adaptation to local circumstances28. Digital patho-logy, telepathology, artificial intelligence, remote multi-disciplinary consultation, electronic clinical decision support systems, and decentralized laboratory networks can extend specialist expertise beyond major oncology centres. 

Regional reference laboratories and specimen referral systems may provide access to advanced diagnostics without requiring every hospital to establish a complete molecular infrastructure. Importantly, technology should strengthen rather than replace local workforce development, quality assurance, clinical governance, and laboratory capacity29. Precision oncology must also incorporate precision supportive care. Early identi-fication of children at risk of severe infection, transfusion complications, malnutrition, treatment toxicity, thrombosis, or organ dysfunction can enable proactive intervention and reduce avoidable treatment-related mortality. Blood-based biomarkers, clinical risk scores, pharmacokinetic monitoring, and appropriately validated digital tools may increasingly support individualized monitoring where evidence demons-trates clinical utility (Table 1)30,31.

Accessible treatment: From protocol availability to treatment completion

Access to pediatric cancer treatment cannot be defined simply by the presence of a treatment protocol or the availability of individual anticancer medicines. Meaningful access requires that children can start appropriate therapy promptly, receive the full planned regimen safely, and complete treatment without preventable interruption. This distinction is critical because survival gains from evidence-based pediatric oncology protocols can be undermined when medicines, diagnostics, supportive care, trained personnel, or essential infrastructures are intermittently unavailable32. Treatment accessibility begins with reliable availability of essential medicines and technologies. Chemotherapeutic agents, targeted therapies where indicated, radiotherapy, surgery, blood products, antimicrobial agents, analgesics, nutritional support, and diagnostic monitoring must be incorporated into coordinated procurement and supply systems. Stock-outs can produce delays, substitutions, dose modifications, or treatment interruptions, particularly when health facilities depend on frag-mented procurement mechanisms. National and regional forecasting, pooled procurement, quality-assured generic medicines, and resilient supply chains can improve continuity while reducing unnecessary costs33. However, affordability extends beyond medicines. Families may incur substantial expenses for transportation, accommodation, food, investigations, supportive medicines, and lost income during prolonged treatment. Financial protection is therefore an oncology intervention, not merely a social adjunct. Public financing, insurance coverage, transportation assistance, family accommodation near treatment centres, nutritional programmes34. Decentralization and shared-care models can further improve continuity. Specialized oncology centres should remain responsible for complex diagnosis and treatment decisions, while appropriately supported regional and district facilities can provide selected elements of follow-up, laboratory monitoring, supportive care, transfusion services, and management of uncomplicated complications.

Telemedicine and telepathology can strengthen communication between centres and reduce unnecessary travel without compromising specialist oversight35. Treatment completion also depends on safe and tolerable care. Children require reliable monitoring for febrile neutropenia, anaemia, thrombocytopenia, tumour lysis, malnutrition, organ toxicity, infections, and other treatment complications. Adequate nursing capacity, laboratory services, blood transfusion systems, antimicrobial availability, pain management, nutritional care, and emergency referral pathways are therefore integral components of cancer treatment rather than secondary services (Table 2)36.

Supportive care as a core component of cancer survival

Supportive care is not an adjunct to pediatric cancer treatment; it is a fundamental determinant of whether children can safely receive and complete curative therapy. Modern anticancer regimens can produce substantial myelosuppression, immunosuppression, mucosal injury, metabolic disturbances, organ toxicity, pain, malnutrition, and psychological distress. Without effective prevention and management of these compli-cations, potentially curative treatment may be delayed, reduced, interrupted, or abandoned. Strengthening supportive care is therefore central to narrowing global differences in pediatric cancer survival37. Infection prevention and management are particularly important because treatment-related neutropenia can rapidly convert otherwise manageable infections into life-threatening emergencies. Early recognition of fever, appropriate microbiological investigation, timely anti-microbial therapy, vaccination strategies where appropriate, infection-prevention practices, and reliable access to essential antibiotics are critical components of pediatric oncology services. Context-specific protocols should reflect local pathogen profiles, anti-microbial resistance patterns, diagnostic capacity, and availability of inpatient care38.

Transfusion and laboratory support are equally fundamental. Children receiving intensive chemo-therapy may develop anaemia, thrombocytopenia, and other cytopenias requiring timely assessment and appropriately matched blood components. Reliable haemoglobin, platelet, coagulation, biochemical, and microbiological monitoring allow clinicians to identify treatment toxicity early and make evidence-informed modifications. Safe blood systems, quality-assured laboratory services, and dependable supply chains should therefore be integrated into pediatric oncology planning rather than treated as separate services39. Nutritional and metabolic support can influence treatment tolerance, infection risk, recovery, and overall functional status.

Malnutrition may be present before diagnosis and can worsen during therapy because of anorexia, mucositis, nausea, vomiting, infection, or treatment-related metabolic demands. Early nutritional assessment and individualized dietary intervention should therefore accompany cancer treatment, particularly in settings where childhood undernutrition is prevalent40. Supportive care must also address pain, psychological health, education, rehabilitation, and family wellbeing. Pain control, psychosocial counselling, child-friendly communication, schooling during treatment, and caregiver support can reduce the broader burden of cancer and facilitate continued engagement with therapy. Rehabilitation may be necessary for children experiencing neurological, musculoskeletal, functional, or treatment-related disabilities41. In resource-constrained settings, supportive-care strategies should prioritize high-impact, feasible interventions rather than depend exclusively on advanced technologies. Standardized fever-management pathways, essential medicines, transfusion capacity, nutritional screening, infection-control systems, laboratory monitoring, pain management, and trained multidisciplinary teams can substantially strengthen treatment safety. Regional networks can provide escalation pathways for compli-cations requiring specialist intervention (Table 3)42.

Context-adapted innovation

Context-adapted innovation is essential for translating advances in pediatric oncology into meaningful improvements in survival across diverse health systems. Innovation should not be defined solely by the introduction of sophisticated technologies, expensive molecular platforms, or novel therapeutics. Its central purpose should be to solve locally relevant barriers to timely diagnosis, safe treatment, treatment completion, and survivorship. Technologies and care models that are effective in one setting may be impractical elsewhere if they depend on infrastructure, specialist personnel, financing, or supply chains that are unavailable43. A context-adapted approach begins with problem-driven innovation. Local cancer registries, treatment records, laboratory data, patient experience, and health-system assessments can identify specific bottlenecks, including diagnostic delays, medicine stock-outs, inadequate transfusion capacity, long travel distances, limited pathology services, treatment interruptions, and insufficient follow-up. Innovation can then be directed toward measurable problems rather than technology acquisition for its own sake44.Digital health and decentralized diagnostics provide important opportunities. Telepathology can connect regional laboratories with specialist centres, while digital consultation platforms can facilitate multi-disciplinary review and treatment decisions. Mobile communication can support appointment reminders, symptom monitoring, rapid reporting of treatment complications, and follow-up of children who miss appointments. Portable or point-of-care diagnostic technologies may reduce delays where conventional laboratory infrastructure is limited, provided they undergo appropriate validation, quality assurance, and integration into clinical workflows45. Innovation can also strengthen care delivery and supply systems. Regional oncology networks, shared-care models, community-based follow-up, transportation support, medicine-forecasting systems, and decen-tralized supportive-care services can reduce geographic and logistical barriers. In settings where advanced radio-therapy or molecular diagnostics are concentrated in a few centres, coordinated referral pathways can help ensure that scarce specialist resources are used efficiently while appropriate elements of care are delivered closer to families46.Innovation must incorporate implementation science and local ownership. Interventions should be evaluated for feasibility, affordability, scalability, safety, accept-ability, equity, and sustainability rather than efficacy alone. Local clinicians, laboratory scientists, nurses, health administrators, patients, caregivers, and policy-makers should participate in designing and evaluating innovations. Partnerships between institutions in high-resource and resource-constrained settings should prioritize bidirectional knowledge exchange and strengthening of local capacity rather than creating parallel systems dependent on external support47.The most transformative innovations may therefore be relatively simple: reliable specimen referral networks, standardized diagnostic algorithms, electronic treat-ment tracking, improved blood-component availability, structured toxicity monitoring, community supported follow-up, and coordinated procurement systems. More advanced approaches including artificial intelligence, genomic medicine, precision diagnostics, and remote specialist consultation can be progressively incor-porated where infrastructure and evidence support their use48.

Health-system strengthening as cancer treatment

Health-system strengthening should be regarded as an integral component of pediatric cancer treatment because survival depends not only on the efficacy of anticancer therapies but also on whether health systems can deliver them consistently, safely, and equitably. A highly effective chemotherapy regimen cannot achieve its intended benefit when diagnosis is delayed, essential medicines are unavailable, laboratory moni-toring is inadequate, blood products are inaccessible, or children cannot return for subsequent treatment. Strengthening the systems that surround cancer care is therefore itself a survival intervention49. A functional pediatric oncology system requires a coordinated continuum of care extending from early recognition and referral through diagnosis, risk stratification, treatment, supportive care, response assessment, and survivorship. Clear referral pathways can reduce delays between primary care, district hospitals, diagnostic laboratories, and specialist oncology centres. Standardized clinical pathways and multidisciplinary decision-making can improve coordination and reduce fragmentation, particularly for cancers requiring chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, pathology, transfusion, and rehabilitation50. Workforce develop-ment is central to this infrastructure. Sustainable pediatric oncology programmes require trained oncologists and hematologists alongside nurses, laboratory scientists, pathologists, pharmacists, radio-logists, surgeons, nutritionists, psychologists, social workers, and data specialists. Continuous professional development, mentorship, teleconsultation, regional training networks, and task-sharing where appropriate can expand capacity while reducing dependence on a small number of specialists51. Laboratory, blood transfusion, pharmacy, and diagnostic systems are equally important. Accurate morphology, immunophenotyping, cytogenetics, mol-ecular testing where indicated, imaging, biochemical monitoring, and microbiological investigation provide the information required for diagnosis and treatment decisions. Reliable blood-component supply is essential for children with severe cytopenias and those undergoing intensive therapy. Similarly, resilient pharmaceutical procurement and inventory systems can reduce treatment interruptions caused by medicine shortages52. Health-system strengthening must also include health information and quality-improvement infrastructure. Childhood cancer registries, standard-dized treatment records, outcome monitoring, treat-ment-abandonment tracking, toxicity surveillance, and audit systems can reveal where patients are being lost along the care pathway. Data should be used to identify disparities, evaluate interventions, and guide resource allocation. Where possible, common indicators should include diagnostic interval, treatment initiation, treatment completion, abandonment, treatment-related mortality, relapse, survival, and long-term outcomes53.

Financial and social protection represents another essential system component. Families may experience transportation costs, accommodation requirements, nutritional insecurity, lost income, and other expenses during prolonged treatment. Integrating cancer care with social-support mechanisms can reduce barriers that otherwise undermine treatment continuity. Family-centred communication and community engagement can further strengthen trust, understanding, and sustained participation in care54. A strengthened system should also be resilient to disruption. Reliable electricity and water, laboratory maintenance, oxygen and transfusion capacity, infection-control systems, emergency referral pathways, and diversified medicine and equipment supply chains are particularly important in environments vulnerable to economic, climatic, infectious-disease, or other system shocks55. The fundamental principle is that cancer treatment is a system-dependent intervention. Improving pediatric cancer survival therefore requires simultaneous investment in clinical protocols and the infrastructure, workforce, diagnostics, financing, information systems, supply chains, and social protection needed to deliver those protocols. By shifting attention from isolated treatment technologies toward resilient and integrated cancer-care systems, health-system strengthening can convert available therapeutic knowledge into sustained survival gains and greater equity across populations.

Financing and universal health coverage

Sustainable financing is a fundamental prerequisite for closing global pediatric cancer survival disparities because effective diagnosis and treatment require prolonged, multidisciplinary, and resource-intensive care. The financial burden extends beyond anticancer medicines to include pathology, imaging, surgery, radiotherapy, blood products, laboratory monitoring, antimicrobial therapy, nutrition, hospitalization, trans-portation, rehabilitation, and long-term follow-up. When these costs are transferred disproportionately to families, financial hardship can contribute to delayed presentation, interrupted treatment, or inability to complete therapy56. Universal health coverage (UHC) provides an important framework for protecting children and families from these barriers by ensuring access to essential health services without financial hardship. Pediatric cancer should therefore be incorporated explicitly into national UHC benefit packages, with coverage extending across the entire care pathway rather than focusing narrowly on selected medicines. Essential childhood cancer diagnostics, evidence-based treatment, supportive care, emergency management, and survivorship services should be considered components of comprehensive cancer coverage57.

Public financing is particularly important because childhood cancer is relatively uncommon at the population level but can generate substantial costs for individual families. Risk pooling through taxation, social health insurance, or other prepayment mechanisms can distribute these costs across larger populations and reduce dependence on direct household payments. Financing mechanisms should also account for indirect costs, including transportation, accommodation, nutrition, and income loss, which can become major barriers during prolonged treatment58. Efficient financing requires strategic prioritization rather than indiscriminate expansion of services. Governments and health systems can use evidence on disease burden, treatment effectiveness, affordability, and feasibility to define essential pediatric oncology packages. Reliable procurement of quality-assured generic medicines, pooled purchasing, centralized supply management, and transparent budgeting can improve affordability and reduce avoidable expenditure. Investments in diagnostic capacity, blood services, pathology, workforce development, and supportive care may generate substantial benefits because treatment effectiveness depends on the functioning of these interconnected components59.

Innovative financing mechanisms may complement domestic resources. International development assistance, philanthropic funding, global health partner-ships, research collaborations, and blended financing can support infrastructure development, workforce training, diagnostics, and service expansion. However, external funding should strengthen national systems rather than create parallel programmes that become vulnerable when individual grants end. Long-term sustainability requires increasing domestic ownership, predictable financing, and integration of pediatric oncology into national health strategies and budgets60. Financial protection should also be linked to measurable outcomes. Health systems should monitor catastrophic health expenditure, treatment aband-onment, treatment delays, medicine availability, treatment completion, and survival alongside conventional financial indicators. Such measures can demonstrate whether increased investment actually translates into improved access and outcomes.

Pediatric cancer research equity

Pediatric cancer research equity is essential to closing the global survival gap because evidence generated in well-resourced settings does not automatically translate into effective care across different populations and health systems. Research priorities, study populations, infrastructure, and funding remain unevenly distri-buted, leaving many children in low- and middle-income countries underrepresented in clinical research and generating important gaps in knowledge about disease biology, treatment toxicity, implementation barriers, and context-specific outcomes61. A more equitable research agenda should begin with locally relevant questions. Research should address the causes of diagnostic delay, treatment abandonment, medicine shortages, malnutrition, infection-related complica-tions, transfusion requirements, toxicity, and barriers to survivorship care alongside investigations of tumour biology and novel therapies. Childhood cancers that are relatively uncommon globally may represent sub-stantial burdens within particular regions, making geographically and epidemiologically relevant research particularly important62.

Equitable participation in clinical trials is another priority. Children from diverse geographic, socio-economic, and ancestral backgrounds should have opportunities to participate in appropriately designed therapeutic and translational studies. This requires strengthening ethics and regulatory systems, pathology and laboratory capacity, clinical trial infrastructure, pharmacovigilance, data management, and trained research personnel. Multicentre and regional networks can help overcome the limitations of small individual patient populations while increasing the representativeness of evidence63. Research partnerships should emphasize capacity strengthening and equitable collaboration. International collaborations can provide access to advanced technologies, specialized expertise, training, and funding, but investigators and institutions in resource-constrained settings should have meaning-ful roles in study design, data interpretation, authorship, intellectual contribution, and governance. Sustainable partnerships should build local laboratory, statistical, clinical, and research-management capa-bilities rather than primarily extracting biological samples or data.

Implementation research is particularly valuable for global pediatric oncology. Evidence-based inter-ventions must be evaluated under real-world conditions to determine how they can be incorporated into different health systems. Studies examining decentralized diagnostics, telepathology, treatment-tracking systems, task-sharing, supportive-care models, medicine procurement, financial assistance, and community-based follow-up can help identify strategies that are both effective and scalable. Data equity is equally important. Strengthening population-based cancer registries, standardized clinical datasets, molecular databases, and survivorship registries can reveal disparities that remain invisible when evidence comes predominantly from tertiary centres. Data should be collected using harmonized definitions while maintaining appropriate privacy, ethical governance, and community trust. Where genomic research is undertaken, equitable benefit sharing and responsible stewardship of biological samples are particularly important64. Research investment should extend beyond treatment discovery to survivorship and life-long health. Long-term studies are needed to understand cardiotoxicity, endocrine dysfunction, fertility, neurocognitive outcomes, psychosocial health, secondary malignancies, educational attainment, and socioeconomic consequences of childhood cancer across diverse populations.

From cure to lifelong survivorship

Improving pediatric cancer survival must ultimately extend beyond achieving remission. As increasing numbers of children survive cancer, the definition of successful treatment should encompass not only cure but also long-term health, functional capacity, psycho-social wellbeing, educational attainment, reproductive potential, and quality of life. Survivorship should therefore be integrated into pediatric oncology from the time of diagnosis rather than introduced only after completion of therapy65. Childhood cancer and its treatment can produce late and chronic effects involving multiple organ systems. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, corticosteroids, and other interventions may contribute to cardiotoxicity, endocrine dysfunction, impaired growth and develop-ment, neurocognitive effects, infertility, renal or pulmonary complications, musculoskeletal problems, and secondary malignancies. The magnitude and timing of these effects vary according to cancer type, treatment exposure, age at treatment, genetic susceptibility, and other clinical and socioeconomic factors. Structured risk-based surveillance can facilitate earlier detection and management66. Survivorship care plans should therefore document the diagnosis, treatment exposures, cumulative drug doses, radio-therapy fields and doses, surgical interventions, complications, and potential late effects. This information enables individualized follow-up and facilitates transition from pediatric oncology to long-term primary and specialist care. Where resources are constrained, surveillance can be prioritized according to treatment-related risk and locally feasible clinical and laboratory approaches.

Long-term survivorship also requires attention to psychosocial and developmental outcomes. Children and adolescents may experience anxiety, depression, social isolation, altered body image, educational disruption, difficulties returning to school, and challenges establishing relationships or employment. Reintegration into education and community life should consequently be regarded as an important component of recovery. Families and caregivers may likewise require psychosocial and financial support after treatment ends67. Fertility and reproductive health deserves particular consideration for children exposed to gonadotoxic therapies. Age-appropriate counselling, fertility-preservation strategies when feasible, and long-term reproductive assessment can help protect future reproductive choices. Similarly, cardiovascular, endocrine, metabolic, neurological, and bone health should be monitored according to individual treatment exposure and risk68. The transition to adulthood represents a critical but frequently neglected phase. Survivors should progressively develop knowledge about their treatment history, potential late effects, healthy behaviours, and the importance of continued medical surveillance. Structured transition programmes can facilitate movement from pediatric oncology services to adult healthcare while minimizing loss to follow-up. In resource-constrained settings, survivor-ship models should be context-adapted and sustainable. Primary-care providers can be trained to recognize important late effects, while specialist centres provide risk stratification and management of complex compli-cations. Digital records, treatment summaries, telehealth, survivor registries, and community-based follow-up can support continuity where specialist services are geographically concentrated.

Survivorship in resource-constrained settings

Survivorship in resource-constrained settings presents a distinct challenge because improvements in childhood cancer survival may not be accompanied by equivalent access to long-term follow-up. After completing therapy, many survivors return to communities where specialized oncology services, survivorship clinics, diagnostic monitoring, rehabilitation, mental-health support, and medical records may be limited. Consequently, late complications can remain undetected until they become clinically significant, while survivors may also experience persistent educational, social, financial, and reproductive challenges69. A sustainable survivorship model should begin with risk stratification based on previous cancer treatment. Simple clinical assessments, blood pressure measurement, growth monitoring, selected laboratory tests, and targeted cardiac, endocrine, renal, neurological, or reproductive evaluation can provide substantial benefit when systematically implemented70.

Integration with primary healthcare is particularly important. Survivorship should not depend exclusively on periodic visits to tertiary oncology centres. Primary-care clinicians can be trained to recognize important late effects, identify warning symptoms, reinforce healthy behaviours, monitor vaccination and general preventive care, and facilitate referral for complications requiring specialist assessment. This shared-care model can reduce geographic and financial barriers while preserving access to specialist expertise71. Digital technologies offer additional opportunities. Electronic treatment summaries, mobile health platforms, telemedicine, and remote consultation can support communication between survivors, primary-care providers, and oncology centres. Automated reminders may facilitate follow-up appointments, while digital records can preserve treatment histories when survivors move between healthcare facilities. Such approaches are particularly valuable where specialist services are concentrated in major urban centres72.Survivorship care must also address psychosocial and socioeconomic recovery. Returning to school, completing education, developing employment skills, maintaining relationships, and achieving financial independence are important dimensions of long-term health. Psychological support, peer-support progra-mmes, school reintegration, vocational assistance, and family counselling can help survivors manage the consequences of cancer beyond its biological effects73. Reproductive and sexual health requires age-appropriate and culturally sensitive attention. Survivors who received potentially gonadotoxic treatment may require counselling regarding fertility, puberty, sexual health, and future pregnancy. Where fertility preservation services are unavailable, clear docu-mentation of treatment-related reproductive risk and appropriate long-term counselling remain important74. Resource limitations require prioritization rather than abandonment of survivorship care. Health systems can begin with relatively low-cost interventions: standardized treatment summaries, survivor registries, risk-based follow-up schedules, primary-care education, essential laboratory monitoring, referral pathways, and community-based psychosocial support. More specialized services can subsequently be incorporated as capacity expands. Equity also requires that survivorship programmes measure who is being lost to follow-up and why. Distance, treatment-related financial hardship, migration, limited awareness, stigma, and competing family responsibilities may disproportionately affect vulnerable survivors. Tracking follow-up retention and late-effect outcomes can identify these barriers and guide targeted interventions75.

A global pediatric oncology equity framework

Closing the global pediatric cancer survival gap requires a coordinated framework that addresses the entire cancer continuum rather than isolated deficiencies in diagnosis or treatment. The central principle should be that every child, regardless of geography, socioeconomic status, or health-system capacity, should have a realistic pathway from early recognition to accurate diagnosis, appropriate treatment, treatment completion, and lifelong survivorship. Achieving this objective requires alignment of biological precision with health-system resilience, financial protection, context-adapted innovation, and equitable research74. The framework can be organized around six interconnected pillars. The first isequitable early detection and diagnosis, including recognition of childhood cancer in primary care, efficient referral pathways, pathology and imaging capacity, quality-assured laboratory services, and access to essential molecular diagnostics where clinically indicated. Reducing diagnostic delay is particularly important because therapeutic effective-ness is constrained when children reach specialist services with advanced disease or substantial clinical deterioration76.

The second pillar is accessible and precision-informed treatment. Evidence-based protocols should be adapted to disease biology, clinical risk, treatment toxicity, comorbidities, nutritional status, and local capacity. Access must encompass chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, blood products, essential medicines, and monitoring rather than focusing on anticancer drugs alone. Treatment completion should become a central performance indicator77. The third pillar is integrated supportive care. Infection prevention and treatment, transfusion services, nutritional support, pain manage-ment, toxicity monitoring, psychosocial care, rehabili-tation, and emergency services should be embedded within oncology programmes. These services protect children from potentially preventable treatment-related mortality and enable delivery of curative therapy. The fourth pillar is health-system strengthening and context-adapted innovation. Pediatric oncology requires trained multidisciplinary teams, reliable laboratories, resilient medicine and equipment supply chains, referral networks, cancer registries, quality-assurance systems, and appropriate digital infra-structure. Innovation should be directed toward locally defined problems and evaluated for feasibility, safety, affordability, scalability, and equity78. The fifth pillar is financial protection and universal health coverage. National health financing mechanisms should include essential pediatric cancer services and reduce direct and indirect costs to families.

The sixth pillar is equitable research and lifelong survivorship. Research networks should increase representation of children from underserved populations, strengthen local research capacity, and generate evidence relevant to diverse epidemiological and health-system contexts. Survivorship programmes should provide risk-based surveillance, psychosocial support, rehabilitation, reproductive health services, transition to adult care, and monitoring for late effects79. These pillars should operate within a continuous measurement and accountability system. Countries and institutions can monitor diagnostic intervals, treatment initiation, medicine availability. Disaggregating these indicators by geography, socio-economic circum-stances, sex, age, and other relevant factors can reveal inequities that aggregate survival statistics may conceal80. The framework is therefore not a single intervention but a coordinated architecture for equitable pediatric cancer care. Its ultimate objective is to transform global pediatric oncology from a fragmented, resource-dependent model into a resilient continuum in which precision diagnosis, accessible treatment, supportive care, financial protection, innovation, research, and survivorship reinforce one another. Such integration provides a practical pathway for converting advances in pediatric cancer science into equitable survival and lifelong health.

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The global pediatric cancer survival gap is fundamentally a challenge of equitable access, health-system capacity, and continuity of care, rather than a lack of therapeutic knowledge alone. Closing this gap requires a shift from isolated advances in cancer treatment toward an integrated continuum encom-passing early recognition, accurate diagnosis, precision informed therapy, reliable supportive care, treatment completion, financial protection, context-adapted innovation, and lifelong survivorship. Precision pediatric oncology can improve risk stratification and therapeutic selection, but its global value depends on whether essential diagnostics, medicines, blood products, trained personnel, and monitoring systems are accessible to the children who need them. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

The authors are grateful to Department of Biomedical and Laboratory Science, Africa University, Zimbabwe provide necessary facilities required during this work.

 

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS

 

Obeagu EI: formal analysis, conceptualisation, data organisation, writing original draft. Achar GO: data analysis, manuscript writing.  Onaji E: literature survey, data analysis, manuscript writing. Final manuscript was checked and approved by all authors. 

 

DATA AVAILABILITY

 

The related author can provide the empirical data supporting the study's conclusions upon request.

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

 

There are no conflicts of interest in regard to this project.

 

REFERENCES

 

  1. Ibrahim H, Ismail AA, Rahim NA, et al. Childhood cancer and parental mental health: Role of disease severity, socioeconomic status, and social dynamics. BMC Psychiatry 2025; 25(1):42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06494-z
  2. Ain RU, Rahman AA, Tariq A, et al. Delay in diagnosis and treatment of childhood cancers in a developing country: A cross-sectional patient-based survey at country's largest pediatric oncology center. Pak J Med Sci 2025; 41(5):1267-1273. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.5.9663
  3. Forrest SJ, Geoerger B, Janeway KA. Precision medicine in pediatric oncology. Curr Opin Pediatr 2018; 30(1):17-24. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000000570
  1. O'Donohue T, Farouk SS, Glade BJ. Progress in precision therapy in pediatric oncology. Curr Opin Pediatr 2023; 35(1):41-47.https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000001198
  2. Jevič F, Vašinová A, Rak A, et al. Bridging the gap in pediatric cancer rehabilitation care: A multi-perspective survey study. Front Pediatr 2026; 14:1870844. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2026.1870844
  1. Freedman JL, Beeler DM, Bowers A, et al. Supportive care in pediatric oncology: Opportunities and future directions. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15(23):5549.  https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15235549
  1. Desai S, Deshmukh J, Mehta A, et al. Accelerating the implementation of digital pathology in India. J Pathol Inform 2026; 22:100664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpi.2026.100664
  2. William W, Andrew A. Digital oncology frameworks in Africa: A scoping review of architectural patterns, digital maturity, and data equity implications. Front Public Health 2026; 14: 1838736. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1838736
  1. Robison LL, Hudson MM. Survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer: Life-long risks and responsibilities. Nat Rev Cancer 2014; 14(1):61-70.https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3634
  1. Dixon SB, Bjornard KL, Alberts NM, et al. Factors influencing risk-based care of the childhood cancer survivor in the 21st CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68(2):133-152.https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21445
  1. Noyd DH, Izurieta PAC, Mzikamanda R, et al. Childhood cancer survivorship care in limited resource settings: A narrative review and strategies to promote global health equity. JCO Glob Oncol 2025; 11: e2400274. https://doi.org/10.1200/GO-24-00274
  1. Gizaw AT, Woldie I, Yilma AN, et al. Barriers to timely diagnosis and treatment of childhood cancer in Sub-Sahara Africa: A qualitative systematic review. BMC Cancer 2025; 25(1):1600. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-15092-x
  2. Haas JS, Todd KW, Mclerran D, et al. Gaps in care across the cancer screening continuum for cervical, colorectal, and lung cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 2025; 117(12):2556-2570.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf248
  1. Brand NR, Qu LG, Chao A, et al. Delays and barriers to cancer care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Oncologist 2019; 24(12):e1371-e1380.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0057
  1. Esposito T, Delaye A, Chabot M, et al. The effects of socioeconomic vulnerability, psychosocial services, and social service spending on family reunification: A multilevel longitudinal analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2017; 14(9):1040. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14091040
  2. Alamneh TS, Teshale AB, Yeshaw Y, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in barriers for accessing health care among married reproductive aged women in sub-Saharan African countries: A decomposition analysis. BMC Womens Health 2022; 22(1):130. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01716-y
  3. Lubega J, Kimutai RL, Chintagumpala MM. Global health disparities in childhood cancers. Curr Opin Pedia 2021; 33(1): 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000000984
  4. Pei G, Yang Y, Wang S, et al. Childhood cancer burden and health inequality: A systematic analysis from the global burden of diseases study 2021. PLoS One 2026; 21(1): e0341303. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341303
  5. Gardie Y, Wassie M, Wodajo S, et al. Delay in diagnosis and associated factors among children with cancer admitted at pediatric oncology ward, University of Gondar comprehensive specialized hospital, Ethiopia: A retrospective cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 2023; 23(1): 469.   https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10873-8
  1. Rurangwa C, Ndayisenga J, Sezirahiga J, et al. Availability and affordability of anticancer medicines at cancer treating hospitals in Rwanda. BMC Health Serv Res 2023; 23(1):717. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09706-y
  1. Cuomo RE, Mackey TK. Policy and governance solutions for ensuring equitable access to cancer medicines in low- and middle-income countries. Ann Transl Med 2018; 6(11): 224. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.04.26
  1. Cantrell MA, Ruble K. Multidisciplinary care in pediatric oncology. J Multidiscip Healthc 2011; 4:171-181.https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S7108
  1. Law NLW, Hong LW, Tan SSN, et al. Barriers And Challenges Of Multidisciplinary Teams In Oncology Management: A Scoping Review Protocol. BMJ Open 2024; 14(2): e079559.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079559
  1. Awal NMR, Urme SA, Hridoy A, et al. Exploring the effects catastrophic health expenditure due to non-communicable diseases and coping strategies: A case study among households in Bangladesh. Public Health Pract (Oxf) 2025; 10:100642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100642
  2. Awal NMR, Urme SA, Hridoy A, et al. Exploring the effects catastrophic health expenditure due to non-communicable diseases and coping strategies: A case study among households in Bangladesh. Public Health Pract (Oxf) 2025; 10:100642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100642
  3. Keane M, Wojciechowska N, Zumwalt L, et al. Implementation of a pediatric oncology precision medicine clinic to personalize approaches for diagnosing and treating solid tumors. Oncol Res 2025; 33(8):1895-1908.https://doi.org/10.32604/or.2025.065547
  1. Das K, Samol J, Khan IS, et al. Integrated and comprehensive diagnostics: An emerging paradigm in precision oncology. Cancers (Basel) 2026; 18(2): 327.  https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers18020327
  1. Radich JP, Briercheck E, Chiu DT, et al. Precision medicine in low- and middle-income countries. Annu Rev Pathol 2022; 17:387-402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pathol-042320-034052
  1. Kiran N, Sapna F, Kiran F, et al. Digital Pathology: Transforming diagnosis in the digital age. Cureus 2023; 15(9):e44620. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.44620
  2. Vo KT, Parsons DW, Seibel NL. Precision Medicine in Pediatric Oncology. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2020; 29(1):63-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2019.08.005
  3. Freedman JL, Beeler DM, Bowers A, et al. Supportive care in pediatric oncology: Opportunities and future directions. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15(23): 5549.  https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15235549
  1. Joosse IR, van den Ham HA, Mantel TAK, et al. Access to childhood cancer medicines in South Africa: A health systems analysis of barriers and enablers. J Pharm Policy Pract 2024; 17(1): 2372033. https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2372033
  1. Adale A. Availability, affordability, and associated factors of essential medicines in primary health care facilities of the wolaita region, southern Ethiopia: Implication for access, a cross-sectional study, 2022. Res Health Serv Reg 2025; 4(1):18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43999-025-00078-w
  2. Haier J, Schaefers J. Economic perspective of cancer care and its consequences for vulnerable groups. Cancers (Basel) 2022; 14(13):3158. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14133158
  3. Jafta Z, Milambo MJP, Maimela E, et al. An integrated decentralised-centralised oncology care model to improve cancer screening, access, and continuity of care in rural Eastern Cape, South Africa: Implementation study at Nelson Mandela Academic Hospital. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2026; 23(8):1079. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23081079
  4. Davis K, Wilson S. Febrile neutropenia in paediatric oncology. Paediatr Child Health (Oxford) 2020; 30(3):93-97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paed.2019.12.002
  1. Scotté F, Taylor A, Davies A. Supportive Care: The “Keystone” of Modern Oncology Practice. Cancers (Basel) 2023; 15(15): 3860. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15153860
  2. Lucas AJ, Olin JL, Coleman MD. Management and preventive measures for febrile neutropenia. P T. 2018; 43(4):228-232.
  3. Profir I, Popescu C-M, Moraru I. Life threatening anemia and thrombocytopenia in a toddler with Influenza B: Case report and literature review. Children 2025; 12(5): 632. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12050632
  1. Santarpia L, Contaldo F, Pasanisi F. Nutritional screening and early treatment of malnutrition in cancer patients. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2011; 2(1):27-35.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13539-011-0022-x
  1. Fereidouni Z, Dehghan AS, Ghanbari Z, et al. The impact of cancer on mental health and the importance of supportive services. Galen Med J 2024; 13:e3327. https://doi.org/10.31661/gmj.v13i.3327
  1. Trivedi KK, Schaffzin JK, Deloney VM, et al. Implementing strategies to prevent infections in acute-care settings. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2023 Aug; 44(8):1232-1246.https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2023.103
  1. Helms L, Guimera AE, Janeway KA, et al. Innovations in Cancer Treatment of Children. Pediatrics 2023; 152(6): e2023061539. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-061539
  2. Nagar A, Madamanchi D, Nair GR, et al. Barriers to cancer diagnosis and treatment: A pilot qualitative study of patient and practitioner perspectives in rural India. Cureus 2024; 16(8): e67249. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.67249
  3. Shi J, Ye M, Sun D, et al. Telepathology and mobile health system for province-wide pathology consultation in Henan, China: Retrospective evaluation study. J Med Internet Res 2026; 28:e75172. https://doi.org/10.2196/75172
  4. Obeagu EI, Parray AR. Beyond the hospital walls: Community-based approaches to leukemia management in older adults. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2026; 88(2):1657-1664.https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000004728
  1. Klaic M, Kapp S, Hudson P, et al. Implementability of healthcare interventions: An overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework. Implement Sci 2022; 17(1):10.https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01171-7
  2. Stoop MHP, Driessen GJA, Cohen AF, et al. Digital diagnostics, biomarkers and therapeutics in an evolving healthcare system: From promise to practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2026; 92(7):2016-2027.https://doi.org/10.1002/bcp.70527
  1. Lam CG, Khaing AA, Kambugu J, et al. Translating the science of care and cure for children with cancer. Cell Rep Med 2025; 6(10): 102366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2025.102366
  1. Fong LA, Vadeboncoeur C, Johnston DL. Enhancing early integration of pediatric palliative care: Evaluating a clinician-based versus criteria-based referral process in pediatric oncology. Children 2026; 13(7):927.  https://doi.org/10.3390/children13070927
  1. Fufa D, Attia A, Salifu N, et al. Paediatric haematology/oncology workforce and training programmes for Africa: A regional analysis. BMJ Glob Health 2025; 10(7): e017502. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017502
  2. Hu Y. Molecular techniques for blood and blood product screening. Advanced Techniques in Diagnostic Microbiology 2018: 31-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95111-9_2
  3. Jena S, Sahoo KC, Samantaray K, et al. Operational feasibility of hospital-based cancer registries in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Cureus 2023; 15(7):e42126. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.42126
  4. Anant S, Jiang C, Doran J, et al. Social and legal needs in patients and families with cancer: Interaction with patient-level financial toxicity. JCO Oncol Pract 2025; 21(1):41-51. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.24.00305
  1. Okethwangu D, Ahirirwe S, Venkateswaran M, et al. Resilience of health systems in Africa to infectious disease shocks: A qualitative evidence synthesis. PLOS Glob Public Health 2026; 6(8):e0006938.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0006938
  1. Chin ZS, Ghodrati A, Foulger M, et al. Beyond barriers: Achieving true equity in cancer care. Current Oncol 2025; 32(6):349. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32060349
  2. Ranabhat CL, Acharya SP, Adhikari C, et al. Universal health coverage evolution, ongoing trend, and future challenge: A conceptual and historical policy review. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1041459.https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1041459
  1. Nipp RD, Kirchhoff AC, Fair D, et al. Financial burden in survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35(30):3474-3481. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.7066
  2. Bashir SG, Abdi YH, Ibrahim Issack Z, et al. Health financing strategies for achieving universal health coverage in low- and middle-income countries: A narrative review. Front Public Health. 2026; 14:1868936.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1868936
  1. Wang Z, Wang Y, Huang Y, et al. Enhancing the role of innovative financing in global health. Glob Health Res Policy 2025; 10(1): 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-025-00463-5
  2. Raguindin PF, von Bueren AO, Michel G. Closing the evidence gap: Why childhood cancer research must include fathers. Public Health Rev 2026; 47: 1610147. https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2026.1610147
  1. Truant TLO, Lambert LK, Thorne S. Barriers to equity in cancer survivorship care: Perspectives of cancer survivors and system stakeholders. Glob Qual Nurs Res 2021; 8:23333936211006703. https://doi.org/10.1177/23333936211006703
  1. Kelsey MD, Patrick LB, Abdulai R, et al. Inclusion and diversity in clinical trials: Actionable steps to drive lasting change. Contemp Clin Trials 2022; 116: 106740.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2022.106740
  1. Bouchardy C, Rapiti E, Benhamou S. Cancer registries can provide evidence-based data to improve quality of care and prevent cancer deaths. Ecancermedicalscience 2014; 8:413.
  2. Marusak HA, Iadipaolo AS, Harper FW, et al. Neurodevelopmental consequences of pediatric cancer and its treatment: Applying an early adversity framework to understanding cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes. Neuropsychol Rev 2018; 28(2): 123-175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-017-9365-1
  1. Roganovic J. Late effects of the treatment of childhood cancer. World J Clin Cases 2025; 13(7):98000. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v13.i7.98000
  1. Pawłowski P, Ziętara KJ, Zaj N, et al. Adolescent survivors of childhood cancer: Biopsychosocial challenges and the transition from survival to quality of life. Children (Basel) 2025; 12(8): 980. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12080980
  2. Roberts J, Ronn R, Tallon N, et al. Fertility preservation in reproductive-age women facing gonadotoxic treatments. Curr Oncol 2015; 22(4):e294-304.https://doi.org/10.3747/co.22.2334
  1. Cai J, Cheung YT, Hudson MM. Care models and barriers to long-term follow-up care among childhood cancer survivors and health care providers in Asia: A literature review. JCO Glob Oncol 2024; 10:e2300331.https://doi.org/10.1200/GO.23.00331
  1. Dinan MA, Stratton KL, Leisenring WM, et al. Treatment exposure-based risk-stratification for care of survivors of childhood cancer: A report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2025; 117(12): 2580-2590. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf268
  1. Nekhlyudov L, O'malley DM, Hudson SV. Integrating primary care providers in the care of cancer survivors: Gaps in evidence and future opportunities. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18(1):e30-e38.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30570-8
  1. El-Tallawy SN, Pergolizzi JV, Vasiliu-Feltes I, et al. Innovative applications of telemedicine and other digital health solutions in pain management: A literature review. Pain Ther 2024; 13(4):791-812.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00620-7
  1. Yi JS, Lee SY. Social reintegration experiences of young adult cancer survivors. Behav Sci (Basel) 2024; 14(11):1101.https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14111101
  1. Roberts J, Ronn R, Tallon N, et al. Fertility preservation in reproductive-age women facing gonadotoxic treatments. Curr Oncol 2015; 22(4):e294-304.https://doi.org/10.3747/co.22.2334
  1. Mobley EM, Moke DJ, Milam J, et al. Interventions to address disparities and barriers to pediatric cancer survivorship care: A scoping review. J Cancer Surviv 2022(3):667-676.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-021-01060-4
  1. Adekunle MO, Musa A, Ginika C, et al. Global initiative for childhood six-indexed cancers: How are we faring in Nigeria? Ecancer 2025; 19: 1993. https://doi.org/10.3332/ecancer.2025.1993
  1. Thakor AS. The third pillar of precision medicine - Precision delivery. Med Comm (2020) 2025; 6(5): e70200. https://doi.org/10.1002/mco2.70200
  1. González AR, Merchán LAA, Alexander JAA, et al. Precision medicine for cancer and health equity in Latin America: Generating understanding for policy and health system shaping. Int J Env Res Public Health 2025; 22(8):1220.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22081220
  1. Doose M, Mollica MA, Acevedo AM, et al. Advancing health equity in cancer survivorship research: National institutes of health 2017-2022 portfolio review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2024; 116(8):1238-1245. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae073
  1. Petrova D, Špacírová Z, Fernández MNF, et al. The patient, diagnostic, and treatment intervals in adult patients with cancer from high- and lower-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2022; 19(10): e1004110.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004110