Rashmi Dalvi

In Asia, a few countries have a long and established history of collaborative clinical trials successfully formed national children's cancer study groups, but many still do not have such groups. The process of forming national children's cancer groups is fraught with many hurdles, which varies among the countries. One of the basic requirements for running clinical trials is an affordable health care system in which most of the children with cancer can receive the proposed treatment. The health insurance coverage for children with cancer varies from <20% to as high as 100% among Asian countries, and the operation of clinical trials must also be adjusted accordingly. Shortage of research personnel is common, including medical, nursing, research coordinators, and data managers. The establishment of the Asian Pediatric Hematology and Oncology Group aims to provide a good platform for promotion of international clinical trials in the Asian countries.

PURPOSE: The global pediatric oncology clinical research landscape, particularly in Central and South America, Africa, and Asia, which bear the highest burden of global childhood cancer cases, is less characterized in the literature. Review of how existing pediatric cancer clinical trial groups internationally have been formed and how their research goals have been pursued is critical for building global collaborative research and data-sharing efforts, in line with the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer.METHODS: A narrative literature review of collaborative groups performing pediatric cancer clinical research in each continent was conducted. An inventory of research groups was assembled and reviewed by current pediatric cancer regional and continental leaders. Each group was narratively described with identification of common structural and research themes among consortia.RESULTS: There is wide variability in the structure, history, and goals of pediatric cancer clinical trial collaborative groups internationally. Several continental regions have longstanding endogenously-formed clinical trial groups that have developed and published numerous adapted treatment regimens to improve outcomes, whereas other regions have consortia focused on developing foundational database registry infrastructure supported by large multinational organizations or twinning relationships.CONCLUSION: There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to increasing collaboration between international pediatric cancer clinical trial groups, as this requires a nuanced understanding of local stakeholders and resources necessary to form partnerships. Needs assessments, performed either by local consortia or in conjunction with international partners, have generated productive clinical trial infrastructure. To achieve the goals of the Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer, global partnerships must be sufficiently granular to account for the distinct needs of each collaborating group and should incorporate grassroots approaches, robust twinning relationships, and implementation science.