MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7108702916 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-6193

Access to diagnostics, therapies, and advanced care for lymphoma in Latin America: A multicenter, survey-based study

2025· article· en· W7108702916 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHealth, Education, and Cultural Studies
Établissements canadiensPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLatin AmericansLymphomaHodgkin lymphomaHematologyMEDLINECancerClinical trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: The management of lymphomas has been revolutionized by the integration of advanced diagnostics, immunochemotherapy, targeted agents, and cellular therapies such as CAR-T cells. These advances have significantly improved survival in high-income countries. However, in Latin America (LATAM), a region composed mainly of low- to middle-income countries, access to these therapies continues to face profound disparities.Despite recognition of these challenges, data on the availability of infrastructure, personnel, diagnostic tools, and innovative therapies across LATAM lymphoma centers remain scarce. We aimed to evaluate the availability of diagnostics, treatments, and transplant capacity across LATAM lymphoma centers via a collaborative regional survey. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional digital survey, coordinated through the Grupo de Estudio Latinoamericano de Linfoproliferativos (GELL)—a regional collaborative network dedicated to advancing the care of lymphoid malignancies in LATAM. The survey targeted hematologists actively involved in the management of lymphoma patients. A structured electronic questionnaire was developed using REDCap and iteratively reviewed after validation from experts in the GELL to ensure its relevance and applicability. The tool explored infrastructure, human resources, drug access, transplant, and cellular therapy capacity. The survey was disseminated during July 2025 through GELL networks with the goal of retrieving one response per center, duplicates were eliminated. A descriptive analysis of the responses was carried out. Results: A total of 73 hematology centers from 16 Latin American countries completed the survey: Bolivia (n=15), Mexico (n=13), Argentina (n=7), Colombia (n=6), Cuba (n=5), Brazil (n=4), Guatemala (n=4), Uruguay (n=4), Paraguay (n=3), Peru (n=3), Venezuela (n=3), Chile (n=2), Ecuador (n=2), Honduras (n=1), El Salvador (n=1), and the Dominican Republic (n=1). Most centers were public institutions (n = 39, 53%), followed by private (n = 27, 37%), and academic centers (n = 7, 9.6%). The median number of hematologists per center was 4 (range, 2-10). Most centers identified as hematology clinics within a hospital (n=45) or independent from one (n=6), while 12 had only a single office and 10 had multiple offices inside a hospital. Laboratory support was heterogeneous: n=41 (56%) had in-house pathology services, 17 (23%) were outsourced, and 15 (21%) had no access to immunohistochemistry. Time to pathology report was ≥3 weeks in 56%. Access to PET-CT was available in 30 (41%) of the centers. Molecular testing for lymphomas was scarce, with only 13 (18%) reporting the availability of PCR for clonality assessment and 11 (15%) having access to next-generation sequencing. Regarding drug access, partial or restricted access to rituximab was reported in 27 centers (35.8%). Unavailability of drugs was reported for the following drugs in varying proportions: brentuximab vedotin (n=22, 30%), polatuzumab vedotin (n=16, 22%), tafasitamab (n=58, 79%), glofitamab (n=51, 70%), epcoritamab (n=47, 64%), and checkpoint inhibitors (n=18, 25%). Access to advanced therapies was reported as highly restricted: brentuximab vedotin (n=16, 31%), polatuzumab vedotin (n=37, 65%), tafasitamab (n=12, 80%), glofitamab (n=16, 73%), epcoritamab (n=19, 72.7%). CAR-T cell therapy was available in 6 centers (8.2%), with only 4 centers (5.7%) currently developing an institutional CAR-T cell program. The 41% (n=30) of the centers perform autologous transplantation, and 33% (n=24) allogeneic, most of them exclusively inpatient (83%, n=25). A median of 28 (IQR 8-50) of autologous HCT and 16 (IQR 10-30) allogeneic transplants are performed among respondent centers. Almost half (45%, n = 18) of the centers not currently offering HCT had plans to develop a HCT unit. Clinical trials are performed in 25 centers (35%), primarily industry sponsored trials (21, 84%). Conclusion: Our findings highlight striking disparities in access to diagnostics, treatments, and advanced therapeutic modalities across Latin America. CAR-T therapy, transplant capabilities, and access to novel drugs remain highly restricted and unevenly distributed. Additionally, most centers lack participation in clinical trials. These findings underscore the importance of collaborative efforts through networks such as GELL in building capacity, advocating for equitable access, and promoting regionally relevant research in Latin America.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,356
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,981

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,038
Tête enseignante GPT0,382
Écart entre enseignants0,344 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetHealth, Education, and Cultural StudiesTravaux en français237 207