
Attempts under way to fix gap in SA's plan to fight cancer
Many people with cancer in Gauteng have been unable to access the treatment and care they require in recent years. Though activists and the provincial government are at odds about what should, or should have been, done about it, nobody denies that there is a problem.
At the same time, there have also been issues at a national level, with South Africa's key cancer strategy having lapsed. The National Cancer Strategic Framework for South Africa 2017-2022 was previously extended to also cover 2023. Medical Brief recently reported that a new strategy is on the verge of being signed by the Director-General of Health.
The committee meant to advise the minister on cancer has also lapsed. Dr Busisiwe Ndlovu, the top government official in charge of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), said that the term of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Cancer expired in early 2024, and new members were pending the approval of Health Minister Dr Aaron Motsoaledi. Ndlovu was speaking at the KwaZulu-Natal leg of a cancer research and innovation strategy workshop in May. These consultative meetings are taking place across the country's provinces. It aims to shape a national research and innovation strategy based on the World Health Organization's cancer control pillars: prevention, early detection and diagnosis, treatment, and palliative care and survivorship.
The scale of the problem
While researchers anticipate that rates of infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis in South Africa will decline in the coming decade or two, rates of NCDs, including diabetes and cancers, are expected to increase. According to the WHO, an estimated one in five people will develop some form of cancer in their lifetimes. Increases in developing countries are expected to be particularly steep.
According to a StatsSA report published in 2023, and based on National Cancer registry (NCR) numbers and StatsSA's mortality data, cancer-related deaths in the country increased by 29% from 2008 to 2018. They reported that 85,000 people were diagnosed with cancer in 2019 and that 44,000 died of cancers in 2018. Experts previously told Spotlight that the estimate of cancer cases may be an undercount of as much as 40%.
The most common cancers in men were prostate, colorectal and lung – around one in four cancer diagnoses in men were for prostate cancer. Bronchus and lung cancer accounted for just under 19% of cancer-related deaths in men, while prostate cancer accounted for around 17%.
Among women, the most diagnosed cancers were breast cancer at around 23% of diagnoses and cervical cancer at around 16% of diagnoses. Cervical cancer accounted for just under 18% of all cancer deaths in women and breast cancer for 17%.
The NCR recorded 87,853 new laboratory-confirmed cancer cases in 2023, although this figure probably underestimated the true burden as it excluded clinically or radiologically diagnosed cancers, Dr Judith Mwansa-Kambafwile, senior epidemiologist with the NCR, told attendees at the Durban workshop.
In a paper published in the South African Journal of Oncology in 2022, researchers calculate that cancer incidence (new cases per year) in South Africa could double from around 62,000 in 2019 to 121,000 in 2030. This is due to two factors: first, South Africa's population is ageing and cancers generally become more common as people age. And second, the risk of cancers is generally increasing for people of all ages. The researchers focused on only the five most common types of cancer, but an NCR report shows a very wide variety of cancers are being diagnosed in the country.
Since not all cancers are diagnosed, the real numbers are probably substantially higher than reported. There is also no single repository of all cancer diagnoses in the country – for the above-quoted article, researchers used both data from Discovery Health Medical Scheme and the NCR.
The data gap
Cancer statistics in South Africa have been largely based on pathology results, which is to say blood or biopsies that were tested in the lab. Other types of diagnoses, such as those based on symptoms and scans, have not always been counted systematically. One recent initiative aimed at addressing this data gap is a patient-led registry that feeds information into the NCR.
Mwansa-Kambafwile explained that the NGO, Living with Cancer, was driving the patient-led registry, aimed at cross-referencing and supplementing patient records with her NCR's patient database. Leaflets in oncologists' reception rooms encouraged patients to upload their pathology/histology test results on to the Living with Cancer website via a standard online National Department of Health form. A national shopping mall campaign in May was aimed at boosting awareness.
'Living with Cancer had a Memorandum of Understanding with us and in addition, links cancer survivors with the same type of cancer to one another in support groups online where they can share experiences and knowledge,' she said.
Dr Mazvita Muchengeti, who heads work on the NCR at the National Health Laboratory Services, which is part of the National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD), previously told Spotlight that cancer was made a reportable disease under the National Health Act in 2011. While compulsory reporting has improved data on cancer cases, she said, 'There is an increase in the number of reported cancers; this does not necessarily translate to an increase in cancer, we are just counting cancer cases better because reporting is now compulsory.'
Another new strategy
In light of the country's cancer burden, a group of organisations is leading the development of a new National Cancer Research and Innovation Strategy. This collective includes the Nuclear Medicine Research Infrastructure at the University of Pretoria, the South African Medical Research Council, and the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation, in partnership with the National Department of Health.
They are hosting provincial workshops to help understand the state of cancer research in South Africa, identify key challenges, set national priorities and develop a strong, future-focused strategy. These workshops are part of a broader plan to make sure the strategy is inclusive, based on evidence, and meets the country's needs.
This research and innovation strategy differs from the health department's National Cancer Strategic Framework, which guides provinces on what the cancer priorities are.
'Integrated cancer care approach'
At the Durban workshop, Ndlovu emphasised the need for an integrated cancer care approach across all levels of the healthcare system. She noted the importance of streamlined referral pathways and urgent attention to waiting times, care packages, registry improvements and financing. The expired national cancer strategy required urgent evaluation and revision, Ndlovu said.
A clear pattern emerging from these workshops is one whereby cancers are often diagnosed too late, and patients frequently struggle to access timely, appropriate care.
Also at the Durban workshop, Professor Jeannette Parkes, Head of Radiation Oncology at Groote Schuur Hospital and the University of Cape Town, outlined the many systemic barriers to early detection. These included sociocultural factors, urban-rural divides and broken referral systems.
'We have a massive issue with accessing imaging services, biopsy support, pathology services and their costs,' she said.
Parkes, who is also President of the College of Radiation Oncology of South Africa and clinical director of the Access to Care Cape Town programme, said early cancer detection was better in the private sector because patients could access and afford the necessary systems and diagnostic technology. The remaining 85% of the population depended on the public sector, in particular overburdened primary healthcare clinics, but also on all levels of care.
'There's a bias towards urban versus rural areas and too often a failure to refer. The referral pathway is problematic and differs from province to province and in various settings. We have a massive issue with regard to accessing imaging services, while biopsy support and pathology services and their costs are also a big issue,' she told the workshop.
Late diagnosis
At the Johannesburg meeting, late diagnosis was singled out as a particular problem when it came to cervical cancer. Dr Mary Kawonga, public health specialist with the Gauteng Department of Health and Wits School of Public Health, said that 16% of women screened at Charlotte Maxeke Academic Hospital's drainage district had pre-cancerous lesions, underlining the lack of preventative care.
'Patients often only begin treatment on their sixth visit,' she said, citing the failure of diagnostic tools, referral inefficiencies and poor implementation of available technologies.
Dr Mariza Vorster, head of Nuclear Medicine at the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Inkosi Albert Luthuli Academic Hospital, said that insufficient specialists and excessive patient loads resulted in unacceptable turnaround times for diagnosis.
Clinicians often get blamed for delays, but as Dr Sheynaz Bassa, head of Radiation Oncology at Steve Biko Academic Hospital, pointed out, many patients waited weeks or months to afford transport to care facilities. 'By the time they get to us, they're already in crisis mode,' she said. 'Peripheral clinics and hospitals must improve referral systems before we can make real progress.'
Salomé Meyer, director of Cancer Alliance, alleged that survivorship care was almost entirely absent in both the public and private sectors. 'Supportive and palliative care often ends when treatment stops. Survivors are left without coordinated care,' she said.
Apart from improving screening and referral systems, other recommendations emerging from the workshops included better coordination between clinicians and the NCR, leveraging mobile technology such as the health department's Mom Connect app to reduce clinic visits and fast-track referrals. Greater community involvement in setting research priorities, using mobile clinics to conduct cancer screening in rural areas, and increasing awareness of breast self-examination. More research into the genetic factors relating to cancers in South Africa was also argued for.
Call for new cancer institute
Meyer has been leading a call for South Africa to establish a National Cancer Institute (NCI).
'An NCI would develop clear guidelines on treatment protocols, workforce allocation and facility requirements,' she said. With South Africa transitioning toward a National Health Insurance system, Meyer said an NCI would help plan resource allocation based on cancer projections, enabling smarter investments in infrastructure, technology and staffing.
The lapsed National Cancer Strategic Framework lacked province-specific detail, leaving provinces to adapt guidelines as they saw fit, often leading to fragmented service delivery, Meyer said. She said decentralisation was essential. 'We can no longer restrict cancer treatment to tertiary hospitals. Many district and regional facilities could provide diagnostics and some treatments if properly resourced,' she said.
A reset of South Africa's disease monitoring and research infrastructure has been on the cards for some time. The NICD was set to be replaced by the new National Public Health Institute of South Africa (Naphisa) after the Naphisa Act became law in 2020. Five years later, Naphisa has not yet been established. On the face of it, Naphisa would be a natural home for an entity like the proposed NCI were it to be created. DM
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Mail & Guardian
3 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Are procedures in negotiations for the WHO's international public health legal instruments being violated?
The World Health Organisation must recommit to the democratic principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Reuters) According to a World Health Organisation But health freedom advocates are deeply concerned that in one or both instances, the WHO has broken its own rules for negotiating and voting for its legal instruments. As I explained However, as In the run-up to the Furthermore, the authors of the had been shown to be contradicted by the data and citations on which WHO and other agencies had relied. The authors were alluding to the WHO's contention that shortening the four-month statutory window for countries to review proposed amendments to the IHRs was justifiable on the grounds that due to 'climate change' and other drivers of zoonotic spillover, the risk of another spillover from animals to humans was very high. In other words, the WHO was using under-substantiated assumptions of an imminent 'existential threat' to justify sidestepping official procedures. Thus some health freedom advocates hold that the WHO's assumption of increased risk of pandemics relies on a weak evidence-base, demonstrated by a University of Leeds Moreover, analysis of the evidence used by WHO and others gave much longer outbreak risk profiles, highlighting inconsistencies between WHO estimates and the research estimates in their cited evidence. All this undermines the WHO's justifications for side-stepping its own procedures. Furthermore, according to th WHA in 2024], the WHO moved the Coordinating Financing Mechanism (CFM) from Article 20 of the Thus the hasty adoption of the amendments to the Furthermore, some health freedom advocates hold that the negotiations for the In early 2024, the WHO released a April 2025, which was the last day of negotiations for the Pandemic Agreement, the European Union (EU) Furthermore, According to Nevertheless, on the first day of the I am not adequately acquainted with the role of Committee A as distinct from that of the full assembly, but Article 19 of the WHO Yet while all the health freedom advocates I know agree that the The WHO has In essence, the PABS system is to be designed to facilitate the sharing of pathogens with 'pandemic potential', purportedly to enable pharmaceutical companies to develop 'vaccines' in good time while 'equitably' sharing the profits or products derived with the states that shared the pathogens with them. Yet, health freedom advocates are pointing out that since the Annex must be negotiated before the In view of the foregoing reflections, there is an urgent need for WHO to renew its commitment to the democratic principles that had set it apart from other United Nations bodies. Unlike the UN, the WHO does not have a provision of veto power for any nation, and thus is meant to uphold the doctrine of the equality of sovereign states. After all, the UN, of which the WHO is a specialised body, claims to be committed to democratic principles in line with the Reginald MJ Oduor is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Nairobi and a member of the Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group and of the International Health Reform Project, as well as the co-founder of the Society of Professionals with Visual Disabilities.


The Citizen
9 hours ago
- The Citizen
Over 14 million people could die from US foreign aid cuts: study
Trump's foreign aid cuts may lead to millions of preventable deaths, especially from HIV, malaria, and child diseases. More than 14 million of the world's most vulnerable people, a third of them small children, could die by 2030 because of the Trump administration's dismantling of US foreign aid, research projected on Tuesday. The study in the prestigious Lancet journal was published as world and business leaders gather for a United Nations conference in Spain this week hoping to bolster the reeling aid sector. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had provided over 40 percent of global humanitarian funding until Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Two weeks later, Trump's then-close advisor — and world's richest man — Elon Musk boasted of having put the agency 'through the woodchipper'. The funding cuts 'risk abruptly halting — and even reversing — two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations', warned study co-author Davide Rasella, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal). 'For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict,' he said in a statement. ALSO READ: More job cuts in Lesotho loading: How will they afford Starlink? Looking back over data from 133 nations, the international team of researchers estimated that USAID funding had prevented 91.8 million deaths in developing countries between 2001 and 2021. That is more than the estimated number of deaths during World War II, history's deadliest conflict. HIV, malaria to rise The researchers also used modelling to project how funding being slashed by 83 percent — the figure announced by the US government earlier this year — could affect death rates. The cuts could lead to more than 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030, the projections found. That number included over 4.5 million children under the age of five — or around 700,000 child deaths a year. For comparison, around 10 million soldiers are estimated to have been killed during World War I. ALSO READ: Mpumalanga silent on 21 000 missing HIV patients Programmes supported by USAID were linked to a 15-percent decrease in deaths from all causes, the researchers determined. For children under five, the drop in deaths was twice as steep, at 32 percent. USAID funding was found to be particularly effective at staving off preventable deaths from disease. There were 65 percent fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS in countries receiving a high level of support compared to those with little or no USAID funding, the study found. Deaths from malaria and neglected tropical diseases were similarly cut in half. Study co-author Francisco Saute of Mozambique's Manhica Health Research Centre said he had seen on the ground how USAID helped fight diseases such as HIV, malaria and tuberculosis. ALSO READ: Inside SA government's confused response to the USAid funding crisis 'Cutting this funding now not only puts lives at risk — it also undermines critical infrastructure that has taken decades to build,' he stressed. A recently updated tracker run by disease modeller Brooke Nichols at Boston University estimates that nearly 108,000 adults and more than 224,000 children have already died as a result of the US aid cuts. That works out to 88 deaths every hour, according to the tracker. 'Time to scale up' After USAID was gutted, several other major donors, including France, Germany and the UK, followed suit in announcing plans to slash their foreign aid budgets. These aid reductions, particularly in the European Union, could lead to 'even more additional deaths in the coming years,' study co-author Caterina Monti of ISGlobal said. But the grim projections are based on the current amount of pledged aid, so could rapidly come down if the situation changes, the researchers emphasised. ALSO READ: Health department engages NGOs after US freezes HIV/Aids funding Dozens of world leaders are meeting in the Spanish city of Seville this week for the biggest aid conference in a decade. The United States, however, will not attend. 'Now is the time to scale up, not scale back,' Rasella said. Before its funding was slashed, USAID represented 0.3 percent of all US federal spending. 'US citizens contribute about 17 cents per day to USAID, around $64 per year,' said study co-author James Macinko of the University of California, Los Angeles. 'I think most people would support continued USAID funding if they knew just how effective such a small contribution can be to saving millions of lives.' NOW READ: South African education programmes hit hard as USAID shuts down – By: © Agence France-Presse

IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
Over 14 million people could die from US foreign aid cuts: study
The study in the prestigious Lancet journal was published as world and business leaders gather for a UN conference in Spain this week hoping to bolster the reeling aid sector. Image: File More than 14 million of the world's most vulnerable people, a third of them small children, could die because of the Trump administration's dismantling of US foreign aid, research projected on Tuesday. The study in the prestigious Lancet journal was published as world and business leaders gather for a UN conference in Spain this week hoping to bolster the reeling aid sector. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) had provided over 40 percent of global humanitarian funding until Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Two weeks later, Trump's then-close advisor -- and world's richest man -- Elon Musk boasted of having put the agency "through the woodchipper". The funding cuts "risk abruptly halting -- and even reversing -- two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations," warned study co-author Davide Rasella, a researcher at the Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal). "For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," he said in a statement. Looking back over data from 133 nations, the international team of researchers estimated that USAID funding had prevented 91 million deaths in developing countries between 2001 and 2021. They also used modelling to project how funding being slashed by 83 percent -- the figure announced by the US government earlier this year -- could affect death rates. The cuts could lead to more than 14 million avoidable deaths by 2030, the projections found. That number included over 4.5 million children under the age of five -- or around 700,000 child deaths a year. For comparison, around 10 million soldiers are estimated to have been killed during World War I. Programmes supported by USAID were linked to a 15-percent decrease in deaths from all causes, the researchers found. For children under five, the drop in deaths was twice as steep at 32 percent. USAID funding was found to be particularly effective at staving off preventable deaths from disease. There were 65 percent fewer deaths from HIV/AIDS in countries receiving a high level of support compared to those with little or no USAID funding, the study found. Deaths from malaria and neglected tropical diseases were similarly cut in half. 'Time to scale up' After USAID was gutted, several other major donors including Germany, the UK and France followed suit in announcing plans to slash their foreign aid budgets. These aid reductions, particularly in the European Union, could lead to "even more additional deaths in the coming years," study co-author Caterina Monti of ISGlobal said. But the grim projections for deaths were based on the current amount of pledged aid, so could rapidly come down if the situation changes, the researchers emphasised. Dozens of world leaders are meeting in the Spanish city of Seville this week for the biggest aid conference in a decade. The US, however, will not attend. "Now is the time to scale up, not scale back," Rasella said. Before its funding was slashed, USAID represented 0.3 percent of all US federal spending. "US citizens contribute about 17 cents per day to USAID, around $64 per year," said study co-author James Macinko of the University of California, Los Angeles. "I think most people would support continued USAID funding if they knew just how effective such a small contribution can be to saving millions of lives." AFP