Childhood Cancer Is a Neglected Disease

Quality of care and survival rates have lagged in poorer countries

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The treatment of childhood cancer is one of oncology's success stories, with five-year survival rates that have shot up from 30% in the 1960s to 80% now — at least in high-income countries.

But in a series of articles published today in The Lancet Oncology, experts from around the world warn that in recent years progress has stalled — both in the improvement of survival rates and the mitigation of long-term side effects — and that more than 90% of children who die from cancer are in low- and middle-income countries.

What is at stake, the researchers say, is not just the need for new drugs to treat children whose cancers are now incurable: the treatments also need to be kinder.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


More than 40% of childhood-cancer survivors experience lifelong side effects from treatment. Anthracyclines, used to treat many types of cancer including leukaemia, can damage the heart; platinum, widely used for treating certain tumors, can cause deafness. Even the less-toxic, targeted therapies that slow the spread of cancer by stopping the growth of blood vessels in tumors can harm children by stopping other blood vessels from developing properly at crucial times during childhood.

Still, the situation is far worse in poorer countries, where more children die from infectious or parasitic diseases than from cancer — leaving cancer overlooked as a result. Poorly trained doctors, inadequate diagnostic tools and lack of access to therapies — even palliative treatments — all contribute to the problem.

Another serious issue highlighted in the papers is that of data collection. The incidence of childhood cancer is poorly known in much of the developing world. In Africa, reliable cancer registries cover only 1% of the population, according to one of the studies.

In developing countries a diagnosis of cancer is still a death sentence for the majority of children, says Ian Magrath, president of the International Network for Cancer Treatment and Research in Brussels, Belgium, and a co-author of two of the studies. But these figures are just estimates, because the disease is extensively under-diagnosed.

Many improvements could be made, the authors write, including better training of health workers in poorer countries; use of the Internet to connect local pathologists to international experts to improve diagnosis; and the creation of at least one cancer center in each country.

Having reliable data on cancer incidence may increase the pressure on local policy-makers. For example, in 2006, Mexico developed a series of health-care reforms and set up 49 pediatric-cancer programs, promoting access to therapies and reducing the rates at which patients abandoned treatment courses.

Closing the cancer divide is a matter of health and equality and “can greatly contribute to reducing this prominent cause of childhood death,” says Felicia Marie Knaul, director of the Harvard Global Equity Initiative in Boston, Massachusetts.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on February 21, 2013.

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe