ABSTRACT Childhood cancer outcomes in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), where over 80% of the world's children reside, remain drastically lower than in high‐income countries (HICs). This vast disparity stems from pervasive challenges, including limited healthcare access, inadequate resources, delayed diagnosis, and differences in disease biology influenced by varied genetic ancestries. The direct translation of intensive HIC protocols often results in elevated treatment‐related mortality (TRM) in resource‐constrained settings, highlighting the critical need for locally validated regimens. Current barriers to establishing robust research capacity include minimal research training, overwhelmed specialists, excessive and misaligned ethical/regulatory oversight—even for low‐risk studies—and pharmaceutical industry strategies that favor trials in HICs. To bridge this survival gap, a paradigm shift is required, moving from protocol translation to context‐specific clinical research. This strategy must prioritize Implementation and Comparative Effectiveness studies to validate adapted treatments. Key initiatives must include local genomic characterization for equitable risk allocation and an innovative “repurposing” of novel agents by adjusting dosages and schedules to enhance feasibility and reduce toxicity within local supportive care capacity. Strengthening international cooperative research groups and fostering a multi‐stakeholder dialogue among regulators, industry, and civil society are essential to expedite the generation of robust, locally relevant evidence that can inform public health policy and ensure every child has access to the best chance of cure at their local site.
Mora et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: