This narrative review explores the multifaceted barriers hindering access to quality cancer care in Jordan. A literature-based narrative review was undertaken to explore the current identified barriers to cancer care in Jordan. Four databases were searched using relevant keywords to identify key insights on barriers and proposed solutions. Key challenges and potential solutions were identified based on evidence from studies, reports, and initiatives. Medical services and infrastructure exhibit centralized disparities, impacting rural and underserved areas. Human resources shortages, geopolitical instability, and quality management issues pose significant challenges. Public awareness campaigns face hurdles in addressing the tobacco epidemic and late-stage diagnosis. Socioeconomic disparities, particularly in health insurance and urban–rural divides, further compound barriers. Refugees encounter distinct challenges, including late-stage diagnosis, financial barriers, and psychological distress. Despite multiple challenges, Jordan presents a model for regional development and health equity. This study not only contributes to improving cancer care in Jordan but also offers a roadmap for policymakers, healthcare practitioners, and researchers in similar contexts globally. Government initiatives, financial aspects, and proposed policy measures are examined as potential solutions. Recommendations include coordinated prevention strategies, enhanced screening uptake, training programs, the equitable distribution of facilities, and policy directives aligned with global commitments. The role of digital technologies, telemedicine, and community engagement models is emphasized.

Women with endometrial carcinomas that express PD-L1 may respond better to immunotherapy. Our aim was to investigate the differential characteristics of PD-L1–positive endometrial carcinomas and the prognostic significance of PD-L1. We performed a retrospective chart review of 231 women with endometrial carcinomas who were managed at King Hussein Cancer Center (2007–2016) and performed immunohistochemistry for MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6, p53, and PD-L1. Overall, 89 cases (38.5%) were MMR-deficient. PD-L1 was expressed in 49 cases (21.2%) and its expression was significantly associated with MLH1/PMS2 deficiency (p = 0.044) but not MSH2/MSH6 deficiency (p = 0.59). p53 was mutant in 106 cases (46.5%), and its mutation was significantly associated with MMR proficiency (p < 0.001) but not PD-L1 expression (p = 0.78). In women with endometrioid adenocarcinomas, PD-L1 expression was significantly associated with the Fédération Internationale de Gynécologie et d′Obstétrique (FIGO) grade (p = 0.008). Overall, PD-L1 expression did not significantly predict overall survival in unadjusted or adjusted analyses (p = 0.92 and 0.54, respectively). In conclusion, tumors with MLH1/PMS2 loss and high-grade endometrioid adenocarcinomas were more likely to express PD-L1 in tumor cells. Further research is required to investigate whether the presence of either characteristic signals a higher likelihood of a favorable response if immunotherapy is administered.

Sex differences in cancer survival may be related to hormonal changes during puberty and menopause; therefore, we investigated sex differences in the cancer-specific survival rates of children, adolescents and young adults (AYAs), and older adults with sex-nonspecific cancers. We interrogated the November 2019 submission of the SEER 18 database and included microscopically confirmed cases of first primary malignant tumors. We stratified the dataset into children (<15 years), AYAs (modified; 15–49 years), and older adults (≥50 years). For each age group, we used the Kaplan–Meier method to estimate the sex-stratified 5-year all-site cancer-specific survival probabilities. Of 3,386,276 eligible patients, 45,124 (1.3%) were children, 548,158 (16.2%) were AYAs, and 2,792,994 (82.5%) were older adults. The 5-year all-site cancer-specific survival probabilities were 84.0% (95% CI, 83.5%–84.5%) for boys, 84.8% (95% CI, 84.3%–85.3%) for girls, 70.4% (95% CI, 70.2%–70.6%) for male AYAs, 80.8% (95% CI, 80.6%–81.0%) for female AYAs, 52.0% (95% CI, 51.9%–52.1%) for older adult men, and 52.2% (95% CI, 52.1%–52.3%) for older adult women. The all-site survival rate for female patients with cancer is markedly higher than for male patients with cancer during adolescence and young adulthood, although this difference diminishes in older adulthood.