Over the past 2 decades, there has been a marked increase in globalization of randomized clinical trials (RCTs); many RCTs led by high-income countries (HICs) are now enrolling patients from upper middle–income countries (UMICs) and lower middle–income countries (LMICs).^1,2 Although enrolling diverse global populations promotes research collaborations and may improve access to novel therapies, ethical concerns have arisen regarding industry-led clinical trials in lower-resource settings. Several issues remain, including the population that benefits from the globalization of RCTs, potential exploitation of research participants in settings with less regulatory oversight, and whether novel therapeutics will be available in participating countries following completion of the RCTs.^3,4

Rwanda is a densely populated low-income country in East Africa. Previously considered a failed state after the genocide against the Tutsi in 1994, Rwanda has seen remarkable growth over the past 2 decades. Health care in Rwanda is predominantly delivered through public hospitals and is emerging in the private sector. More than 80% of patients are covered by community-based health insurance (Mutuelle de Santé). The cancer unit at the Rwanda Biomedical Center (a branch of the Ministry of Health) is responsible for setting and implementing cancer care policy. Rwanda has made progress with human papillomavirus (HPV) and hepatitis B vaccination. Recently, the cancer unit at the Rwanda Biomedical Center launched the country’s 5-year National Cancer Control Plan. Over the past decade, patients with cancer have been able to receive chemotherapy at Butaro Cancer Center, and recently, the Rwanda Cancer Center was launched with 2 linear accelerator radiotherapy machines, which greatly reduced the number of referrals for treatment abroad. Palliative care services are increasing in Rwanda. A cancer registry has now been strengthened, and more clinicians are becoming active in cancer research. Despite these advances, there is still substantial work to be done and there are many outstanding challenges, including the need to build capacity in cancer awareness among the general population (and shift toward earlier diagnosis), cancer care workforce (more in-country training programs are needed), and research.

Disparities in cancer research persist around the world. This is especially true in global health research, where high-income countries (HICs) continue to set global health priorities further creating several imbalances in how research is conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cancer research disparities in Africa can be attributed to a vicious cycle of challenges in the research ecosystem ranging from who funds research, where research is conducted, who conducts it, what type of research is conducted and where and how it is disseminated. For example, the funding chasm between HICs and LMICs contributes to inequities and parachutism in cancer research. Breaking the current cancer research model necessitates a thorough examination of why current practices and norms exist and the identification of actionable ways to improve them. The cancer research agenda in Africa should be appropriate for the African nations and continent. Empowering African researchers and ensuring local autonomy are two critical steps in moving cancer research towards this new paradigm.

PURPOSE: Authorship gender disparities persist across academic disciplines, including oncology. However, little is known about global variation in authorship gender distribution. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study describes the distribution of author gender as determined from the first name across variables such as authorship position (first, middle, and last), country region, and country income level. The 608 articles with 5,302 authors included in this analysis were published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Global Oncology, from its inception in October 2015 through March 2020. Primary outcome measure was author gender on the basis of first name probabilities assessed by genderize.io. World Bank classification was used to categorize the country region and income level. Odds ratios were used to describe associations between female last authorship and representation in other authorship positions. RESULTS: Although female authors were in the minority across all authorship positions, they were more under-represented in the last author position with 190 (32.1%) female, compared with 252 (41.4%) female first authors and 1,564 (38.1%) female middle authors. Female authors were most under-represented among authors from low-income countries, where they made up 21.6% of first authors and 9.1% of last authors. Of all the regions, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia had the lowest percentage of female authors. Compared with articles with male last authors, those with female last authors had odds ratios (95% CI) of 2.2 (1.6 to 3.2) of having female first authors and 1.4 (0.9 to 2.1) of having 50% or more female middle authors. CONCLUSION: There are wide regional variations in author gender distribution in global oncology. Female authors remain markedly under-represented, especially in lower-income countries, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia. Future interventions should be tailored to mitigate these disparities.

PURPOSE: Local researchers must be engaged in research conducted in their populations. However, local authors from low- and middle-income countries are often under-represented in global health journals. This report aims to assess and describe the representation of authors in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Global Oncology ( JCO GO). METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study describes data from JCO GO articles published between October 2015 and March 2020. Data were collected on studied countries, authorship position, classified as first, middle, or last, and country of authors' institutional affiliations. Countries were then categorized on the basis of their World Bank region and income classifications. We describe aggregate authorship distribution and distribution by region and income classification. Additionally, we explore the relationships between author's country and studied country. RESULTS: Of the 608 articles identified, 420 (69.1%) studied a single country population. Although articles represented studies from all World Bank regions, the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) region accounted for the highest number (n = 145; 34.5%). In all other regions except SSA, most of the first (66.7%-100%) and last authors (56.6%-95.2%) had primary institutional affiliations based in the same region as the studied country. However, among articles about SSA countries, SSA first authors (n = 65; 44.8%) and last authors (n = 59; 40.7%) were under-represented. In fact, there were more North American first (n = 74; 51.0%) and last authors (n = 72; 49.6%) than SSA authors. There was higher SSA representation among middle authors (n = 97; 68.8%) in studies from the region. A similar trend was also noted with the under-representation of authors from low-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSION: SSA authors are under-represented in global oncology articles. Concerted strategies are needed to build local capacity, promote meaningful engagement, and foster equity.