Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 September 2021 | Story Dr Jan du Plessis and Dr Mampoi Jonas

Opinion article by Dr Jan du Plessis, Head of the Paediatric Oncology Unit, and Dr Mampoi Jonas, senior lecturer in the Paediatric Oncology, University of the Free State 


For many years childhood cancer has remained a taboo subject in our communities, mainly because too little was or is known about it. Many have known or come across an adult with cancer but for a child to be diagnosed with cancer is totally unheard of. No parent wants to hear the news that their ‘heartbeat in human form’ has fallen ill. One moment they are OK, the next, waves of emotions flood the parents. Mixed in all this are feelings of guilt, anxiety, uncertainty, constant wondering if they could have done anything differently. Most importantly the question, often unuttered remains “Is my child dying/ how much time do I have”.

Most young cancer patients live in developing countries

Childhood cancer is rare and involves only 1% of all cancers. It is reported that globally approximately 70% of all childhood cancer cases occur in low- and middle-income countries. If diagnosed early, approximately 70-80% of childhood cancers are curable in developed countries. Unfortunately, most children with cancer live in developing countries with limited resources and the cure rate does not reflect the same success. The low survival rates can be attributed to poor diagnosis coupled with too few specially trained doctors and nurses and the misbelief that child cancer is too difficult to cure. However, even in resource-poor environments at least 50% of childhood cancers can be cured.

Numerically, childhood cancer is not a significant cause of death in sub-Saharan African countries, which leaves childhood cancer less of a priority. In Africa, the most common paediatric health problems are malnutrition, infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis. Whereas in Western countries, after accidents, cancer is the second leading cause of death in children and is a burden to the health system.

A study done by Stones et al in 2014 published the survival rates for children with cancer in South Africa at two different Units (Universitas and Tygerberg Hospitals) to be around 52%. The conclusion was that the children present late and with advanced-stage disease, which obviously affects their outcome. They also concluded that strategies to improve awareness of childhood cancer should be improved. Identifying early warning signs of childhood cancer is critical for parents and healthcare workers to ensure early diagnosis and improved cure rates. We often refer to these as red flag signs that should raise suspicion of the possibility of cancer as a diagnosis for the presenting patient.

Almost 85% of childhood cancers will present with the red flag signs, which could suggest the possibility of a childhood cancer, namely:
1. Pallor and purpura (bruising)
2. Bone and joint pain
3. Lymphadenopathy
4. Unexplained masses on any body part
5. Unexplained neurological signs
6. Changes in the orbit or eye
7. Persistent unexplained fever and weight loss

The most common cancer in children is leukaemia (blood cancer). Brain tumours are the most common non-haematological cancers, followed by nephroblastomas (kidney cancers) and neuroblastomas (sympathetic chain cells, the adrenal glands the most common site of origin).

We honour the children currently battling cancer and their families 

Once there is clinical suspicion of cancer, the child should be investigated or referred for the relevant investigations to be conducted to get to the right diagnosis. Treatment for childhood cancer includes chemotherapy, surgery or radiotherapy. These may be given separately or in combination depending on the diagnosis. Many models of care exist, but regardless of the outcome, children and families who receive compassionate, holistic care of symptomatology and address their non-physical needs are able to face their illness with dignity and energy.  

Childhood Cancer should not remain a taboo subject in South Africa and should be a topic of conversation more often so that people can be educated regarding the early warning signs and become more aware of its occurrence amongst children. Get the word out that a cure is possible. This month, which is known as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and throughout the year, we honour the children currently battling cancer, the families who love them, the clinicians and other caregivers treating them, the survivors of childhood cancer and the children who lost their lives to childhood cancer. 

Authors

Dr Jan Du Plessis for web 
Dr Jan du Plessis is the Head of the Paediatric  Oncology Unit in the Faculty of Health Sciences at
the University of the Free State (UFS).  


DrJonas for web
Dr Mampoi Jonas is a senior lecturer in the Paediatric Oncology, University of the Free State (UFS).

News Archive

Reaction by the Rector of the UFS after a meeting with student leaders
2008-02-25

Reaction by the Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS, Prof. Frederick Fourie, on the agreement reached at a meeting with student leaders held on Friday, 22 February 2008

Note: This is meant to be used together with the full joint statement that was issued by the UFS management and student leaders on 22 February 2008.

The memorandum of the primes of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) residences was handed to top management on Wednesday, 20 February 2008. In the memorandum they asked for a meeting with the UFS management by Friday, 22 February 2008. Such a meeting was arranged and took place.

The UFS top management, all the residence primes as well as the house committee member for first years, the executive of the Main Campus Student Representative Council (SRC) and residence heads were present.

In contrast to what is suggested in the Volksblad report of Saturday, the discussion went off very well. There was no consternation or shouting or “emotions that ran high”. It was a civilised, decent meeting as it should be at a good university. Of course, now and again individuals spoke out strongly and very enthusiastically, but it was all decent and orderly. The contribution of the primes was insightful and well formulated.

Because the top management and I wanted to listen very carefully what the problems and frustrations were, we spent nearly five hours in the meeting. The issues in the memorandum were discussed one by one. In some cases I could take a decision immediately and finalise the matter, in other cases, the management provided information that could largely finalise a matter. A number of other matters must be investigated further.

The management undertook to respond comprehensively and in writing to all the issues raised in the memorandum by Monday, 25 February 2008. This will be handed to the primes but will not be handed to the media beforehand.
It is obvious that there are matters at the university that can be better managed and that there are problems with communication within the Student Affairs division. A major change such as the new policy on diversity places huge demands on management and the administration, and problems were to be expected. However, we understand the frustration of the students in residences.

On the other hand, students don’t always make matters easier. The strong opposition of white student leaders last year, and their unwillingness to co-operate in preparation for 2008 is well known. This year it is going better. But often student leaders take positions that are very inflexible. They also see no room for adapting old habits and simply want their own way. Their contributions are then full of statements such as “It cannot be done”. This delays measures such as the full implementation of expert interpreting services, which, for the management, is a very important measure (and which is functioning very well in certain residences). Communication from student leaders to management is also not always what it should be.

At the end of the meeting student leaders and management reached an important agreement and issued a joint statement in which they committed themselves to the integration process and to good co-operation and communication. This was an important step which is a sign of rebuilding trust. Naturally everyone will still have to work hard to build on this and to strengthen mutual trust.

The course and outcome of Friday’s discussions, as requested by the student leaders, show that issues can be addressed and resolved by means of us talking to one another. This is why it is so sad that primes and house committee members went on strike on Wednesday already and stayed in tents in front of the Main Building – leaving their residences without its leadership. This created an opening for what appears to have been well planned and co-ordinated acts of vandalism by inhabitants of residences on the campus on Wednesday.

Such vandalism is unacceptable and no one can justify it.

Fortunately, order could be restored quickly during the night and all academic activities could resume without any disruption on Thursday and Friday.

FCvN Fourie

Media Release
Issued by: Lacea Loader
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za   
24 February 2008

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept