Feed

Background: Cancer registry programs depend on strong organisational, procedural, and regulatory foundations. International standards, such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s Technical Publication No. 43 (TP43) and guidelines from the International Association of Cancer Registries, provide guidance for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Nevertheless, adoption remains inconsistent, and many LMICs face structural, legal, and financial barriers. Objective: This scoping review aimed to synthesise and categorise essential criteria and standards that underpin effective cancer registries, and to propose an integrated framework that combines international guidelines (e.g. IARC) with context-specific adaptations for application in resource-limited settings. In addition, the review mapped the implementation status of IARC standards across identified cancer registries, revealing varying levels of adoption and contextual adaptation in LMICs. Method: Using Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, English and Persian literature in international and national databases up to September 2025 were systematically searched. Eligible documents included peer-reviewed articles, official reports, and guidelines. Extracted data were thematically analysed and mapped to the 10 domains of the IARC framework, with additional elements identified beyond these domains to capture implementation gaps and context-specific adaptations. Results: Fifty-four sources were reviewed. We identified a comprehensive set of criteria and standards aligned with the 10 domains of the IARC framework, encompassing advisory committees, registry type, population denominators, legal aspects, population size, physical location, finance, personnel, equipment, and data management. Additionally, several supplementary domains beyond the IARC framework-including access to cancer cases, reporting and dissemination, and policymaking-were identified, highlighting context-specific challenges and adaptations, particularly in LMICs. Conclusion: By integrating global criteria and standards within a structured and context-sensitive framework, this review provides practical guidance for strengthening cancer registries, particularly in LMICs. Implications for health information management practice: Health information managers can use these findings to develop resilient, sustainable cancer registry systems, improve data quality, and support evidence-based policymaking-particularly in LMICs, where registry infrastructures remain underdeveloped, and system strengthening is a priority.