USA stockpiling of remdesivir: How should the world respond?

The race to find an effective treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still on, with only two treatment options currently authorized for emergency use and/or recommended for patients hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms: low-dose dexamethasone and remdesivir. The USA decision to stockpile the latter has resulted in widespread condemnation and in similar action being taken by some other countries. In this commentary we discuss whether stockpiling remdesivir is justified in light of the currently available evidence.

Revitalising cancer trials post-pandemic: time for reform.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant risk to the health of cancer patients, compromised standard cancer care and interrupted clinical cancer trials, prompting dramatic streamlining of services. From this health crisis has emerged the opportunity to carry forward an unexpected legacy of positive reforms to clinical cancer research, where conventionally convoluted approvals processes, inefficient trial design, procedures and data gathering could benefit from the lessons in rationalisation learned during the pandemic.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer, a rapid review.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine development and administration have become global priorities since the beginning of the pandemic, particularly for special populations at higher risk of complications and mortality, such as patients with haematologic and solid organ malignancies. This review aims to summarise the current data for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy in patients with cancer, suggest priority areas for future research and look at potential disparities at a global level. Although patients diagnosed with or receiving therapy for cancer were excluded from the initial vaccine trials, emerging evidence now supports vaccine safety with potentially diminished immune response in this group. Several studies that evaluated antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination found that patients with solid malignancies had lower serologic response rates compared to healthy controls, but better than patients with haematologic malignancies, who had the lowest seroconversion rates and antibody titres. As anticipated, poor serologic responses have been particularly observed among patients receiving B-cell depleting therapies. The data on cellular response are scarce and conflicting since not all studies have showed a difference between patients with malignancies and healthy subjects. Several questions concerning vaccination remain unanswered and require further exploration, such as response duration, need for response monitoring and rates of breakthrough infections.

Two cases of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults: experience at a single centre in Sydney.

We report two cases of middle-aged men who presented with clinical features that satisfied the diagnostic criteria for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A). Both patients were treated for toxic shock syndrome and MIS-A and have recovered. The purpose of this article is to communicate our experience and challenges of assessing and treating this condition and to raise awareness of the condition.

Are patients with cancer at higher risk of COVID-19-related death? A systematic review and critical appraisal of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: Early reports suggested that COVID-19 patients with cancer were at higher risk of COVID-19-related death. We conducted a systematic review with risk of bias assessment and synthesis of the early evidence on the risk of COVID-19-related death for COVID-19 patients with and without cancer. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases to 1 July 2020. We included cohort or case-control studies published in English that reported on the risk of dying after developing COVID-19 for people with a pre-existing diagnosis of any cancer, lung cancer, or haematological cancers. We assessed risk of bias using tools adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We used the generic inverse-variance random-effects method for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated separately. Of 96 included studies, 54 had sufficient non-overlapping data to be included in meta-analyses (>500,000 people with COVID-19, >8000 with cancer; 52 studies of any cancer, three of lung and six of haematological cancers). All studies had high risk of bias. Accounting for at least age consistently led to lower estimated ORs and HRs for COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; six studies, unadjusted OR=3.30,95%CI:2.59-4.20, adjusted OR=1.37,95%CI:1.16-1.61). Adjusted effect estimates were not reported for people with lung or haematological cancers. Of 18 studies that adjusted for at least age, 17 reported positive associations between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death (e.g. any cancer versus no cancer; nine studies, adjusted OR=1.66,95%CI:1.33-2.08; five studies, adjusted HR=1.19,95%CI:1.02-1.38). CONCLUSIONS: The initial evidence (published to 1 July 2020) on COVID-19-related death in people with cancer is characterised by multiple sources of bias and substantial overlap between data included in different studies. Pooled analyses of non-overlapping early data with adjustment for at least age indicated a significantly increased risk of COVID-19-related death for those with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis.

The risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 or developing COVID-19 for people with cancer: A systematic review of the early evidence.

BACKGROUND: The early COVID-19 literature suggested that people with cancer may be more likely to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 or develop COVID-19 than people without cancer, due to increased health services contact and/or immunocompromise. While some studies were criticised due to small patient numbers and methodological limitations, they created or reinforced concerns of clinicians and people with cancer. These risks are also important in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation decisions. We performed a systematic review to critically assess and summarise the early literature. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic search of Medline/Embase/BioRxiv/MedRxiv/SSRN databases including peer-reviewed journal articles, letters/commentaries, and non-peer-reviewed pre-print articles for 1 January-1 July 2020. The primary endpoints were diagnosis of COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 test. We assessed risk of bias using a tool adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Twelve studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. All four studies of COVID-19 incidence (including 24,181,727 individuals, 125,649 with pre-existing cancer) reported that people with cancer had higher COVID-19 incidence rates. Eight studies reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity for > 472,000 individuals, 48,370 with pre-existing cancer. Seven of these studies comparing people with any and without cancer, were pooled using random effects [pooled odds ratio 0.91, 95 %CI: 0.57-1.47; unadjusted for age, sex, or comorbidities]. Two studies suggested people with active or haematological cancer had lower risk of a positive test. All 12 studies had high risk of bias; none included universal or random COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 testing. CONCLUSIONS: The early literature on susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer is characterised by pervasive biases and limited data. To provide high-quality evidence to inform decision-making, studies of risk of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 for people with cancer should control for other potential modifiers of infection risk, including age, sex, comorbidities, exposure to the virus, protective measures taken, and vaccination, in addition to stratifying analyses by cancer type, stage at diagnosis, and treatment received.

Primary care and cancer: an analysis of the impact and inequalities of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient pathways.

OBJECTIVES: We explore the routes to cancer diagnosis to further undertanding of the inequality in the reduction in detection of new cancers since the start of the pandemic. We use different data sets to assess stages in the cancer pathway: primary care data for primary care consultations, routine and urgent referrals and published analysis of cancer registry data for appointments and first treatments. SETTING: Primary and cancer care. PARTICIPANTS: In this study we combine multiple data sets to perform a population-based cohort study on different areas of the cancer pathway. For primary care analysis, we use a random sample of 5 00 000 patients from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Postreferral we perform a secondary data analysis on the Cancer Wait Times data and the National Cancer Registry Analysis Service COVID-19 data equity pack. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary care: consultation, urgent cancer referral and routine referral rates, then appointments following an urgent cancer referral, and first treatments for new cancer, for all and by quintile of patient's local area index of multiple deprivation. RESULTS: Primary care contacts and urgent cancer referrals in England fell by 11.6% (95% CI 11.4% to 11.7%) and 20.2% (95% CI 18.1% to 22.3%) respectively between the start of the first non-pharmaceutical intervention in March 2020 and the end of January 2021, while routine referrals had not recovered to prepandemic levels. Reductions in first treatments for newly diagnosed cancers are down 16.3% (95% CI 15.9% to 16.6%). The reduction in the number of 2-week wait referrals and first treatments for all cancer has been largest for those living in poorer areas, despite having a smaller reduction in primary care contact. CONCLUSIONS: Our results further evidence the strain on primary care and the presence of the inverse care law, and the dire need to address the inequalities so sharply brought into focus by the pandemic. We need to address the disconnect between the importance we place on the role of primary care and the resources we devote to it.

Prioritising locations for radiotherapy equipment in Brazil: a cross-sectional, population-based study and development of a LINAC shortage index.

BACKGROUND: Similarly to several other upper-middle-income countries, there is a major shortfall in radiotherapy services for the treatment of cancer in Brazil. In this study, we developed the linear accelerator (LINAC) shortage index to assess the LINAC shortage and support the prioritisation of new LINAC distribution in Brazil. METHODS: This cross-sectional, population-based study used data from the National Cancer Institute 2020 Cancer estimates, the Ministry of Health 2019 radiotherapy census, the Minister of Health radiotherapy expansion programme progress reports, and the Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo public database of the Cancer Hospital Registry of the State of São Paulo to calculate the LINAC shortage index. Data collected were number of new cancer cases in Brazil, number of LINACs per region and state, number of cancer cases treated with radiotherapy, patient state of residence, and radiotherapy treatment centre and location. National, regional, and state-level data were collected for analysis. LINAC numbers, cancer incidence, geographical distribution, and radiotherapy needs were estimated. A LINAC shortage index was calculated as a relative measure of LINAC demand compared with supply based on number of new cancer cases, number of patients requiring radiotherapy, and the number of LINCAS in the region or state. We then built a prioritisation framework using the LINAC shortage index, cancer incidence, and geographical factors. Finally, using patient-level public cancer registry data from the Fundação Oncocentro de São Paulo and Google maps, we estimated the geospatial distance travelled by patients with cancer from their state of residence to radiotherapy treatment in São Paulo from 2005-14. Non-parametric statistics were used for analysis. FINDINGS: Data were collected between Feb 2 and Dec 31, 2021. In 2020, there were 625 370 new cancer cases in Brazil and 252 LINAC machines. The number of LINACs was inadequate in all Brazilian regions, with a national LINAC shortage index of 221 (ie, 121% less than the required radiotherapy capacity). The LINAC shortage index was higher in the midwest (326), north (313), and northeast (237) regions, than the southeast (210) and south (192) regions. Four states (Tocantins, Acre, Amapá, and Roraima) in the north region were ranked first on the prioritisation rank due to no availability of LINACs. There was an association between LINAC shortage index and the number of patients who travelled to receive radiotherapy (p<0·0001). Patients living in the midwest (793 km), north (2835 km), and northeast (2415 km) regions travelled significantly longer average distances to receive radiotherapy treatment in São Paulo than patients living in the southeast or south regions (p=0·032). The reduced number of LINACs in these regions was associated with longer distance travelled (p=0·032). INTERPRETATION: There is substantial discordance between distribution of cancer cases and LINAC availability in Brazil. We developed a tool using the LINACs shortage index to help prioritise the development of radiotherapy infrastructure across Brazil; this approach might also be useful in other health systems. FUNDING: None.

Global cancer research in the era of COVID-19: a bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer across the world have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased risk of infection and disruption to cancer diagnosis and treatment. Widening of healthcare disparities is expected as the gap between health systems with and without adequate resources to mitigate the pandemic become more apparent. We undertook a bibliometric analysis of research related to cancer and COVID-19 to understand (1) the type of research that has been conducted (e.g. patients, services and systems) and (2) whether the pandemic has impacted the state of global cancer research as measured by research outputs to date. METHODS: An existing filter for cancer research consisting of title words and the names of specialist cancer journals was used to identify cancer and COVID-19 related articles and reviews in the Web of Science (©Clarivate Analytics) between January 2019 and February 2021. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and forty-five publications were identified. The majority (57%) were reviews, opinion pieces or concerned with modelling impact of delays to diagnosis and treatment. The main research domains focused on managing or estimating COVID-19 risk to cancer patients accounting for 384 papers (25%). High Income countries contributed the largest volume (n = 1,115; 72%), compared to Upper Middle (n = 302; 20%), Lower Middle (n = 122; 8%) and Low Income countries (n = 2.4; 0.2%). No evidence of a reduction in global cancer research output was observed in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a shift in research focus rather than a decline in absolute output. However, there is variation based on national income and collaborations are minimal. There has been a focus on pan-cancer studies rather than cancer site-specific studies. Strengthening global multidisciplinary research partnerships with teams from diverse backgrounds with regard to gender, clinical expertise and resource setting is essential to prevent the widening of cancer inequalities.