Landscape of cancer clinical trials in India - a comprehensive analysis of the Clinical Trial Registry-India.

Background: Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in India. Clinical trials are critical for driving innovation in cancer therapy, diagnosis, and prevention. This study aims to depict the evolving landscape of cancer clinical trials in India by analysing the clinical trials registered in Clinical Trial Registry-India (CTRI). Methods: We identified cancer trials registered in CTRI (between 2007 and 2021) using search terms adapted from the cancer types defined by the National Cancer Institute (USA). We then collated and analysed the publicly available information from CTRI (cancer subtypes, type of trial, treatment intent, type of intervention, sponsor type, recruitment countries) and used descriptive statistics to illustrate the overall as well as year-to-year trend. Findings: In total, we identified 1988 cancer trials, the majority of which focused on treating cancer (63%) and rest of the trials aimed at optimising the operational aspects of surgery (19%), mitigating treatment-related toxicity (10.6%), or treating cancer-related symptoms (7.8%). Focusing on trials with the intent of treating cancer, we found that most were investigating solid tumours as opposed to haematological malignancies with the most prominent cancer subtypes being breast cancer (17%), head and neck cancer (9.8%), lung cancer (9.6%), and cervical cancer (6.6%). The number of trials conducted in a given cancer subtype from our analysis overall correlated to the incidence, mortality, and 5-year prevalence of the respective cancer subtype in India; however, head and neck cancer and cervical cancer were underrepresented in trials as compared with the disease burden. The most common type of intervention was investigational drugs. The most common sponsor types were global pharmaceutical industry (26%) and research institution and hospital (26%). Despite a relatively high cancer burden, the availability of cancer trials in the Northeastern states of India was limited. Interpretation: There is a pressing need for clinical cancer research in India to be better aligned with the nation's healthcare needs and disease burden, focusing on prevalent and deadly cancers while ensuring the availability of clinical trials across geographic regions and underserved populations. Funding: Pi Health USA, a fully owned subsidiary of BeiGene Ltd.

State of cancer care in India and opportunities for innovation.

Cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in India. Despite recent medical and technological advances, the cancer burden in India remains high and continues to rise. Moreover, substantial regional disparities in cancer incidence and access to essential medical resources exist throughout the country. While innovative and effective cancer therapies hold promise for improving patient outcomes, several barriers hinder their development and utilization in India. Here we provide an overview of these barriers, including challenges related to patient awareness, inadequate infrastructure, scarcity of trained oncology professionals, and the high cost of cancer care. Furthermore, we discuss the limited availability of cancer clinical trials in the country, along with an examination of potential avenues to enhance cancer care in India. By confronting these hurdles head-on and implementing innovative, pragmatic solutions, we take an indispensable step toward a future where every cancer patient in the country can access quality care.

Cancer is a major cause of illness and death in India. Despite advances in medicine and technology, the number of people with cancer remains high and continues to increase. There are big differences in access to necessary medical resources across different regions of the country. This article focuses on the barriers that hinder the development and use of effective cancer treatments in India. We discuss challenges related to patient awareness, inadequate medical facilities, a shortage of trained cancer specialists and the high cost of cancer treatment. Additionally, we explore the limited availability of cancer clinical trials in India and potential ways to improve cancer care in the country. By finding innovative and practical solutions to these challenges, we can take a crucial step toward a future where all cancer patients in India have access to high-quality care.

The Efficacy, Safety, and Cost Benefit of Olanzapine versus Aprepitant in Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Pilot Study from South India.

Background. The efficacy, safety, and cost benefit of olanzapine (OLN) when compared to aprepitant (APR) in the prevention of chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC) were evaluated. Methods. A prospective pilot study was done in chemotherapy-naive patients receiving HEC to compare OLN versus APR along with palonosetron and dexamethasone. 100 patients consented to the protocol and were randomized and evaluated for Complete Response (CR) (no emesis, no rescue). Results. CR was 86% for the acute period, 86% for the delayed period, and 80% for the overall period in 50 patients receiving the APD regimen. CR was 84% for the acute period, 88% for the delayed period, and 78% for the overall period for 50 patients receiving the OPD regimen. Patients without nausea were APD: 88% acute, 84% delayed, and 84% overall, and OPD: 84% acute, 88% delayed, and 84% overall. There were no significant grade 3 or 4 toxicities. OPD was comparable to APD in the control of CINV. Conclusion. In this study, there was no significant difference between olanzapine and aprepitant in preventing CINV with highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Olanzapine may thus be used as a potential, safe, and cost beneficial alternative to prevent nausea and vomiting in HEC.