Prevalence and Subtype Distribution of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus Among Women Presenting for Cervical Cancer Screening at Karanda Mission Hospital.

PURPOSE: High-risk human papillomaviruses (hrHPV) are the primary cause of cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination is expected to prevent cervical cancers caused by the HPV types included in vaccines and possibly by cross-protection from other types. This study sought to determine the hrHPV type distribution in women at a rural Zimbabwe hospital. METHODS: We implemented a cross-sectional study at the Karanda Mission Hospital. Using the Visual Inspection with Acetic Acid Cervicography technique, clinicians collected cervical swabs from 400 women presenting for screening for cervical cancer. Samples were initially analyzed by Cepheid GeneXpert; candidate hrHPV genotypes were further characterized using the Anyplex II HPV28 Detection Kit. RESULTS: Twenty-one percent of the 400 women were positive for a high-risk genotype when using the GeneXpert analyzer; 17% were positive when using the multiplex analysis. Almost two thirds of the hrHPV women had a single DNA type identified, whereas one third had multiple genotypes, ranging from 2 to 5. hrHPV was observed more frequently in HIV-positive than in HIV-negative women (27% v 15%). Of the 113 isolates obtained, 77% were hrHPV genotypes not included in the bivalent or quadrivalent vaccines, and 47% represented DNA types not covered in the nonavalent vaccine. Forty-seven percent of the women with hrHPV harbored a single genotype that was not covered by the nonavalent vaccine. CONCLUSION: A large fraction of hrHPV isolates from women participating in a cervical cancer screening program in northern Zimbabwe are DNA types not covered by the bivalent, quadrivalent, or nonavalent vaccines. These findings suggest the importance of characterizing the hrHPV DNA types isolated from cervical neoplasia in this population and determining whether cross-immunization against these genotypes develops after administration of the vaccines in current use.

All Men Are Created Equal: Addressing Disparities in Prostate Cancer Care.

The global cancer burden is estimated to have risen to 18.1 million new cases and 9.6 million deaths in 2018. By 2030, the number of cancer cases is projected to increase to 24.6 million and the number of cancer deaths, to 13 million. Global data mask the social and health disparities that influence cancer incidence and survival. Inequality in exposure to carcinogens, education, access to quality diagnostic services, and affordable treatments all affect the probability of survival. Worryingly, despite the fact that many cancers could be prevented by stronger public health actions and many others could be largely cured by better access to diagnostics and affordable treatments, the international community has yet to make a substantial move to tackle this challenge. In prostate cancer, studies show that there are geographic and racial/ethnic distribution differences as well as a number of other variables, including environmental factors, limited access to standard cancer treatments, reduced probability to be included in trials, and the financial burden of cancer treatments. Financial burden for the patients can result in poor adherence, increased debt, and poor long-term outcomes. The following article will discuss some of the important causes for disparity in prostate cancer and prostate cancer care, focused on the current situation in the United States, as well as possible remedies to address these causes.

Comparative Assessment of Clinical Benefit Using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Version 1.1 and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score.

PURPOSE: To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies. METHODS: The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance. RESULTS: The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity. CONCLUSION: The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

American Society of Clinical Oncology's Global Oncology Leadership Task Force: Findings and Actions.

In response to rising cancer incidence and mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries and the increasingly global profile of ASCO's membership, the ASCO Board of Directors appointed the Global Oncology Leadership Task Force (Task Force) to provide recommendations on ASCO's engagement in global oncology. To accomplish its work, the Task Force convened meetings of global oncology experts, conducted focus group discussions with member groups, did site visits to South America and India, and met regularly to analyze the findings and develop recommendations. Task Force findings included global concerns, such as access to care, and specific concerns of middle- and low-resource settings. The need to strengthen health systems and the importance of alliances with a range of international cancer stakeholders were emphasized. Task Force recommendations to the ASCO Board of Directors were based on a three-part global oncology strategy of professional development, improvement of access to quality care, and acceleration of global oncology research. Specific areas of focus within each of these strategic pillars are provided along with an update on areas of ASCO activity as these recommendations are implemented.