Global review of COVID-19 mitigation strategies and their impact on cancer service disruptions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted mitigation strategies to reduce disruptions to cancer services. We reviewed their implementation across health system functions and their impact on cancer diagnosis and care during the pandemic. A systematic search was performed using terms related to cancer and COVID-19. Included studies reported on individuals with cancer or cancer care services, focusing on strategies/programs aimed to reduce delays and disruptions. Extracted data were grouped into four functions (governance, financing, service delivery, and resource generation) and sub-functions of the health system performance assessment framework. We included 30 studies from 16 countries involving 192,233 patients with cancer. Multiple mitigation approaches were implemented, predominantly affecting sub-functions of service delivery to control COVID-19 infection via the suspension of non-urgent cancer care, modified treatment guidelines, and increased telemedicine use in routine cancer care delivery. Resource generation was mainly ensured through adequate workforce supply. However, less emphasis on monitoring or assessing the effectiveness and financing of these strategies was observed. Seventeen studies suggested improved service uptake after mitigation implementation, yet the resulting impact on cancer diagnosis and care has not been established. This review emphasizes the importance of developing effective mitigation strategies across all health system (sub)functions to minimize cancer care service disruptions during crises. Deficiencies were observed in health service delivery (to ensure equity), governance (to monitor and evaluate the implementation of mitigation strategies), and financing. In the wake of future emergencies, implementation research studies that include pre-prepared protocols will be essential to assess mitigation impact across cancer care services.

Unification of Efforts to Improve Global Access to Cancer Therapeutics: Report From the 2022/2023 Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Summit.

PURPOSE: There is an urgent need to improve access to cancer therapy globally. Several independent initiatives have been undertaken to improve access to cancer medicines, and additional new initiatives are in development. Improved sharing of experiences and increased collaboration are needed to achieve substantial improvements in global access to essential oncology medicines. METHODS: The inaugural Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Meeting was organized by ASCO and convened at the June 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, with two subsequent meetings, Union for International Cancer Control World Cancer Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland, in October 2022 and at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June of 2023. Invited stakeholders included representatives from cancer institutes, physicians, researchers, professional societies, the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy organizations, funders, cancer organizations and foundations, policy makers, and regulatory bodies. The session was moderated by ASCO. Past efforts and current and upcoming initiatives were initially discussed (2022), updates on progress were provided (2023), and broad agreement on resulting action steps was achieved with participants. RESULTS: Summit participants recognized that while much work was ongoing to enhance access to cancer therapeutics globally, communication and synergy across projects and organizations could be enhanced by providing a platform for collaboration and shared expertise. CONCLUSION: The summit resulted in new cross-stakeholder insights and planned collaboration addressing barriers to accessing cancer medications. Specific actions and timelines for implementation and reporting were established.

A prospective health economic evaluation to determine the productivity loss due to premature mortality from oral cancer in India.

INTRODUCTION: India contributes two-thirds of the global mortality due to oral cancer and has a younger population at risk. The societal costs of this premature mortality are barely discussed. METHODS: Using the human capital approach, we aimed to estimate the productivity lost due to premature mortality, valued using individual socioeconomic data, related to oral cancer in India. A bottom-up approach was used to prospectively collect data of 100 consecutive patients with oral cancer treated between 2019 and 2020, with a follow-up of 36 months. RESULTS: The disease-specific survival for early and advanced stage was 85% and 70%, with a median age of 47 years. With 671 years lost prematurely, the loss of productivity was $41 900/early and $96 044/advanced stage. Based on population level rates, the total cost of premature mortality was $5.6 billion, representing 0.18% of GDP. CONCLUSION: India needs to implement tailored strategies to reduce the economic burden from premature mortality.

The socioeconomic impact of cancer on patients and their relatives: Organisation of European Cancer Institutes task force consensus recommendations on conceptual framework, taxonomy, and research directions.

Loss of income and out-of-pocket expenditures are important causes of financial hardship in many patients with cancer, even in high-income countries. The far-reaching consequences extend beyond the patients themselves to their relatives, including caregivers and dependents. European research to date has been limited and is hampered by the absence of a coherent theoretical framework and by heterogeneous methods and terminology. To address these shortages, a task force initiated by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) produced 25 recommendations, including a comprehensive definition of socioeconomic impact from the perspective of patients and their relatives, a conceptual framework, and a consistent taxonomy linked to the framework. The OECI task force consensus statement highlights directions for future research with a view towards policy relevance. Beyond descriptive studies into the dimension of the problem, individual severity and predictors of vulnerability should be explored. It is anticipated that the consensus recommendations will facilitate and enhance future research efforts into the socioeconomic impact of cancer and cancer care, providing a crucial reference point for the development and validation of patient-reported outcome instruments aimed at measuring its broader effects.

Quality indicators in surgical oncology: systematic review of measures used to compare quality across hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Measurement and reporting of quality indicators at the hospital level has been shown to improve outcomes and support patient choice. Although there are many studies validating individual quality indicators, there has been no systematic approach to understanding what quality indicators exist for surgical oncology and no standardization for their use. The aim of this study was to review quality indicators used to assess variation in quality in surgical oncology care across hospitals or regions. It also sought to describe the aims of these studies and what, if any, feedback was offered to the analysed groups. METHODS: A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 October 2023 that applied surgical quality indicators to detect variation in cancer care at the hospital or regional level. RESULTS: A total of 89 studies assessed 91 unique quality indicators that fell into the following Donabedian domains: process indicators (58; 64%); outcome indicators (26; 29%); structure indicators (6; 7%); and structure and outcome indicators (1; 1%). Purposes of evaluating variation included: identifying outliers (43; 48%); comparing centres with a benchmark (14; 16%); and supplying evidence of practice variation (29; 33%). Only 23 studies (26%) reported providing the results of their analyses back to those supplying data. CONCLUSION: Comparisons of quality in surgical oncology within and among hospitals and regions have been undertaken in high-income countries. Quality indicators tended to be process measures and reporting focused on identifying outlying hospitals. Few studies offered feedback to data suppliers.

Cancer medicines: a private vice for public benefit?

Cancer medicines have become one of the most dominant global medical technologies. They generate huge profits for the biopharmaceutical industry as well as fuel the research and advocacy activities of public funders, patient organisations, clinical and scientific communities and entire federal political ecosystems. The mismatch between the price, affordability and value of many cancer medicines and global need has generated significant policy debate, yet we see little change in behaviours from any of the major actors from public research funders through to regulatory authorities. In this policy analysis we examine whether, considering the money and power inherent in this system, any rationale global consensus and policy can be achieved to deliver affordable and equitable cancer medicines that consistently deliver clinically meaningful benefit.

Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

Last millennium hurricane activity linked to endogenous climate variability.

Despite increased Atlantic hurricane risk, projected trends in hurricane frequency in the warming climate are still highly uncertain, mainly due to short instrumental record that limits our understanding of hurricane activity and its relationship to climate. Here we extend the record to the last millennium using two independent estimates: a reconstruction from sedimentary paleohurricane records and a statistical model of hurricane activity using sea surface temperatures (SSTs). We find statistically significant agreement between the two estimates and the late 20th century hurricane frequency is within the range seen over the past millennium. Numerical simulations using a hurricane-permitting climate model suggest that hurricane activity was likely driven by endogenous climate variability and linked to anomalous SSTs of warm Atlantic and cold Pacific. Volcanic eruptions can induce peaks in hurricane activity, but such peaks would likely be too weak to be detected in the proxy record due to large endogenous variability.

Radiology in conflict: scoping review.

The United Nations estimate a quarter of the global population currently lives in violent conflict zones. Radiology is an integral part of any healthcare system, providing vital information to aid diagnosis and treatment of a range of disease and injury. However, its delivery in conflict-affected settings remains unclear. This study aims to understand how radiology services are currently delivered in conflict settings, the challenges of doing so, and potential solutions. A hermeneutic narrative review of multiple databases, including grey literature sources, was undertaken. Key themes were identified, and articles grouped accordingly. Various conflict zones including Gaza, Ukraine, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia were identified in literature relating to radiology services. Three key themes were identified: underserving of local medical imaging services, strong presence of military hospitals, and the importance of teleradiology. A severe shortage of radiologists, technicians, and equipment in conflict affected settings are a significant cause of the underserving by local services. Teleradiology has been used to blunt the acuity of the these struggling services, alongside military hospitals which often serve local populations. Radiology faces unique challenges compared to other healthcare services owing to its expensive equipment which is difficult to fund and can be less effective due to international sanctions placed on contrast medium to enhance image quality. Further the equipment is reliant on local infrastructure, e.g., power supply, which can be affected in conflict. Key recommendations to improve radiology services include retention of radiologists within conflict zones, careful allocation of funds to supply necessary imaging machinery, international cooperation to ensure sanctions do not affect sourcing of radiology equipment, special training for military medical teams to help preparedness for the unique demands of the local population, and investment in communication devices, like smartphones, to allow international teleradiology efforts.

"Putting the power back into community": A mixed methods evaluation of a chronic hepatitis B training course for the Aboriginal health workforce of Australia's Northern Territory.

BACKGROUND: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is endemic in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia's Northern Territory. Progression to liver disease can be prevented if holistic care is provided. Low health literacy amongst health professionals is a known barrier to caring for people living with CHB. We co-designed and delivered a culturally safe "Managing hepatitis B" training course for the Aboriginal health workforce. Here, we present an evaluation of the course. OBJECTIVES: 1. To improve course participants CHB-related knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice. 2. To evaluate the "Managing hepatitis B" training course. 3. To enable participants to have the skills and confidence to be part of the care team. METHODS: We used participatory action research and culturally safe principles. We used purpose-built quantitative and qualitative evaluation tools to evaluate our "Managing hepatitis B" training course. We integrated the two forms of data, deductively analysing codes, grouped into categories, and assessed pedagogical outcomes against Kirkpatrick's training evaluation framework. RESULTS: Eight courses were delivered between 2019 and 2023, with 130 participants from 32 communities. Pre- and post-course questionnaires demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all domains, p<0.001 on 93 matched pairs. Thematic network analysis demonstrated high levels of course acceptability and significant knowledge acquisition. Other themes identified include cultural safety, shame, previous misinformation, and misconceptions about transmission. Observations demonstrate improvements in post-course engagement, a deep understanding of CHB as well as increased participation in clinical care teams. CONCLUSIONS: The "Managing hepatitis B" training course led to a sustained improvement in the knowledge and attitudes of the Aboriginal health workforce, resulting in improved care and treatment uptake for people living with CHB. Important non-clinical outcomes included strengthening teaching and leadership skills, and empowerment.

The impact of transportation mode, socioeconomic deprivation and rurality on travel times to radiotherapy and surgical services for patients with prostate cancer: A national population-based evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The distances that patients have to travel can influence their access to cancer treatment. We investigated the determinants of travel time, separately for journeys by car and public transport, to centres providing radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. METHODS: Using national cancer registry records linked to administrative hospital data, we identified patients who had radical surgery or radiotherapy for prostate cancer between January 2017 and December 2018 in the English National Health Service. Estimated travel times from the patients' residential area to the nearest specialist surgical or radiotherapy centre were estimated for journeys by car and by public transport. RESULTS: We included 13,186 men who had surgery and 26,581 who had radiotherapy. Estimated travel times by public transport (74.4 mins for surgery and 69.4 mins for radiotherapy) were more than twice as long as by car (33.4 mins and 29.1mins, respectively). Patients living in more socially deprived neighbourhoods in rural areas had the longest travel times to the nearest cancer treatment centres by car (62.0 mins for surgery and 52.1 mins for radiotherapy). Conversely patients living in more affluent neighbourhoods in urban conurbations had the shortest (18.7 mins for surgery and 17.9 mins for radiotherapy). CONCLUSION: Travel times to cancer centres vary widely according to mode of transport, socioeconomic deprivation, and rurality. Policies changing the geographical configuration of cancer services should consider the impact on the expected travel times both by car and by public transport to avoid enhancing existing inequalities in access to treatment and patient outcomes.

Inequities in global cancer surgery: Challenges and solutions.

The disparity in access to and quality of surgical cancer care between high and low resource settings impacts immediate and long-term oncological outcomes. With cancer incidence and mortality set to increase rapidly in the next few decades, we examine the factors leading to inequities in global cancer surgery, and look at potential solutions to overcome these challenges.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan.

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Challenges in building radiotherapy capacity: A longitudinal study evaluating eight years of the Brazilian radiotherapy expansion plan.

BACKGROUND: In 2012, the Brazilian government launched a radiotherapy (RT) expansion plan (PER-SUS) to install 100 linear accelerators. This study assesses the development of this program after eight years. METHODS: Official reports from the Ministry of Health (MoH) were reviewed. RT centres projects status, timeframes, and cost data (all converted to US dollars) were extracted. The time analysis was divided into seven phases, and for cost evaluation, there were five stages. The initial predicted project time (IPPT) and costs (estimated by the MoH) for each phase were compared between the 18 operational RT centres (able to treat patients) and 30 non-operational RT centres using t-tests, ANOVA, and the Mann-Whitney U. A p-value < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. RESULTS: A significant delay was observed when comparing the IPPT with the overall time to conclude each 48 RT centres project (p < 0.001), with considerable delays in the first five phases (p < 0.001 for all). Moreover, the median time to conclude the first 18 operational RT centres (77.4 months) was shorter compared with the 30 non-operational RT centres (94.0 months), p < 0.001. The total cost of 48 RT services was USD 82,84 millions (mi) with a significant difference in the per project median total cost between 18 operational RT centres, USD1,34 mi and 30 non-operational RT centres USD2,11 mi, p < 0.001. All phases had a higher cost when comparing 30 non-operational RT centres to 18 operational RT centres, p < 0.001. The median total cost for expanding existing RT centres was USD1,30 mi versus USD2,18 mi for new RT services, p < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: After eight years, the PER-SUS programs showed a substantial delay in most projects and their phases, with increased costs over time. POLICY SUMMARY: Our findings indicate a need to act to increase the success of this plan. This study may provide a benchmark for other developing countries trying to expand RT capacity.

Training the gynecologic oncologists of the future - challenges and opportunities.

Several recent advances in gynecologic cancer care have improved patient outcomes. These include national screening and vaccination programs for cervical cancer as well as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for ovarian cancer. Conversely, these advances have cumulatively reduced surgical opportunities for training creating a need to supplement existing training strategies with evidence-based adjuncts. Technologies such as virtual reality and augmented reality, if properly evaluated and validated, have transformative potential to support training. Given the changing landscape of surgical training in gynecologic oncology, we were keen to summarize the evidence underpinning current training in gynecologic oncology.In this review, we undertook a literature search of Medline, Google, Google Scholar, Embase and Scopus to gather evidence on the current state of training in gynecologic oncology and to highlight existing evidence on the best methods to teach surgical skills. Drawing from the experiences of other surgical specialties we examined the use of training adjuncts such as cadaveric dissection, animation and 3D models as well as simulation training in surgical skills acquisition. Specifically, we looked at the use of training adjuncts in gynecologic oncology training as well as the evidence behind simulation training modalities such as low fidelity box trainers, virtual and augmented reality simulation in laparoscopic training. Finally, we provided context by looking at how training curriculums varied internationally.Whereas some evidence to the reliability and validity of simulation training exists in other surgical specialties, our literature review did not find such evidence in gynecologic oncology. It is important that well conducted trials are used to ascertain the utility of simulation training modalities before integrating them into training curricula.

Avelumab Versus Platinum-Based Doublet Chemotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With High-Expression Programmed Death-Ligand 1-Positive Metastatic NSCLC: Primary Analysis From the Phase 3 JAVELIN Lung 100 Trial.

INTRODUCTION: We report the primary analysis from JAVELIN Lung 100, a phase 3 trial comparing avelumab (anti⁠-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive (+) advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Adults with PD-L1+ (≥1% of tumor cells; PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 73-10 pharmDx), EGFR and ALK wild-type, previously untreated, stage IV NSCLC were randomized to avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks (Q2W), avelumab 10 mg/kg once weekly (QW) for 12 weeks and Q2W thereafter, or platinum-based doublet chemotherapy every 3 weeks. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review committee. The primary analysis population was patients with high-expression PD-L1+ tumors (≥80% of tumor cells). RESULTS: A total of 1214 patients were randomized to avelumab Q2W (n = 366), avelumab QW (n = 322), or chemotherapy (n = 526). In the primary analysis population, hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and PFS with avelumab Q2W (n = 151) versus chemotherapy (n = 216) were 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-1.09; one-sided p = 0.1032; median OS, 20.1 versus 14.9 mo) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.54-0.93; one-sided p = 0.0070; median PFS, 8.4 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. With avelumab QW (n = 130) versus chemotherapy (n = 129), HRs were 0.79 (95% CI: 0.59-1.07; one-sided p = 0.0630; median OS, 19.3 versus 15.3 mo) and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98; one-sided p = 0.0196; median PFS, 7.5 versus 5.6 mo), respectively. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Longer median OS and PFS were observed with avelumab versus platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC, but differences in OS and PFS were not statistically significant, and the trial did not meet its primary objective. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT02576574.