Cancer groundshot: going global before going to the moon

Series on the Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery: Introduction-Intent and Content

BACKGROUND

Surgery plays a key role in the multi-disciplinary cancer care pathway. Nearly 80% of patients with solid tumors will require surgical intervention during the course of their disease. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these patients do not have access to safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care. The first Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery shone a light on this grave situation and outlined some strategies to address them. The second Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery (TLO- II) was conceived to continue the work of its predecessor by developing a roadmap of practical solutions to propel improvements in cancer surgical care globally.

METHODS

The Commission was developed by involving approximately 50 cancer care leaders and experts from different parts of the world to ensure diversity of input and global applicability.

RESULTS

The Commission identified nine solutional domains that are considered essential to deliver safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care. These nine domains were further refined to develop solutions specific to each of the six World Health Organization regions. Based on the above solutions, we developed eight action items that are intended to propel improvements in cancer surgical care on the global stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The second Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery builds on the first Commission by developing a pragmatic roadmap of practical solutions that we hope will ensure access to safe, timely, high-quality, and affordable cancer surgical care for everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status or geographic location.

Chronic wounds in a multiethnic Asian population: a cost of illness study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the 'cost of illness' arising from chronic wounds in Singapore.

DESIGN

Incidence-based cost of illness study using evidence from a range of sources.

SETTING

Singapore health services.

PARTICIPANTS

We consider 3.49 million Singapore citizens and permanent residents. There are 16 752 new individuals with a chronic wound in 2017, with 598 venous ulcers, 2206 arterial insufficiency ulcers, 6680 diabetic ulcers and 7268 pressure injuries.Primary outcome measures expressed in monetary terms are the value of all hospital bed days lost for the population; monetary value of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost in the population; costs of all outpatient visits; and costs of all poly clinic, use of Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) and emergency departments (EDs) visits. Intermediate outcomes that inform the primary outcomes are also estimated.

RESULTS

Total annual cost of illness was $350 million (range $72-$1779 million). With 168 503 acute bed days taken up annually (range 141 966-196 032) that incurred costs of $139 million (range 117-161 million). Total costs to health services were $184 million (range $120-$1179 million). Total annual costs of lost health outcomes were 2077 QALYs (range -2657 to 29 029) valued at $166 million (range -212 to 2399 million).

CONCLUSIONS

The costs of chronic wounds are large to Singapore. Costs can be reduced by making positive investments for comprehensive wound prevention and treatment programmes.

Clinical Trials in Palliative Care: Need for Serious Reckoning

We explore five crucial insights on Clinical Trials in Palliative care. From setting impactful priorities to ethical funding, we delve into the heart of informed patient care and discover how 'Ground Shots' can drive meaningful changes and why collaborati

High Cost of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-Cells: Challenges and Solutions

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells are a cellular immunotherapy with remarkable efficacy in treating multiple hematologic malignancies but they are associated with extremely high prices that are, for many countries, prohibitively expensive. As their use increases both for hematologic malignancies and other indications, and large numbers of new cellular therapies are developed, novel approaches will be needed both to reduce the cost of therapy, and to pay for them. We review the many factors that lead to the high cost of CAR T-cells and offer proposals for reform.

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 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Highlights from ecancer Choosing Wisely Nepal 2022: critical appraisal skills for evidence-based practice, 24th-25th September 2022, Kathmandu, Nepal

The ecancer Kathmandu 2022 workshop on the 24th-25th September 2022 was the first ecancer conference organised in Nepal, a Southeast Asian nation sandwiched between India and China. It was focused on critical appraisal skills for evidence-based practice and was organised in partnership with the Karnali Academy of Health Sciences and the Civil Service Hospital from Nepal, and the Queen's Global Oncology Program from Canada. The workshop emphasised the need for critical thinking in understanding clinical research, and also motivated the delegates to undertake meaningful clinical research relevant to the local setting. The sessions highlighted the features of a good clinical research, identify pitfalls in the reporting of clinical trials, implementation of the research into locally relevant practice and development of local clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the faculty also discussed how to write a good scientific paper, the do's and don'ts of a systematic review and meta-analysis, the role of peer-review and how to do one properly and what do editors look for in evaluating papers submitted for publication. The audience learned the importance of finding a good mentor and fostering local and international collaboration. The local faculty also highlighted their own personal journeys and how mentorship and global collaboration played an important role in their own academic career. The enthusiastic panel discussion was a highlight of the programme where the delegates learned about several important topics from the faculties, such as work-life balance, the role of mentorship in building careers and building networks.

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Health Equity in Oncology: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The field of oncology is at the forefront of advances in artificial intelligence (AI) in health care, providing an opportunity to examine the early integration of these technologies in clinical research and patient care. Hope that AI will revolutionize health care delivery and improve clinical outcomes has been accompanied by concerns about the impact of these technologies on health equity.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a scoping review of the literature to address the question, "What are the current and potential impacts of AI technologies on health equity in oncology?"

METHODS

Following PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines for scoping reviews, we systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases from January 2000 to August 2021 for records engaging with key concepts of AI, health equity, and oncology. We included all English-language articles that engaged with the 3 key concepts. Articles were analyzed qualitatively for themes pertaining to the influence of AI on health equity in oncology.

RESULTS

Of the 14,011 records, 133 (0.95%) identified from our review were included. We identified 3 general themes in the literature: the use of AI to reduce health care disparities (58/133, 43.6%), concerns surrounding AI technologies and bias (16/133, 12.1%), and the use of AI to examine biological and social determinants of health (55/133, 41.4%). A total of 3% (4/133) of articles focused on many of these themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review revealed 3 main themes on the impact of AI on health equity in oncology, which relate to AI's ability to help address health disparities, its potential to mitigate or exacerbate bias, and its capability to help elucidate determinants of health. Gaps in the literature included a lack of discussion of ethical challenges with the application of AI technologies in low- and middle-income countries, lack of discussion of problems of bias in AI algorithms, and a lack of justification for the use of AI technologies over traditional statistical methods to address specific research questions in oncology. Our review highlights a need to address these gaps to ensure a more equitable integration of AI in cancer research and clinical practice. The limitations of our study include its exploratory nature, its focus on oncology as opposed to all health care sectors, and its analysis of solely English-language articles.

Cancer Groundshot: Building a Robust Cancer Control Platform in Addition To Launching the Cancer Moonshot

Cancer Groundshot is a philosophy that calls for prioritization of strategies in global cancer control. The underlying principle of Cancer Groundshot is that one must ensure access to interventions that are already proven to work before focusing on the development of new interventions. In this article, we discuss the philosophy of Cancer Groundshot as it pertains to priorities in cancer care and research in low- and middle-income countries and the utility of technology in addressing global cancer disparities; we also address disparities seen in high-income countries. The oncology community needs to realign our priorities and focus on improving access to high-value cancer control strategies, rather than allocating resources primarily to the development of technologies that provide only marginal gains at a high cost. There are several "low-hanging fruit" actions that will improve access to quality cancer care in low- and middle-income countries and in high-income countries. Worldwide, cancer morbidity and mortality can be averted by implementing highly effective, low-cost interventions that are already known to work, rather than investing in the development of resource-intensive interventions to which most patients will not have access (i.e., we can use Cancer Groundshot to first save more lives before we focus on the "moonshots").

Breast Cancer Priorities in Limited-Resource Environments: The Price-Efficacy Dilemma in Cancer Care

Breast cancer has become one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries, where 62% of the world's total new cases are diagnosed. Therefore, the productivity loss because of premature death resulting from female breast cancer is also on the rise. The major challenge in low- and middle-income countries is to reduce the proportion of women presenting with advanced-stage disease, a challenge unlikely to be overcome by adoption of expensive national mammography screening programs. Awareness and education campaigns should focus not only on patients and societies but also on policy makers to address and optimize breast cancer care. Adaptation of existing guidelines and prioritization according to local resources are essential to address the unique needs and overcome the unique barriers of each society to facilitate practical implementation and improve outcomes. Emphasis on the principle of a cancer groundshot in addressing value in cancer care is vital to improving access to therapies that are proven to work rather than chasing after new drugs or innovations of doubtful or marginal clinical benefit. Until we have drug-pricing interventions that take into account the local income of each society, we must acknowledge the fact that the delivery of cancer care will never be the same all around the world.

Impact of social determinants of health on cancer care: a survey of community oncologists

OBJECTIVE

Cancer survival rates have improved over the past few decades, yet socioeconomic disparities persist. Social determinants of health (SDOH) have consistently been shown to correlate with health outcomes. The objective of this study was to characterise oncologists' perceptions of the impact of SDOH on their patients, and their opinions on how these effects could be remediated.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey of physicians.

SETTING

Web-based survey completed prior to live meetings held between February and April 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Oncologists/haematologists from across the USA.

EXPOSURE

Clinical practice in a community-based or hospital-based setting.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

Physician responses regarding how SDOH affected their patients, which factors represented the most significant barriers to optimal health outcomes and how the impact of SDOH could be mitigated through assistance programmes.

RESULTS

Of the 165 physicians who completed the survey, 93% agreed that SDOH had a significant impact on their patients' health outcomes. Financial security/lack of insurance and access to transportation were identified most often as the greatest barriers for their patients (83% and 58%, respectively). Eighty-one per cent of physicians indicated that they and their staff had limited time to spend assisting patients with social needs, and 76% reported that assistance programmes were not readily accessible. Government organisations, hospitals, non-profit organisations and commercial payers were selected by 50% or more of oncologists surveyed as who should be responsible for delivering assistance programmes to patients with social needs; 42% indicated that pharmaceutical manufacturers should also be responsible.

CONCLUSION

Our survey found that most oncologists were aware of the impact of SDOH on their patients but were constrained in their time to assist patients with social needs. The physicians in our study identified a need for more accessible assistance programmes and greater involvement from all stakeholders in addressing SDOH to improve health outcomes.

Choosing Wisely Africa: Ten Low-Value or Harmful Practices That Should Be Avoided in Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) builds on Choosing Wisely (CW) in the United States, Canada, and India and aims to identify low-value, unnecessary, or harmful cancer practices that are frequently used on the African continent. The aim of this work was to use physicians and patient advocates to identify a short list of low-value practices that are frequently used in African low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

The CWA Task Force was convened by the African Organization for Research and Training in Cancer and included representatives from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, the private and public sectors, and patient advocacy groups. Consensus was built through a modified Delphi process, shortening a long list of practices to a short list, and then to a final list. A voting threshold of ≥ 60% was used to include an individual practice on the short list. A consensus was reached after a series of teleconferences and voting processes.

RESULTS

Of the 10 practices on the final list, one is a new suggestion and 9 are revisions or adaptations of practices from previous CW campaign lists. One item relates to palliative care, 8 concern treatment, and one relates to surveillance.

CONCLUSION

The CWA initiative has identified 10 low-value, common interventions in Africa’s cancer practice. The success of this campaign will be measured by how the recommendations are implemented across sub-Saharan Africa and whether this improves the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

An Arm and a Leg: The Rising Cost of Cancer Drugs and Impact on Access

Increasing cancer drug prices present global challenges to treatment access and cancer outcomes. Substantial variability exists in drug pricing across countries. In countries without universal health care, patients are responsible for treatment costs. Low- or middle-income countries are heavily impacted, with limited patient access to novel cancer treatments. Financial toxicity is seen across cancer types, countries, and health care systems. Those at highest risk include younger patients, new immigrants, visible minority groups, and those without private health coverage. Currently, cancer drug pricing does not correlate with value or clinical benefit. Value-based pricing of oncology drugs may incentivize development of higher-value medicines and eliminate excess spending on drugs that yield little benefit. Generics and biosimilars in oncology can also improve affordability and patient access, offering dramatic reductions in drug spending while maintaining patient benefit. Oncologists can promote value-based care by following evidence-based clinical guidelines that avoid low-value treatments. Researchers can also engage in value-based research that critically explores optimal cancer drug dosing, schedules, and treatment duration and defines patient populations most likely to benefit (e.g., through biomarker selection). Cancer Groundshot proposes that we improve outcomes for today's patients with cancer, including broader global access for high-value treatments, promotion of affordable cancer control strategies, and reduction of cancer morbidity and mortality through low-cost prevention and screening initiatives. Moving forward, major oncology societies recommend promoting uniform global access to essential cancer medicines and avoiding financial harm for patients as key principles in addressing the affordability of cancer drugs.

Esophageal Cancer in Tanzania: A Welcome Stimulus in Primary Prevention Research

In this issue, Mmbaga and colleagues present results of a case-control study to investigate environmental and lifestyle risk factors for esophageal cancer in Tanzania, East Africa. The results contribute to the early stage of a growing evidence base aimed to inform primary prevention of a major poor prognosis cancer in East Africa. In this commentary, we first discuss considerations needed to evaluate causality of associations, a feature needed for primary prevention. There is a need for further studies across the African esophageal cancer corridor, for more refined exposure assessment and a careful consideration of potential epidemiologic biases within study designs for real-life situations in the setting. This study also forms a prime example of the broader research needs for cancer in low- and middle-income countries and in Sub-Saharan Africa, a setting with distinct and underresearched cancers and exposure patterns. While this etiologic research is challenging, it is an essential component of the ground-shot approach to global health research needed to inform primary prevention.See related article by Mmbaga et al., p. 305.

Treatment of Hodgkin Lymphoma With ABVD Chemotherapy in Rural Rwanda: A Model for Cancer Care Delivery Implementation

PURPOSE

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is highly curable in high-income countries (HICs), yet many patients around the world do not have access to therapy. In 2012, cancer care was established at a rural district hospital in Rwanda through international collaboration, and a treatment protocol using doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) without radiotherapy was implemented.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients with confirmed HL seen at Butaro Hospital from 2012 to 2018 to evaluate quality indicators and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients were included (median age, 16.8 years; interquartile range, 11.0-30.5 years). Ten (12%) were HIV positive. Most had B symptoms (70%) and advanced stage (56%) on examination and limited imaging. Of 21 specimens evaluated for Epstein-Barr virus, 14 (67%) were positive. Median time from biopsy to treatment was 6.0 weeks. Of 73 patients who started ABVD, 54 (74%) completed 6 cycles; the leading reasons for discontinuation were treatment abandonment and death. Median dose intensity of ABVD was 92%. Of 77 evaluable patients, 33 (43%) are in clinical remission, 27 (36%) are deceased, and 17 (22%) were lost to follow-up; 3-year survival estimate is 63% (95% CI, 50% to 74%). Poorer performance status, advanced stage, B symptoms, anemia, dose intensity < 85%, and treatment discontinuation were associated with worse survival.

CONCLUSION

Treating HL with standard chemotherapy in a low-resource setting is feasible. Most patients who completed treatment experienced a clinically significant remission with this approach. Late presentation, treatment abandonment, and loss to follow-up contribute to the discrepancy in survival compared with HICs. A strikingly younger age distribution in our cohort compared with HICs suggests biologic differences and warrants further investigation.

Concern over cost of and access to cancer treatments: A meta-narrative review of nivolumab and pembrolizumab studies

BACKGROUND

A better understanding of the modulation of the immune system has resulted in the development of new classes of antitumor agents such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab. Despite the proven effectiveness and tolerability of these new drugs for specific types of cancer, the high cost of treatment has affected their accessibility.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to conduct a meta-narrative review of studies that have addressed the concerns that have been voiced regarding the cost of and access to nivolumab and pembrolizumab in oncology health care. This meta-narrative review attempts to answer the following questions: (1) which papers have considered this broad topic area?; (2) what are the main empirical/theoretical findings?; and (3) what insights can be drawn by combining and comparing findings from different papers?

METHODS AND DATA SOURCE

A meta-narrative review has been conducted in 5 research databases (Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Embase and Pubmed) without time limitations up to January of 2017 to address concerns related to the cost of and access to nivolumab and pembrolizumab in oncology health care. From each research base, articles were selected that had a key word related to the theme of pharmacoeconomics and nivolumab or pembrolizumab in any field of scientific work. The research questions were analyzed through the application of a meta-narrative review approach and the use of a convergence-coding matrix to summarize similarities and differences directly related to the research topic between the different papers.

KEY FINDINGS

The first contribution of this meta-narrative review is that it summarizes economic-based works on the use of nivolumab and pembrolizumab, particularly for three therapeutic indications: melanoma, NSCLC and RCC. In general, despite the clinical benefit of nivolumab and pembrolizumab being well accepted and proven by scientific works, the published studies show that there are contradictory results with regard to the cost-effectiveness of these anti-PD-1s. The regulatory, economic and epidemiological variations mean that healthcare costs for cancer patients vary greatly from country to country and according to the type of tumor. The second contribution has to do with the recommendations for the development of high quality process for pharmacoeconomic analyses, especially in the new field of immuno-oncology. Finally, the third contribution is with regard to recommendations for the sustainable use of immunotherapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the revolution in cancer therapy in recent years, the efficient allocation of existing resources is essential for healthcare systems to meet the evolving needs of populations and remain sustainable in the long term. The application of high quality information that stems from scientific evidence and economic modeling can help considerably to make the healthcare system sustainable over time mainly due to a higher number of therapeutic indications or more countries giving regulatory approval for the use of new and expensive cancer drugs.