Current Scenario of Clinical Cancer Research in Latin America and the Caribbean

Inhibitory Effect on the Tyrosinase Activity and Low Cytotoxicity of Monounsaturated Long-Chain Chelating Fatty Ester

In the present study, 5-Hydroxy-2-(Oleoyloxymethyl) -4H-pyran-4-one (KMO 3), and their chelated with Cu(II) and Fe(III) ions were synthesized to explore their inhibitory activity against tyrosinase and cytotoxicity. To this end, the structures of the obtained compounds were confirmed by ATR/FT-IR, 13C and 1H-NMR, and UV-vis techniques. The results show that chelating fatty ester presents the bands at 1567m, 1511w cm-1 attributed to the coordinated carbonyl (Cu(II)←[O=C]2), and the bands at 1540m, 1519m cm-1 which were attributed to the coordinated carbonyl (Fe(III)←[O=C]3). The inhibitory effect of chelating Oleic acid 2 (inhibition 68.3% ± 4.5) showed a factor of 19 times higher than free fatty acid (3.6% ± 3.2). IC50 Anti-tyrosinase activity of the Kojic acid 1 and KMO 3 compounds were 62.8 ± 6.6 µM and 77.6 ± 4.3 µM. The IC50 and IC90 values for tyrosinase inhibitory activity for chelating fatty ester and their complexes are values > 400 µM. Finally, the assay with the series showed no hemolytic activity (EC50> 250 μg mL-1), and not cytotoxic to B16F10, ACP-02, and human dermal fibroblast cells at 100 µM and showed no hemolytic potential at the concentration of IC50 250 µM.

Improving diverse patient enrollment in clinical trials, focusing on Hispanic and Asian populations: recommendations from an interdisciplinary expert panel

Lack of patient diversity in clinical trial enrollment remains an obstacle to achieving equitable healthcare outcomes. Under-representation has resulted in non-generalizable clinical knowledge, inequitable access to treatment, and health disparities among minority and disadvantaged groups. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to consider the challenges of diverse patient accrual and provide actionable solutions to improve representation in clinical trials. The panel was comprised of participants with knowledge in gynecologic oncology and included physician, advanced practice nurse, patient navigator, patient advocate, and pharmaceutical industry representation. Focus was given to recruitment barriers for Asian and Hispanic patients. The panel identified several areas of concern, including explicit and implicit biases for the physician and care teams, language and cultural nuances, inadequate inclusion of family in the decision-making process, and under-representation of women in clinical trials. The panel also identified the important role patient navigators, nurses, and advanced practice providers have in patient recruitment from under-represented populations. The role of study sponsors, and global and regional initiatives, to address historic disparities in clinical trial recruitment were also considered critical. The actionable solutions proposed should enable study sponsors and clinical trial sites to achieve greater diversity in enrollment globally.

Globalization of clinical research in oncology: Status, challenges, and future directions

PURPOSE

Cancer is the second-leading cause of death worldwide, and its burden is increasing around the world, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Yet, cancer research has historically been conducted primarily in high-income countries (HICs).

METHODS

In this review, we describe the results of our literature search into the current state of international cancer trials, including the benefits, challenges, limitations, and ethical concerns regarding the international conduct of HIC-led trials. We also propose some possible means of addressing these challenges and overcoming these barriers to extend the benefits of cancer research to people around the world.

RESULTS

Over the last several decades, there has been a shift toward inclusion of investigators and participants from LMICs in pivotal cancer clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

While inclusion of LMIC countries has benefits, including increased diversity of participant populations, investment in research infrastructure in LMICs, and potential expansion of cancer treatment options around the world, the continued leadership of most trials by HICs presents ethical concerns, including potential exploitation of researchers and participants from LMICs, lack of focus on cancer types prevalent in all participating regions, and disparities in access to approved therapies once the trial is complete.

Intersectionality Between Country, Gender and Funding in Authorship for Phase III Trials Presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2022

PURPOSE

Multiple disparities have been recognized in the area of location, gender, and funding for leadership in oncology clinical trials. Understanding their intersectionality is crucial to be able to formulate policies and actions, to ensure research is representative of the global oncology community. Here, data from phase III trials presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting of 2022 (ASCO22) were analyzed.

METHODS

The location of institution, gender of lead and senior authors, and funding source for solid tumor phase III trial abstracts presented at the ASCO22 were analyzed. World Bank analytical grouping version 2021-2022 was used to describe regions and countries as high (HIC), upper-middle (UMIC), lower-middle (LoMIC), and low-income (LIC).

RESULTS

Across 239 phase III abstracts, lead and senior authors respectively represented HIC institutions in 83% and 85%, UMIC in 13% and 12%, and LoMIC in 4% and 3%. No authors worked in LICs or sub-Saharan Africa. Women accounted for 29% of lead and 23% of senior authors. This distribution persisted across regions, with women as lead authors ranging from 19% (UMIC) to 31% (HIC), and as senior authors from 7% (UMIC) to 25% (HIC). Industry funded 62% of trials, academia 17%, and others 15%; 6% lacked funding. Industry funding was highest in HIC trials (66% for lead and senior authors), followed by UMICs (55% lead, 53% senior) and LoMICs (11% lead, 0% senior). Industry-sponsored trials were proportionally equally represented among female and male senior authors (63% each).

CONCLUSION

There is marked intersectionality in leadership of oncology clinical trials presented at the world's largest oncology conference.

Leveraging Patient Engagement Through Collaboration for Improved Global Health Outcomes in Sarcoma

In the dynamic landscape of oncology, collaborative efforts between the medical community and patient advocacy groups are pivotal in shaping standards of care and advancing research. Nowhere is this collaboration more evident than in sarcoma, a group of rare cancers posing unique challenges to diagnosis, management, and treatment, which profoundly affect patient outcomes. Here, we explore the vital role of patient-centric collaboration in improving global health outcomes in sarcoma, emphasizing the transformative power of collective action and shared expertise. Challenges in sarcoma care, including diagnostic complexities, disparities in access to care, and genomic tumor heterogeneity, underscore the urgent need for collaborative solutions. Initiatives like the Sarcoma European and Latin American Network (SELNET) and The Life Raft Group (LRG) exemplify successful models of collaborative research and patient advocacy, driving advancements in diagnosis, treatment, and disease understanding. Stakeholders across disciplines are uniting to improve sarcoma care and outcomes through the development of clinical practice guidelines, continuous medical education, patient registries, virtual tumor boards, and consortium-driven research endeavors, all of which foster the growth of global collaborative groups. The success of these collaborative efforts serves as a model for other rare diseases, highlighting the potential of collective action to drive progress and innovation in health care.

Equitable inclusion of diverse populations in oncology clinical trials: deterrents and drivers

The burden of cancer exerts a disproportionate impact across different regions and population subsets. Disease-specific attributes, coupled with genetic and socioeconomic factors, significantly influence cancer treatment outcomes. Precision oncology promises the development of safe and effective options for specific ethnic phenotypes and clinicodemographic profiles. Currently, clinical trials are concentrated in resource-rich geographies with younger, healthier, white, educated, and empowered populations. Vulnerable and marginalized people are often deprived of opportunities to participate in clinical trials. Despite consistent endeavors by regulators, industry, and other stakeholders, factors including diversity in trial regulations and patient and provider-related cultural, logistic, and operational barriers limit the inclusiveness of clinical trials. Understanding and addressing these constraints by collaborative actions involving regulatory initiatives, industry, patient advocacy groups, community engagement in a culturally sensitive manner, and designing and promoting decentralized clinical trials are vital to establishing a clinical research ecosystem that promotes equity in the representation of population subgroups.

Improving access to cancer clinical research in Brazil: recent advances and new opportunities. Expert opinions from the 4th CURA meeting, São Paulo, 2023

Clinical research is the cornerstone of improvements in cancer care. However, it has been conducted predominantly in high-income countries with few clinical trials available in Brazil and other low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC). Of note, less than one-third of registered clinical trials addressing some of the most commonly diagnosed cancers (breast, lung and cervical) recruited patients from LMIC in the last years. The Institute Project CURA promoted the fourth CURA meeting, discussing barriers to cancer clinical research and proposing potential solutions. A meeting was held in São Paulo, Brazil, in June 2023 with representatives from different sectors: Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), National Commission of Ethics in Research (CONEP), non-governmental organisations, such as the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC), Contract Research Organisations, pharmaceutical companies and investigators. A total of 16 experts pointed out achievements as shortening the time of regulatory processes involving Anvisa and CONEP, development of staff training programs, maintenance of the National Program of Oncological Attention (PRONON), and the foundation of qualified centres in North and Northeast Brazilian regions. Participants also highlighted the need to be more competitive in the field, which requires optimising ongoing policies and implementing new strategies as decentralisation of clinical research centres, public awareness campaigns, community-centered approaches, collaborations and partnerships, expansion of physicians-directed policies, exploring the role of the steering committee. Active and consistent reporting of the initiatives might help to propagate ongoing advances, increasing Brazilian participation in clinical cancer research. Engagement of all players is crucial to maintain continuous progress with further improvements in critical points including regulatory timelines and increments in qualified human resources which aligned with new educational initiatives focused on physicians and the general population will expand access to cancer clinical trials in Brazil.

Lung Cancer Clinical Trials in Latin America in the Era of Cooperative Groups: A 20-Year Analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to characterize lung cancer treatment clinical trials in Latin America before (January 2001-December 2011) and after (January 2012-December 2021) the organization of major Latin American oncology cooperative groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Interventional clinical trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov using the search terms "lung cancer," country filters for 20 Latin American countries, and study start dates January 1, 2001-December 31, 2011, and January 1, 2012-December 31, 2021. Clinical trials were categorized as either originating in Latin America (LA) or outside Latin America (non-LA) with participation of Latin American countries. Descriptive statistics, two-sided Z-scores, and chi-square analyses with 95% CIs were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 273 clinical trials involving Latin American countries between 2001 and 2021 were identified. Comparing 2001-2011 with 2012-2021, there was an increase in total clinical trials (100 v 173; P < .001). Only 9% (26 of 273) of all trials were LA trials. There was a marked decrease in the proportion of LA trials (14% v 7%, P = .058) and estimated enrollment to LA trials (3,245 v 1,190 patients; P < .001). Recruiting of patients with EGFR (29% v 7%; P < .01) and KRAS (18% v 2%; P < .01) driver mutations also decreased. Trial participation was highest in Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, and Peru and increased over time: Brazil (61 v 108; 77% increase), Mexico (40 v 88; 120% increase), Argentina (50 v 78; 56% increase), Chile (25 v 57; 128% increase), and Peru (14 v 37; 164% increase).

CONCLUSION

There was a significant increase in clinical trial participation by Latin American countries, from 2001-2011 to 2012-2021. However, there were few clinical trials which originated in Latin America or focused on patients with driver mutations.

Global Equity in Clinical Trials: An ASCO Policy Statement

ASCO is a global professional society representing more than 50,000 physicians, other health care professionals, and advocates in over 100 countries specializing in cancer treatment, diagnosis, prevention, and advocacy. ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented or cured, and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. This ASCO policy statement emphasizes the urgent need for global equity in clinical trials, aiming to enhance access and representation in cancer research as it not only improves cancer outcomes but also upholds principles of fairness and justice in health care.

Challenges and opportunities for sarcoma care and research in Latin America: a position paper from the LACOG sarcoma group

As a developing region, Latin America faces unique cancer control and prevention challenges, which are intensified when considering rare cancers, including sarcomas. Sarcomas are a group of malignancies that arise in the connective tissues of the body-such as muscle, fat, nerves, blood vessels, and bones-accounting for a diverse range of tumours that, although rare, require specialized attention. Sarcoma care and research in Latin America require a comprehensive approach that includes deeper epidemiologic knowledge, diagnostic capacity building, access to innovative treatments, increased patient advocacy, and strengthening of clinical research capacity. This article will review current challenges and opportunities for treating patients with sarcoma in Latin America and outline a pathway toward improvement for regional collaborative groups.

Implementing precision oncology in Latin America to improve patient outcomes: the status quo and a call to action for key stakeholders and decision-makers

Background

The advent of precision oncology (PO) has revolutionised diagnostic and follow up strategies and improved clinical outcomes for cancer patients. However, socio-economic inequalities in the level of implementation of PO in different countries is a prevailing issue. To improve this situation, the Latin America Patients Academy has gathered the recommendations of healthcare professionals and social civil members experienced in cancer management from Mexico, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru and Argentina regarding the areas that need to be prioritised to improve the access to PO in Latin American (LATAM) countries.

Methods

This manuscript is the culmination of a series of educational campaigns and panel discussion aimed at improving the implementations of PO in LATAM that took place from June 2021 to January 2022.

The status of PO in Latin America

the level of PO implementation is generally low with some exceptions. The number of clinical trials and articles published with keywords related to PO from LATAM countries is drastically lower than in Europe and the United States. Despite sharing many complex challenges, progress is taking place in some countries in the region.

Focus areas defined by the expert panel

The expert panel determined the areas of PO that should be improved by LATAM countries to improve its implementation through cancer care plans, educational programs and collaborative strategies. These initiatives should increase awareness about PO in the region and eventually improve cancer control in the region.

Current scenario and future perspectives of clinical research in Brazil: a national survey

Background

Epidemiological and clinical cancer research is essential to understanding tumour behaviour and developing new therapies in oncology. However, several countries including Brazil as well as many other regions of the world have limited participation in cancer research. Despite 625,000 new cancer cases recorded in Brazil in 2022, only 2.2% of ongoing cancer clinical trials are available in the country. We conducted an online survey to describe physician engagement with research and to identify the main barriers precluding participation in and conduct of clinical cancer research in the country.

Methods

An anonymous online survey of 23 objective questions was sent by e-mail to Brazilian members of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. The first 13 questions addressed demographic information, medical training and previous research participation. In the second part, the main barriers to engagement and participation in clinical trials in Brazil were addressed. Continuous variables were measured by median and range. Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC).

Results

109 physicians answered the survey. Most participants were oncologists (N = 98, 89.9%), living in capital cities (N = 84, 77.1%), were from the Southeast region of Brazil (N = 63, 57.8%) and worked at institutions providing exclusively private healthcare (N = 59, 54.1%). Of the 109 respondents, 83 (76.1%) reported working in research centres (as investigators or sub-investigators). Surprisingly, 31.2% of physicians recognised they invite less than 1% of their patients to participate in clinical trials, even though 98 (89.9%) considered the participation of patients in clinical trials extremely relevant. The main barriers compromising the conduct of research in the country were the low number of available trials (48.2%) and the lack of qualified human resources to staff research sites (22.9%). Other reported barriers were the lengthy regulatory approval process (42.2%), followed by a lack of awareness of clinical research by patients resulting in low recruitment rates (24.1%). Of the 26 (23.8%) respondents not working with research, 25 (96.1%) reported interest in being involved, 31.8% have tried participating in research and 62.4% reported limited knowledge of trial procedures.

Conclusion

These results suggest a clear need to further engage physicians in clinical research activities in Brazil. Patient education strategies should improve the low recruitment rates and secondarily increase the number of proposed trials in the country.

Impact of healthcare inequities on survival in Mexican patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma

Introduction

The survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has improved dramatically due to novel systemic treatments. However, mRCC mortality continues to rise in Latin America.

Methods

A retrospective, multicenter study of patients diagnosed with mRCC between 2010-2018 in Mexico City was conducted. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of healthcare insurance on access to treatment and survival in patients with mRCC.

Results

Among 924 patients, 55.4%, 42.6%, and 1.9% had no insurance (NI), social security, (SS) and private insurance (PI), respectively. De novo metastatic disease was more common in NI patients (70.9%) compared to SS (47.2%) and PI (55.6%) patients (p<0.001). According to IMDC Prognostic Index, 20.2% were classified as favorable, 49% as intermediate, and 30.8% as poor-risk disease. Access to systemic treatment differed by healthcare insurance: 36.1%, 99.5%, and 100% for the NI, SS, and PI patients, respectively (p<0.001). NI patients received fewer lines of treatment, with 24.8% receiving only one line of treatment (p<0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months for NI, 98.9 months for SS, and 147.6 months for NI patients (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, NI status, brain metastases, sarcomatoid features, bone metastases, no treatment were significantly associated with worse OS.

Conclusion

OS in mRCC was affected by insurance availability in this resource-limited cohort of Mexican patients. These results underscore the need for effective strategies to achieve equitable healthcare access in an era of effective, yet costly systemic treatments.

Association of literature metrics in gynecologic oncology with country classification by income level

Objective

Bibliometric literature in gynecologic oncology is limited. We aimed to study the association between the level of income of the country of authorship and citation metrics.

Methods

A retrospective study including all articles and reviews published during 1977–2022 in theInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer(IJGC) andGynecologic Oncologyjournals. Country of origin was defined as the corresponding author’s address. We classified articles into groups by level of income of the country of origin, as defined by the World Bank. The primary outcome measure was the median number of citations per year.

Results

A total of 9835 articles were included in the analysis (IJGCn=3786 (38.5%),Gynecologic Oncologyn=6049 (61.5%)). There were 8587 (87.3%) publications from high income countries, 1134 (11.5%) from upper-middle income countries, and 114 (1.2%) from lower-middle income countries. There were no publications from countries of low income. Most publications originated in the United States with 4089 (41.6%), followed by China (n=730, 7.4%), Italy (n=533, 5.4%), Canada (n=467, 4.7%), and Japan (n=461, 4.7%). Over the most recent 5 years there was a decrease in the representation of upper-middle income countries and lower-middle income countries; 16.3% (91/557) in 2018 versus 9.1% (38/417) in 2022 (p=0.005). In a multivariable regression analysis that included year of publication, open access publication model, study being supported by funding, publishing journal, review article, and level of income, all factors were associated with high citation per year score except the income classification of the article’s country of origin (adjusted OR 1.59–1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.30).

Conclusion

High income countries have a disproportionate representation in gynecologic oncology publications. After adjusting for confounders, the country’s level of income was not independently associated with a high citation per year score. This implies that the number of citations per year is not compromised by the country’s level of income.