Journal of Cancer Policy最新文献

{"title":"Discrepancies in the therapeutic indications granted by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration for new cancer drugs: An analysis of potential explanations","authors":"Allan Cramer ,&nbsp;Freja Karuna Hemmingsen Sørup ,&nbsp;Hanne Rolighed Christensen ,&nbsp;Kristian Karstoft ,&nbsp;Tonny Studsgaard Petersen","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100660","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100660","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Studies have found notable differences between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in indications granted to new cancer drugs (e.g., different treatment lines). It is unknown why they occur; therefore, we aimed to analyse if maturity of data or characteristics of the pivotal trials might be explanations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>New cancer drugs approved by both EMA and the FDA in the study period between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, and new cancer drugs that were approved by one agency in the study period and at the other agency outside the study period were included in the analysis. The drugs were identified by searching the FDA and EMA websites.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A total of 36 new cancer drugs were included. Notable differences between EMA and the FDA in the granted indication were found in 15 (42 %) of the drugs. The proportion of cancer drugs with differences in maturity of data at time of assessment between EMA and the FDA was similar for drugs with and without notable differences in the indication. Furthermore, the results did not indicate that low level of evidence (e.g., early phase trial as the pivotal, single-arm design, or use of surrogate endpoints) was more common in the cancer drugs with notable differences in the indication.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The frequent discrepancies in the granted indications between EMA and the FDA for new cancer drugs during a three year period could not be explained by maturity of data at time of assessment or characteristics of the pivotal trials. Therefore, divergence in regulatory policies between the two agencies is considered a more likely explanation.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>Discrepancies between regulatory agencies in the indications granted to new cancer drugs suggest a problematic extrapolation and thus uncertainty regarding the clinical benefit for the patients. The present study seeks to identify potential explanations for the discrepancies to reduce the misalignment in the future.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"47 ","pages":"Article 100660"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145472435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Enhancing multidisciplinary oncology care: Feasibility of structured tools for Belgian multidisciplinary oncological consultation meetings","authors":"Nadine Boesten ,&nbsp;Melissa De Regge ,&nbsp;Hannes Vanpoecke ,&nbsp;Mark Leys ,&nbsp;Kristof Eeckloo ,&nbsp;Paul Gemmel","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100656","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100656","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are considered a cornerstone of oncology care, yet questions remain about their efficiency and patient-centeredness. While tools exist to guide and structure MDTMs, their integration into hospital settings is often inconsistent.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>This feasibility study examined the use of two validated tools—the MDT-QuIC checklist and the MDT-MeDiC complexity tool—across ten Multidisciplinary Oncological Consultations (MOCs) in five Belgian hospitals. Baseline assessments were conducted using the validated MDT-MODe observational instrument. Implementation feasibility was evaluated through repeated observations at the MOCs and interviews with MOC chairs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Baseline data showed limited discussion of psychosocial information and patient preferences, and minimal nurse contribution. The MDT-QuIC was generally accepted as helpful for structure and role clarity, though not consistently applied due to time pressures. The MDT-MeDiC tool was considered too resource-intensive for routine use. Implementation success varied by existing structure, leadership style, and administrative support.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Structured tools can improve the organization of MOCs, but feasibility is dependent on local context. Broader uptake across health systems requires attention to team composition, preparatory workflows, and integration into supportive policy and digital frameworks.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>Embedding structured MDTM tools into oncology policy, through digital integration, case complexity triaging, and incentives for psychosocial and nursing input enables efficient use of expert time while safeguarding patient-centredness.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100656"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145410424","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Global emerging trends and correlation of financial toxicity in cancer care: A bibliographic review (2013–2024)","authors":"Xiaojun Zhang ,&nbsp;Shixiang Chen ,&nbsp;Yuting Feng ,&nbsp;Hailing Ren ,&nbsp;Yanwen Zhang ,&nbsp;Ying Chen ,&nbsp;Bingxin Ma ,&nbsp;Jin Yang ,&nbsp;Yaogang Wang ,&nbsp;Qi Lu ,&nbsp;Yue Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100658","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100658","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Financial toxicity has garnered increasing attention due to the financial “toxic effect” of cancer therapy. This study was conducted to provide an overall research landscape on financial toxicity from chronological, geographical, socioeconomic and epidemiological perspectives.</div></div><div><h3>Designs</h3><div>Publications on financial toxicity were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection. IBM SPSS 26.0 was used to analyze the correlation between the number of publications and socioeconomic and epidemiological factors. VOSviewer, CiteSpace, Scimago Graphica and Pajek were used for country/region collaboration, reference cocitation, keyword cooccurrence, and keyword burst analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Between 2013 and 2024, 501 publications were identified, with the number of publications increasing annually. The annual number of publications was highly positively correlated with the annual cancer incidence rate, prevalence rate, death rate, and disability-adjusted life years (R² = 0.907, 0.820, 0.836, 0.808, respectively). The number of publications in different countries was highly positively correlated with total health spending, government health spending, and out-of-pocket health spending (R² = 0.955, 0.906, 0.746, respectively). The top journal was Supportive Care in Cancer (79 publications). Research hotspots focus on the impact of financial toxicity on quality of life and psychological distress, the measurement and cost burden of financial toxicity, its impact on health outcomes, and the employment and health impact of financial toxicity. Research frontiers focused on the financial stress and young adult.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The increasing number of publications on financial toxicity highlights its growing recognition as an important issue in healthcare. Health professionals and governments should address the high costs of cancer care and explore interventions to reduce its impact on patients and healthcare spending.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100658"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145410422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Areca nut-related oral cancer awareness in adults: A meta-analysis","authors":"Nathaniel Wu ,&nbsp;Thomas J. Roberts ,&nbsp;Nikki Apana ,&nbsp;Sanjena Venkatesh ,&nbsp;Nicole Deville ,&nbsp;Eric Pineda ,&nbsp;Song Zhang ,&nbsp;Mona Pathak ,&nbsp;Kekoa Taparra ,&nbsp;William J. Moss","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100649","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100649","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Areca nut is classified as a Group I carcinogen for oral cavity malignancies by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cultivation of the substance and oral cancer incidences have risen considerably in recent years. The assessment of areca nut-related health risk awareness is an increasingly imperative global health topic.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic review of the Medline, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane databases was undertaken in search of prospective survey studies evaluating areca nut-related health literacy in adults. The primary outcome of interest was the percentage of respondents that were unaware that areca nut products cause oral cancer. A random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled weighted averages. Subgroup analyses stratifying by healthcare education level, geography and publication year were performed using a Chi-square test.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-eight articles with a total of 13,440 respondents were included in the analysis. Collectively, 50 % (95 % CI: 40 %-60 %, I² 99·5 %) of respondents did not identify areca nut products in general as a risk factor for oral cancer. Only five studies specifically inquired about the carcinogenicity of areca nut without additives. Collectively, 80 % (95 % CI: 63 %-96 %, I² 99·3 %) of these respondents did not know that pure areca nut is a carcinogen. There were no significant discrepancies on subgroup analyses by healthcare education level, geography or date of publication.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>An international collection of evidence substantiates drastic areca nut-related health literacy deficiencies internationally.</div></div><div><h3>Policy Summary</h3><div>There is an urgent need for healthcare professionals in areca nut regions to launch formalized educational campaigns. Medically-accurate, culturally-sensitive warning labels are strongly indicated.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100649"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145410409","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Investigational sites requirements according to trial complexity and intervention level under EU Regulation No. 536/2014","authors":"Celeste Cagnazzo ,&nbsp;Evaristo Maiello ,&nbsp;Roberto Labianca ,&nbsp;Valeria Facciolo ,&nbsp;Francesco Perrone ,&nbsp;Gennaro Daniele ,&nbsp;Massimo Di Maio ,&nbsp;Carmine Pinto","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100655","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100655","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The full implementation of Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 has transformed the European clinical research landscape, introducing a harmonised, risk-based framework for trial approval and conduct. In Italy, however, the lack of nationally standardised site suitability criteria beyond phase I trials remains a critical regulatory gap, leading to procedural inconsistencies, delayed activations, and unequal patient access. This paper examines the shortcomings in European and Italian regulations and operations and suggests a tiered framework of minimum requirements for investigational centres. The model adjusts requirements based on trial complexity and associated risk, while ensuring compliance with EU legislation. This approach supports wider participation in pragmatic and late-phase oncology trials and prevents excessive centralisation in a few key hubs. It also emphasizes the need for formal recognition of essential research roles, such as study coordinators, data managers, and research pharmacists, critical to high-quality trials. By adopting this risk-adapted, scalable approach, national authorities could improve site qualification, streamline trial timelines, and enhance Italy’s competitiveness in international oncology research. From a policy standpoint, establishing proportionate national standards is urgent to ensure equitable patient access, strengthen the resilience of the research system, and align with the inclusive and risk-oriented spirit of Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>Italy lacks nationally standardised site suitability criteria beyond phase I clinical trials, causing delays and inequities. This paper proposes a risk-based, proportionate framework of minimum requirements for investigational sites, aligned with Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014. Adoption by AIFA would provide consistent benchmarks for Ethics Committees and sponsors, improve trial activation, and expand equitable access to innovative therapies, while reinforcing Italy’s role in multinational oncology research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100655"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145525393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bridging the equity gap in colorectal cancer screening: A comparative analysis across high-income countries","authors":"Yasmin Jahan ,&nbsp;Atiqur SM-Rahman","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100657","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100657","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Despite the availability of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs in high-income countries (HICs), disparities in access and outcomes persist. Equity-focused policies are essential to ensure that CRC prevention reaches all population groups, particularly those underserved or marginalized.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a comparative policy analysis of CRC screening systems across ten HICs using peer-reviewed literature, national cancer agency reports, and updated screening data. Two summary tables were developed: one detailing screening modalities, coverage rates, and intervals; the other outlining equity-focused policies, gaps, and country-specific recommendations.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The analysis revealed substantial variation in screening modalities and coverage rates, with organized, population-based programs generally achieving higher uptake. Equity-focused policies varied widely, with common gaps including limited outreach in rural areas, under-screening among minority populations, and insufficient equity data collection. Recommendations included expanding culturally tailored education, improving data systems, and embedding equity metrics into national strategies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study contributes to the growing evidence base on health equity in cancer prevention by offering a replicable framework for cross-country policy benchmarking. The findings underscore the importance of integrating equity into CRC screening programs to reduce disparities and improve outcomes across diverse health systems.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100657"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145362779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Australia’s cancer crossroads: Prevention, innovation, and equity as policy imperatives","authors":"Rashidul Alam Mahumud","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100654","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100654","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cancer in Australia represents a paradox: survival outcomes are among the best globally, yet incidence remains high, inequities persist, and costs are rising. In 2025, ∼170,000 new cases are projected nationally, with age-standardised mortality estimated at ∼194 deaths per 100,000, declining over three decades yet still representing a substantial absolute burden. The most common diagnosed cancers, breast, prostate, colorectal, melanoma, and lung, reflect both demographic ageing and improved detection, as well as preventable risk factors and structural gaps in early detection and care. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of death, underscoring the importance of Australia’s National Lung Cancer Screening Program, which commenced on 1 July 2025 to provide targeted low-dose CT screening for high-risk populations. We argue that Australia’s cancer system is at a crossroads: policy must strengthen prevention, embed equity, and sustain innovation simultaneously. Priorities include scaling effective prevention, ensuring equitable participation in population and targeted screening (including the new lung program), improving timely diagnostic pathways, expanding fair access to evidence-based therapies, and investing in survivorship and supportive care. Without explicit equity safeguards and value-based principles, rising incidence and high-cost therapies risk undermining sustainability. The Australian experience offers important lessons for other high-income countries balancing progress with equity in cancer control. We emphasise data-driven improvement, including the public reporting of stage, diagnostic timeliness, treatment, outcomes, and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs stratified by geography, socioeconomic status, and Indigenous status, to reduce unwarranted variation and improve health equity; forthcoming programs (e.g., lung screening; risk-stratified melanoma) should be designed for equity from inception. Although survival has improved, high incidence, driven by population ageing, detection practices, and modifiable risks, persists; inequities and rising costs also persist. Outcomes and equity are tightly linked to early detection, through screening and timely diagnostic pathways for symptomatic patients, because delays in time-to-diagnosis drive avoidable advanced-stage presentation and poorer survival. Screening participation remains suboptimal and inequitable; in breast cancer, incomplete capture of privately obtained mammography outside BreastScreen can obscure true participation among higher-income groups. Addressing prevention, diagnostic timeliness, and unwarranted variation is essential to improve outcomes, equity, and value. Australia’s rising cancer burden reflects demographic ageing and detection practices, compounded by preventable risk factors and inequities in timely diagnosis and care; policy responses should integrate prevention with diagnostic timeliness, equitable access, and value-based investment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100654"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145362778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lessons learned from the support of the International Atomic Energy Agency, International Agency for Research on Cancer and World Health Organization to develop National Cancer Control Plans in low- and middle-income countries.","authors":"Lisa Montel, John Russell, Issimouha Dille Mahamadou, Mary Nyangasi, Sharon Katai Kapambwe, Alfred Karagu Maina, Valerian Mwenda, Andre Carvalho, Geraldine Arias de Göbl, Marianna Nobile, Yannick Romero, Mauricio Maza, Lisa M Stevens","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100652","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100652","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) assist countries in building and strengthening their cancer control capacity. This support includes guidance to Member States to set priorities for national cancer control through the development and implementation of National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs). Our aim was to identify the lessons learned from the support United Nations (UN) agencies provide to develop NCCPs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to support the development of guidance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a questionnaire based on a review of the NCCP literature and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 Member States that received UN agency support between 2020 and 2023 and five IAEA Programme Officers who coordinated UN support. We coded the transcripts inductively and performed a thematic analysis of the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes were identified, each with their own barriers and enablers to develop NCCPs: coordination of NCCP development; method; and governance. We discuss each of these challenges and offer recommendations for Member States and UN agencies to further improve the development process of national cancer control strategies. We selected Kenya as a case study to show an example of good practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This paper complements a sister study conducted by the International Cancer Control Partnership which assessed challenges of developing NCCPs for countries that received a different type of support. Both studies contribute to the growing body of NCCP literature following the 2025 global review of NCCPs.</p><p><strong>Policy summary: </strong>The lessons learned from the IAEA-IARC-WHO support to develop NCCPs will inform policies, programmes and practices in cancer control planning and implementation in LMICs, as well as the development of a common methodology for UN agencies to provide NCCP support.</p>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":" ","pages":"100652"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145356399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Overlooked and underreported: A systematic review of quality of life in recent Phase III metastatic breast cancer trials","authors":"Shreyas Kalantri ,&nbsp;Chiranjeevi Sainatham ,&nbsp;Jayanth Reddy Tallapalli ,&nbsp;Pranali Pachika ,&nbsp;Blake Kelley ,&nbsp;Ranadheer Reddy Dande ,&nbsp;Greeshma Gaddipati ,&nbsp;Zhanxu Liu ,&nbsp;Maiying Kong ,&nbsp;Brian Dong ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Riley","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100653","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100653","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>In metastatic breast cancer (MBC), where treatment is non-curative, patient quality of life (QoL) is a critical consideration alongside traditional survival outcomes. Despite increasing recognition by regulatory bodies, the extent of QoL incorporation into contemporary Phase III trials remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic review of Phase III randomized controlled trials evaluating therapeutic interventions for MBC published between 2019 and 2023, using the PubMed database. Trials were categorized based on receptor subtype (HR+, HER2 +, TNBC), trial design (superiority vs. non-inferiority), study outcome (positive vs. negative), and journal impact factor. The primary outcome was the incorporation of QoL outcomes in published results.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Among 122 eligible trials, only 36.9 % included QoL measures. Subgroup analysis revealed higher QoL incorporation in hormone receptor-positive trials compared to HER2 + and TNBC subtypes. Non-inferiority trials were more likely to include QoL endpoints (50 %) than superiority trials (33.7 %). QoL reporting was higher in negative studies (45 %) compared to positive studies (33 %), with no significant difference based on journal impact factor.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Despite regulatory emphasis on patient-centered outcomes, QoL assessments remain underreported in publications of Phase III MBC trials. Standardized incorporation of QoL metrics is essential to better capture the holistic impact of therapies, improve clinical decision-making, and align oncologic research with patient priorities.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100653"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145356331","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Organizing contemporary oncology care together – A scoping review on multi-hospital oncology networks","authors":"Roos van der Ven ,&nbsp;Daan Westra ,&nbsp;Felice van Erning ,&nbsp;Ignace de Hingh ,&nbsp;Aggie Paulus ,&nbsp;on behalf of the OncoZON consortium","doi":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100651","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jcpo.2025.100651","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>In oncology, hospitals increasingly collaborate in multi-hospital networks to deliver high-quality care. However, it is unclear how these networks should be organized and whether they are effective.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this scoping review included peer-reviewed studies on multi-hospital oncology networks of three or more autonomous hospitals collaborating to deliver services and improve quality of care in high income economies, published in English.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The search yielded 4.013 hits, of which 47 articles were included. Results revealed that the research field is relatively young, remains in part descriptive, and is highly fragmented, leaving questions about the optimal organization of multi-hospital networks. Although multi-hospital networks exhibit similar, centralized structural features, they vary in the way they are governed. Furthermore, although network outcomes are generally positive, studies predominantly focus on process-outcomes rather than patient-outcomes and often suffer from methodological flaws.</div></div><div><h3>Policy summary</h3><div>Insights from this review can be used by clinicians and hospital leaders to enhance their chances of network success, and by researchers as a guide for future studies. Multi-hospital oncology networks are increasingly organized, often as centralized hub-and-spoke models. To ensure these networks truly benefit patients, policies could support balanced collaboration between expert and non-expert centers, strengthen joint decision-making, and focus on patient outcomes rather than only process improvements. Further research on these networks is needed to better inform policy. This requires shared terminology, strengthened study designs, and integration of insights across fields.</div></div><div><h3>Registry Name and Number</h3><div>This review is pre-registered at Open Science Framework (<em>blinded for peer review</em>).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38212,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Policy","volume":"46 ","pages":"Article 100651"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145318801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}