Journal of Cancer Policy最新文献

Background

Eastern Europe and Central Asia (EECA) countries have higher cervical and breast cancer mortality rates and later stage at diagnosis compared with the rest of WHO European Region. The aim was to explore current early detection practices including “dispensarization” for breast and cervix cancer in the region.

Methods

A questionnaire survey on early detection practices for breast and cervix cancer was sent to collaborators in 11 countries, differentiating services in the primary health setting, and population-based programs. Responses were received from Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation (Arkhangelsk, Samara and Tomsk regions), Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

Results

All countries but Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and the Russian Federation had opportunistic screening by clinical breast exam within “dispensarization” program. Mammography screening programs, commonly starting from age 40, were introduced or piloted in eight of nine countries, organized at national oncology or screening centres in Armenia, Belarus and Georgia, and within primary care in others. Six countries had “dispensarization” program for cervix cancer, mostly starting from the age 18, with smears stained either by Romanowsky-Giemsa alone (Belarus, Tajikistan and Ukraine), or alternating with Papanicolaou (Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation). In parallel, screening programs using Papanicolaou or HPV test were introduced in seven countries and organized within primary care.

Conclusion

Our study documents that parallel screening systems for both breast and cervix cancers, as well as departures from evidence-based practices are widespread across the EECA. Within the framework of the WHO Initiatives, existing opportunistic screening should be replaced by population-based programs that include quality assurance and control.

Use of Real-World Data (RWD) has gained the interest of different stakeholders in cancer care. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the use of RWD/RWE during the pre-authorization phase of products authorized by the EMA in 2018 and 2019 (n = 111), with the focus on oncology medicines (n = 24). Information was extracted from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries and recorded for 5 stages (11 categories) of the drug development lifecycle (discovery, early development, clinical development, registration/market launch, lifecycle management). Specific chapters of full EPAR were reviewed to substantiate the findings on RWD/RWE use in clinical trial design, efficacy, safety, and effectiveness evaluation. RWD/RWE is present in all stages of the oncology drug development; 100.0 % in discovery, 37.5 % early development, 58.3 % in clinical development, 62.5 % in registration decision and 100.0 % in post-authorization lifecycle management. Examples showed that trial design supported by RWD/RWE included use of open label/single arm studies; efficacy was about using either comparison of results to historical controls, supplying survey data obtained outside the clinical trial or utilizing expert panel advice; safety about including literature findings in evidence; and effectiveness on comparison of trial results of the given product to historical data or existing standard of care. The findings of this study provide specific insights into how RWD/RWE is used in development of cancer therapeutics, how it contributes to regulatory decision making and can guide further policy developments in this field.

Background

Financial difficulties in relation with diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer affects their quality-of-life (QoL). We aim to characterize how financial toxicity was captured in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and to estimate how often the study-drug or other expenses were covered by sponsors.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis of articles published in six high impact journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, The Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and JAMA Oncology). Selected articles needed to report on a RCT published between January 2018 and December 2019, study an anti-cancer drug, and have reported QoL results. We abstracted the QoL questionnaires used; whether the survey was directly assessing financial difficulties; whether a difference in financial toxicity was reported between arms; and whether the sponsor supplied the study-drug or covered other expenses.

Results

For all 73 studies that met inclusion criteria, 34 studies (47%) utilized QoL questionnaires without direct assessment of financial difficulties. The study drug was provided by the sponsor in at least 51 trials (70%), provided according to local rules in 3 trials (4%), and undetermined in the remaining 19 trials (26%). We found 2 trials (3%) with payments or compensation to enrolled patients.

Conclusion

This cross-sectional study found 47% of articles reporting on QoL in oncology RCTs did not use QoL questionnaires directly assessing financial toxicity. Additionnaly, the study drug was supplied by the sponsor in most trials. Financial toxicity occurs in real-life settings when patients have to pay for the drugs and other medical expenses. QoL assessments from oncology RCTs lack generalizability to real-world settings, due to limited querying of financial toxicity.

Policy summary

Real-world evidence could be demanded by regulators as post-requirement studies to ensure QoL results observed in trials will replicate in patients treated outside investigational trials.

Background

Information and stories about cancer treatment are increasingly available to patients and the general public through lay media, websites, blogs and social media. While these resources may be helpful to supplement information provided during physician-patient discussions, there is growing concern about the extent to which media reports accurately reflect advances in cancer care. This review aimed to understand the landscape of published research which has described media coverage of cancer treatments.

Methods

This literature review included peer-reviewed primary research articles that reported how cancer treatments are portrayed in the lay media. A structured literature search of Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was performed. Potentially eligible articles were reviewed by three authors for inclusion. Three reviewers, each independently reviewed eligible studies; discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

Results

Fourteen studies were included. The content of the eligible studies reflected two thematic categories: articles that reviewed specific drugs/cancer treatment (n = 7) and articles that described media coverage of cancer treatment in general terms (n = 7). Key findings include the media’s frequent and unfounded use of superlatives and hype for new cancer treatments. Parallel to this, media reports over-emphasize potential treatment benefits and do not present a balanced view of risks of side effects, cost, and death. At a broad level, there is emerging evidence that media reporting of cancer treatments may directly impact patient care and policy-making.

Conclusions

This review identifies problems in current media reports of new cancer advances – especially with undue use of superlatives and hype. Given the frequency with which patients access this information and the potential for it to influence policy, there is a need for additional research in this space in addition to educational interventions with health journalists. The oncology community – scientists and clinicians – must ensure that we are not contributing to these problems.

Upon the COVID-19 pandemic onset in Ireland, cancer service disruptions occurred due to prioritisation of COVID-19 related care, redeployment of staff, initial pausing of screening, diagnostic, medical and surgical oncology procedures, staff shortages due to COVID-19 infection and impacts on the physical and mental health of cancer healthcare workers. This was coupled with reluctance among people with symptoms suspicious for cancer to attend for clinical evaluation, due to concerns of contracting the virus. This was further compounded by a cyber-attack on national health service IT systems on May 14th 2021. The Irish Cancer Society, a national cancer charity with a role in advocacy, research and patient supports, convened a multi-disciplinary stakeholder group (COVID-19 and Cancer Working Group) to reflect on and understand the impact of the pandemic on cancer patients and services in Ireland, and discuss potential mitigation strategies. Perspectives on experiences were gathered across domains including timeliness of data acquisition and its conversion into intelligence, and the resourcing of cancer care to address cancer service impacts. The group highlighted aspects for future research to understand the long-term pandemic impact on cancer outcomes, while also highlighting potential strategies to support cancer services, build resilience and address delayed diagnosis. Additional measures include the need for cancer workforce recruitment and retention, increased mental health supports for both patients and oncology professionals, improvements to public health messaging, a near real-time multimodal national cancer database, and robust digital and physical infrastructure to mitigate impacts of the current pandemic and future challenges to cancer care systems.

Background

In Japan, provision of equal access to cancer care is intended to be achieved via secondary medical areas (SMAs). However, the percentage of patients receiving care within the residential area varies by SMA in Osaka Prefecture. We aimed to assess the effect size of factors associated with patient mobility, and whether patient mobility was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

Records of patients diagnosed with stomach, colorectal, lung, breast, cervical, oesophageal, liver or pancreatic cancer during 2019–2020 were extracted from multi-centre hospital-based cancer registry data. Odds ratios of whether a patient received care within the SMA of residence were set as the outcome. A multivariable model was built using generalised estimating equations with multiple imputation for missing data. Change in patient mobility after the pandemic was examined by deriving age- and SMA-specific adjusted ORs (aORs).

Results

A total of 78,839 records were included. Older age, more advanced stage and palliative care had up to 1.69 times higher aORs of receiving care within their own area. Patients with oesophageal, liver or pancreatic cancer tended to travel outside their area with aORs ranging from 0.71 to 0.90. Patients aged ≤ 79 and living in the East and South SMAs tended to remain in their area with aORs ranging from 1.05 to 1.11 after the pandemic.

Conclusion

Patient mobility decreased for higher age and stage. It also varied by SMA, cancer site and treatment type.

Policy Summary

Our results need to be linked with resource inputs to help policymakers decide whether to intervene to address current efficiency or equity issues.

Background

In the pivotal ICON7 study, addition of bevacizumab to front-line treatment of ovarian cancer (OC) significantly improved overall survival (OS) (p = 0.03) in a high-risk subgroup of patients with suboptimally debulked/unresectable stage III or IV disease, leading to approval in Ontario, Canada in March 2016. Here we describe utilization of bevacizumab for front-line, high-risk OC and determine outcomes in routine clinical practice.

Methods

Provincial administrative databases were utilized to identify all patients treated with front-line bevacizumab following its approval. Median OS (mOS) was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors associated with OS were identified using a Cox proportional hazard model. A comparative effectiveness analysis was performed to determine mOS pre- (2006–2016) and post- (2016–2019) approval.

Results

From March 2016 to October 2019, 282 patients received bevacizumab. Mean age was 64 years old, and 58% had stage IV disease. Median survival was 29 months and was longer in stage III (37 months) compared to stage IV disease (28 months). In a comparative effectiveness analysis of patients with stage IV serous OC, post-approval uptake of bevacizumab was low (23%). Median OS was similar pre (26 months) and post (27 months) approval (HR 0.92, 0.75–1.12, p = 0.383).

Conclusions

Survival in real-world patients treated with front-line bevacizumab is shorter than in pivotal clinical trials. Survival in stage IV serous patients has not significantly improved post public reimbursement of bevacizumab. This analysis was limited by poor uptake, however mOS was similar in patients who did and did not receive bevacizumab.

Whilst Scottish healthcare policy has not yet set a clear direction for service transformation needed in lieu of budgetary constraints, it is important that policy makers are cognisant of where policy can support healthcare professionals to overcome barriers to service development, and better meet demand. An analysis of Scottish cancer policy is presented, informed by learning gained from supporting development of cancer services as a practitioner, insights from undertaking health service research, and known barriers to service developments. This paper is structured as five recommendations to policy-makers: the need to develop a shared understanding of quality care between policy makers and healthcare professionals to guide service development in the same direction; revisiting of partnership working given developing health and social care landscape; empowerment of national and regional networks and working groups to develop and implement Gold Standard care in speciality services; sustainability in the development of cancer services; and development of guidance relating to how services should be using and developing patient capacities.

Background

Annually, around half a million new cases of cervical cancer and 250,000 deaths occur worldwide. It is the second-leading cancerous cause of death after breast cancer among women. Repeated infection and prolonged persistence with human papilloma virus is common among HIV-positive women due to their immune status. A one-visit screen and treat strategy for cervical cancer prevention was instituted in 2010 nationwide in 14 selected hospitals. So, assessing service uptake and associated factors among ART clients is mandatory.

Method

From December 2015 to March 2016 G.C., a cross-sectional study was conducted. An interviewer-administered, semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect data. The data were entered, cleaned, and analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20 software. A statistically significant association of variables was determined based on an adjusted odds ratio with a 95 % confidence interval and a p value of 0.05.

Result

Cervical cancer screening service uptake among the 647 interviewed participants was 59 %. Study participants accounting for 19 % (N = 123) were 18–29 age group, 56.6 % (N = 366) were 30–39 %, and 24.4 % (N = 158) were in 40–64 age group. Of 647 participants, 43.7 % (N = 283) were illiterate and educated less than secondary level of education, 36.0 % (N = 233) had a secondary level of education, and 20.2 % (N = 131) had an education above secondary. Being encouraged by others to get screened for cervical cancer (AOR = 1.88, 95 % CI: 1.25, 2.82), knowing another woman who got screened, and getting information from the media (AOR = 0.4, 95 % CI: 0.27, 0.60) were associated with the uptake of cervical cancer screening.

Conclusion

The uptake of cervical cancer screening among ART clients attending the clinic was not satisfactory. Encouragement to get screened, knowing other screened women, and getting information from the media were important predictors of CCS service uptake. Exploring more information on the attitudes of clients to improve service uptake is mandatory.

Musculoskeletal sarcomas are rare cancers that as the whole family of sarcomas pose several challenges at different levels, ranging from medical knowledge to clinical research and policymaking. Addressing these challenges, necessarily calls for the inclusion of patient perspective inside the decision-making processes of every area that contributes to treatment improvement, from the provision of high-quality services by healthcare organisations to research issues. Without patient-provided inputs to inform decisions, the current paradigm of patient-centred care makes no sense and sounds at the least irrational if not unethical. Putting PROMs on “centre stage” in cancer research and care, could allow to build a truly Evidence Based Advocacy (EBA) and therefore to empower Evidence Based Medicine (EBM).