Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of data from the real world to address clinical and policy-relevant questions that cannot be answered using data from clinical trials is garnering increased interest. Indeed, data from cancer registries and linked treatment records can provide unique insights into patients, treatments and outcomes in routine oncology practice. In this Review, we explore the quality of real-world data (RWD), provide a framework for the use of RWD and draw attention to the methodological pitfalls inherent to using RWD in studies of comparative effectiveness. Randomized controlled trials and RWD remain complementary forms of medical evidence; studies using RWD should not be used as substitutes for clinical trials. The comparison of outcomes between nonrandomized groups of patients who have received different treatments in routine practice remains problematic. Accordingly, comparative effectiveness studies need to be designed and interpreted very carefully. With due diligence, RWD can be used to identify and close gaps in health care, offering the potential for short-term improvement in health-care systems by enabling them to achieve the achievable.In the past few years, the use of data from the real world has garnered increasing interest; however, studies using real-world data (RWD) should not be used as substitutes for clinical trials. The authors of this Review explore the quality of RWD, provide a framework for the use of RWD and draw attention to the methodological pitfalls inherent to using RWD.

AbstractObjectiveTo quantify the association of cancer treatment delay and mortality for each four week increase in delay to inform cancer treatment pathways.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPublished studies in Medline from 1 January 2000 to 10 April 2020.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesCurative, neoadjuvant, and adjuvant indications for surgery, systemic treatment, or radiotherapy for cancers of the bladder, breast, colon, rectum, lung, cervix, and head and neck were included. The main outcome measure was the hazard ratio for overall survival for each four week delay for each indication. Delay was measured from diagnosis to first treatment, or from the completion of one treatment to the start of the next. The primary analysis only included high validity studies controlling for major prognostic factors. Hazard ratios were assumed to be log linear in relation to overall survival and were converted to an effect for each four week delay. Pooled effects were estimated using DerSimonian and Laird random effect models.ResultsThe review included 34 studies for 17 indications (n=1 272 681 patients). No high validity data were found for five of the radiotherapy indications or for cervical cancer surgery. The association between delay and increased mortality was significant (P<0.05) for 13 of 17 indications. Surgery findings were consistent, with a mortality risk for each four week delay of 1.06-1.08 (eg, colectomy 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.12; breast surgery 1.08, 1.03 to 1.13). Estimates for systemic treatment varied (hazard ratio range 1.01-1.28). Radiotherapy estimates were for radical radiotherapy for head and neck cancer (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.14), adjuvant radiotherapy after breast conserving surgery (0.98, 0.88 to 1.09), and cervix cancer adjuvant radiotherapy (1.23, 1.00 to 1.50). A sensitivity analysis of studies that had been excluded because of lack of information on comorbidities or functional status did not change the findings.ConclusionsCancer treatment delay is a problem in health systems worldwide. The impact of delay on mortality can now be quantified for prioritisation and modelling. Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers. Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes.

Cancer research currently is heavily skewed toward high-income countries (HICs), with little research conducted in, and relevant to, the problems of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This regional discordance in cancer knowledge generation and application needs to be rebalanced. Several gaps in the research enterprise of LMICs need to be addressed to promote regionally relevant research, and radical rethinking is needed to address the burning issues in cancer care in these regions. We identified five top priorities in cancer research in LMICs based on current and projected needs: reducing the burden of patients with advanced disease; improving access and affordability, and outcomes of cancer treatment; value-based care and health economics; quality improvement and implementation research; and leveraging technology to improve cancer control. LMICs have an excellent opportunity to address important questions in cancer research that could impact cancer control globally. Success will require collaboration and commitment from governments, policy makers, funding agencies, health care organizations and leaders, researchers and the public. Radical rethinking is needed to address the burning issues in cancer care in low- and middle-income countries. In this Perspective, the authors outline the main challenges and top priorities for cancer research now and into the future.

The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice. This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries. 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9–54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13–90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68–94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13–68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2–41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0–9% in high-income countries. These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines. None.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) have developed frameworks that quantify survival gains in light of toxicity and quality of life to assess the benefits of cancer therapies. We applied these frameworks to a cohort of contemporary randomised controlled trials to explore agreement between the two approaches and to assess the relation between treatment benefit and cost. We identified all randomised controlled trials of systemic therapies in non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer published between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2015, and assessed their abstracts and methods. Trials were eligible for inclusion in our cohort if significant differences favouring the experimental group in a prespecified primary or secondary outcome were reported (secondary outcomes were assessed only if primary outcomes were not significant). We assessed trial endpoints with the ASCO and ESMO frameworks at two timepoints 3 months apart to confirm intra-rater reliability. Cohen's κ statistic was calculated to establish agreement between the two frameworks on the basis of the median ASCO score, which was used as an arbitrary threshold of benefit, and the framework-recommended ESMO threshold. Differences in monthly drug cost between the experimental and control groups of each randomised controlled trial (ie, incremental drug cost) were derived from 2016 average wholesale prices. 109 randomised controlled trials were eligible for inclusion, 42 (39%) in non-small-cell lung cancer, 36 (33%) in breast cancer, 25 (23%) in colorectal cancer, and six (6%) in pancreatic cancer. ASCO scores ranged from 2 to 77; median score was 25 (IQR 16–35). 41 (38%) trials met the benefit thresholds in the ESMO framework. Agreement between the two frameworks was fair (κ=0·326). Among the 100 randomised controlled trials for which drug costing data were available, ASCO benefit score and monthly incremental drug costs were negatively correlated (ρ=–0·207; p=0·039). Treatments that met ESMO benefit thresholds had a lower median incremental drug cost than did those that did not meet benefit thresholds (US$2981 [IQR 320–9059] vs $8621 [1174–13 930]; p=0·018). There is only fair correlation between these two major value care frameworks, and negative correlations between framework outputs and drug costs. Delivery of optimal cancer care in a sustainable health system will necessitate future oncologists, investigators, and policy makers to reconcile the disconnect between drug cost and clinical benefit. None.

Common Sense Oncology (CSO) prioritises treatments providing meaningful benefits for people with cancer. Here, we describe CSO principles aimed at improving the design, analysis, and reporting of randomised, controlled, phase 3 clinical trials evaluating cancer treatments. These principles include: (1) control treatment should be the best current standard of care; (2) the preferred primary endpoint is overall survival or a validated surrogate; (3) an absolute measure of benefit should be provided, such as the difference between groups in median overall survival times or the proportion of surviving patients at a prespecified time; (4) health-related quality of life should be at least a secondary endpoint; (5) toxicity should be described objectively without subjective language diminishing its importance; (6) trials should be designed to show or rule out clinically meaningful differences in outcomes, rather than a statistically significant difference alone; (7) censoring should be detailed, and sensitivity analyses done to determine its possible effects; (8) experimental treatments known to improve overall survival at later disease stages should be offered and funded for patients progressing in the control group; and (9) reports of trials should include a lay-language summary. We include checklists to guide compliance with these principles. By encouraging adherence, CSO aims to ensure that clinical trials yield results that are scientifically robust and meaningful to patients.

The financial impact of cancer medicines on health systems is not well known. We describe temporal trends in expenditure on cancer medicines within the single-payer health system of Ontario, Canada, and the extent of clinical benefit these treatments offer. In this cross-sectional study, we identified cancer medicines and expenditures from formularies and costing databases (the New Drug Funding Program, Ontario Drug Benefit Program, and The High-Cost Therapy Funding Program) during 10 consecutive years (April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2022) in Ontario, Canada. For intravenous medicines, we applied the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) to identify expenditures associated with substantial clinical benefit. We also identified treatments associated with improved overall survival or quality of life. 69 intravenous and 98 oral or injectable medicines were funded during 2012–22. Annual expenditure on cancer medicines increased by approximately 15% per year during 2012–22; the increase was more rapid in the most recent 4 years. Total expenditure on cancer medicines in the 2021–22 financial year was CA$1·7 billion. Immune checkpoint inhibitors were the single biggest expense by class ($284 million), representing 17% of the entire cancer medicine annual budget. Drugs with the highest individual costs were lenalidomide ($178 million) and pembrolizumab ($163 million), each accounting for around 10% of the entire budget. 29 (76%) of 38 indications eligible for ESMO-MCBS scoring met the threshold for substantial clinical benefit. Eight (21%) indications had no randomised trial evidence of improved overall survival, and only four (11%) were associated with improved QOL. $346 million (67% of the expenditure on intravenous cancer medicines) was spent on drugs that improved median overall survival by more than 6 months, $82 million (16%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of 3–6 months, and $32 million (6%) was spent on medicines with overall survival gains of less than 3 months. $53 million (10%) was spent on medicines with no established improvement in overall survival. Costs of cancer medicines to the Canadian health system are increasing rapidly. Most funded indications met thresholds for substantial clinical benefit and two-thirds of the expenditure were for medicines that improve survival by more than 6 months. Whether this cost trajectory can be maintained in a sustainable, equitable, high-quality health system is unclear. Efforts are needed to ensure the price of medicines with substantial benefit is affordable and funding of treatments with very modest benefit might need to be re-assessed, particularly when alternative supportive and palliative therapies are available. None.

Well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can prevent bias in the comparison of treatments and provide a sound basis for changes in clinical practice. However, the design and reporting of many RCTs can render their results of little relevance to clinical practice. In this Personal View, we discuss the limitations of RCT data and suggest some ways to improve the clinical relevance of RCTs in the everyday management of patients with cancer. RCTs should ask questions of clinical rather than commercial interest, avoid non-validated surrogate endpoints in registration trials, and have entry criteria that allow inclusion of all patients who are fit to receive treatment. Furthermore, RCTs should be reported with complete accounting of frequency and management of toxicities, and with strict guidelines to ensure freedom from bias. Premature reporting of results should be avoided. The bar for clinical benefit should be raised for drug registration, which should require publication and review of mature data from RCTs, post-marketing health outcome studies, and value-based pricing.

Introduction Cancer is a major public health problem in Rwanda and other low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While there have been some improvements in access to cancer treatment, the cost of care has increased, leading to financial toxicity and treatment barriers for many patients. This study explores the financial toxicity of cancer care in Rwanda. Methods This prospective cross-sectional study was conducted at 3 referral hospitals in Rwanda, which deliver most of the country’s cancer care. Data were collected over 6 months from June 1 to December 1, 2022 by trained research assistants (RAs) using a modified validated data collection tool. RAs interviewed consecutive eligible patients with breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, Hodgkin’s and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma who were on active systemic therapy. The study aimed to identify sources of financial burden. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results 239 patients were included; 75% (n = 180/239) were female and mean age was 51 years. Breast, cervix, and colorectal cancers were the most common diagnoses (42%, 100/239; 24%, 58/239; and 24%, 57/239, respectively) and 54% (n = 129/239) were diagnosed with advanced stage (stages III-IV). Financial burden was high; 44% (n = 106/239) of respondents sold property, 29% (n = 70/239) asked for charity from public, family, or friends, and 16% (n = 37/239) took loans with interest to fund cancer treatment. Conclusion Despite health insurance which covers many elements of cancer care, a substantial proportion of patients on anti-cancer treatment in Rwanda experience major financial toxicity. Novel health financing solutions are needed to ensure accessible and affordable cancer care. Cancer is a major public health challenge in low- and middle-income countries. While there have been some improvements in access to cancer treatment, the cost of care has increased, leading to financial toxicity and treatment barriers for many patients. This study explored the financial toxicity of cancer care in Rwanda.

The Linear Accelerator Shortage Index (LSI) is a practical tool for prioritising the deployment of linear accelerators (LINACs) in various regions within a country. The LSI reflects the ratio of LINAC demand to current availability. The aim of this study was to use the LSI to predict global LINAC needs and classify countries according to the degree of radiotherapy shortage (LINAC shortage grade). In this cross-sectional, population-based study of globally representative, country-level data, we sourced regional LINAC distribution, numbers of radiotherapy centres, and cancer incidence data for 181 countries from the Directory of Radiotherapy Centers and Global Cancer Observatory 2022 databases. Current gross domestic product and gross national income per capita in US dollars were obtained from the World Bank. We calculated an LSI for each country to assess the relative demand and supply of radiotherapy by dividing LINAC use by 450 and multiplying by 100. An LSI of 100 or less indicates no shortage (450 or fewer patients per LINAC), whereas an LSI greater than 100 signals a shortage, with higher values indicating more severe deficits. We categorised countries by LINAC shortage grade: grade 0 (LSI ≤100, no shortage), grade 1 (LSI 101–130, low need), grade 2 (LSI 131–300, high need), grade 3 (LSI >300, excessive need), or grade 4 (no existing LINACs). We estimated LINAC requirements until 2045 using the LSI and Global Cancer Observatory data. We determined future investment costs according to the LSI for each country. As of the data cutoff on Sept 15, 2024, the global median LSI was 130 (IQR 96–319), suggesting a shortage of 30% in radiotherapy capacity. Significant disparities in median LSI were observed across income levels: low-income countries had a median LSI of 1523 (528–2247), lower-middle-income countries 399 (183–685), upper-middle-income countries 133 (104–198), and high-income countries 96 (83–127; p<0·0001). The distribution of countries across LINAC shortage grades was 40 (22%) of 181 as grade 0, 32 (18%) as grade 1, 35 (19%) as grade 2, 38 (21%) as grade 3, and 36 (20%) as grade 4 (no LINACs). Most LINAC shortage grade 4 countries were low income (12 [33%]) or lower-middle income (16 [44%]). The median number of new LINACs needed per country by 2045 was estimated at 6 (1–13) for grade 0, 21 (4–102) for grade 1, 22 (8–80) for grade 2, 52 (26–113) for grade 3, and three (2–14) for grade 4. To meet these demands, also including the replacement of obsolete devices, an estimated 30 470 LINACs will be needed by 2045. The median total investment required for new and replacement machines and radiotherapy centres to meet the 2045 demand is projected at US$162 million (49–369) for grade 0, $216 million (54–772) for grade 1, $143 million (64–580) for grade 2, $238 million (126–561) for grade 3, and $16 million (9–59) for grade 4. A significant change in LINAC shortage grade composition between 2020 and 2045 is predicted, with distribution of 40 (22%) versus seven (4%) for grade 0, 32 (18%) versus 23 (13%) for grade 1, 35 (19%) versus 63 (35%) for grade 2, 38 (21%) versus 52 (29%) for grade 3, and 38 (20%) versus 38 (20%) for grade 4 (p<0·0001). The LSI and LINAC shortage grade systems are effective for evaluating, monitoring, and forecasting global LINAC needs. The LSI and LINAC shortage grade highlight the substantial disparities in radiotherapy availability and underscore the urgent need for investment in radiotherapy capacity building, particularly in many low-income and middle-income countries. None.