UK Cancer Healthcare Professionals Collaborating With Colleagues in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Mapping the Extent and Nature of Partnerships; Future Implications.

AIMS: In 2020 the UK Global Cancer Network (UKGCN) was formed to unite those in the UK interested in Global Oncology and to strengthen collaborative partnerships with stakeholders working across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in cancer health systems, governance, and care. The UKGCN undertook a mapping exercise to document collaborations to inform the UK's global oncology strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A semi-structured survey was developed and disseminated using a snowball method over ten weeks from February 2021 across the UK's cancer community, to identify individuals and institutions engaged in clinical practice, research, and/or education with partners in LMICs. The survey was sent to individuals in NHS hospitals, charities, universities, other organisations, UKGCN members, and to contacts identified by a literature and web search. RESULTS: A total of 639 invitations were sent, and 88 responses were received. Results demonstrate a range of collaborative efforts spanning many areas of cancer control: health promotion, prevention, diagnosis and treatment, survivorship, and palliative care. A wide range of countries were represented from Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, the MENA region, China, and South-East Asia. The projects included education and training (146), clinical practice/care (144), and research (226). CONCLUSION: This mapping exercise demonstrated considerable UK collaboration with stakeholders in LMICs across all three domains of education, clinical care, and research. The survey results provide an initial framework from which to promote in-depth strategic intelligence on the broad range of activities undertaken by the UK global oncology community. This information has been used as a catalyst to create new partnerships and connect colleagues working in similar geographical settings, encouraging bidirectional learning. The UKGCN will galvanise endeavours to improve equitable access to cancer services globally.

ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H) version 1.0.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) has been accepted as a robust tool to evaluate the magnitude of clinical benefit reported in trials for oncological therapies. However, the ESMO-MCBS hitherto has only been validated for solid tumours. With the rapid development of novel therapies for haematological malignancies, we aimed to develop an ESMO-MCBS version that is specifically designed and validated for haematological malignancies. METHODS: ESMO and the European Hematology Association (EHA) initiated a collaboration to develop a version for haematological malignancies (ESMO-MCBS:H). The process incorporated five landmarks: field testing of the ESMO-MCBS version 1.1 (v1.1) to identify shortcomings specific to haematological diseases, drafting of the ESMO-MCBS:H forms, peer review and revision of the draft based on re-scoring (resulting in a second draft), assessment of reasonableness of the scores generated, final review and approval by ESMO and EHA including executive boards. RESULTS: Based on the field testing results of 80 haematological trials and extensive review for feasibility and reasonableness, five amendments to ESMO-MCBS were incorporated in the ESMO-MCBS:H addressing the identified shortcomings. These concerned mainly clinical trial endpoints that differ in haematology versus solid oncology and the very indolent nature of nevertheless incurable diseases such as follicular lymphoma, which hampers presentation of mature data. In addition, general changes incorporated in the draft version of the ESMO-MCBS v2 were included, and specific forms for haematological malignancies generated. Here we present the final approved forms of the ESMO-MCBS:H, including instructions. CONCLUSION: The haematology-specific version ESMO-MCBS:H allows now full applicability of the scale for evaluating the magnitude of clinical benefit derived from clinical studies in haematological malignancies.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

Cervical cancer screening utilization, and associated factors, in Nepal: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically appraise the existing published literature on cervical cancer screening utilization, and associated barriers and facilitators, in Nepal. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, and, Google Scholar were systematically searched using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline. All quantitative and qualitative studies reporting cervical cancer screening (using the Pap smear test or visual inspection with acetic acid or human papillomavirus test) utilization, barriers, and facilitators for screening were identified. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate Nepal's pooled cervical cancer screening utilization proportion. RESULTS: The search yielded 97 records, of which 17 studies were included. Fifteen studies were quantitative and two were qualitative. Of the 17 studies, six were hospital-based and six were community-based. The pooled cervical cancer screening utilization proportion (using Pap smear test) among Nepalese women was 17% from the studies in the hospital settings, and 16% in the community. Six studies reported barriers to cervical cancer screening, of which four reported embarrassments related to the gynecological examination and a low level of knowledge on cervical cancer. Three (of four) studies reported health personnel, and two studies reported screening services-related facilitators for cervical cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Our review reported that cervical cancer screening utilization (16%) is more than four times lower than the national target (70%) in Nepal. Multiple barriers such as low levels of knowledge and embarrassment are associated with cervical cancer screening utilization. Health personnel's gender, counseling, and privacy of screening services were commonly reported facilitators. These findings could help to inform future research, and policy efforts to increase cervical cancer screening utilization in Nepal.

Industry Funding of Oncology Randomised Controlled Trials: Implications for Design, Results and Interpretation.

AIMS: Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We explore the extent to which RCT design, results and interpretation differ between industry-funded and non-industry-funded RCTs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, a structured literature search was used to identify all oncology RCTs published globally during 2014-2017. Industry funding was identified based on explicit statements in the publication. Descriptive statistics were used to compare elements of trial methodology and output between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. RESULTS: The study sample included 694 RCTs; 71% were funded by industry. Industry-funded trials were more likely to test systemic therapy (97% versus 62%; P < 0.001), palliative-intent therapy (71% versus 41%; P < 0.001) and study breast cancer (20% versus 12%; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials were larger (median sample size 474 versus 375; P < 0.001) and more likely to meet their primary end point (49% versus 41%; P < 0.001). Among positive trials, there were no differences in the magnitude of benefit between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. Trials funded by industry were published in journals that had a significantly higher median impact factor (21, interquartile range 7, 28) than non-industry-funded trials (impact factor 12, interquartile range 5, 24; P = 0.005); this persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of oncology RCTs are now funded by industry. Industry-funded trials are larger, more likely to be positive, predominantly test systemic therapies in the palliative setting and are published in higher impact journals than trials without industry support.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

Effectiveness of Trastuzumab in Routine Clinical Practice: A Population-based Study of Patients with HER-2-positive Oesophageal, Gastroesophageal and Gastric Cancer.

AIMS: In the pivotal Trastuzumab for Gastric Cancer (ToGA) trial, trastuzumab improved median survival in patients with advanced HER-2-positive gastric and gastroesophageal cancer from 11.1 to 13.8 months; however, its effectiveness in routine clinical practice has not been evaluated. Our objective was to evaluate the uptake and outcomes of trastuzumab in a population-based cohort of patients with oesophageal, gastroesophageal and gastric cancer in Ontario, Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Ontario Cancer Registry and linked treatment records were used to identify all patients with oesophageal, gastroesophageal and gastric cancer treated with trastuzumab during 2012-2017. Outcomes were analysed from the time of first trastuzumab cycle and included a primary outcome (survival) and secondary outcomes (uptake, delivery, 30-day hospital admission and 30-day mortality). Trends over the study period and survival were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 476 patients with oesophageal, gastroesophageal and gastric cancer received trastuzumab during the study period. The mean age was 62 years, 78% (370/476) were male, and 65% (312/476) had gastric cancer. The annual number of patients receiving trastuzumab increased over the study period (53 in 2012 and 101 in 2017). The median number of cycles of trastuzumab delivered was six. Thirty-day hospital admission and mortality rates were 17% and 4%, respectively. The median overall survival was 282 days (9.3 months). CONCLUSIONS: The median survival of patients treated with trastuzumab for advanced oesophageal, gastroesophageal and gastric cancer in routine practice is substantially less than that observed in the pivotal clinical trial. Studies of comparative effectiveness using real-world data offer insight into outcomes achieved in routine practice.

Comparison of outcomes of triamcinolone versus normal saline soaked polyvinyl alcohol pack following bilateral endoscopic sinus surgery.

BACKGROUND: Steroids have been proven to be beneficial in improving post-operative outcomes following sinus surgery. The ideal mode of delivery is to increase local concentration in the sinuses with minimal systemic side effects. In this study, we used triamcinolone soaked polyvinyl alcohol packs immediately following sinus surgery, and assessed the effects on post-operative outcomes. METHODOLOGY: This was a prospective, interventional, and comparative study. Following endoscopic sinus surgery, a polyvinyl alcohol pack was placed in both nasal cavities and 4 ml triamcinolone was infiltrated in one side and 4 ml of normal saline was infiltrated in the other. The pack was removed on the second post-operative day and nasal cavities and paranasal sinuses were evaluated using a flexible endoscope in the third post-operative week using Lund-Kennedy and Peri-operative sinus endoscopic scores. RESULTS: There was a reduction in the average Lund-Kennedy score and Peri-operative sinus endoscopy score in the treatment site compared to the control site which was statistically significant. There was a greater reduction in crusting, oedema and scarring in the treatment site compared to the control site. However, only the reduction in oedema was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Triamcinolone soaked polyvinyl alcohol pack following endoscopic sinus surgery improves post-operative outcomes.

Interpretation of time-to-event outcomes in randomized trials: an online randomized experiment.

Background: Multiple features in the presentation of randomized controlled trial (RCT) results are known to influence comprehension and interpretation. We aimed to compare interpretation of cancer RCTs with time-to-event outcomes when the reported treatment effect measure is the hazard ratio (HR), difference in restricted mean survival times (RMSTD), or both (HR+RMSTD). We also assessed the prevalence of misinterpretation of the HR. Methods: We carried out a randomized experiment. We selected 15 cancer RCTs with statistically significant treatment effects for the primary outcome. We masked each abstract and created three versions reporting either the HR, RMSTD, or HR+RMSTD. We randomized corresponding authors of RCTs and medical residents and fellows to one of 15 abstracts and one of 3 versions. We asked how beneficial the experimental treatment was (0-10 Likert scale). All participants answered a multiple-choice question about interpretation of the HR. Participants were unaware of the study purpose. Results: We randomly allocated 160 participants to evaluate an abstract reporting the HR, 154 to the RMSTD, and 155 to both HR+RMSTD. The mean Likert score was statistically significantly lower in the RMSTD group when compared with the HR group (mean difference -0.8, 95% confidence interval, -1.3 to -0.4, P < 0.01) and when compared with the HR+RMSTD group (difference -0.6, -1.1 to -0.1, P = 0.05). In all, 47.2% (42.7%-51.8%) of participants misinterpreted the HR, with 40% equating it with a reduction in absolute risk. Conclusion: Misinterpretation of the HR is common. Participants judged experimental treatments to be less beneficial when presented with RMSTD when compared with HR. We recommend that authors present RMST-based measures alongside the HR in reports of RCT results.

Risk of serious adverse events and fatal adverse events with sorafenib in patients with solid cancer: a meta-analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials†.

Background: Sorafenib is a multikinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitor commonly used in a variety of cancers. There are concerns about the increased risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) and fatal adverse events (FAEs) with sorafenib. We performed an up-to-date meta-analysis of all phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of sorafenib to quantify the increased risk of SAEs and FAEs. Patients and methods: We carried out a systematic search of electronic databases for studies published from inception to February 2016 without any restrictions. Eligibility criteria included phase 3 RCTs of solid tumors comparing sorafenib, alone or in combination with nontargeted chemotherapy (Sorafenib arm) versus placebo or nontargeted chemotherapy (control arm). Data on SAEs and FAEs for both the arms were extracted from each study and pooled to determine the overall incidence, relative risks (RRs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs). Results: Of 471 studies identified, a total of 12 phase 3 RCTs involving 6797 solid cancer patients comparing sorafenib with control met the eligibility criteria and were included. The overall incidence of SAEs and FAEs with sorafenib were 26.4% (95% CI, 18.0-36.9%) and 1.3% (95% CI: 0.8-2.2%), respectively. Compared with control, sorafenib use significantly increased the risk of both SAEs (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.18-1.89, P = 0.001) and FAEs (RR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.05-3.14, P = 0.033). This association varied significantly with cancer types (P < 0.001) and approval status (P = 0.012) for SAEs but no evidence of heterogeneity was found for FAEs. Conclusions: This meta-analysis of phase 3 RCTs demonstrates an increased risk of both SAEs and FAEs with sorafenib use in adult patients with solid cancers. This quantification of increased risks of SAEs and FAEs will be important in considering the trade-off of sorafenib treatment during shared decision-making.

Safety and Efficacy of Azathioprine as a Second Line Therapy for Primary Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura.

INTRODUCTION: Immune thrombocytopenic purpura remains common blood disease in Nepal. Azathioprine is an oral immunosupressive medicine which has been used widely in various autoimmune disease and solid organ transplant patients. It is inexpensive, easily available and well tolerated medicine. This study was carried out to evaluate efficacy and safety of azathioprine as a second line medicine for primary ITP patients who were refractory to steroid therapy. METHODS: The observational, pre-post study was conducted at Government of Nepal Civil Service Hospital, Kathmandu from January to October 2014. Twenty four primary ITP patients who were steroid refractory were treated with Azathioprine. Patients were termed steroid refractory if platelet counts were less than 30,000/ul on day 21st of steroid therapy. From day 22 onwards oral azathioprine 2mg/kg was started and steroids were tapered 10mg/week and stopped. Platelet counts of more than 30000/ul after one month of stopping steroid, while still on azathioprine, were termed response to azathioprine. Platelet count of more than 100,000/ul was termed complete response. The associations among age, gender, duration and platelets counts were analyzed by chi square test and Fisher's exact test (when individual cell frequency was less than 5). The comparison of platelets counts among the start and day 90 of Azathioprine therapy was performed by the paired t-test. RESULTS: The study showed that there was not significant association among age and gender of the patients and their platelets count on the start of Azathioprine therapy (p value 0.354 and 0.725 respectively) and on day 90 of Azathioprine therapy (p value 0.082 and 0.762 respectively). The duration-wise comparisons of platelets count on both the start and day 90 of Azathioprine therapy were significant (p values 0.029 and 0.008 respectively). The paired comparison among platelets count on the start and day 90 of Azathioprine therapy was highly significant (p value 0.000). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed the therapeutic implication of azathioprine in ITP patients. It also showed that efficacy of azathioprine was comparable with other modes of treatment. In low income countries like Nepal azathioprine can be considered as second line treatment for steroid refractory ITP patients.

Medical audit of community screening for undescended testes in Halton District.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of screening in the community for undescended testis and to determine the percentage of boys referred for surgery before their second birthday. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective study of hospital and community clinic records of boys resident in Halton Health District who underwent surgery for undescended testicle during 1987-89. SETTING: Community Child Health Clinics. Medical Records Department of referral hospitals surrounding Halton district. RESULTS: During 1987-89, 76 boys from Halton district underwent surgery for undescended testis in the neighbouring hospitals: 64 (84%) of these boys had attended at least one screening examination in the community clinics; 12 (16%) did not attend any. Among the 64 who attended 18 (28%) were not considered to have undescended testis. Of the 30 boys diagnosed to have undescended testis after school entry, six were diagnosed incidentally in hospital and 24 were detected by general practitioners and School Medical Service. The age range for surgical referral varied from six months to 12.5 years. The percentage of boys referred for surgery before their second birthday was only 13%. CONCLUSION: Many cryptorchid boys were not picked up in community screening and many of these did not receive early surgery. This audit report suggested the following recommendations: (a) increased awareness of the condition amongst doctors and health visitors performing screening examination; (b) early surgical referral. These recommendations have been implemented in the district. Our further plan is to repeat the audit in three years to assess changes.