Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter.

While some recent drug treatments have been transformative for patients with cancer, many treatments offer small benefits despite high clinical toxicity, time toxicity and financial toxicity. Moreover, treatments that do provide substantial clinical benefits are not available to many patients globally due to issues with availability and affordability. The Common Sense Oncology's vision is that patients will have access to treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter, regardless of where they live. In recognition of the growing challenges in the field of oncology, Common Sense Oncology seeks to achieve this vision by improving evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication.

Targetable leukaemia dependency on noncanonical PI3Kγ signalling.

Phosphoinositide-3-kinase-γ (PI3Kγ) is implicated as a target to repolarize tumour-associated macrophages and promote antitumour immune responses in solid cancers1-4. However, cancer cell-intrinsic roles of PI3Kγ are unclear. Here, by integrating unbiased genome-wide CRISPR interference screening with functional analyses across acute leukaemias, we define a selective dependency on the PI3Kγ complex in a high-risk subset that includes myeloid, lymphoid and dendritic lineages. This dependency is characterized by innate inflammatory signalling and activation of phosphoinositide 3-kinase regulatory subunit 5 (PIK3R5), which encodes a regulatory subunit of PI3Kγ5 and stabilizes the active enzymatic complex. We identify p21 (RAC1)-activated kinase 1 (PAK1) as a noncanonical substrate of PI3Kγ that mediates this cell-intrinsic dependency and find that dephosphorylation of PAK1 by PI3Kγ inhibition impairs mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. Treatment with the selective PI3Kγ inhibitor eganelisib is effective in leukaemias with activated PIK3R5. In addition, the combination of eganelisib and cytarabine prolongs survival over either agent alone, even in patient-derived leukaemia xenografts with low baseline PIK3R5 expression, as residual leukaemia cells after cytarabine treatment have elevated G protein-coupled purinergic receptor activity and PAK1 phosphorylation. Together, our study reveals a targetable dependency on PI3Kγ-PAK1 signalling that is amenable to near-term evaluation in patients with acute leukaemia.

Unification of Efforts to Improve Global Access to Cancer Therapeutics: Report From the 2022/2023 Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Summit.

PURPOSE: There is an urgent need to improve access to cancer therapy globally. Several independent initiatives have been undertaken to improve access to cancer medicines, and additional new initiatives are in development. Improved sharing of experiences and increased collaboration are needed to achieve substantial improvements in global access to essential oncology medicines. METHODS: The inaugural Access to Essential Cancer Medicines Stakeholder Meeting was organized by ASCO and convened at the June 2022 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, IL, with two subsequent meetings, Union for International Cancer Control World Cancer Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland, in October 2022 and at the ASCO Annual Meeting in June of 2023. Invited stakeholders included representatives from cancer institutes, physicians, researchers, professional societies, the pharmaceutical industry, patient advocacy organizations, funders, cancer organizations and foundations, policy makers, and regulatory bodies. The session was moderated by ASCO. Past efforts and current and upcoming initiatives were initially discussed (2022), updates on progress were provided (2023), and broad agreement on resulting action steps was achieved with participants. RESULTS: Summit participants recognized that while much work was ongoing to enhance access to cancer therapeutics globally, communication and synergy across projects and organizations could be enhanced by providing a platform for collaboration and shared expertise. CONCLUSION: The summit resulted in new cross-stakeholder insights and planned collaboration addressing barriers to accessing cancer medications. Specific actions and timelines for implementation and reporting were established.

Growing the global cancer care system: success stories from around the world and lessons for the future.

Despite significant biomedical advancements in various realms of oncology, the benefits of these developments are not equitably distributed, particularly in under-resourced settings. While much work has described the challenges and systemic barriers in global cancer control, in this essay we focus on success stories. This piece describes clinical care delivered at Rwanda's Butaro Cancer Center of Excellence, the cancer research collaborations under India's National Cancer Grid, and the efforts of Latin America's Institute of Cancer of São Paulo in advancing cancer care and training. These examples highlight the potential of strategic collaborations and resource allocation strategies in improving cancer care globally. We emphasize the critical role of partnerships between physicians and allied health professionals, funders, and policymakers in enhancing access to treatment and infrastructure, advancing contextualized research and national guidelines, and establishing regional and global collaborations. We also draw attention to challenges faced in diverse global settings and outline benchmarks to measure success in the fight against cancer.

The association of healthcare contact days with physical function and survival in CCTG/AGITG CO.17.

INTRODUCTION: While contact days-days with healthcare contact outside home-are increasingly adopted as a measure of time toxicity and treatment burden, they could also serve as a surrogate of treatment-related harm. We sought to assess the association between contact days and patient-reported outcomes, and the prognostic ability of contact days. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of CO.17 that evaluated cetuximab vs supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. CO.17 collected EORTC-QLQ-C30 instrument data. We assessed the association between number of contact days in a window and changes in physical function and global health status, and the association between number of contact days in the first 4 weeks with overall survival (OS). RESULTS: There was a negative association between the number of contact days and change in physical function (per each additional contact day at 4 weeks, 1.50 point decrease; and 8 weeks, 1.06 point decrease, p < .0001 for both), but not with global health status. This negative association was seen in patients receiving cetuximab, but not supportive care. More contact days in the first 4 weeks was associated with worse OS for all comers and patients receiving cetuximab (per each additional contact day; all comers, aHR 1.07, 95% CI, 1.05- 1.10; and cetuximab, aHR 1.08, 95%CI 1.05- 1.11, p < .0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, more contact days early in the course was associated with declines in physical function and worse survival in all-comers and in participants receiving cancer-directed treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.

Trajectories of Health Care Contact Days for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Importance: Patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Contact days (ie, the number of days with health care contact outside the home) measure how much of a person's life is consumed by health care, yet little is known about patterns of contact days for patients with NSCLC. Objective: To describe the trajectories of contact days in patients with stage IV NSCLC and how trajectories vary by receipt of cancer-directed treatment in routine practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, population-based decedent cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Participants included adults aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017) and died (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019); there was a maximum 2-year follow-up. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to August 16, 2023. Exposure: Systemic cancer-directed therapy (yes or no) and type of therapy (chemotherapy vs immunotherapy vs targeted therapy). Main Outcomes and Measures: Contact days (days with health care contact, outpatient or institution-based, outside the home) were identified through administrative data. The weekly percentage of contact days and fitted models with cubic splines were quantified to describe trajectories from diagnosis until death. Results: A total of 5785 decedents with stage IV NSCLC were included (median age, 70 [IQR 62-77] years; 3108 [53.7%] were male, and 1985 [34.3%] received systemic therapy). The median overall survival was 108 (IQR, 49-426) days, median contact days were 36 (IQR, 21-62), and the median percentage that were contact days was 33.3%. A median of 5 (IQR, 2-10) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Patients who did not receive systemic therapy had a median overall survival of 66 (IQR, 34-130) days and median contact days of 28 (IQR, 17-44), of which a median of 5 (IQR, 2-9) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Overall and for subgroups, normalized trajectories followed a U-shaped distribution: contact days were most frequent immediately after diagnosis and before death. Patients who received targeted therapy had the lowest contact day rate during the trough (10.6%; vs immunotherapy, 15.4%; vs chemotherapy, 17.7%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, decedents with stage IV NSCLC had a median survival in the order of 3.5 months and spent 1 in every 3 days alive interacting with the health care system outside the home. These results highlight the need to better support patients and care partners, benchmark appropriateness, and improve care delivery.

Cost and value of cancer medicines in a single-payer public health system in Ontario, Canada: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: None.

Dietary interventions in cancer: a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Prior systematic reviews addressing the impact of diet on cancer outcomes have focused on specific dietary interventions. In this systematic review, we assessed all RCTs investigating dietary interventions for cancer patients, examining the range of interventions, endpoints, patient populations, and results. METHODS: This systematic review identified all RCTs conducted prior to January 2023 testing dietary interventions in patients with cancer. Assessed outcomes included quality of life, functional outcomes, clinical cancer measurements (eg, progression-free survival, response rates), overall survival, and translational endpoints (eg, inflammatory markers). RESULTS: 252 RCTs were identified involving 31,067 patients. The median sample size was 71 (interquartile range 41 to 118), and 80 (32%) studies had a sample size greater than 100. Most trials (n = 184, 73%) were conducted in the adjuvant setting. Weight/body composition and translational endpoints were the most common primary endpoints (n = 64, 25%; n = 52, 21%, respectively). Direct cancer measurements and overall survival were a primary endpoint in 20 (8%) and seven (3%) studies respectively. Eight trials with a primary endpoint of cancer measurement (40%) met their endpoint. Large trials in colon (n = 1429), breast (n = 3088), and prostate cancer (n = 478) each showed no effect of dietary interventions on endpoints measuring cancer. CONCLUSION: Most RCTs of dietary interventions in cancer are small and measure non-clinical endpoints. Although only a small number of large RCTs have been conducted to date, these trials have not shown an improvement in cancer outcomes. Currently, there is limited evidence to support dietary interventions as a therapeutic tool in cancer care.

Health Care Contact Days Among Older Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Health care contact days-days spent receiving health care outside the home-represent an intuitive, practical, and person-centered measure of time consumed by health care. METHODS: We linked 2019 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey and traditional Medicare claims data for community-dwelling older adults with a history of cancer. We identified contact days (ie, spent in a hospital, emergency department, skilled nursing facility, or inpatient hospice or receiving ambulatory care including an office visit, procedure, treatment, imaging, or test) and described patterns of total and ambulatory contact days. Using weighted Poisson regression models, we identified factors associated with contact days. RESULTS: We included 1,168 older adults representing 4.51 million cancer survivors (median age, 76.4 years, 52.8% women). The median (IQR) time from cancer diagnosis was 65 (27-126) months. In 2019, these adults had mean (standard deviation) total contact days of 28.4 (27.6) and ambulatory contact days of 24.2 (23.6). These included days for tests (8.0 [8.8]), imaging (3.6 [4.1]), visits with any clinicians (12.4 [11.5]), and visits with primary care clinicians (4.4 [4.7]), and nononcology specialists (7.1 [9.4]) specifically. Sixty-four percent of days with a nonvisit ambulatory service (eg, a test) were not on the same day as a clinician visit. Factors associated with more total contact days included younger age, lower income, more chronic conditions, poor self-rated health, and tendency to "go to doctor as soon as feel bad." CONCLUSION: Older adult cancer survivors spent nearly 1 month of the year receiving health care outside the home. This care was largely ambulatory, often delivered by nononcologists, and varied by factors beyond clinical characteristics. These results highlight the need to recognize patient burdens and improve survivorship care delivery, including through care coordination.

Consuming Patients' Days: Time Spent on Ambulatory Appointments by People With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In qualitative work, patients report that seemingly short trips to clinic (eg, a supposed 10-minute blood draw) often turn into "all-day affairs." We sought to quantify the time patients with cancer spend attending ambulatory appointments. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients scheduled for oncology-related ambulatory care (eg, labs, imaging, procedures, infusions, and clinician visits) at an academic cancer center over 1 week. The primary exposure was the ambulatory service type(s) (eg, clinician visit only, labs and infusion, etc.). We used Real-Time Location System badge data to calculate clinic times and estimated round-trip travel times and parking times. We calculated and summarized clinic and total (clinic + travel + parking) times for ambulatory service types. RESULTS: We included 435 patients. Across all service day type(s), the median (IQR) clinic time was 119 (78-202) minutes. The estimated median (IQR) round-trip driving distance and travel time was 34 (17-49) miles and 50 (36-68) minutes. The median (IQR) parking time was 14 (12-15) minutes. Overall, the median (IQR) total time was 197 (143-287) minutes. The median total times for specific service type(s) included: 99 minutes for lab-only, 144 minutes for clinician visit only, and 278 minutes for labs, clinician visit, and infusion. CONCLUSION: Patients often spent several hours pursuing ambulatory cancer care on a given day. Accounting for opportunity time costs and the coordination of activities around ambulatory care, these results highlight the substantial time burdens of cancer care, and support the notion that many days with ambulatory health care contact may represent "lost days."

Common Sense (Radiation) Oncology: Redefining targets in radiotherapy.

In 2023, the Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement was launched with the goal of recalibrating cancer care to focus on outcomes that matter to patients. We extend the three CSO pillars - evidence generation, interpretation and communication - to radiation oncology and advocate for better evidence demonstrating the value of our modality.

Socioeconomic Status, Palliative Care, and Death at Home Among Patients With Cancer Before and During COVID-19.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on the delivery of cancer care, but less is known about its association with place of death and delivery of specialized palliative care (SPC) and potential disparities in these outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic with death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life and to examine whether disparities in socioeconomic status exist for these outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using Ontario Cancer Registry data comprising adult patients aged 18 years or older who died with cancer between the pre-COVID-19 (March 16, 2015, to March 15, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 16, 2020, to March 15, 2021) periods. The data analysis was performed between March and November 2023. Exposure: COVID-19-related hospital restrictions starting March 16, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life (last 30 days before death). Socioeconomic status was measured using Ontario Marginalization Index area-based material deprivation quintiles, with quintile 1 (Q1) indicating the least deprivation; Q3, intermediate deprivation; and Q5, the most deprivation. Segmented linear regression was used to estimate monthly trends in outcomes before, at the start of, and in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of 173 915 patients in the study cohort (mean [SD] age, 72.1 [12.5] years; males, 54.1% [95% CI, 53.8%-54.3%]), 83.7% (95% CI, 83.6%-83.9%) died in the pre-COVID-19 period and 16.3% (95% CI, 16.1%-16.4%) died in the COVID-19 period, 54.5% (95% CI, 54.2%-54.7%) died at home during the entire study period, and 57.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-58.0%) received SPC at the end of life. In March 2020, home deaths increased by 8.3% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.1%); however, this increase was less marked in Q5 (6.1%; 95% CI, 4.4%-7.8%) than in Q1 (11.4%; 95% CI, 9.6%-13.2%) and Q3 (10.0%; 95% CI, 9.0%-11.1%). There was a simultaneous decrease of 5.3% (95% CI, -6.3% to -4.4%) in the rate of SPC at the end of life, with no significant difference among quintiles. Patients who received SPC at the end of life (vs no SPC) were more likely to die at home before and during the pandemic. However, there was a larger immediate increase in home deaths among those who received no SPC at the end of life vs those who received SPC (Q1, 17.5% [95% CI, 15.2%-19.8%] vs 7.6% [95% CI, 5.4%-9.7%]; Q3, 12.7% [95% CI, 10.8%-14.5%] vs 9.0% [95% CI, 7.2%-10.7%]). For Q5, the increase in home deaths was significant only for patients who did not receive SPC (13.9% [95% CI, 11.9%-15.8%] vs 1.2% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with amplified socioeconomic disparities in death at home and SPC delivery at the end of life. Future research should focus on the mechanisms of these disparities and on developing interventions to ensure equitable and consistent SPC access.

Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

Real-world outcomes associated with bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in platinum-resistant ovarian Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy for platinum-resistant (PL-R) ovarian cancer (OC) improved progression-free (PFS) but not overall survival (OS) in clinical trials. We explored real-world outcomes in Ontario, Canada, and compared survival in the pre- and post-bevacizumab era. METHODS: Administrative databases were utilized to identify all patients treated with bevacizumab for PL-R OC. Time on treatment (ToT) was used as surrogate for PFS. Median OS was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors associated with ToT/OS were identified using a Cox proportional hazard model. A before and after comparative effectiveness analysis was performed to determine mOS for patients treated pre- and post-bevacizumab approval. RESULTS: From 2017 to 2019, 176 patients received bevacizumab. Median ToT was 3 months and OS was 11 months. Sixty-four percent received liposomal doxorubicin and 34% received paclitaxel. ToT (6 vs 3 months; HR 0.44; p < 0.0001) and OS (14 vs 9 months; HR 0.45; p = 0.0089) were longer with bevacizumab/paclitaxel. OS was not significantly different pre- and post-bevacizumab funding (8 vs 9 months; HR 1.01; 0.937). Median OS increased for those receiving paclitaxel (6 vs 11 months), but those in the post group were younger, more likely to have undergone primary surgery and had less co-morbidities. CONCLUSION: Real-world outcomes with bevacizumab in PL-R OC are inferior to those in the pivotal clinical trial. Survival has not significantly improved since funding became publicly available, indicating a substantial efficacy-effectiveness gap between trial and real-world outcomes. Median OS and ToT were significantly better when bevacizumab was given with paclitaxel.

Meta-analysis of sex and racial subgroup participation rates and differential treatment effects for trials in solid tumor malignancies leading to US Food and Drug Administration registration between 2010 and 2021.

BACKGROUND: The lack of sociodemographic diversity in clinical trials limits the generalizability of results. The authors examined participation rates and effect modification by sex and race in oncology trials. METHODS: The authors extracted outcome data stratified by sex and race for registration trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (2010-2021). Effect modification by race and sex was examined using quantitative and qualitative methods. A random-effects meta-analysis and pairwise comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes was conducted by sex and race. RESULTS: Ninety-five trials with 123 end points and 54,365 patients provided information on sex. Trial patients were more often male (n = 35,482; 65% vs. 56% male patients in US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] data), although the proportion of male patients was similar after adjusting by tumor type (60% in FDA data vs. 58% in SEER data). There was no difference in pooled outcomes among male versus female patients (PFS: hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.07; p = .89; OS: hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.07; p = .90). In total, 111 trials including 74,217 patients provided information on race, and 68% of patients identified as White, compared with 72.3% in US SEER incidence data. Black patients were under-represented compared with US SEER incidence data, although ethnicity was poorly reported throughout the data set. In the authors' network meta-analysis by race, there were no statistically significant differences in PFS or OS outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in PFS or OS outcomes were identified when the analyses were stratified by sex or race. Certain racial minorities remain under-represented, and clearer reporting of race and ethnicity is needed. Representation of female patients in FDA trials is similar to that in SEER data after adjusting for tumor type.

Breast Cancer-Related Financial Toxicity in Sri Lanka: Insights From a Lower Middle-Income Country With Free Universal Public Healthcare.

Financial toxicity (FT) describes either objective or perceived excess financial strain due to a cancer diagnosis on the well-being of patients, families, and society. The consequences of FT have been shown to span countries of varied economic tiers and diverse healthcare models. This study attempts to describe FT and its effects in a lower- to middle-income country delivering predominantly public nonfee-levying healthcare. This was a cross-sectional study involving 210 patients with breast cancer of any stage (I to IV), interviewed between 6 and 18 months from the date of diagnosis. Financial toxicity was highly prevalent with 81% reporting 3 or more on a scale of 1 to 5. Costs incurred for travelling (94%), out-of-hospital investigations (87%), and consultation fees outside the public system (81%) were the most common contributors to FT. Daily compromises for food and education were made by 30% and 20%, respectively, with loss of work seen in over one-third. Greater FT was seen with advanced cancer stage and increasing distance to the nearest radiotherapy unit (P = .008 and .01, respectively). Family and relatives were the most common form of financial support (77.6%). In conclusion, FT is substantial in our group, with many having to make daily compromises for basic needs. Many opt to visit the fee-levying private sector for at least some part of their care, despite the availability of an established public nonfee-levying healthcare.