From the creation of the European research area in 2000 to a Mission on cancer in Europe in 2021-lessons learned and implications.

In the year 2000, cancer research in Europe had the potential to make a difference as it had several unique strengths, such as a strong foundation in biomedical science, good patient registries, infrastructures that spanned from biological repositories to bioinformatic hubs as well as thriving Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) and basic/preclinical cancer research institutions of high international standing. Research, however, was fragmented and lacked coordination. As a result, Europe could not harness its potential for translating basic research discoveries into a clinical setting for the patients' benefit. What was needed was a paradigm shift in cancer research that addressed the translational research continuum. Along these lines, in 2000, European Union (EU) Commissioner Philippe Busquin established the European Research Area (ERA) and in 2002 the European Cancer Research Area (ECRA), and their political approval was a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. In this report, we briefly describe the actions embraced by the cancer community and cancer organizations in response to Busquin's proposals that led to the creation of the EU Mission on Cancer (MoC) in Horizon 2020 in 2021.

Strategies to decrease inequalities in cancer therapeutics, care and prevention: Proceedings on a conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the European Academy of Cancer Sciences, Vatican City, February 23-24, 2023.

Analyses of inequalities related to prevention and cancer therapeutics/care show disparities between countries with different economic standing, and within countries with high Gross Domestic Product. The development of basic technological and biological research provides clinical and prevention opportunities that make their implementation into healthcare systems more complex, mainly due to the growth of Personalized/Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM). Initiatives like the USA-Cancer Moonshot and the EU-Mission on Cancer and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan are initiated to boost cancer prevention and therapeutics/care innovation and to mitigate present inequalities. The conference organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the European Academy of Cancer Sciences discussed the inequality problem, dependent on the economic status of a country, the increasing demands for infrastructure supportive of innovative research and its implementation in healthcare and prevention programs. Establishing translational research defined as a coherent cancer research continuum is still a challenge. Research has to cover the entire continuum from basic to outcomes research for clinical and prevention modalities. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) are of critical importance for integrating research innovations to preclinical and clinical research, as for ensuring state-of-the-art patient care within healthcare systems. International collaborative networks between CCCs are necessary to reach the critical mass of infrastructures and patients for PCM research, and for introducing prevention modalities and new treatments effectively. Outcomes and health economics research are required to assess the cost-effectiveness of new interventions, currently a missing element in the research portfolio. Data sharing and critical mass are essential for innovative research to develop PCM. Despite advances in cancer research, cancer incidence and prevalence is growing. Making cancer research infrastructures accessible for all patients, considering the increasing inequalities, requires science policy actions incentivizing research aimed at prevention and cancer therapeutics/care with an increased focus on patients' needs and cost-effective healthcare.

Engaging European society at the forefront of cancer research and care: How discussions at the 5th Gago Conference on European Science policy led to the Heidelberg Manifesto

European cancer research stakeholders met in October 2022 in Heidelberg, Germany, at the 5th Gago conference on European Cancer Policy, to discuss the current cancer research and cancer care policy landscape in Europe. Meeting participants highlighted gaps in the existing European programmes focusing on cancer research, including Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP), the Mission on Cancer (MoC), Understanding Cancer (UNCAN.eu), and the joint action CRANE, and put forward the next priorities, in the form of the Heidelberg Manifesto for cancer research. This meeting report presents all discussions that shed light on how infrastructures can be effectively shaped for translational, prevention, clinical and outcomes cancer research, with a focus on implementation and sustainability and while engaging patients and the public. In addition, we summarize recommendations on how to introduce frameworks for the digitalization of European cancer research. Finally, we discuss what structures, commitment, and resources are needed to establish a collaborative cancer research environment in Europe to achieve the scale required for innovation.

2-cm versus 4-cm surgical excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm: a randomised, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimum surgical resection margins for patients with clinical stage IIA-C cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm are controversial. The aim of the study was to test whether survival was different for a wide local excision margin of 2 cm compared with a 4-cm excision margin. METHODS: We undertook a randomised controlled trial in nine European centres. Patients with cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm, at clinical stage IIA-C, were allocated to have either a 2-cm or a 4-cm surgical resection margin. Patients were randomised in a 1:1 allocation to one of the two groups and stratified by geographic region. Randomisation was done by sealed envelope or by computer generated lists with permuted blocks. Our primary endpoint was overall survival. The trial was not masked at any stage. Analyses were by intention to treat. Adverse events were not systematically recorded. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01183936. FINDINGS: 936 patients were enrolled from Jan 22, 1992, to May 19, 2004; 465 were randomly allocated to treatment with a 2-cm resection margin, and 471 to receive treatment with a 4-cm resection margin. One patient in each group was lost to follow-up but included in the analysis. After a median follow-up of 6·7 years (IQR 4·3-9·5) 181 patients in the 2-cm margin group and 177 in the 4-cm group had died (hazard ratio 1·05, 95% CI 0·85-1·29; p=0.64). 5-year overall survival was 65% (95% CI 60-70) [corrected] in the 2-cm group and 65% (40-70) in the 4-cm group (p=0·69). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that a 2-cm resection margin is sufficient and safe for patients with cutaneous melanoma thicker than 2 mm. FUNDING: Swedish Cancer Society and Stockholm Cancer Society.

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021.

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.

Towards a cancer mission in Horizon Europe: recommendations.

A comprehensive translational cancer research approach focused on personalized and precision medicine, and covering the entire cancer research-care-prevention continuum has the potential to achieve in 2030 a 10-year cancer-specific survival for 75% of patients diagnosed in European Union (EU) member states with a well-developed healthcare system. Concerted actions across this continuum that spans from basic and preclinical research through clinical and prevention research to outcomes research, along with the establishment of interconnected high-quality infrastructures for translational research, clinical and prevention trials and outcomes research, will ensure that science-driven and social innovations benefit patients and individuals at risk across the EU. European infrastructures involving comprehensive cancer centres (CCCs) and CCC-like entities will provide researchers with access to the required critical mass of patients, biological materials and technological resources and can bridge research with healthcare systems. Here, we prioritize research areas to ensure a balanced research portfolio and provide recommendations for achieving key targets. Meeting these targets will require harmonization of EU and national priorities and policies, improved research coordination at the national, regional and EU level and increasingly efficient and flexible funding mechanisms. Long-term support by the EU and commitment of Member States to specialized schemes are also needed for the establishment and sustainability of trans-border infrastructures and networks. In addition to effectively engaging policymakers, all relevant stakeholders within the entire continuum should consensually inform policy through evidence-based advice.

Translational cancer research - a coherent cancer research continuum.

The main components of the cancer research continuum are basic/preclinical research, early and late clinical research and, after the adoption of an innovation by the healthcare or health organisations, outcomes research. Translational cancer research, defined as a coherent cancer research continuum, is mandatory to address the increasing burden of cancer effectively. The growing cancer problem can only be significantly modified by concerted action involving prevention to decrease incidence, early detection and treatment to increase the cure rate, and personalised/precision cancer medicine to adapt early detection and treatment to the biology of a tumour with the aim of increasing the cure rate, prolonging survival and improving health-related quality of life. By definition, translational cancer research for therapeutics has a focus on patients' needs and for prevention for individuals at-risk. Consequently, to increase the effectiveness of translational research, the different components of the cancer research continuum need to be better connected to the fundamental aim of a mission-oriented approach to cancer (Celis and Pavalkis, ).

Cancer Core Europe: A translational research infrastructure for a European mission on cancer.

Cancer Core Europe is a European legal alliance consisting of seven leading cancer centres - most of them Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) - with a single portal system to engage in various research projects with partners. Cancer Core Europe was established to create a sustainable, high-level, shared research infrastructure platform hosting research collaborations and task forces (data sharing, clinical trials, genomics, immunotherapy, imaging, education and training, and legal and ethical issues), with a controlled expansion agenda. Translational cancer research covers the cancer research continuum from basic to preclinical to early clinical, late clinical, and outcomes research. Basic-preclinical research serves as the 'engine' for early clinical research by bridging the early translational research gap and is the primary and current focus of the consortium as exemplified by the launching of the Basket of Baskets trial, Europe's largest precision cancer medicine trial. Inspired by the creation of Cancer Core Europe, the prevention community established Cancer Prevention Europe, a consortium of ten cancer prevention centres aimed at supporting the complete prevention research continuum. Presently, Cancer Core Europe and Cancer Prevention Europe are integrating therapeutics and prevention strategies to address in partnership the widening cancer problem. By providing innovative approaches for cancer research, links to healthcare systems, development of quality-assured multidisciplinary cancer care, and assessment of long-term outcomes, the virtual infrastructure will serve as a hub to connect and interact with other centres across Europe and beyond. Together, Cancer Core Europe and Cancer Prevention Europe are prepared to function as a central engine to tackle, in collaboration with various partners, a potential 'mission on cancer' addressing the cancer burden.

Managing cancer in the EU: the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI).

Organization of European Cancer Institutes (OECI) has the mission to facilitate the development of European comprehensive cancer centres by integrating care and prevention with research and education. Core issues are to deliver a complete multidisciplinary care of high quality and stimulate translational cancer research. The goal is to innovate the cancer care. The increasing problem of critical mass will be solved by networking comprehensive cancer centres containing quality assured harmonized infrastructures. This will give Europe a new potential to extend the cancer research to areas not possible to cover by single centres.

Improvement of European translational cancer research. Collaboration between comprehensive cancer centers.

Even though the increasing incidence of cancer is mainly a consequence of a population with a longer life span, part of this augmentation is related to the increasing prevalence of patients living with a chronic cancer disease. To fight the problem, improved preventive strategies are mandatory in combination with an innovative health care provision that is driven by research. To overcome the weakness of translational research the OECI is proposing a practical approach as part of a strategy foreseen by the EUROCAN+PLUS feasibility study, which was launched by the EC in order to identify mechanisms for the coordination of cancer research in Europe.

Towards quality, comprehensiveness and excellence. The accreditation project of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI).

There are important gaps in the health status of citizens across Europe, as measured by life expectancy, mortality or morbidity data (Report for the European Commission on the health status of the European Union, 2003). Among the main determinants of the major causes of mortality and morbidity, stated in this report, stands recurrently access to quality healthcare. There is a fundamental need to define quality indicators and set minimal levels of performance quality criteria for healthcare. There is a need to integrate research into healthcare and to provide patients with equity of access to such high quality care. Oncology is a specialty particularly suited to experimenting a first application of accreditation at European level. The Organisation of European Cancer Institutes is a growing network of cancer Centres in Europe. The focus of the OECI is to work with professionals and organisations with regard to prevention, care, research, development, patient's role and education. In order to fulfil its mission, the OECI initiated in 2002 an accreditation project with three objectives: * to develop a comprehensive accreditation system for oncology care, taking into account prevention, care, research, education and networking. * to set an updated database of cancer centres in Europe, with exhaustive information on their resources and activities (in care, research, education and management) * to develop a global labelling tool dedicated to comprehensive cancer centres in Europe, designating the various types of cancer structures, and the comprehensive cancer centres of reference and Excellence. An accreditation tool has been established, defining standards and criteria for prevention, care, research, education and follow-up activities. A quantitative database of cancer centres is integrated in the tool, with a questionnaire, that provides an overall view of the oncological landscape in OECI cancer centres in Europe. Data on infrastructures, resources and activities have been collected. This OECI accreditation tool will be launched in autumn 2008 for all cancer centres in Europe. It serves as a basis for the development of the labelling tool for cancer structures in Europe, with a focus on Comprehensiveness and Excellence labels. Quality assessment and improvement is a critical need in Europe and is addressed by the OECI for cancer care in Europe. Accreditation is a well accepted process and is feasible. Standards and criteria as well as an accreditation tool have been developed. The OECI questionnaire gives an accurate vision of cancer institutions throughout Europe, helping assessing the needs and providing standards. The accreditation project is a long-term complete and voluntary process with external and internal added value, an active process of sharing information and experience that should help the whole cancer community reach comprehensiveness and excellence.

Quality control and improvement of cancer care: what is needed? 4th European Roundtable Meeting (ERTM) May 5th, 2017, Berlin, Germany.

PURPOSE: National Cancer Control Plans (NCCPs) often describe structural requirements for high quality cancer care. During the fourth European Roundtable Meeting (ERTM) participants shared learnings from their own national setting to formulate best practice in optimizing communication strategies between parties involved in clinical cancer registries, cancer centers and guideline groups. RESULTS: A decentralized model of data collection close to the patient and caregiver enhances timely completion and the quality of the data captured. Nevertheless, central coordination is necessary to define datasets, indicators, standard settings, education, training and quality control to maintain standards across the network. In particular, interaction of parties in cancer care network has to be established and maintained on a regular basis. CONCLUSION: After establishing the structural requirements of cancer care networks, communication between the different components and parties is required to analyze outcome data, provide regular reporting to all and develop strategies for continuous improvement of quality across the network.

Cancer Core Europe: A European cancer research alliance realizing a research infrastructure with critical mass and programmatic approach to cure cancer in the 21st century.

Translational cancer research covers the whole cancer research continuum from basic to preclinical to early clinical, late clinical and outcomes research. Basic-preclinical research is the "engine" for early clinical research bridging the early translational research gap. Cancer Core Europe has been created to construct a sustainable, high level, shared research infrastructure platform with research collaborations and taskforces (data sharing, clinical trials, genomics, immunotherapy, imaging, legal & ethical problems, and education & training) having representatives from all seven member centres, in a controlled expansion model. In parallel, a consortium of ten cancer prevention centres was established, Cancer Prevention Europe, to support the complete cancer prevention research continuum. Cancer Core Europe is launching at present the Basket of Baskets trial, which is the largest personalized cancer medicine trial effort in Europe. At present, Cancer Core Europe and Cancer Prevention Europe are in the process of integrating therapeutics and prevention strategies to address in partnership the increasing cancer problem. By offering innovative approaches for cancer research, links to the healthcare systems, development of quality-assured multidisciplinary cancer care, as well as the assessment of long-term outcomes, the infrastructure is expected to serve as a hub to connect with other centres in Europe as well as on other continents. In this manner Cancer Core Europe and Cancer Prevention Europe prepare to tackle the "Mission on Cancer", with infrastructure and proofs of concept for therapeutics and prevention, research for assessment of effectiveness, health economics and added value for patients and the healthcare systems.

European Academy of Cancer Sciences - position paper.

The European Academy of Cancer Sciences (EACS) is an independent advisory body of well-recognised medical specialists and researchers striving to create a compelling interactive continuum of cancer research, from innovative basic research to implementation of state-of-the-art evidence-based cancer care and prevention. Achieving the above will entail bridging high-quality basic and preclinical cancer research to research on prevention, early detection and therapeutics as well as improving coordination of translational research efforts across Europe. The latter is expected to be expedited through quality assuring translational cancer research in Comprehensive Cancer Centres - entities that link research with the healthcare system - and networks of cancer research centres. Achieving a critical mass of expertise, resources and patients is crucial. Improving late translational research, which involves clinical studies to assess effectiveness, and added value for the health care is also a high priority. Both high-quality Big Data collections and the intelligent use of these data will promote innovation in cancer research and support outcomes research to assess clinical utility, quality of cancer care and long-term follow-up of treated patients. The EACS supports the mission-oriented approach recently proposed by the European Commission in Horizon Europe to deal with major challenges and would like to persuade the EU and its member states to formally launch a mission in cancer to boost and streamline the cancer research continuum in Europe. Building a coherent translational cancer research continuum with a focus on patients and individuals at risk will require, however, foresight as well as the extensive and continuous provision of evidence-based advice to inform policy.

Mutations of PIK3CA are rare in cutaneous melanoma.

Recent studies have shown that the PIK3CA gene, which encodes the p110alpha catalytic subunit of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinases, is mutated in human cancers. To determine whether PIK3CA is altered in cutaneous melanoma, we screened a series of 101 melanoma metastases. We identified PIK3CA missense mutations in three metastases (3%). Interestingly, these mutations were observed only in tumours that were negative for NRAS mutations. Using immunohistochemistry, we also analysed our metastases for the expression of phosphorylated Akt. These analyses revealed a moderate to strong phosphorylated Akt expression in 78% (21 of 27) of metastases with NRAS mutations and in 73% (54 of 74) of metastases without NRAS mutations. Interestingly, the three metastases with mutations in PIK3CA all exhibited a strong expression of phosphorylated Akt. Taken together, our results show that PIK3CA is mutated in a minority of melanomas and suggest that mutations in this gene may represent an alternative mechanism of Akt activation in cutaneous melanoma.

Biallelic deletions in INK4 in cutaneous melanoma are common and associated with decreased survival.

PURPOSE: Both the retinoblastoma and p53 pathways are often genetically altered in human cancers and their complex regulation is in part mediated by the three gene products p16, p14(ARF), and p15 of the INK4 locus on chromosome 9p21. Partial or complete biallelic deletions of the INK4 locus have been recognized in a variety of malignant tumors, including malignant melanoma. We have in the present study measured the frequency of INK4 deletions in a large number of melanoma metastases and determined their association with clinicopathologic variables and survival data. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Quantitative real-time PCR, as well as fluorescence-based fragment analysis, has been used to perform measurements of the relative allelic concentrations of the INK4 genes in 112 human melanoma tumor samples from 86 patients. RESULTS: Thirty-eight of 86 melanoma patients (44%) had metastases with biallelic losses in INK4. Ten of 20 patients with multiple metastases showed similar deletion patterns in all analyzed tumors. There was no significant association between any of the clinicopathologic variables and loss of INK4. However, loss of INK4 had an adverse effect on median survival from time of diagnosis. Patients with tumors with diploid INK4 had a median survival of 142 months, whereas those with monoallelic or biallelic loss in INK4 had a median survival of only 47 months (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Our results point to homozygous deletions in the INK4 region as being one of the most common genetic alterations in malignant cutaneous melanoma. INK4 deletions are associated with an adverse prognosis.

Harmonizing cancer control in Europe.

Harmonizing cancer control in Europe should be a win situation not only for the cancer patients, but also for the different cancer research organizations. With the common vision of European oncology it will be possible to formulate strategic goals. One of these goals is the establishment of comprehensive cancer centers, either cancer hospitals or coordinated comprehensive cancer centers. It is important to identify the necessary structures needed to increase the innovation potential, and this includes not only care and diagnostic technologies but also prevention. We need to establish a harmonized evaluation procedure. Positive outcome measurements are important to demonstrate the effects of research on the treatment of our patients. For optimal innovation the establishment of translational research environments at the cancer centers are mandatory. In order to avoid fragmentation both in care and research, European collaboration must increase.

A multicentre epidemiological study on sunbed use and cutaneous melanoma in Europe.

A large European case-control study investigated the association between sunbed use and cutaneous melanoma in an adult population aged between 18 and 49 years. Between 1999 and 2001 sun and sunbed exposure was recorded in 597 newly diagnosed melanoma cases and 622 controls in Belgium, France, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. Fifty three percent of cases and 57% of controls ever used sunbeds. The overall adjusted odds ratio (OR) associated with ever sunbed use was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.71-1.14). There was a South-to-North gradient with high prevalence of sunbed exposure in Northern Europe and lower prevalence in the South (prevalence of use in France 20%, OR: 1.19 (0.68-2.07) compared to Sweden, prevalence 83%, relative risk 0.62 (0.26-1.46)). Dose and lag-time between first exposure to sunbeds and time of study were not associated with melanoma risk, neither were sunbathing and sunburns (adjusted OR for mean number of weeks spent in sunny climates >14 years: 1.12 (0.88-1.43); adjusted OR for any sunburn >14 years: 1.16 (0.9-1.45)). Host factors such as numbers of naevi and skin type were the strongest risk indicators for melanoma. Public health campaigns have improved knowledge regarding risk of UV-radiation for skin cancers and this may have led to recall and selection biases in both cases and controls in this study. Sunbed exposure has become increasingly prevalent over the last 20 years, especially in Northern Europe but the full impact of this exposure on skin cancers may not become apparent for many years.

Effect of primary site on prognosis in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. A study using a new model to analyse anatomical locations.

The prognostic impact of different anatomical sites in patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM) has been widely debated and requires further elucidation. Therefore, we developed EssDoll, a new computerized method to address the question of site in relation to prognosis. A population-based cohort of 1891 patients, diagnosed between 1976 and 1987 with invasive CMM without evidence of metastasis, was identified. The body surface was divided into 24 areas. Hazard ratios (HRs) for CMM death were calculated and areas were compared in both the whole model and in pairs. Cox's proportional hazard regression model was used and adjustments were made for established prognostic factors. Furthermore, the overall effect of site was calculated using the likelihood ratio test. Overall, the tumour site was of prognostic importance (P=0.0036). There was a significantly increased risk of CMM-specific death in patients with a primary tumour site in the middle and lower back (HR=1.8, P=0.04) and in the supramammary and mammary area (HR=1.8, P=0.05). When all areas were analysed in pairs, the dorsal shoulder, superior back and clavicular area also showed a worse prognosis. CMM diagnosed in other anatomical regions, including the calves, Achilles, upper arms, forehead, temples, cheeks and face, seemed to be related to a better prognosis. It can be concluded that the tumour site is of prognostic importance, and that the middle and lower back and supramammary and mammary areas are independent factors related to a poor prognosis.