Premature mortality trends in 183 countries by cancer type, sex, WHO region, and World Bank income level in 2000-19: a retrospective, cross-sectional, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. By 2040, over 30 million new cancers are predicted, with the greatest cancer burden in low-income countries. In 2015, the UN passed the Sustainable Development Goal 3.4 (SDG 3.4) to tackle the rising burden of non-communicable diseases, which calls for a reduction by a third in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases, including cancer, by 2030. However, there is a paucity of data on premature mortality rates by cancer type. In this study, we examine annual rates of change for cancer-specific premature mortality and classify whether countries are on track to reach SDG 3.4 targets. METHODS: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional, population-based study investigating premature mortality trends from 2000-19 using the WHO Global Health Estimates data. All cancers combined and thirteen individual cancers in 183 countries were examined by WHO region, World Bank income level, and sex. The risk of premature mortality was calculated for ages 30-69 years, independent of other competing causes of death, using standard life table methods. The primary objective was to compute average annual rate of change in premature mortality from 2000 to 2019. Secondary objectives assessed whether this annual rate of change would be sufficient to reach SDG 3.4. targets for premature mortality by 2030. FINDINGS: This study was conducted using data retrieved for the years 2000-19. Premature mortality rates decreased in 138 (75%) of 183 countries across all World Bank income levels and WHO regions, however only eight (4%) countries are likely to meet the SDG 3.4 targets for all cancers combined. Cancers where early detection strategies exist, such as breast and colorectal cancer, have higher declining premature mortality rates in high-income countries (breast cancer 48 [89%] of 54 and colorectal cancer 45 [83%]) than in low-income countries (seven [24%] of 29 and four [14%]). Cancers with primary prevention programmes, such as cervical cancer, have more countries with declining premature mortality rates (high-income countries 50 [93%] of 54 and low-income countries 26 [90%] of 29). Sex-related disparities in premature mortality rates vary across WHO regions, World Bank income groups, and by cancer type. INTERPRETATION: There is a greater reduction in premature mortality for all cancers combined and for individual cancer types in high-income countries compared with lower-middle-income and low-income countries. However, most countries will not reach the SDG 3.4 target. Cancers with early detection strategies in place, such as breast and colorectal cancers, are performing poorly in premature mortality compared with cancers with primary prevention measures, such as cervical cancer. Investments toward prevention, early detection, and treatment can potentially accelerate declines in premature mortality. FUNDING: WHO.

Association of opioid use with survival in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: it is time for evidence-based behaviors.

Cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with pain experienced by most patients undergoing cancer treatment. Opioids are the recommended treatment for cancer pain management, but recent studies suggest a negative association between opioid use and survival rates among patients undergoing immunotherapy. However, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding causality from these observational data. Immunotherapy, which boosts the body's immune system to fight cancer cells, has emerged as a promising treatment option for all types of cancer. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can activate the anticancer function of exhausted T cells and have shown remarkable survival benefits in patients with multiple malignancies. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the use of opioids during ICI treatment has an adverse effect on patient prognosis, while the use of NSAIDs is not significantly associated with the prognosis in patients treated with ICIs. These reviews have major limitations due to the retrospective nature of the studies and the multiple factors that can influence the phenomenon. Therefore, caution is required when interpreting results from retrospective data on drug interactions. The findings of this study are alarming and potentially harmful to patients with cancer suffering from pain or other symptoms requiring opioid drugs.

Baseline Tumor Size as Prognostic Index in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors Receiving Experimental Targeted Agents.

BACKGROUND: Baseline tumor size (BTS) has been associated with outcomes in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. However, the prognostic impact of BTS on patients receiving targeted therapies (TTs) remains undetermined. METHODS: We reviewed data of patients with advanced solid tumors consecutively treated within early-phase clinical trials at our institution from 01/2014 to 04/2021. Treatments were categorized as immunotherapy-based or TT-based (biomarker-matched or not). BTS was calculated as the sum of RECIST1.1 baseline target lesions. RESULTS: A total of 444 patients were eligible; the median BTS was 69 mm (IQR 40-100). OS was significantly longer for patients with BTS lower versus higher than the median (16.6 vs. 8.2 months, P < .001), including among those receiving immunotherapy (12 vs. 7.5 months, P = .005). Among patients receiving TT, lower BTS was associated with longer PFS (4.7 vs. 3.1 months, P = .002) and OS (20.5 vs. 9.9 months, P < .001) as compared to high BTS. However, such association was only significant among patients receiving biomarker-matched TT, with longer PFS (6.2 vs. 3.3 months, P < .001) and OS (21.2 vs. 6.7 months, P < .001) in the low-BTS subgroup, despite a similar ORR (28% vs. 22%, P = .57). BTS was not prognostic among patients receiving unmatched TT, with similar PFS (3.7 vs. 4.4 months, P = .30), OS (19.3 vs. 11.8 months, P = .20), and ORR (33% vs. 28%, P = .78) in the 2 BTS groups. Multivariate analysis confirmed that BTS was independently associated with PFS (P = .03) and OS (P < .001) but not with ORR (P = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Higher BTS is associated with worse survival outcomes among patients receiving biomarker-matched, but not biomarker-unmatched TT.

New horizons for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer: insights from the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meetings.

Platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is difficult to treat and has a poor prognosis. Patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer have limited treatment options and often have a limited benefit from existing chemotherapeutic agents. There is a lack of contemporary effective anticancer drugs and reliable predictive biomarkers for this aggressive cancer. Recent cutting-edge research presented at the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Annual Meetings has provided insights into several potential therapeutic targets, such as DNA damage repair proteins, cell-cycle regulators, and immune-modulating agents. In addition, antibody-drug conjugates have provided new practice-changing results in platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Here, we review the results of research presented at this annual event, with a focus on clinical trials investigating novel treatment approaches for platinum-resistant ovarian cancer, in addition to predictive and prognostic biomarkers for optimal patient selection, and other topics, such as real-world evidence.

Health technology assessment for cancer medicines across the G7 countries and Oceania: an international, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Criticisms have emerged that cancer medicines offer modest benefits at increasingly high prices. Reimbursement decisions made by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have become a complex endeavour for cancer medicines. Most high-income countries (HICs) use HTA criteria to identify high-value medicines for reimbursement under public drug coverage plans. We compared HTA criteria specific for cancer medicines in economically similar HICs, to understand how these criteria contribute to reimbursement decisions. METHODS: We did an international, cross-sectional analysis in collaboration with author investigators across eight HICs, from the Group of Seven (known as G7; Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan) and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand). Publicly available data from HTA agency reports and official documentation were extracted and analysed between Aug 15, 2021, and July 31, 2022. We collected data pertaining to the decision-making criteria used by the national HTA agency; HTA reimbursement status for 34 medicine-indication pairs corresponding to 15 unique US top-selling cancer medicines; and HTA reimbursement status for 18 cancer medicine-indication pairs (13 unique medicines) with minimal clinical benefit (score of 1 on the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). Descriptive statistics were used to compare HTA decision criteria and drug reimbursement recommendations (or for Germany and Japan, final reimbursement status) across the eight countries. FINDINGS: Therapeutic impact related to clinical outcomes of the new medicine was a uniform criterion across the eight countries, whereas quality of evidence (under the remit of therapeutic impact assessment) and equity were infrequently cited criteria. Only the German HTA agency mandated that surrogate endpoints be validated in therapeutic impact assessment. All countries except Germany included formal cost-effectiveness analyses within HTA reports. England and Japan were the only countries that specified a cost-effectiveness threshold. Of the 34 medicine-indication pairs corresponding to US top-selling cancer medicines, Germany reimbursed the maximum (34 [100%]), followed by Italy (32 [94%] recommended for reimbursement), Japan (28 [82%] reimbursed), Australia, Canada, England, and France (27 [79%] recommended for reimbursement), and New Zealand (12 [35%] recommended for reimbursement). Of the 18 cancer medicine-indication pairs with marginal clinical benefit, Germany reimbursed 15 (83%) and Japan reimbursed 12 (67%). France recommended nine (50%) for reimbursement, followed by Italy (seven [39%]), Canada (five [28%]), and Australia and England (three [17%] each). New Zealand did not recommend any medicine-indications with marginal clinical benefit for reimbursement. Considering the overall cumulative proportion across the eight countries, 58 (21%) of 272 indications for the US top-selling medicines and 90 (63%) of 144 marginally beneficial medicine-indications were not recommended for reimbursement or reimbursed. INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate discordance in public reimbursement decisions across economically similar countries, despite overlapping HTA decision criteria. This suggests a need for improved transparency around the nuances of the criteria to ensure improved access to high-value cancer medicines, and deprioritisation of low-value cancer medicines. Health systems have opportunities to improve their HTA decision-making processes by learning from the systems in other countries. FUNDING: None.

Predicting Response to Antibody Drug Conjugates: A Focus on Antigens' Targetability.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) represent a cornerstone in the treatment of many cancers nowadays. ADCs fulfill their function by binding a target on tumor cell membrane to deliver a cytotoxic payload; in addition, those moieties capable of crossing cancer cell membranes can achieve near-by cells that do not express the target antigen, exerting the so-called "bystander" cytotoxic effect. The presence of a specific target antigen expressed on cancer cells has been for long considered crucial for ADCs and commonly required for the inclusion of patients in clinical trials with ADCs. To date, only ado-trastuzumab-emtansine, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki, and mirvetuximab soravtansine-gynx are approved according to the expression of a target antigen in solid tumors, while the clinical use of other ADCs (eg, sacituzumab govitecan) is not conditioned by the presence of a specific biomarker. Given the ever-growing number of approved ADCs and those under investigation, it is essential to find new biomarkers to guide their use, especially in those settings for which different ADCs are approved to establish the best therapeutic sequence based on robust biomarkers. Hence, this work addresses the role of target antigens in predicting response to ADCs, focusing on examples of antigens' targetability according to their expression on cancer cells' surface or to the presence of specific target aberrations (eg, mutation or over-expression). New methods for the assessment and quantification of targets' expression, like molecular imaging and in vitro assays, might be key tools to improve biomarker analysis and eventually deliver better outcomes by refined patient selection.

Immunotherapy for inflammatory breast cancer: current evidences and future perspectives.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most fatal type presentation of clinical breast cancer. The immune tumor microenvironment (TME) of IBC is characterized by signals of immune evasion but suggests actionable vulnerability to immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In this review, we aimed to summarize the most important preclinical evidences of IBC immune-vulnerability and the first data from clinical trials evaluating ICIs in IBC. RECENT FINDINGS: IBC is characterized by a preexisting active immune TME suppressed by mechanisms of immune-escape, including inhibitory immune-checkpoints, whose expression is higher than in non-IBC. Clinical trials evaluating ICIs in patients with IBC are burdened by slow accrual and low enrollment. SUMMARY: Because of the limited data from clinical trials, no conclusions about the activity of ICIs in IBC can be drawn. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing many promising ICI-based combination approaches. An enhanced multicenter collaboration to evaluate ICIs in patients with this aggressive form of disease and to improve clinical outcomes is required.

Mechanisms of Endocrine Resistance in Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer.

Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer (BC) accounts for approximately 70% of all breast invasive tumors. Endocrine therapy (ET) represents the standard treatment for HR + BC. Most patients, however, eventually develop resistance to ET, which limits their effectiveness and poses a major challenge for the management of HR + BC. Several mechanisms that contribute to ET resistance have been described. One of the most common mechanisms is the upregulation of alternative signaling pathways that can bypass estrogen dependency, such as activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR as well as mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) pathways. Another common mechanism of endocrine resistance is the acquisition of activating mutations of ESR1, which encodes for the estrogen receptor, that lead to structural changes of the receptor, prevent the binding to anti-estrogen drugs and result in constitutive activation of the receptor, even in the absence of estrogens. Epigenetic changes, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications, can also contribute to ET resistance by altering the expression of genes that are involved in estrogen signaling. Understanding the mechanisms of resistance to ET is crucial for the development of new therapies that can overcome resistance and improve outcomes for patients with HR + BC.

Next-Generation Sequencing for Advanced Breast Cancer: What the Way to Go?

The rapid implementation of precision medicine tools in diagnosing and treating breast cancer (BC) has widened the potential therapeutic options for patients. The applications of gene sequencing, including next-generation gene sequencing (NGS), have led to numerous questions on how to validate, implement, interpret, prioritize and operationalize precision medicine tools to deliver meaningful and impactful interventions. Limited benefit has been portended with earlier experiences of NGS-driven treatment, in BC. However, the development and use of frameworks of clinical actionability of genomic alterations, for example, detected with NGS, has resulted in better patient selection, and potentially higher therapeutic value. The European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) is a framework that includes five tiers of clinical actionability, with tier 1 reserved for approved drugs with demonstrated benefits for targetable genomic alterations. The re-analysis of clinical studies by grouping the genomic alterations and matched drugs with ESCAT, in high vs lower tiers has demonstrated a significant benefit portended by high tiers alterations, with the availability of efficacious treatments. As a result, frameworks for actionability, like ESCAT, should be fundamental in developing and implementing NGS-driven, and broadly, precision medicine research and treatments.

The Global Landscape on the Access to Cancer Medicines for Breast Cancer: The ONCOLLEGE Experience.

There is a growing global debate over barriers affecting the timely access to innovative anticancer therapies. Access to medicines is often traced back to the issue of costs: however, more commonly, the distance between valuable innovative treatments and the actual treatment of patients is far beyond the mere problem of financial barriers. A comprehensive approach to understand, assess to medicines should be pursued, to dissect the determinants and formulate solutions for all patients. In this chapter, we discuss drivers of access to innovation for patients with breast cancer, based on a case study of access to HER2-diagnositcs and therapeutics yielding a global landscape analysis, based on the efforts and expertise of the global collaborative group "ONCOLLEGE".

Screening Programs for Breast Cancer: Toward Individualized, Risk-Adapted Strategies of Early Detection.

Early detection of breast cancer (BC) comprises two approaches: screening of asymptomatic women in a specified target population at risk (usually a target age range for women at average risk), and early diagnosis for women with BC signs and symptoms. Screening for BC is a key health intervention for early detection. While population-based screening programs have been implemented for age-selected women, the pivotal clinical trials have not addressed the global utility nor the improvement of screening performance by utilizing more refined parameters for patient eligibility, such as individualized risk stratification. In addition, with the exception of the subset of women known to carry germline pathogenetic mutations in (high- or moderately-penetrant) cancer predisposition genes, such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, there has been less success in outreach and service provision for the unaffected relatives of women found to carry a high-risk mutation (i.e., "cascade testing") as it is in these individuals for whom such actionable information can result in cancers (and/or cancer deaths) being averted. Moreover, even in the absence of clinical cancer genetics services, as is the case for the immediate and at least near-term in most countries globally, the capacity to stratify the risk of an individual to develop BC has existed for many years, is available for free online at various sites/platforms, and is increasingly being validated for non-Caucasian populations. Ultimately, a precision approach to BC screening is largely missing. In the present chapter, we aim to address the concept of risk-adapted screening of BC, in multiple facets, and understand if there is a value in the implementation of adapted screening strategies in selected women, outside the established screening prescriptions, in the terms of age-range, screening modality and schedules of imaging.

Essential medicines list in national cancer control plans: a secondary analysis from a global study.

With the advent of innovative therapeutics for and the rising costs of cancer management, low-income and middle-income countries face increasing challenges to deliver effective and sustainable health care. Understanding of how countries are selecting and prioritising essential cancer interventions is poor, including in the formulation of policies for essential medicines. We did an in-depth subanalysis from a global dataset of national cancer control plans (NCCPs), aiming to identify possible determinants of inclusion of policies related to essential medicines in the NCCP. The results showed poor global comprehensiveness of NCCPs, and substantial deficits in policies for financial hardships due to cancer care, specifically for access to cancer medicines. Specification of budget allocations, policy of protection from catastrophic health expenditure, and national treatment guidelines in the NCCPs contributed to more consistent policies on essential cancer medicines. The bedrock to deliver effective cancer programmes resides in the assurance of comprehensive, consistent, and coherent policy formulation, to orient resource selection and health investments, ultimately delivering equitable health for all.

Circulating tumour DNA dynamics for assessment of molecular residual disease and for intercepting resistance in breast cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Longitudinal evaluation of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) represents a promising tool for monitoring tumour evolution. In patients with breast cancer, ctDNA dynamics for the assessment of molecular residual disease (MRD) and resistances may, respectively, help clinicians in treatment modulation of adjuvant treatments, and in anticipating resistance to ongoing treatments and switch treatments before clinical progression, to improve disease control. Anyway, the introduction of this dynamic biomarker into clinical practice requires the demonstration of analytical validity, clinical validity and clinical utility. RECENT FINDINGS: In early breast cancer setting, several observational studies demonstrated the clinical validity of MRD monitoring through ctDNA in identifying patients at a higher risk of relapse, but many clinical trials evaluating the clinical utility are still ongoing, and few data resulted in inconclusive results.Instead, ctDNA dynamics for intercepting resistance have not been fully evaluated in terms of clinical validity, because monitoring schedules of most observational studies are not intensive. The only trial assessing their clinical utility (PADA-1) demonstrated a benefit in terms of progression-free survival, portraying a new landscape for clinical trials in this space. SUMMARY: Rigorous clinical trials with adequate assays and patient-relevant endpoints are paramount to demonstrate the clinical utility of ctDNA dynamics and eventually increase clinical outcomes.

Postneoadjuvant treatment for triple-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has been conventionally associated with poor prognosis, as a result of limited therapeutic options. In the early setting, prognosis is informed by clinical-pathological factors; for patients receiving neoadjuvant treatments, pathological complete response (pCR) is the strongest factor. In this review, we mapped the landscape of clinical trials in the postneoadjuvant space, and identified three patterns of clinical trial design. RECENT FINDINGS: For patients at higher risk, effective postneoadjuvant treatments are of paramount importance to address a high clinical need. Postneoadjuvant risk-adapted treatments have demonstrated to improve survival in patients at high of recurrence. SUMMARY: Patients at high risk have indication for adjuvant treatment intensification, informed by baseline clinical, pathological or molecular factors (type 1 approach), on the presence, extent and molecular characteristics of the residual disease at the time of surgery (type 2) or on risk factors assessed in the postsurgical setting (type 3), for example, circulating tumour DNA. Most of the past trials were based on type 2 approaches, for example, with capecitabine and Olaparib. Few trials were based on a type 1 approach, notably pembrolizumab for early TNBC. The clinical validity of type 3 approaches is under investigation in several ongoing trials.

Challenging cases in high-risk prostate cancer patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between enlarged prostate, bulky median lobe (BML) or prior benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) surgery and perioperative functional, and oncological outcomes in high-risk (HR) prostate cancer (PCa) patients treated with Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP). METHODS: 320 HR-PCa patients treated with RS-RARP between 2011 and 2020 at a single high-volume center. The relationship between prostate volume, BML, prior BPH surgery and perioperative outcomes, Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥ 2 90-day postoperative complications, positive surgical margins (PSMs), and urinary continence (UC) recovery was evaluated respectively in multivariable linear, logistic and Cox regression models. Complications were collected according to the standardized methodology proposed by EAU guidelines. UC recovery was defined as the use of zero or one safety pad. RESULTS: Overall, 5.9% and 5.6% had respectively a BML or prior BPH surgery. Median PV was 45 g (range: 14-300). The rate of focal and non-focal PSMs was 8.4% and 17.8%. 53% and 10.9% patients had immediate UC recovery and CD ≥ 2. The 1- and 2-yr UC recovery was 84 and 85%. PV (p = 0.03) and prior BPH surgery (p = 0.02) was associated with longer operative time. BML was independent predictor of time to bladder catheter removal (p = 0.001). PV was independent predictor of PSMs (OR: 1.02; p = 0.009). Prior BPH surgery was associated with lower UC recovery (HR: 0.5; p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: HR-PCa patients with enlarged prostate have higher risk of PSMs, while patients with prior BPH surgery have suboptimal UC recovery. These findings should help physicians for accurate preoperative counseling and to improve surgical planning in case of HR-PCa patients with challenging features.

National health system characteristics, breast cancer stage at diagnosis, and breast cancer mortality: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: In some countries, breast cancer age-standardised mortality rates have decreased by 2-4% per year since the 1990s, but others have yet to achieve this outcome. In this study, we aimed to characterise the associations between national health system characteristics and breast cancer age-standardised mortality rate, and the degree of breast cancer downstaging correlating with national age-standardised mortality rate reductions. METHODS: In this population-based study, national age-standardised mortality rate estimates for women aged 69 years or younger obtained from GLOBOCAN 2020 were correlated with a broad panel of standardised national health system data as reported in the WHO Cancer Country Profiles 2020. These health system characteristics include health expenditure, the Universal Health Coverage Service Coverage Index (UHC Index), dedicated funding for early detection programmes, breast cancer early detection guidelines, referral systems, cancer plans, number of dedicated public and private cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services. We tested for differences between continuous variables using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and for categorical variables using the Pearson χ2 test. Simple and multiple linear regression analyses were fitted to identify associations between health system characteristics and age-standardised breast cancer mortality rates. Data on TNM stage at diagnosis were obtained from national or subnational cancer registries, supplemented by a literature review of PubMed from 2010 to 2020. Mortality trends from 1950 to 2016 were assessed using the WHO Cancer Mortality Database. The threshold for significance was set at a p value of 0·05 or less. FINDINGS: 148 countries had complete health system data. The following variables were significantly higher in high-income countries than in low-income countries in unadjusted analyses: health expenditure (p=0·0002), UHC Index (p<0·0001), dedicated funding for early detection programmes (p=0·0020), breast cancer early detection guidelines (p<0·0001), breast cancer referral systems (p=0·0030), national cancer plans (p=0·014), cervical cancer early detection programmes (p=0·0010), number of dedicated public (p<0·0001) and private (p=0·027) cancer centres per 10 000 patients with cancer, and pathology services (p<0·0001). In adjusted multivariable regression analyses in 141 countries, two health system characteristics were significantly associated with lower age-standardised mortality rates: higher UHC Index levels (ß=-0·12, 95% CI -0·16 to -0·08) and increasing numbers of public cancer centres (ß=-0·23, -0·36 to -0·10). These findings indicate that each unit increase in the UHC Index was associated with a 0·12-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rates, and each additional public cancer centre per 10 000 patients with cancer was associated with a 0·23-unit decline in age-standardised mortality rate. Among 35 countries with available breast cancer TNM staging data, all 20 that achieved sustained mean reductions in age-standardised mortality rate of 2% or more per year for at least 3 consecutive years since 1990 had at least 60% of patients with invasive breast cancer presenting as stage I or II disease. Some countries achieved this reduction without most women having access to population-based mammographic screening. INTERPRETATION: Countries with low breast cancer mortality rates are characterised by increased levels of coverage of essential health services and higher numbers of public cancer centres. Among countries achieving sustained mortality reductions, the majority of breast cancers are diagnosed at an early stage, reinforcing the value of clinical early diagnosis programmes for improving breast cancer outcomes. FUNDING: None.

Access to cancer medicines deemed essential by oncologists in 82 countries: an international, cross-sectional survey.

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

Assessing population diversity in phase III trials of cancer drugs supporting Food and Drug Administration approval in solid tumors.

Our study aimed to assess inequities in the clinical trial participation for the selected patient groups. We searched the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) database and extracted phase-III clinical trial data from MEDLINE for each approved drug by the FDA between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2020. We analyzed the inclusion/exclusion criteria, participation according to gender, ethnic group, performance score, the positivity of HBV and HCV, and HIV, having comorbidities and brain metastasis. We compared the findings with that of the general population by retrieving data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. We identified 142 phase III pivotal oncology trials that enrolled 105 397 patients. The proportion of female patients in trials was lower than their relative prevalence in the general population from SEER region (36% vs 49.6%, P < .001). The rates of black patients included were lower than their relative prevalence from SEER region (2.1% vs 9.8%, P < .001). 1.3% and 0.8% of patients had HBV and HCV infections, respectively. The patients' numbers with organ dysfunction were not established due to insufficient data from clinical trials. 1.6% of all patients had controlled brain metastasis. Black patients, women and patients with brain metastasis or with HBV and HCV were underrepresented. Our study underscores the importance of expanding the inclusion/exclusion criteria of pivotal oncology trials to be more representative of patients seen in clinical practice.

Mortality impact of achieving WHO cervical cancer elimination targets: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: WHO is developing a global strategy towards eliminating cervical cancer as a public health problem, which proposes an elimination threshold of four cases per 100 000 women and includes 2030 triple-intervention coverage targets for scale-up of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to 90%, twice-lifetime cervical screening to 70%, and treatment of pre-invasive lesions and invasive cancer to 90%. We assessed the impact of achieving the 90-70-90 triple-intervention targets on cervical cancer mortality and deaths averted over the next century. We also assessed the potential for the elimination initiative to support target 3.4 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)-a one-third reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by 2030. METHODS: The WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Modelling Consortium (CCEMC) involves three independent, dynamic models of HPV infection, cervical carcinogenesis, screening, and precancer and invasive cancer treatment. Reductions in age-standardised rates of cervical cancer mortality in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) were estimated for three core scenarios: girls-only vaccination at age 9 years with catch-up for girls aged 10-14 years; girls-only vaccination plus once-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up; and girls-only vaccination plus twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment scale-up. Vaccination was assumed to provide 100% lifetime protection against infections with HPV types 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, and to scale up to 90% coverage in 2020. Cervical screening involved HPV testing at age 35 years, or at ages 35 years and 45 years, with scale-up to 45% coverage by 2023, 70% by 2030, and 90% by 2045, and we assumed that 50% of women with invasive cervical cancer would receive appropriate surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy by 2023, which would increase to 90% by 2030. We summarised results using the median (range) of model predictions. FINDINGS: In 2020, the estimated cervical cancer mortality rate across all 78 LMICs was 13·2 (range 12·9-14·1) per 100 000 women. Compared to the status quo, by 2030, vaccination alone would have minimal impact on cervical cancer mortality, leading to a 0·1% (0·1-0·5) reduction, but additionally scaling up twice-lifetime screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 34·2% (23·3-37·8), averting 300 000 (300 000-400 000) deaths by 2030 (with similar results for once-lifetime screening). By 2070, scaling up vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 61·7% (61·4-66·1), averting 4·8 million (4·1-4·8) deaths. By 2070, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 88·9% (84·0-89·3), averting 13·3 million (13·1-13·6) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 92·3% (88·4-93·0), averting 14·6 million (14·1-14·6) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). By 2120, vaccination alone would reduce mortality by 89·5% (86·6-89·9), averting 45·8 million (44·7-46·4) deaths. By 2120, additionally scaling up screening and cancer treatment would reduce mortality by 97·9% (95·0-98·0), averting 60·8 million (60·2-61·2) deaths (with once-lifetime screening), or by 98·6% (96·5-98·6), averting 62·6 million (62·1-62·8) deaths (with twice-lifetime screening). With the WHO triple-intervention strategy, over the next 10 years, about half (48% [45-55]) of deaths averted would be in sub-Saharan Africa and almost a third (32% [29-34]) would be in South Asia; over the next 100 years, almost 90% of deaths averted would be in these regions. For premature deaths (age 30-69 years), the WHO triple-intervention strategy would result in rate reductions of 33·9% (24·4-37·9) by 2030, 96·2% (94·3-96·8) by 2070, and 98·6% (96·9-98·8) by 2120. INTERPRETATION: These findings emphasise the importance of acting immediately on three fronts to scale up vaccination, screening, and treatment for pre-invasive and invasive cervical cancer. In the next 10 years, a one-third reduction in the rate of premature mortality from cervical cancer in LMICs is possible, contributing to the realisation of the 2030 UN SDGs. Over the next century, successful implementation of the WHO elimination strategy would reduce cervical cancer mortality by almost 99% and save more than 62 million women's lives. FUNDING: WHO, UNDP, UN Population Fund, UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Germany Federal Ministry of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council Australia, Centre for Research Excellence in Cervical Cancer Control, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Compute Canada, and Fonds de recherche du Québec-Santé.

Uro-oncologic patient management during the COVID-19 pandemic: survey findings from an Italian oncologic hub.

Aim: Patient and worker satisfaction at an oncologic hub during the COVID-19 pandemic has never been reported. We addressed this topic. Methods: We conducted a survey to test the views of patients (n = 64) and healthcare professionals (n = 52) involved with our operative protocol. Results: A moderate/severe grade of concern due to the COVID-19 emergency was recorded in 63% of patients versus 75% of hospital staff. High/very high versus low satisfaction grade about preventive strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion was identified in the patients compared with the hospital staff group. Conclusion: Surgical treatment at a hub center of uro-oncologic patients coming from spoke centers is well accepted and should, therefore, be recommended. Preventive strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion in hospital staff members should be implemented.

Lay abstract We provide robust evidence that an oncologic hub center during COVID-19 pandemic represents a credible solution for management of non-deferrable uro-oncologic patients. Specifically, surgical treatment at a hub center of patients coming from spoke centers is well accepted by both patients and hospital staff members. Moreover, collaboration between healthcare workers from spoke and hub centers generates minimal levels of anxiety, while potentially being associated with clinical, surgical and scientific improvement. This said, a more specific focus on recommended strategies to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 contagion at oncologic hub hospitals is warranted.