Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Its Implementation in Cervical Cancer Management in the Philippines: A Narrative Review.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients make decisions together using the best available evidence. Although much studied, recognized to be ethically imperative, and recommended in international health policies, it remains poorly implemented. In the Philippines, there are limited studies on patient decision making preferences and SDM. Practical guidance on the implementation of SDM or use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) is often not detailed in existing national clinical practice guidelines in oncology. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of Philippine literature on SDM in oncology and an iterative review of international literature on the philosophy and methods of SDM, the utility and effectiveness of PtDAs, and the facilitators and barriers to implementation or usage. We contextualized our review to the cervical cancer management and health service delivery in the Philippines. RESULTS: Local literature is limited to five scientific publications and two registered studies. International literature encompasses patient decisional preferences, the role of PtDAs and the standards for their development and evaluation, their effectiveness, and barriers and facilitators to their use in cancer-related decision making. We discussed the implications on the management of cervical cancer in the Philippines, challenges in health service delivery and standards, and SDM research. CONCLUSION: Local SDM research is limited. Our preliminary experience in a multicenter clinical trial in Manila on PtDA use in the framework of SDM in cervical cancer suggest good patient and clinician acceptability. Challenges to implementation such as unfavorable financial situations, urgency of clinical decisions, low patient or caregiver educational attainment, and poor integration of multidisciplinary and SDM in organizational workflows will be important when implementing SDM in different settings.

[Interpreting a randomized trial in oncology: Key points for the clinician]. / Interpréter un essai randomisé en oncologie : éléments clés en clinique.

The analysis of randomized clinical trials presents a challenge for clinicians. A set of critical elements can facilitate their interpretation. One must question whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria accurately mirror clinical practice. Does the control arm align with what is currently recognized as best practice? Do patients in the control group have access to the best options when the cancer progresses or recurs? The degree of confidence with which phase II trial results can be interpreted also warrants consideration. Finally, informative censoring can be searched for by comparing early censoring rates between treatment arms. Faced with the challenges of interpreting scientific literature, these keys can help the clinician and guide the eventual integration of new results into shared medical decision-making.

L'analyse d'essais cliniques randomisés est un défi pour le clinicien. Une série d'éléments clés peuvent toutefois aider à l'interprétation. Tout d'abord, les critères d'inclusion et d'exclusion reflètent-ils la pratique quotidienne ? Ensuite, le bras contrôle correspond-il aux meilleures pratiques reconnues ? Est-ce que les patients du groupe contrôle ont un accès aux meilleures options lorsque le cancer progresse ou récidive ? Avec quelle confiance interpréter des résultats de phase II ? Enfin, la censure informative peut être recherchée en comparant les taux de censure précoce entre les bras de traitements. Face aux défis de l'interprétation de la littérature scientifique, ces clés peuvent être une aide pour le clinicien et guider l'intégration éventuelle de nouveaux résultats dans la décision médicale partagée.

The Consistency and Quality of ChatGPT Responses Compared to Clinical Guidelines for Ovarian Cancer: A Delphi Approach.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, generative Artificial Intelligence models, such as ChatGPT, have increasingly been utilized in healthcare. Despite acknowledging the high potential of AI models in terms of quick access to sources and formulating responses to a clinical question, the results obtained using these models still require validation through comparison with established clinical guidelines. This study compares the responses of the AI model to eight clinical questions with the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) guidelines for ovarian cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors used the Delphi method to evaluate responses from ChatGPT and the AIOM guidelines. An expert panel of healthcare professionals assessed responses based on clarity, consistency, comprehensiveness, usability, and quality using a five-point Likert scale. The GRADE methodology assessed the evidence quality and the recommendations' strength. RESULTS: A survey involving 14 physicians revealed that the AIOM guidelines consistently scored higher averages compared to the AI models, with a statistically significant difference. Post hoc tests showed that AIOM guidelines significantly differed from all AI models, with no significant difference among the AI models. CONCLUSIONS: While AI models can provide rapid responses, they must match established clinical guidelines regarding clarity, consistency, comprehensiveness, usability, and quality. These findings underscore the importance of relying on expert-developed guidelines in clinical decision-making and highlight potential areas for AI model improvement.

Managing Undernutrition in Pediatric Oncology: A Consensus Statement Developed Using the Delphi Method by the Polish Society for Clinical Nutrition of Children and the Polish Society of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology.

"Managing Undernutrition in Pediatric Oncology" is a collaborative consensus statement of the Polish Society for Clinical Nutrition of Children and the Polish Society of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology. The early identification and accurate management of malnutrition in children receiving anticancer treatment are crucial components to integrate into comprehensive medical care. Given the scarcity of high-quality literature on this topic, a consensus statement process was chosen over other approaches, such as guidelines, to provide comprehensive recommendations. Nevertheless, an extensive literature review using the PubMed database was conducted. The following terms, namely pediatric, childhood, cancer, pediatric oncology, malnutrition, undernutrition, refeeding syndrome, nutritional support, and nutrition, were used. The consensus was reached through the Delphi method. Comprehensive recommendations aim to identify malnutrition early in children with cancer and optimize nutritional interventions in this group. The statement underscores the importance of baseline and ongoing assessments of nutritional status and the identification of the risk factors for malnutrition development, and it presents tools that can be used to achieve these goals. This consensus statement establishes a standardized approach to nutritional support, aiming to optimize outcomes in pediatric cancer patients.

Towards proactive palliative care in oncology: developing an explainable EHR-based machine learning model for mortality risk prediction.

BACKGROUND: Ex-ante identification of the last year in life facilitates a proactive palliative approach. Machine learning models trained on electronic health records (EHR) demonstrate promising performance in cancer prognostication. However, gaps in literature include incomplete reporting of model performance, inadequate alignment of model formulation with implementation use-case, and insufficient explainability hindering trust and adoption in clinical settings. Hence, we aim to develop an explainable machine learning EHR-based model that prompts palliative care processes by predicting for 365-day mortality risk among patients with advanced cancer within an outpatient setting. METHODS: Our cohort consisted of 5,926 adults diagnosed with Stage 3 or 4 solid organ cancer between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020 and receiving ambulatory cancer care within a tertiary center. The classification problem was modelled using Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and aligned to our envisioned use-case: "Given a prediction point that corresponds to an outpatient cancer encounter, predict for mortality within 365-days from prediction point, using EHR data up to 365-days prior." The model was trained with 75% of the dataset (n = 39,416 outpatient encounters) and validated on a 25% hold-out dataset (n = 13,122 outpatient encounters). To explain model outputs, we used Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) values. Clinical characteristics, laboratory tests and treatment data were used to train the model. Performance was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), while model calibration was assessed using the Brier score. RESULTS: In total, 17,149 of the 52,538 prediction points (32.6%) had a mortality event within the 365-day prediction window. The model demonstrated an AUROC of 0.861 (95% CI 0.856-0.867) and AUPRC of 0.771. The Brier score was 0.147, indicating slight overestimations of mortality risk. Explanatory diagrams utilizing SHAP values allowed visualization of feature impacts on predictions at both the global and individual levels. CONCLUSION: Our machine learning model demonstrated good discrimination and precision-recall in predicting 365-day mortality risk among individuals with advanced cancer. It has the potential to provide personalized mortality predictions and facilitate earlier integration of palliative care.

A Comparison of Additional Benefit Assessment Methods for Time-to-Event Endpoints Using Hazard Ratio Point Estimates or Confidence Interval Limits by Means of a Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: For time-to-event endpoints, three additional benefit assessment methods have been developed aiming at an unbiased knowledge about the magnitude of clinical benefit of newly approved treatments. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) defines a continuous score using the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE). The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) developed methods with an ordinal outcome using lower and upper limits of the 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI), respectively. We describe all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming at a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, we determine which ASCO score is consistent with which ESMO/IQWiG category. METHODS: In a comprehensive simulation study with different failure time distributions and treatment effects, we compare all methods using Spearman's correlation and descriptive measures. For determination of ASCO values consistent with categories of ESMO/IQWiG, maximizing weighted Cohen's Kappa approach was used. RESULTS: Our research depicts a high positive relationship between ASCO/IQWiG and a low positive relationship between ASCO/ESMO. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 corresponds to ESMO categories. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents IQWiG categories. LIMITATIONS: We investigated the statistical aspects of the methods and hence implemented slightly reduced versions of all methods. CONCLUSIONS: IQWiG and ASCO are more conservative than ESMO, which often awards the maximal category independent of the true effect and is at risk of overcompensating with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and underpowered/overpowered studies influence all methods in some degree. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one. HIGHLIGHTS: For the additional benefit assessment, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) uses the hazard ratio point estimate (HR-PE) for their continuous score. In contrast, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) use the lower and upper 95% HR confidence interval (HR-CI) to specific thresholds, respectively. ESMO generously assigns maximal scores, while IQWiG is more conservative.This research provides the first comparison between IQWiG and ASCO and describes all three frameworks for additional benefit assessment aiming for a fair comparison across different stakeholders. Furthermore, thresholds for ASCO consistent with ESMO and IQWiG categories are determined, enabling a comparison of the methods in practice in a fair manner.IQWiG and ASCO are the more conservative methods, while ESMO awards high percentages of maximal categories, especially with various failure time distributions. ASCO has similar characteristics as IQWiG. Delayed treatment effects and under/-overpowered studies influence all methods. Nevertheless, ESMO is the most liberal one. An ASCO score smaller than 17, 17 to 20, 20 to 24, and greater than 24 correspond to the categories of ESMO. Using ASCO values of 21 and 38 as cutoffs represents categories of IQWiG.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with early breast cancer.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with early breast cancer were updated and published online in 2023, and adapted, according to previously established standard methodology, to produce the Pan-Asian adapted (PAGA) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of Asian patients with early breast cancer. The adapted guidelines presented in this manuscript represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with breast cancer representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Indonesia (ISHMO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO), co-ordinated by ESMO and KSMO. The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices, drug access restrictions and reimbursement decisions in the different Asian regions represented by the 10 oncological societies. The latter are discussed separately in the manuscript. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with early breast cancer across the different regions of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by both Western and Asian trials, whilst respecting the differences in screening practices, molecular profiling, as well as the age and stage at presentation. Attention is drawn to the disparity in the drug approvals and reimbursement strategies, between the different regions of Asia.

Virtual consultations: the experience of oncology and palliative care healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: To maintain continuity of care during the Covid-19 pandemic, virtual consultations (VC) became the mainstay of patient-healthcare practitioner interactions. The aim of this study was to explore the views of oncology and palliative care healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding the medium of VC. METHOD: A cross sectional mixed methodology observational study of oncology and palliative care HCPs, analysed via an inductive thematic approach. This was undertaken in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. RESULTS: 87 surveys were completed. Three master themes were identified. Personal, professional, and familial factors including patient age, illness and VC skillset all influenced practitioner's experience of VC. Relationships and connection were highlighted by survey respondents as important influences, with a perception that VC could reduce usual relationships with patients, compared to previous face-to-face consults. There was a perceived loss in these domains with VC. Sharing bad news and having challenging conversations was seen as particularly difficult via VC. Many survey respondents emphasized that they preferred to have first time consultations face-to-face, and not virtually. Within the domain of logistical and practical implications reduced travel and increased accessibility were seen as a significant benefit of VC. The inability to examine patients and concerns regarding missing clinical signs was emphasised as a significant worry, alongside the challenges faced with occasionally failing technology. CONCLUSION: VC were felt to have a role for those patients who are already known to professionals, where there was an established relationship. VC for difficult discussions and for unstable patients were felt to be inadequate. Triaging patient suitability prior to offering VC, with emphasis on the importance of patient choice, was seen as a priority in this new era of VC.

Benchmarking palliative care practices in neurooncology: a german perspective.

PURPOSE: To benchmark palliative care practices in neurooncology centers across Germany, evaluating the variability in palliative care integration, timing, and involvement in tumor board discussions. This study aims to identify gaps in care and contribute to the discourse on optimal palliative care strategies. METHODS: A survey targeting both German Cancer Society-certified and non-certified university neurooncology centers was conducted to explore palliative care frameworks and practices for neurooncological patients. The survey included questions on palliative care department availability, involvement in tumor boards, timing of palliative care integration, and use of standardized screening tools for assessing palliative burden and psycho-oncological distress. RESULTS: Of 57 centers contacted, 46 responded (81% response rate). Results indicate a dedicated palliative care department in 76.1% of centers, with palliative specialists participating in tumor board discussions at 34.8% of centers. Variability was noted in the initiation of palliative care, with early integration at the diagnosis stage in only 30.4% of centers. The survey highlighted a significant lack of standardized spiritual care assessments and minimal use of advanced care planning. Discrepancies were observed in the documentation and treatment of palliative care symptoms and social complaints, underscoring the need for comprehensive care approaches. CONCLUSION: The study highlights a diverse landscape of palliative care provision within German neurooncology centers, underscoring the need for more standardized practices and early integration of palliative care. It suggests the necessity for standardized protocols and guidelines to enhance palliative care's quality and uniformity, ultimately improving patient-centered care in neurooncology.

Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation supporting European society for medical oncology clinical practice guidelines.

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines are among the most comprehensive and widely used clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) globally. However, the level of scientific evidence supporting ESMO CPG recommendations has not been systematically investigated. This study assessed ESMO CPG levels of evidence (LOE) and grades of recommendations (GOR), as well as their trends over time across various cancer settings. Methods: We manually extracted every recommendation with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) classification from each CPG. We examined the distribution of LOE and GOR in all available ESMO CPG guidelines across different topics and cancer types. Results: Among the 1,823 recommendations in the current CPG, 30% were classified as LOE I, and 43% were classified as GOR A. Overall, there was a slight decrease in LOE I (-2%) and an increase in the proportion of GOR A (+1%) in the current CPG compared to previous versions. The proportion of GOR A recommendations based on higher levels of evidence such as randomized trials (LOE I-II) shows a decrease (71% vs. 63%, p = 0.009) while recommendations based on lower levels of evidence (LOE III-V) show an increase (29% vs. 37%, p = 0.01) between previous and current version. In the current versions, the highest proportion of LOE I (42%) was found in recommendations related to pharmacotherapy, while the highest proportion of GOR A recommendations was found in the areas of pathology (50%) and diagnostic (50%) recommendations. Significant variability in LOE I and GOR A recommendations and their changes over time was observed across different cancer types. Conclusion: One-third of the current ESMO CPG recommendations are supported by the highest level of evidence. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the proportion of LOE I and GOR A recommendations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for cancer patients.

Development and validation of impact of early integration of palliative care and oncology(IEI PCO) questionnaire: a survey for medical oncologists and nurses.

OBJECTIVES: Many associations have recently recommended early integration of oncology and palliative care for more standard cancer care and better quality of life. We aimed to create a questionnaire to assess the opinion of medical oncologists and nurses about the clinical impact of the integrated palliative care and oncology (PCO) program. METHODS: A novel semi-structured questionnaire called Impact of Early Integration of Palliative Care Oncology (IEI PCO) questionnaire was developed and tested for validity and reliability then distributed to the oncologists and nurses working in Kuwait Cancer Control Center. RESULTS: After the pilot stage, testing the final questionnaire for validity and reliability was done with satisfactory results. Finally, the complete questionnaires were 170 out of 256 (response rate 66.41%). More awareness about the available palliative care services and the new available PCO services (p-value < 0.001 for all). Most of the oncologists and nurses agreed with the currently available structure of PCO, appreciated the patients' discharge plan and continuity of care of palliative medicine, admitted less work burden, a better attitude, and higher satisfaction (p-value for all < 0.001) toward palliative care. Significant improvements in symptoms were appreciated by oncologists and nurses after the integration of palliative care (p-value for all < 0.001. Oncologists and nurses valued repeated honest communication, discussion of the goals of care, dealing more effectively with ending active treatment, and higher acceptance of patients and families of PC policy of transfer, and significant progress in the care of end-of-life symptoms (p-value for all < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IEI PCO questionnaire demonstrated the psychometric criteria for content, face, and construct validity and reliability. It provides a valuable tool to assess the impact of PCO integration. The opinion of medical oncologists and nurses was significantly positive toward the early integration of PCO in Kuwait in most aspects of care. This integration led to improved symptom control, end-of-life care, communication, and planned discharge and follow-up plans. Moreover, decreases the work burden, improves attitude, higher satisfaction of the oncology staff, and continuity of care.

Access to Oncology Medicines in Canada: Consensus Forum for Recommendations for Improvement.

Patient access to new oncology drugs in Canada is only possible after navigating multiple sequential systemic checkpoints for national regulatory approval, health technology assessment (HTA) and collective government price negotiation. These steps delay access and prevent health care providers from being able to prescribe optimal therapy. Eighteen Canadian oncology clinicians from the medicine, nursing and pharmacy professions met to develop consensus recommendations for defining reasonable government performance standards around process and timeliness to improve Canadian cancer patients' access to best care. A modified Delphi methodology was used to identify consensus on 30 questions involving five themes: accountability, disparities, endpoints, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness. It was agreed that greater transparency is required across regulatory and HTA processes. Health professionals in oncology are frustrated for their patients because they are unable to deliver the modern guideline-supported therapies they want to provide due to delays in approval or funding. Canadian health care providers request improvements in timely access to life-saving therapeutics in line with other comparator countries. Clinicians expect urgent improvements in Canadian health systems to give our patients their best chance of survival.

Health Care Lobbying and Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The health care industry spends more on lobbying than any other industry, with more than $700 million spent in 2022. However, health care lobbying related to cancer has not been characterized. In this study, we sought to describe overall health sector lobbying spending and oncology-related lobbying spending across patient and clinician organizations. METHODS: We obtained lobbying data from OpenSecrets.org and the Federal Election Commission. Overall health sector lobbying spending was categorized by OpenSecrets into 4 groups: pharmaceuticals/health products, health services/health maintenance organizations (HMOs), hospitals/nursing homes, and health professionals. We then identified and categorized 4 oncology-related lobbying groups: oncology physician professional organizations (OPPOs), prospective payment system (PPS)-exempt cancer hospitals, patient advocacy organizations, and provider networks (eg, US Oncology Network). We described temporal trends in lobbying spending from 2014 to 2022, in both overall dollar value (inflation-adjusted 2023 dollars) and in per-physician spending (using American Association of Medical Colleges [AAMC] data for number of hematologists/oncologists) using a Mann-Kendall trend test. RESULTS: Among the overall health sector lobbying, pharmaceuticals/health products had the greatest increase in lobbying spending, with an increase from $294 million in 2014 to >$376 million in 2022 (P=.0006). In contrast, lobbying spending by health professionals did not change, remaining at $96 million (P=.35). Regarding oncology-related lobbying, OPPOs and PPS-exempt cancer hospitals had a significant increase of 170% (P=.016) and 62% (P=.009), respectively. Per-physician spending also demonstrated an increase from $60 to $134 for OPPOs and from $168 to $226 for PPS-exempt cancer hospitals. Overall, OPPO lobbying increased as a percentage of overall physician lobbying from 1.16% in 2014 to 3.76% in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall health sector lobbying has increased, physician/health professional lobbying has remained relatively stable in recent years, spending for lobbying by OPPOs has increased. Continued efforts to understand the utility and value of lobbying in health care and across oncology are needed as the costs of care continue to increase.

Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a GRADE approach for evidence evaluation and recommendations by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology.

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) accounts for ∼20%-25% of all skin tumors. Its precise incidence is often challenging to determine due to limited statistics and its incorporation with mucosal forms. While most cases have a favorable prognosis, challenges arise in patients presenting with locally advanced or metastatic forms, mainly appearing in immunocompromised patients, solid organ transplantation recipients, or those facing social difficulties. Traditionally, chemotherapy and targeted therapy were the mainstays for advanced cases, but recent approvals of immunotherapeutic agents like cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have revolutionized treatment options. These guidelines, developed by the Italian Association of Medical Oncologists (AIOM) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, aim to guide clinicians in diagnosing, treating, and monitoring patients with CSCC, covering key aspects from primitive tumors to advanced stages, selected by a panel of experts selected by AIOM and other national scientific societies. The incorporation of these guidelines into clinical practice is expected to enhance patient care and address the evolving landscape of CSCC management.

ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022. METHODS: A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

English version of Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines 2022 for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) issued by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.

The Japan Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines 2022 for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) have been published in accordance with the Minds Manual for Guideline Development 2014 and 2017. A specialized team independent of the working group for the revision performed a systematic review. Since GIST is a rare type of tumor, clinical evidence is not sufficient to answer several clinical and background questions. Thus, in these guidelines, we considered that consensus among the experts who manage GIST, the balance between benefits and harms, patients' wishes, medical economic perspective, etc. are important considerations in addition to the evidence. Although guidelines for the treatment of GIST have also been published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), there are some differences between the treatments proposed in those guidelines and the treatments in the present guidelines because of the differences in health insurance systems among countries.

Evolving assessment pathways for precision oncology medicines to improve patient access: a tumor-agnostic lens.

BACKGROUND: Genomic and molecular alterations are increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, and scientific advances are opening new treatment avenues. Precision oncology (PO) uses a patient's genomic profile to determine optimal treatment, promising fewer side effects and higher success rates. Within PO, tumor-agnostic (TA) therapies target genomic alterations irrespective of tumor location. However, traditional value frameworks and approval pathways pose challenges which may limit patient access to PO therapies. OBJECTIVES: This study describes challenges in assessing PO and TA medicines, explores possible solutions, and provides actionable recommendations to facilitate an iterative life-cycle assessment of these medicines. METHODS: After reviewing the published literature, we obtained insights from key stakeholders and European experts across a range of disciplines, through individual interviews and an industry workshop. The research was guided and refined by an international expert committee through 2 sounding board meetings. RESULTS: The current challenges faced by PO and TA medicines are multiple and can be demonstrated through real-world examples of the current barriers and opportunities. A life-cycle approach to assessment should be taken, including key actions at the early stages of evidence generation, regulatory and reimbursement stage, as well as payment and adoption solutions that make use of the evolving evidence base. Working toward these solutions to maximize PO medicine value is a shared responsibility and stands to benefit all stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Our call to action is to expand access to comprehensive genomic testing, foster a learning health care system, enable fast and equitable access to cost-effective treatments, and ultimately improve health outcomes.