Current Scenario of Clinical Cancer Research in Latin America and the Caribbean.

In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), progress has been made in some national and regional cancer control initiatives, which have proved useful in reducing diagnostic and treatment initiation delays. However, there are still significant gaps, including a lack of oncology clinical trials. In this article, we will introduce the current status of the region's clinical research in cancer, with a special focus on academic cancer research groups and investigator-initiated research (IIR) initiatives. Investigators in LAC have strived to improve cancer research despite drawbacks and difficulties in funding, regulatory timelines, and a skilled workforce. Progress has been observed in the representation of this region in clinical trial development and conduct, as well as in scientific productivity. However, most oncology trials in the region have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, highlighting the need for increased funding from governments and private foundations. Improvements in obtaining and/or strengthening the LAC cancer research group's financing will provide opportunities to address cancer therapies and management shortcomings specific to the region. Furthermore, by including this large, ethnic, and genetically diverse population in the world's research agenda, one may bridge the gap in knowledge regarding the applicability of results of clinical trials now mainly conducted in populations from the Northern Hemisphere.

Multicenter Database of Patients with Germ-Cell Tumors: A Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group Registry (LACOG 0515).

INTRODUCTION: Germ-cell tumors (GCTs) are the most common malignancy in young men. There is a paucity of data on GCTs in developing countries. LACOG 0515 study aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in patients with GCTs from Brazilian cancer centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating male patients diagnosed with GCTs from 2000 to 2018 in 13 Brazilian hospitals. We described baseline characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 1232 patients were included, with a median age of 30 years. Histology was seminoma in 47.1% and non-seminoma GCT (NSGCT) in 52.9%. The primary tumor site was testis in 96.5%. At diagnosis, clinical stage I was present in 68.1% and 34.7% and clinical stages IS/II/III in 31.9% and 65.2% of patients with seminoma and NSCGT, respectively. Following orchiectomy, 55.2% of patients with clinical stage I were managed with surveillance. The 5-year disease-free survival rates among patients with stage I were 98.0% in seminoma and 92.3% in NSGCT, with 5-year OS of 99.6% and 97.6%, respectively. Among patients with advanced disease (IS, II, and III), the 5-year PFS were 88.7% in seminoma and 68.7% in NSGCT, with 5y-OS of 97.6% and 82.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the largest Brazilian cohort of GCTs. Our results show a high rate of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with clinical stage I. Although our data demonstrate slightly inferior PFS compared with the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaborative Group and other contemporary series, the OS rates were similar.

Current scenario and future perspectives of clinical research in Brazil: a national survey.

Background: Epidemiological and clinical cancer research is essential to understanding tumour behaviour and developing new therapies in oncology. However, several countries including Brazil as well as many other regions of the world have limited participation in cancer research. Despite 625,000 new cancer cases recorded in Brazil in 2022, only 2.2% of ongoing cancer clinical trials are available in the country. We conducted an online survey to describe physician engagement with research and to identify the main barriers precluding participation in and conduct of clinical cancer research in the country. Methods: An anonymous online survey of 23 objective questions was sent by e-mail to Brazilian members of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. The first 13 questions addressed demographic information, medical training and previous research participation. In the second part, the main barriers to engagement and participation in clinical trials in Brazil were addressed. Continuous variables were measured by median and range. Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC). Results: 109 physicians answered the survey. Most participants were oncologists (N = 98, 89.9%), living in capital cities (N = 84, 77.1%), were from the Southeast region of Brazil (N = 63, 57.8%) and worked at institutions providing exclusively private healthcare (N = 59, 54.1%). Of the 109 respondents, 83 (76.1%) reported working in research centres (as investigators or sub-investigators). Surprisingly, 31.2% of physicians recognised they invite less than 1% of their patients to participate in clinical trials, even though 98 (89.9%) considered the participation of patients in clinical trials extremely relevant. The main barriers compromising the conduct of research in the country were the low number of available trials (48.2%) and the lack of qualified human resources to staff research sites (22.9%). Other reported barriers were the lengthy regulatory approval process (42.2%), followed by a lack of awareness of clinical research by patients resulting in low recruitment rates (24.1%). Of the 26 (23.8%) respondents not working with research, 25 (96.1%) reported interest in being involved, 31.8% have tried participating in research and 62.4% reported limited knowledge of trial procedures. Conclusion: These results suggest a clear need to further engage physicians in clinical research activities in Brazil. Patient education strategies should improve the low recruitment rates and secondarily increase the number of proposed trials in the country.

Cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean: recent advances and opportunities to move forward.

The increasing burden of cancer represents a substantial problem for Latin America and the Caribbean. Two Lancet Oncology Commissions in 2013 and 2015 highlighted potential interventions that could advance cancer care in the region by overcoming existing challenges. Areas requiring improvement included insufficient investment in cancer control, non-universal health coverage, fragmented health systems, inequitable concentration of cancer services, inadequate registries, delays in diagnosis or treatment initiation, and insufficient palliative services. Progress has been made in key areas but remains uneven across the region. An unforeseen challenge, the COVID-19 pandemic, strained all resources, and its negative effect on cancer control is expected to continue for years. In this Series paper, we summarise progress in several aspects of cancer control since 2015, and identify persistent barriers requiring commitment of additional resources to reduce the cancer burden in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Perspectives on emerging technologies, personalised medicine, and clinical research for cancer control in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Challenges of health systems in Latin America and the Caribbean include accessibility, inequity, segmentation, and poverty. These challenges are similar in different countries of the region and transcend national borders. The increasing digital transformation of health care holds promise of more precise interventions, improved health outcomes, increased efficiency, and ultimately reduced health-care costs. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the adoption of digital health tools is in early stages and the quality of cancer registries, electronic health records, and structured databases are problematic. Cancer research and innovation in the region are limited due to inadequate academic resources and translational research is almost fully dependent on public funding. Regulatory complexity and extended timelines jeopardise the potential improvement in participation in international studies. Emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, big data, and cancer research represent an opportunity to address the health-care challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean collectively, by optimising national capacities, sharing and comparing best practices, and transferring scientific and technical capabilities.

Should platinum-based chemotherapy be preferred for germline BReast CAncer genes (BRCA) 1 and 2-mutated pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is one of the most lethal cancers worldwide. Recent studies have shown that 4-20% of patients with PDAC have a germline BReast CAncer (gBRCA) genes 1 and 2 mutation (m). Because homologous recombination is impaired in patients with gBRCAm, some reports suggested that these tumors may be more sensitive to platinum compounds. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis focused on benefit of patients with gBRCAm receiving a platinum-based chemotherapy (PtCh) compared with those treated with a non-platinum-based chemotherapy (NPtCh). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched from inception to May 12, 2018: PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. Abstracts from conferences were also reviewed for inclusion. Cohort, case-control and randomized studies of patients with PDAC and gBRCAm were eligible for inclusion if they provided data to compare patients receiving PtCh vs NPtCh. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) in the PtCh group vs the NPtCh group in patients with clinical stage III (locally advanced) or IV (metastatic) (CS III-IV) PDAC. RESULTS: Of 112 studies identified, 6 were included (total of 108 patients); of these, 4 provided sufficient data for meta-analysis. Half of the patients were males, with a mean age ranging from 58 to 63 years. The OS in the 85 patients with CS III-IV PDAC was higher in the PtCh group (23.7 vs 12.2 months; mean difference of 10.21 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.05-15.37; P < 0.001; very low quality of evidence). PtCh was associated with a lower mortality (62.3 vs 87.5%; relative risk of 0.80, 95%CI 0.66-0.97; P = 0.021; very low quality of evidence). CONCLUSION: Our study confirmed the hypothesis that patients with CS III-IV gBRCAm preferably benefit from a PtCh compared with NPtCh. However the very low quality of evidence should induce to be careful about the risk of potential biases. The generated hypothesis should be prospectively investigated in homogenous clinical settings.