Utility of a prognostic assessment tool to predict survival following surgery for brain metastases.

Background: Brain metastases account for more than 50% of all intracranial tumors and are associated with poor outcomes. Treatment decisions in this highly heterogenous cohort remain controversial due to the myriad of treatment options available, and there is no clearly defined standard of care. The prognosis in brain metastasis patients varies widely with tumor type, extracranial disease burden and patient performance status. Decision-making regarding treatment is, therefore, tailored to each patient and their disease. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study assessing survival outcomes following surgery for brain metastases over a 50-month period (April 1, 2014-June 30, 2018). We compared predicted survival using the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (ds-GPA) with actual survival. Results: A total of 186 patients were included in our cohort. Regression analysis demonstrated no significant correlation between actual and predicted outcome. The most common reason for exclusion was insufficient information being available to the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting to allow GPA calculation. Conclusions: In this study, we demonstrate that "predicted survival" using the ds-GPA does not correlate with "actual survival" in our operated patient cohort. We also identify a shortcoming in the amount of information available at MDT in order to implement the GPA appropriately. Patient selection for aggressive therapies is crucial, and this study emphasizes the need for treatment decisions to be individualized based on patient and cancer clinical characteristics.

Primary Care 2030: Creating an Enabling Ecosystem for Disruptive Primary Care Models to Achieve Universal Health Coverage in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Background: Forty years after Alma Ata, there is renewed commitment to strengthen primary health care as a foundation for achieving universal health coverage, but there is limited consensus on how to build strong primary health care systems to achieve these goals. Methods: We convened a diverse group of global stakeholders for a high-level dialogue on how to create an enabling ecosystem for disruptive primary care innovation. We focused our discussion on four themes: workforce innovation and strengthening; impactful use of data and technology; private sector engagement; and innovative financing mechanisms. Findings: Here, we present a summary of our convening's proceedings, with specific recommendations for strengthening primary health care systems within each of these four domains. Conclusions: In the wake of the Astana Declaration, there is global consensus that high-quality primary health care must be the foundation for universal health coverage. Significant disruptive innovation will be required to realize this goal. We offer our recommendations to the global community to catalyze further discourse and inform policy-making and program development on the path to Health for All by 2030.