Early Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: Integrating Histopathology with Artificial Intelligence.

Effective risk assessment in early breast cancer is essential for informed clinical decision-making, yet consensus on defining risk categories remains challenging. This paper explores evolving approaches in risk stratification, encompassing histopathological, immunohistochemical, and molecular biomarkers alongside cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) techniques. Leveraging machine learning, deep learning, and convolutional neural networks, AI is reshaping predictive algorithms for recurrence risk, thereby revolutionizing diagnostic accuracy and treatment planning. Beyond detection, AI applications extend to histological subtyping, grading, lymph node assessment, and molecular feature identification, fostering personalized therapy decisions. With rising cancer rates, it is crucial to implement AI to accelerate breakthroughs in clinical practice, benefiting both patients and healthcare providers. However, it is important to recognize that while AI offers powerful automation and analysis tools, it lacks the nuanced understanding, clinical context, and ethical considerations inherent to human pathologists in patient care. Hence, the successful integration of AI into clinical practice demands collaborative efforts between medical experts and computational pathologists to optimize patient outcomes.

GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework. RESULTS: We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods. CONCLUSION: This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

Position paper of the Italian association of medical oncology on health disparities among transgender and gender-diverse people: the Assisi recommendations.

Transgender and gender-diverse individuals experience substantial health disparities across the cancer care continuum. Despite well recognized unique healthcare needs, there are barriers in accessing cancer prevention and treatment services, influenced by disadvantages in key social-economic determinants of health which result in worse clinical outcomes, as compared to the general population. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) acknowledges the critical relevance of this issue. The "Assisi Recommendations" here summarize the outcomes of the "AIOM Oncology Ethics Day" dedicated to gender differences in oncology and cancer care of transgender and gender-diverse people. The recommendations generated during a 2-day multidisciplinary discussion address the various aspects of cancer care experience of transgender and gender-diverse people. The promotion of research in this field, through the generation of new evidence and the collection of prospective data, has been identified as a priority action to mitigate these disparities. By acknowledging the challenges of cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse people and recognizing the need for dedicated policy and clinical recommendations, AIOM demonstrates its commitment to improving the health and well-being of all patients with cancer, regardless of their gender identity or any other personal or social circumstances, as part of health-for-all societal vision.

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.

Impact of Prior Authorization on Patient Access to Cancer Care.

Prior authorization (PA) is a type of utilization review that health insurers apply to control service delivery, payments, and reimbursements of health interventions. The original stated intent of PA was to ensure high-quality standards in treatment delivery while encouraging evidence-based and cost-effective therapeutic choices. However, as currently implemented in clinical practice, PA has been shown to affect the health workforce, adding administrative burden to authorize needed health interventions for patients and often requiring time-consuming peer-to-peer reviews to challenge initial denials. PA is presently required for a wide range of interventions, including supportive care medicines and other essential cancer care interventions. Patients who are denied coverage are commonly forced to receive second-choice options, including less effective or less tolerable options, or are exposed to financial toxicity because of substantial out-of-pocket expenditures, affecting patient-centric outcomes. The development of tools informed by national clinical guidelines to identify standard-of-care interventions for patients with specific cancer diagnoses and the implementation of evidence-based clinical pathways as part of quality improvement efforts of cancer centers have improved patient outcomes and may serve to establish new payment models for health insurers, thereby also reducing administrative burden and delays. The definition of a set of essential interventions and guidelines- or pathways-driven decisions could facilitate reimbursement decisions and thus reduce the need for PAs. Structural changes in how PA is applied and implemented, including a redefinition of its real need, are needed to optimize patient-centric outcomes and support high-quality care of patients with cancer.

Pharmacoeconomics of novel pharmacotherapies in triple-negative breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents the most aggressive breast cancer subtype carrying unfavorable clinical outcomes. Although traditionally chemotherapy has represented the only systemic treatment option available, novel drugs have changed the treatment landscape, granting approval by regulatory agencies worldwide, while determining new economic struggles on health systems for their high prices. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we provided a comprehensive analysis of pharmacoeconomic studies of drugs recently approved in the early and advanced settings of TNBC. EXPERT OPINION: Novel systemic treatment options redefined the therapeutic algorithms for TNBC by establishing new paradigms, based on substantial clinical benefits. Pembrolizumab and olaparib in the curative setting portend high value, as shown with the use of value frameworks, resulting in cost-effective interventions. In the metastatic setting, new drugs have demonstrated mixed improvements in patient-centric end-points, resulting often in interventions unlikely to have good value for money. We believe that cost-effectiveness alone is not a metric to inform the opportunity to invest on new interventions, while the intrinsic value of medicines should be the driver of the decisions. We endorse a patient-centric priority setting that can ensure health system sustainability, to timely deliver innovative cancer care to all in need and positively impact on population health.

Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes across Breast Cancer Subtypes: Current Issues for Biomarker Assessment.

Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) represent a surrogate biomarker of anti-tumor, lymphocyte-mediated immunity. In early, triple-negative breast cancer, TILs have level 1B of evidence to predict clinical outcomes. TILs represent a promising biomarker to select patients who can experience a better prognosis with de-intensified cancer treatments and derive larger benefits from immune checkpoint inhibitors. However, the assessment and the validation of TILs as a biomarker require a prospective and rigorous demonstration of its clinical validity and utility, provided reproducible analytical performance. With pending data about the prospective validation of TILs' clinical validity to modulate treatments in early breast cancer, this review summarizes the most important current issues and future challenges related to the implementation of TILs assessments across all breast cancer subtypes and their potential integration into clinical practice.

[Access to cancer treatment: financial difficulties, system sustainability, methodological rigor. The role of scientific journals.] / Accesso alle cure oncologiche: difficoltà finanziarie, sostenibilità del sistema, rigore metodologico.

The growing national economic burden linked to cancer spending is certainly impacted by an aging population, yet it finds its greatest obstacle in the ever-increasing costs for diagnostics, therapies, and hospital care, putting a strain on patients' finances of the family and the health system. Even in a universal healthcare system like the Italian one, where much of the difficult decisions on healthcare spending are in the hands of government technicians, and shaped by political will, patients contribute to cancer costs out of their own pockets to a much greater extent than is perceived from common sense. The sustainability of the cancer care system cannot ignore the meticulous control of public spending, which is fundamental and essential for societies that aim to keep the standards of care extremely high and continuously improve access and reduce inequalities in cancer care. Clinical trials, healthcare professionals and patients are best placed to evaluate the costs and benefits of treatment choices and are among the most financially affected by such decisions. Can scientific journals in the sector have their contribution for improvement? How can journals potentially close this gap and inform doctors, taxpayers, and the general population? To address this problem effectively, attention needs to be paid to two fundamental issues: one is high-quality science, and another is the ability to inform decision-making.

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.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments.

BACKGROUND: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. METHODS: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. RESULTS: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. CONCLUSION: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Cancer Medicines: What Is Essential and Affordable in India?

PURPOSE: The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice. RESULTS: The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system. CONCLUSION: Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

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.

Age-Based Disparities in Metastatic Melanoma Patients Treated in the Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICI) Versus Non-ICI Era: A Population-Based Study.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized metastatic melanoma treatment, but our knowledge of ICI activity across age groups is insufficient. Patients in different age groups with advanced melanoma were selected based on the ICI approval time in this study. Patients with melanoma were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) database program 2004-2016. The results showed that 4,040 patients had advanced melanoma before the advent of ICI (referred to as the "non-ICI era"), whereas there were 6,188 cases after ICI approval (referred to as the "ICI era"). In all age groups, the cases were dominated by men. The differences between the first (20-59 years) and second (60-74 years) age groups in both eras were significant in terms of surgery performance and holding of insurance policies (p = 0.05). The first and second groups (20-59 and 60-70 years old, respectively) showed no difference in survival (median = 8 months) during the non-ICI era, but the difference was evident in the first, second, and third age groups in the ICI era, with the younger group (20-59 years) having significantly better survival (median = 18, 14, and 10 months, respectively, p = 0.0001). Multivariate analysis of the first group (the youngest) in the ICI era revealed that surgery was significantly associated with an increase in survival among patients compared with those who did not undergo surgery (p < 0.0001). Furthermore, having an insurance policy among all age groups in the ICI era was associated with favorable survival in the first (20-59 years) and second (60-74 years) age groups (p = 0.0001), while there were no survival differences in the older ICI group (>74 years). Although there were differences in survival between the ICI era and the non-ICI era, these results demonstrate that ICI positively affected the survival of younger patients with advanced melanoma (first age group) than it had beneficial effects on older patients. Moreover, having had cancer surgery and holding an insurance policy were positive predictors for patient survival. This study emphasizes that adequate clinical and preclinical studies are important to enhance ICI outcomes across age groups.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Microsatellite Instability-High End-Stage Cancers and Poor Performance Status Related to High Disease Burden.

BACKGROUND: Few real-world series on the efficacy and safety of anti-programmed cell death protein-1(PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1(PD-L1)-based therapy are available in molecularly unselected patients with poor performance status (PS) and specific types of advanced cancers, because such populations are typically excluded from clinical trials due to poor life expectancy and risk of toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter retrospective case series included patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high metastatic cancers with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS of 2 or 3 not related to comorbidities receiving anti-PD-1 with or without anti-CTLA-4 therapy after failure of at least one prior treatment line. RESULTS: We included 27 patients with six diverse tumor types: colorectal (n = 18), gastric (n = 5), biliary tract, pancreatic, small bowel, and endometrial cancers (n = 1 each). Baseline ECOG PS was 2 (74%) or 3 (26%). Overall response rate was 33%, with six partial and three complete responses. Median time to response was 3.1, months and median duration of response was 16.9 months. Median progression-free survival was 3.4 months (95% CI: 2.3 to not evaluable), and 18-month overall survival was 50.8% (95% confidence interval, 32.7-78.8). Baseline variables were not associated with survival outcomes. ECOG PS 1 was reached by 52% of patients in a median time of 6 weeks, and ECOG PS 0 was reached by 30% of patients in a median time of 10 weeks. CONCLUSION: In a high proportion of patients with MSI-high cancers and poor performance status related to end-stage disease, salvage immunotherapy can induce potentially long-lasting "Lazarus responses". Immunotherapy decisions near the end-of-life should be carefully integrated with predictive biomarkers and with palliative care measures in the real-world setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: In this retrospective cohort study of 27 pretreated patients with microsatellite instability (MSI)-high cancers and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or 3 not related to comorbidities, PD-1/PD-L1-based therapy induced a RECIST response in 33% of patients, with a median duration of 16.9 months, and an improvement of performance status in 52% of patients. MSI-high status can be used in clinical practice as a tumor-agnostic predictive biomarker to select critically ill patients with end-stage cancers for salvage immunotherapy.

Breast Cancer: Reimbursement Policies and Adoption of New Therapeutic Agents by National Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a cause of morbidity for more than half a million of patients in Europe, resulting in broad societal impacts that affect patients, families, and societies from a human, emotional, economic, and financial perspective. Expenditure for cancer medicines represents one of the principal driving costs of healthcare. The aim of this review is to describe the European policy and regulatory landscape of innovation uptake in breast oncology - with emphasis on value in cancer healthcare. SUMMARY: In Europe, several reimbursement models or policy tools have been developed by countries to compose their benefit packages. The most commonly applied scheme is the product-specific eligibility model, prioritizing selected medicines and their indications. Mixed models are commonly developed, addressing the protection of more vulnerable people, ensuring protection from impoverishment caused by cancer and containing disparities. However, the risk to incur significant out-of-pocket expenses for essential or newer medicines for cancer is still substantial in Europe, especially in low- and middle-income countries, determining greater financial distress and poorer outcome for patients. Value-based priority setting is an essential mechanism to ensure timely access to the most valuable medicines for breast cancer patients. Estimations of the value of medicines can be provided within health technology assessment services and networks and informed by benefit scales and tools. KEY MESSAGES: There is ample room for reciprocal support across the diverse cultural and legal realities in Europe. The aim is common: save cancer patients from premature death by ensuring the timely access to the best care, protecting from financial hardships and distress to leave no cancer patient behind in poverty. Steps are to be taken to promote value-based priority setting, paving the way toward universal health coverage in Europe, where health of people is protected, and affordable best quality care is the only standard pursued and acceptable.

National cancer control plans: a global analysis.

There is increasing global recognition that national cancer plans are crucial to effectively address the cancer burden and to prioritise and coordinate programmes. We did a global analysis of available national cancer-related health plans using a standardised assessment questionnaire to assess their inclusion of elements that characterise an effective cancer plan and, thereby, improve understanding of the strengths and limitations of existing plans. The results show progress in the development of cancer plans, as well as in the inclusion of stakeholders in plan development, but little evidence of their implementation. Areas of continued unmet need include setting of realistic priorities, specification of programmes for cancer management, allocation of appropriate budgets, monitoring and evaluation of plan implementation, promotion of research, and strengthening of information systems. We found that countries with a non-communicable disease (NCD) plan but no national cancer control plan (NCCP) were less likely than countries with an NCCP and NCP plan or an NCCP only to have comprehensive, coherent, or consistent plans. As countries move towards universal health coverage, greater emphasis is needed on developing NCCPs that are evidence based, financed, and implemented to ensure translation into action.