Why is the screening rate in lung cancer still low? A seven-country analysis of the factors affecting adoption.

Strong evidence of lung cancer screening's effectiveness in mortality reduction, as demonstrated in the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) in the US and the Dutch-Belgian Randomized Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NELSON), has prompted countries to implement formal lung cancer screening programs. However, adoption rates remain largely low. This study aims to understand how lung cancer screening programs are currently performing. It also identifies the barriers and enablers contributing to adoption of lung cancer screening across 10 case study countries: Canada, China, Croatia, Japan, Poland, South Korea and the United States. Adoption rates vary significantly across studied countries. We find five main factors impacting adoption: (1) political prioritization of lung cancer (2) financial incentives/cost sharing and hidden ancillary costs (3) infrastructure to support provision of screening services (4) awareness around lung cancer screening and risk factors and (5) cultural views and stigma around lung cancer. Although these factors have application across the countries, the weighting of each factor on driving or hindering adoption varies by country. The five areas set out by this research should be factored into policy making and implementation to maximize effectiveness and outreach of lung cancer screening programs.

Health outcomes and budget impact projection of anti-PD-(L)1s in cancer care in Portugal.

Introduction: PD-[L]1 inhibitors revolutionized cancer treatment but challenge the affordability of health systems. This policy-focused model aimed to estimate the health and budget impact of anti-PD-(L)1s in Portugal and inform current discussions. Materials and methods: The Health Impact Projection (HIP) model estimates clinical (life years, progression-free survival [PFS] years, and quality-adjusted life years [QALY] gained and adverse events [AEs] incurred) and economic (direct and indirect costs) outcomes in a world where cancer patients are initiating treatment with standard-of-care (SOC) versus SOC plus anti-PD-(L)1s over a 3-year time horizon. Indications included adjuvant and metastatic melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (first and second line), metastatic triple-negative breast cancer, head and neck cancer, urothelial carcinoma, and renal cell carcinoma. Model inputs were based on publicly available literature data and expert opinion. Results: The model estimated that, over 3 years, 7,773 patients would be treated with anti-PD-(L)1s, realizing a gain of 4,787 life years, 6,901 PFS years, and 4,214 QALYs and avoiding 399 AEs. The introduction of anti-PD-(L)1s had a projected average annual impact of ≈ €108 million and a share of 20% of total cancer medicines expenditure and 0.6% of total healthcare expenditure in 2021. Although higher disease management costs are expected for patients living longer with anti-PD-(L)1s and drug acquisition costs are considerable, that is partially offset by a reduction in end-of-life costs (€611,092/year) and costs associated with patient productivity lost to cancer (€9,128,142/year). Discussion: This model highlights the significant survival and QoL benefit of anti-PD-(L)1s for cancer patients in Portugal, with a relatively low increased cost in total healthcare expenditure.

Should we screen for lung cancer? A 10-country analysis identifying key decision-making factors.

The need for early detection, both early diagnosis and screening is essential for improved prognosis in lung cancer. The effectiveness of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients has been shown by extensive clinical evidence including the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) and the Dutch-Belgian lung cancer screening trial (NELSON) which has triggered political consideration of a formal programme across countries. However, implementation of these is still limited. This study investigates how governments make decisions on the implementation of lung cancer screening, identifying key consideration factors through 10 case study countries: Australia, Canada, Croatia, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK, and US. We identified five decision-making factors (1) recognition of the disease burden and the value of early detection, (2) strong clinical data showing mortality reduction and benefit-risk analysis relevant to the local context, (3) cost-effectiveness data and budget impact, (4) local feasibility demonstration and (5) a clear and integrated decision-making mechanism involving relevant stakeholders. The set of factors identified in this paper can help advocates address knowledge gaps, identify the key focus areas for discussions with policymakers evaluating the opportunities for lung cancer screening programmes in their local context. Ultimately, this should allow policymakers to make more informed decisions on lung cancer screening to best improve lung cancer outcomes.

Budget projections and clinical impact of an immuno-oncology class of treatments: Experience in four EU markets.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapies have revolutionized oncology, but their rapid expansion may potentially put healthcare budgets under strain. We developed an approach to reduce demand uncertainty and inform decision makers and payers of the potential health outcomes and budget impact of the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 class of immuno-oncology (IO) treatments. METHODS: We used partitioned survival modelling and budget impact analysis to estimate overall survival, progression-free survival, life years gained (LYG), and number of adverse events (AEs), comparing "worlds with and without" anti-PD-1/PD-L1s over five years. The cancer types initially included melanoma, first and second line non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), bladder, head and neck, renal cell carcinoma, and triple negative breast cancer [1]. Inputs were based on publicly available data, literature, and expert advice. RESULTS: The model [2] estimated budget and health impact of the anti-PD-1/PD-L1s and projected that between 2018-2022 the class [3] would have a manageable economic impact per year, compared to the current standard of care (SOC). The first country adaptations showed that for that period Belgium would save around 11,100 additional life years and avoid 6,100 AEs. Slovenia - 1,470 LYGs and 870 AEs avoided; Austria - respectively 4,200, 3,000; Italy - 19,800, 6,800. For Austria, the class had a projected share of about 4.5 % of the cancer care budget and 0.4 % of the total 2020 healthcare budget. For Belgium, Slovenia, and Italy - respectively 15.1 % and 1.1 %, 12.6 %, 0.6 %, and 6.5 %, 0.5 %. CONCLUSION: The Health Impact Projection (HIP) is a horizon scanning model designed to estimate the potential budget and health impact of the PD-(L)1 inhibitor class at a country level for the next five years. It provides valuable data to payers which they can use to support their reimbursement plans. POLICY SUMMARY: The model is a strategic tool which allows decisionmakers to assess the implications of policy decisions, such as additional investment, or accelerated access to IOs. It can drive tangible population health benefits by eliminating the questions around PD-(L)1 inhibitor spending and its related outcomes.

The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021.

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.

The call for a strategic framework to improve cancer literacy in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Health literacy is increasingly being recognized as a widespread public health challenge in Europe. This commentary explores the importance of health literacy amongst cancer patients (ie, cancer literacy) and examines how cancer literacy can be improved through the practical application of health literacy principles within the context of providing timely, patient-centered, value-based care in Europe. MAIN BODY: Despite implementation of evidence-based cancer prevention programs and increased cancer survival rates, low cancer literacy may impact the personal capacity to manage risks and adversely impact behavior and outcomes. Cancer literacy poses a unique set of challenges compared to other types of health literacy, as patient decisions regarding screening, treatment, and side effect management are often complex, and timely decision-making is more critical. Accordingly, European health policies increasingly recognize the importance of health literacy. The European Patients Forum, European Cancer Patient Coalition, and the Association of European Cancer Leagues supported a joint statement, "Europe Let's Do More for Health," which emphasizes the need to empower citizens and patients by addressing health literacy, self-management, and shared decision-making. Implementation of comprehensive programs and strategies will be important to improve health literacy. Cancer literacy can be improved through application of health literacy principles in the communication and cooperation with professionals, patients and caregivers for providing timely, patient-centered, value-based care. Recommendations are made for further action to improve cancer literacy in Europe through coordinated efforts among providers, organizations, patients, and research. A policy paper developed by the European Joint Action on Cancer Control provides practical recommendations that Member States can take to reduce social inequalities in cancer care and defines focus areas that are closely connected with the need to improve cancer literacy. CONCLUSION: Improved personal cancer literacy combined with health literate organizations and systems can potentially improve the quality of care and health outcomes among patients with cancer. National Cancer Control Plans and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan can strengthen cancer literacy.

Nothing about me without me: why an EU health literacy strategy embracing the role of citizens and patients is needed.

As a multi-faceted concept, health literacy concerns the capacities of people to meet the complex demands of health in a modern society, starting with basic skills and ending with active citizenship. The importance of advancing health literacy in Europe was recognised by the European Commission in various communications and initiatives and most recently by the OECD. However, a strategic approach combined with a long-term action plan is still missing. This commentary advocates for an EU strategy on health literacy to fully take into account the partnership of citizens and patients with professionals and decision-makers in health and health care to promote health literate societies.

Competition between on-patent medicines in Europe.

There is widespread concern regarding the high price of innovative medicines and their impact on the sustainability of healthcare systems. However, the debate rarely accounts for the evolution of prices over the lifetime of the medicine and the impact of competitive forces. This article uses the experience of hepatitis C (HCV), during the years 2010-2017 to examine the impact of in-class competition and implications for policies that enable competition. To study the HCV market, we focused on European countries and applied a two-step approach involving a comprehensive literature review and an analysis of monthly sales data in US$ across seven European countries from July 2011 until July 2017. We find that competition to address the unmet medical need has led to significant treatment improvements to the benefit of patients, payers and the wider healthcare system and society. Competitive launches have led to innovative agreements, lowering the cost per treatment and improving patient access to treatment. For innovators, intense competition does not only impact the price set and their market share but in many cases shortens the economic life of the product to only a fraction of the patented period. This has an impact on future research decisions, focusing efforts on areas where unmet need is greatest. Sustainable innovation requires a well-balanced policy framework that provides the appropriate incentives and encourages competition.

Achieving equal and timely access to innovative anticancer drugs in the European Union (EU): summary of a multidisciplinary CECOG-driven roundtable discussion with a focus on Eastern and South-Eastern EU countries.

The Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG) and 'ESMO Open-Cancer Horizons' roundtable discussion brought together stakeholders from several European Union (EU) countries involved in drug development, drug authorisation and reimbursement or otherwise affected by delayed and unequal access to innovative anticancer drugs. The approval process of drugs is well established and access delays can be caused directly or indirectly by national or regional decision-making processes on reimbursement. The two key aspects for those involved in reimbursement decisions are first the level of evidence required to decide and second pricing, which can be challenging for some innovative oncology compounds, especially in Eastern and South-Eastern European countries. Other important factors include: available healthcare budget; the structure and sophistication of healthcare authorities and health technology assessment processes; societal context and political will. From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, better alignment between stakeholders in the process and adaptive pathway initiatives is desirable. Key aspects for patients are improved access to clinical trials, preapproval availability and reports on real-world evidence. Restricted access limits oncologists' daily work in Eastern and South-Eastern EU countries. The roundtable discussion suggested considering the sequencing of regulatory approval and reimbursement decisions together with more flexible contracting as a possible way forward. The panel concluded that early and regular dialogue between all stakeholders including regulators, payers, patient stakeholders and industry is required to improve the situation.