Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe - part 1: a historical perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. METHODS: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. RESULTS: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand,' and 'Harvest.' Findings were supported by published literature. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2: how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment.

INTRODUCTION: Biosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets. AREAS COVERED: An expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers. EXPERT OPINION: The panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

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.

Educational contribution of the College of the European School of Oncology to the Latin American Oncologists.

The European School of Oncology (ESO) offers a wide range of educational activities in Europe, the Middle East and Latin America. International experts are invited to provide proper education in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with cancer according to a holistic model of care. This activity is currently structured in the ESO College (ESCO) through masterclasses in clinical oncology, international conferences, clinical training centers fellowship programs, certificate of competence and advanced studies, patients' advocacy events, e-learning sessions and medical students' courses in oncology. This institutional profile highlights the ESO-ESCO educational activities dedicated to Latin American oncologists and reports on the experience of the 869 participants that have attended these programs.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC): Lung cancer.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

From guidelines to clinical practice: a roadmap for oncologists for nutrition therapy for cancer patients.

Tackling malnutrition in cancer patients remains one of the most challenging tasks in clinical practice. Even though robust evidence exists stressing the role of nutritional status in relation to treatment outcome, its appropriate consideration in clinical practice is often lacking. In this review, we discuss the significance of nutritional status and of malnutrition for the cancer patient. Drawn from experience and from current recommendations of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), we propose concrete and manageable steps to routinely incorporate nutritional aspects in today's oncological clinical practice.

Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care.

A Practical Approach to Fatigue Management in Colorectal Cancer.

Cancer-related fatigue is serious and complex, as well as one of the most common symptoms experienced by patients with colorectal cancer, with the potential to compromise quality of life, activities of daily living, and ultimately survival. There is a lack of consensus about the definition of cancer-related fatigue; however, definitions have been put forward by the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). Numerous cancer- and treatment-related factors can contribute to fatigue, including disease progression, comorbidities, medical complications such as anemia, side effects of other medications, and a number of physical and psychologic factors. This underlines the importance of tackling factors that may contribute to fatigue before reducing the dose of treatment. NCCN guidelines and the EAPC have proposed approaches to managing fatigue in cancer patients; however, relatively few therapeutic agents have been demonstrated to reduce fatigue in randomized controlled trials. It is recognized that physical activity produces many beneficial physiologic modifications to markers of physical performance that can help to counteract various causes of fatigue. In appropriately managed and monitored patients with colorectal cancer, emerging evidence indicates that exercise programs may have a favorable influence on cancer-related fatigue, quality of life, and clinical outcomes, and therefore may help patients tolerate chemotherapy. This review assesses fatigue in patients with colorectal cancer and proposes updates to a treatment algorithm that may help clinicians manage this common problem.

Management of Aromatase Inhibitor-Associated Bone Loss (AIBL) in postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive breast cancer: Joint position statement of the IOF, CABS, ECTS, IEG, ESCEO IMS, and SIOG.

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines have been reported for bone-directed treatment in women with early breast cancer (EBC) for averting fractures, particularly during aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy. Recently, a number of studies on additional fracture related risk factors, new treatment options as well as real world studies demonstrating a much higher fracture rate than suggested by randomized clinical controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, this updated algorithm was developed to better assess fracture risk and direct treatment as a position statement of several interdisciplinary cancer and bone societies involved in the management of AI-associated bone loss (AIBL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review identified recent advances in the management of AIBL. Results with individual agents were assessed based on trial design, size, follow-up, and safety. RESULTS: Several fracture related risk factors in patients with EBC were identified. Although, the FRAX algorithm includes fracture risk factors (RF) in addition to BMD, it does not seem to adequately address the effects of AIBL. Several antiresorptive agents can prevent and treat AIBL. However, concerns regarding compliance and long-term safety remain. Overall, the evidence for fracture prevention is strongest for denosumab 60 mg s.c. every 6 months. Additionally, recent studies as well as an individual patient data meta-analysis of all available randomized trial data support additional anticancer benefits from adjuvant bisphosphonate treatment in postmenopausal women with a 34% relative risk reduction in bone metastasis and 17% relative risk decrease in breast cancer mortality that needs to be taken into account when advising on management of AIBL. CONCLUSIONS: In all patients initiating AI treatment, fracture risk should be assessed and recommendation with regard to exercise and calcium/vitamin D supplementation given. Bone-directed therapy should be given to all patients with a T-score<-2.0 or with a T-score of <-1.5 SD with one additional RF, or with ≥2 risk factors (without BMD) for the duration of AI treatment. Patients with T-score>-1.5 SD and no risk factors should be managed based on BMD loss during the first year and the local guidelines for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Compliance should be regularly assessed as well as BMD on treatment after 12 - 24 months. Furthermore, because of the decreased incidence of bone recurrence and breast cancer specific mortality, adjuvant bisphosphonates are recommended for all postmenopausal women at significant risk of disease recurrence.

Iron metabolism and iron supplementation in cancer patients.

Iron deficiency and iron deficiency-associated anemia are common complications in cancer patients. Most iron deficient cancer patients present with functional iron deficiency (FID), a status with adequate storage iron, but insufficient iron supply for erythroblasts and other iron dependent tissues. FID is the consequence of the cancer-associated cytokine release, while in absolute iron deficiency iron stores are depleted resulting in similar but often more severe symptoms of insufficient iron supply. Here we present a short review on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, clinical symptoms, and treatment of iron deficiency in cancer patients. Special emphasis is given to intravenous iron supplementation and on the benefits and limitations of different formulations. Based on these considerations and recommendations from current international guidelines we developed recommendations for clinical practice and classified the level of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the principles of evidence-based medicine.

Epidemiological and nonclinical studies investigating effects of iron in carcinogenesis--a critical review.

The efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (i.v.) iron in managing cancer-related anemia and iron deficiency has been clinically evaluated and reviewed recently. However, long-term data in cancer patients are not available; yet, long-term i.v. iron treatment in hemodialysis patients is not associated with increased cancer risk. This review summarizes epidemiological and nonclinical data on the role of iron in carcinogenesis. In humans, epidemiological data suggest correlations between certain cancers and increased iron exposure or iron overload. Nonclinical models that investigated whether iron can enhance carcinogenesis provide only limited evidence relevant for cancer patients since they were typically based on high iron doses as well as injection routes and iron formulations which are not used in the clinical setting. Nevertheless, in the absence of long-term outcome data from prospectively defined trials in i.v. iron-treated cancer patients, iron supplementation should be limited to periods of concomitant anti-tumor treatment.

Supportive care during treatment for breast cancer: resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A Breast Health Global Initiative 2013 consensus statement.

Breast cancer patients may have unmet supportive care needs during treatment, including symptom management of treatment-related toxicities, and educational, psychosocial, and spiritual needs. Delivery of supportive care is often a low priority in low- and middle-income settings, and is also dependent on resources available. This consensus statement describes twelve key recommendations for supportive care during treatment in low- and middle-income countries, identified by an expert international panel as part of the 5th Breast Health Global Initiative (BHGI) Global Summit for Supportive Care, which was held in October 2012, in Vienna, Austria. Panel recommendations are presented in a 4-tier resource-stratified table to illustrate how health systems can provide supportive care services during treatment to breast cancer patients, starting at a basic level of resource allocation and incrementally adding program resources as they become available. These recommendations include: health professional and patient and family education; management of treatment related toxicities, management of treatment-related symptoms of fatigue, insomnia and non-specific pain, and management of psychosocial and spiritual issues related to breast cancer treatment. Establishing supportive care during breast cancer treatment will help ensure that breast cancer patients receive comprehensive care that can help 1) improve adherence to treatment recommendations, 2) manage treatment-related toxicities and other treatment related symptoms, and 3) address the psychosocial and spiritual aspects of breast cancer and breast cancer treatments.

[Body composition: decision making support in oncology, current and future practices]. / Composition corporelle: outil d'aide d la décision en oncologie, pratiques actuelles et perspectives.

This review aims to highlight the synergies between clinical nutrition, body composition and cancer treatment. Body composition is already a powerful tool to diagnose cachexia and determine response to nutritionnal intervention. It may be used in the future to fine tune body surface area (BSA) based drug dose determination thanks to its capacity to predict chemotoxicity. The overall aim of nutritionnal intervention is to optimize the oncological care by reducing treatment interruptions and improving the quality of life. However, to achieve this goal, nutritionnal intervention has to be very accurate as most of the failures result from inappropriate intervention.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries.

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

Treatment patterns and outcomes in the management of anaemia in cancer patients in Europe: findings from the Anaemia Cancer Treatment (ACT) study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine anaemia management in cancer patients treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in Europe. METHODS: Retrospective pharmacoepidemiologic study of 2192 patients from 307 centres. Minimum of 3 visits over 8-10 weeks with ESA treatment initiated at visit 1. RESULTS: Most patients were treated per guidelines, except for low iron supplementation rates. Mean Hb rose from 9.54+/-0.95 g/dl to 10.88+/-1.49 g/dl at visit 3, without concomitant rise in WHO/ECOG score. Response rates were 65.0% (Hb increase (upward arrow) > or = 1 g/dl); 54.3% (Hb increase (upward arrow) > or = 1 g/dl in 8 weeks); 38.9% (haematopoietic response); 33.7% (Hb increase (upward arrow) > or = 2 g/dl) and 18.8% (Hb between 12.0 and 12.9 g/dl) CONCLUSIONS: Treatment patterns were guideline congruent, except for (intravenous) iron supplementation. Hb increased by 1.34 g/dl. A net erythropoiesis boost of Hb > or =1 g/dl is attainable in two-thirds of patients and should be condensed to 8 weeks on an individual patient basis. Anaemia management in Europe has improved significantly. The general effectiveness and relative safety of judicious ESA treatment are evident.

September 2007 update on EORTC guidelines and anemia management with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Anemia is frequently experienced by cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and can negatively impact the patient's prognosis. Blood transfusions, iron supplementation (in absolute or functionally iron-deficient anemias), and erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are among the treatment options for anemia. Treatment options for anemia management should be selected based on the best benefit-to-risk ratio for each individual patient. In September 2007, the working party of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) updated their guidelines on the use of ESAs, which are summarized in this paper. ESAs reduce the number of transfusions required and significantly improve quality of life in patients with chemotherapy-induced anemia. A sustained hemoglobin level of about 12 g/dl should be the target for treatment with ESAs. ESAs should be used according to the EORTC guidelines and within label with carefully considered exceptions.

Expert opinion on management of gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma on behalf of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-gastrointestinal cancer group.

A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory for patients with gastric cancer. Patients should be managed by an experienced team of physicians. The outcome of patients is related to the experience of the multidisciplinary team. Surgery is the cornerstone of the management of patients with resectable gastric cancer. The standard recommendations for resectable gastric adenocarcinoma are free-margin surgery with at least D1 resection combined to removal of a minimum of 15 lymph nodes. It has been shown that the outcome of patients with resectable gastric cancer can be improved by a strategy of perioperative (pre- and postoperative) chemotherapy or by postoperative chemoradiotherapy. The evidence comes from large randomised phase 3 studies. In the treatment of unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, no chemotherapy combination was accepted as the gold standard. Cisplatin/5-FU (CF) and ECF (epirubicin plus CF) regimens have been investigated widely in clinical studies and were until recently presented as the reference regimens. Despite a relative chemosensitivity of gastric cancer, a low rate of complete response was obtained, the response duration was short and patients' outcomes remained poor. Recently, new options have been introduced in the management of advanced gastric cancer. It has been shown that capecitabine is at least as good as 5-FU and that oxaliplatin at least as good as cisplatin in these combinations. It has also been demonstrated that the addition of docetaxel to CF resulted in statistically significant improved efficacy endpoints (including patient's quality of life), but also in an increased toxicity. The DCF regimen (docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-FU) has become, therefore, a new active option in advanced gastric cancer in selected patients in good condition. Further randomised trials are therefore to be designed to further improve chemotherapy by modifying and optimising the chemotherapy regimens, and investigating novel treatment combinations. The addition of biological agents to the optimal chemotherapy regimen may achieve further improvements in efficacy.