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.

Identifying the Steps Required to Effectively Implement Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology at a National Level in Europe.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) may enable more focused and highly personalized cancer treatment, with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines now recommending NGS for daily clinical practice for several tumor types. However, NGS implementation, and therefore patient access, varies across Europe; a multi-stakeholder collaboration is needed to establish the conditions required to improve this discrepancy. In that regard, we set up European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM)-led expert panels during the first half of 2021, including key stakeholders from across 10 European countries covering medical, economic, patient, industry, and governmental expertise. We describe the outcomes of these panels in order to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS implementation into routine clinical care to enable patient access, identify specific challenges in achieving them, and make short- and long-term recommendations. The main challenges identified relate to the demand for NGS tests (governance, clinical standardization, and awareness and education) and supply of tests (equitable reimbursement, infrastructure for conducting and validating tests, and testing access driven by evidence generation). Recommendations made to resolve each of these challenges should aid multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives, to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care.

Cancer Control in Central and Eastern Europe: Current Situation and Recommendations for Improvement.

: The incidence of many cancers is higher in Western European (WE) countries, but mortality is frequently higher in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. A panel of oncology leaders from CEE countries participating in the South Eastern European Research Oncology Group (SEEROG) was formed in 2015, aiming to analyze the current status and trends of oncology care in CEE and to propose recommendations leading to improved care and outcomes. The SEEROG panel, meeting during the 11th Central European Oncology Congress, proposed the following: (a) national cancer control plans (NCCPs) required in all CEE countries, defining priorities in cancer care, including finance allocation considering limited health care budgets; (b) national cancer registries, describing in detail epidemiological trends; (c) efforts to strengthen comprehensive cancer centers; (d) that multidisciplinary care should be mandated by the NCCPs; (e) that smaller hospitals should be connected to multidisciplinary tumor boards via the Internet, providing access to specialized expertise; (f) nationwide primary prevention programs targeting smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption and centrally evaluated secondary prevention programs for cervical, colorectal, and breast cancers; (g) prioritize education for all involved in cancer care, including oncology nurses, general practitioners, and palliative care providers; (h) establish outpatient care in day hospitals to reduce costs associated with the current inpatient model of care in CEE countries and to improve patients' quality of life; (i) long-term pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new therapies in CEE countries; (j) increase national oncology budgets in view of the higher mortality rates in CEE compared with WE countries; and (k) CEE countries urgently need help from the European Union to increase and monitor overall investment in cancer care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Significant differences in cancer incidence and mortality have been observed between European countries. While the incidence of many cancer types is higher in Western European (WE) countries, the mortality is generally higher in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The primary purpose of this review was to describe the current status and trends of oncology care in the CEE region, to raise awareness among physicians, regulators, and payers, and to propose the most needed changes in order to make the oncology care in CEE closer to the WE standards.

Trastuzumab beyond progression in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive advanced breast cancer: a german breast group 26/breast international group 03-05 study.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab shows clinical activity in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)-positive early and advanced breast cancer. In the German Breast Group 26/Breast International Group 03-05 trial, we investigated if trastuzumab treatment should be continued beyond progression. METHODS: Patients with HER-2-positive breast cancer that progresses during treatment with trastuzumab were randomly assigned to receive capecitabine (2,500 mg/m(2) body-surface area on days 1 through 14 [1,250 mg/m(2) semi-daily]) alone or with continuation of trastuzumab (6 mg/kg body weight) in 3-week cycles. The primary end point was time to progression. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 78 patients to capecitabine and 78 patients to capecitabine plus trastuzumab. Sixty-five events and 38 deaths in the capecitabine group and 62 events and 33 deaths in the capecitabine-plus-trastuzumab group occurred during 15.6 months of follow-up. Median times to progression were 5.6 months in the capecitabine group and 8.2 months in the capecitabine-plus-trastuzumab group with an unadjusted hazard ratio of 0.69 (95% CI, 0.48 to 0.97; two-sided log-rank P = .0338). Overall survival rates were 20.4 months (95% CI, 17.8 to 24.7) in the capecitabine group and 25.5 months (95% CI, 19.0 to 30.7) in the capecitabine-plus-trastuzumab group (P = .257). Overall response rates were 27.0% with capecitabine and 48.1% with capecitabine plus trastuzumab (odds ratio, 2.50; P = .0115). Continuation of trastuzumab beyond progression was not associated with increased toxicity. CONCLUSION: Continuation of trastuzumab plus capecitabine showed a significant improvement in overall response and time to progression compared with capecitabine alone in women with HER-2-positive breast cancer who experienced progression during trastuzumab treatment.

Health-related quality of life in survivors of locally advanced breast cancer: an international randomised controlled phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Dose-intensive chemotherapy has generated much interest in the treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer because it might offer a survival benefit. We aimed to compare the effects of such an approach with those of standard chemotherapy on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). METHODS: 224 patients with locally advanced breast cancer were randomly assigned to 75 mg/m(2) cyclophosphamide given orally on days 1-14, and 60 mg/m(2) epirubicin and 500 mg/m(2) fluorouracil both given intravenously on days 1 and 8, for six cycles every 28 days (6 months' treatment; standard treatment) and 224 patients to 830 mg/m(2) cyclophosphamide and 120 mg/m(2) epirubicin both given intravenously on day 1, and 5 microg/kg filgrastim per day given subcutaneously on days 2-13, for six cycles every 14 days (3 months' treatment; dose-intensive treatment). HRQOL was assessed by use of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Baseline assessments were done before randomisation; then once a month for the first 3 months; and at months 6, 9, 12, 18, 26, 34, 42, 48, and 54. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival; secondary endpoints were HRQOL, response, safety, overall response, and health economics. Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Previously reported data showed that groups did not differ in progression-free survival. Patients assigned shorter, intensified treatment had a significantly lower overall HRQOL score during the first 3 months than did those assigned standard treatment (mean score at 3 months 41.8 [SD 1.78] vs 49.6 [1.64], p=0.0015). However, scores returned to near baseline, with no difference between groups, at 12 months (62.6 [1.97] vs 65.6 [2.04], p=0.3007). Over the remaining 2 years, the groups showed few significant differences in HRQOL. INTERPRETATION: Dose-intensive treatment only has a temporary effect on HRQOL, thus enabling more research on intensive treatment for patients with locally advanced breast cancer.