Policy strategies for capacity building and scale up of the workforce for comprehensive cancer care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer in low- and middle-income countries experience worse outcomes as a result of the limited capacity of health systems to deliver comprehensive cancer care. The health workforce is a key component of health systems; however, deep gaps exist in the availability and accessibility of cancer care providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of the literature evaluating the strategies for capacity building of the cancer workforce. We studied how the policy strategies addressed the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality (AAAQ) of the workforce. We used a strategic planning framework (SWOT: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) to identify actionable areas of capacity building. We contextualized our findings based on the WHO 2030 Global Strategy on Human Resources for Health, evaluating how they can ultimately be framed in a labour market approach and inform strategies to improve the capacity of the workforce (PROSPERO: CRD42020109377). RESULTS: The systematic review of the literature yielded 9617 records, and we selected 45 eligible papers for data extraction. The workforce interventions identified were delivered mostly in the African and American Regions, and in two-thirds of cases, in high-income countries. Many strategies have been shown to increase the number of competent oncology providers. Optimization of the existing workforce through role delegation and digital health interventions was reported as a short- to mid-term solution to optimize cancer care, through quality-oriented, efficiency-improving, and acceptability-enforcing workforce strategies. The increased workload alone was potentially detrimental. The literature on retaining the workforce and reducing brain drain or attrition in underserved areas was commonly limited. CONCLUSIONS: Workforce capacity building is not only a quantitative problem but can also be addressed through quality-oriented, organizational, and managerial solutions of human resources. The delivery of comprehensive, acceptable, and impact-oriented cancer care requires an available, accessible, and competent workforce for comprehensive cancer care. Efficiency-improving strategies may be instrumental for capacity building in resource-constrained settings.

Essential cancer medicines: adding feasibility to the magnitude of clinical benefit value chain.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a global public health problem, requiring efficient health system investments to deliver sustainable impact on population health. Access to medicines is a critical component of health systems, having a crucial role in delivering therapeutic benefits. Since 1977, the World Health Organization (WHO) has published a Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) that includes key health interventions for the prevention and control of conditions of public health relevance. Essential medicines are selected for inclusion in the EML based on the evidence of efficacy, safety, therapeutic value, and the potential to impact population health. With the rapid changes in the therapeutic landscape of cancer treatment with new medicine approvals, there is a critical need to select and prioritise specific cancer interventions based on their intrinsic value. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a decisional methodology based on a threshold with a minimum set of technical specifications and a consensus-based procedure for decisions to select candidate cancer medicines to be submitted to the WHO for consideration for the WHO EML. RESULTS: ESMO recognises the WHO EML as an important reference guide for medicines that all countries should include in their national EMLs. Cancer medicines on the WHO EML are used in the treatment of the majority of cancers, and are recommended in the evidence-based ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines that medical oncologists use to treat patients. ESMO's submissions to the WHO EML in 2019 and 2021 and their respective outcomes are presented in the manuscript. CONCLUSION: Due to the rising costs associated with newly available therapies, structured, reproducible, and field-tested tools to evaluate the added clinical benefit from these therapies need to be implemented in pre-selecting potential candidate medicines to be included in the WHO EML. ESMO is proud to collaborate closely with WHO on this important global public health initiative.

Methodological and reporting standards for quality-of-life data eligible for European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) credit.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) has been developed to grade clinical benefit of cancer therapies. Improvement in quality of life (QoL) is considered relevant, especially in the non-curative setting. This is reflected by an upgrade of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score if QoL is improved compared to the control arm or a downgrade if an improvement in progression-free survival is not paralleled by an improvement in QoL or overall survival. Given the importance of QoL for the final score, a need to ensure the robustness of QoL data was recognised. DESIGN: A checklist was created based on existing guidelines for QoL research. Field testing was carried out using clinical trials that either received an adjustment of the preliminary ESMO-MCBS score based on QoL or had QoL as the primary endpoint. Several rounds of revision and re-testing of the checklist were undertaken until a final consensus was reached. RESULTS: The final checklist consists of four items and can be applied if three prerequisites are met: (i) QoL is at least a secondary endpoint, (ii) evidence of reliability and validity of the instrument is provided, and (iii) a statistically and clinically significant improvement in QoL is observed. The four items on the checklist pertain to the (i) hypothesis, (ii) compliance and missing data, (iii) presentation of the results, and (iv) statistical and clinical relevance. Field testing revealed that a clear QoL hypothesis and correction for multiple testing were mostly lacking, while the main statistical method was always described. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESMO-MCBS QoL checklist will facilitate objective and transparent decision making on QoL data within the ESMO-MCBS scoring process. Trials published until 1 January 2025 will have to meet the prerequisites and at least two items for crediting QoL benefit in the final ESMO-MCBS score. Trials published thereafter will have to meet all four items.

Cancer care for Ukrainian refugees: Strategic impact assessments in the early days of the conflict.

BACKGROUND: The invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022 has resulted in destruction of healthcare infrastructure and triggered the largest wave of internally displaced populations and refugees since World War Two. Conflicts in transitioned countries such as Ukraine create new non-communicable disease (NCD) challenges, especially for cancer care for refugees and humanitarian assistance in host countries. In the early days, rapid attempts were made to model possible impacts. METHODS: By evaluating open source intelligence used in the first three months of the conflict through snowball search methods, we aimed to address: (i) burden of cancer in Ukrainian population, specifically considering translating to the refugees population, and its cancer care capacity; ii) baseline capacity/strengths of cancer systems in initial host countries. Moreover, using a baseline scenario based on crude cancer incidence in Ukraine, and considering data from UNHCR, we estimated how cancer cases would be distributed across host countries. Finally, a surveillance assessment instrument was created, intersecting health system's capacity and influx of internally displaced populations and refugees. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The total new cancer patients per month in pre-conflict Ukraine was estimated as 13,106, of which < 1 % are paediatric cases. The estimated cancer cases in the refugee population (combining prevalent and incident), assuming 7.5 million refugees by July 2022 and a female:male ratio of 9:1, was 33,121 individuals (Poland: 19284; Hungary: 3484; Moldova: 2651; Slovakia: 2421; Romania: 5281). According to our assessments, Poland is the only neighbouring country classified as green/yellow for cancer capacity, i.e. sufficient ablility to absorb additional burden into national health system; Slovakia we graded as yellow, Hungary and Romania as yellow/red and Moldova as red.

Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.