Transitional dynamics in oncology clinical trials: evaluating the impact of Clinical Trials Act on cooperative groups.

OBJECTIVE: large-scale multicentre clinical trials conducted by cooperative groups have generated a lot of evidence to establish better standard treatments. The Clinical Trials Act was enforced on 1 April 2018, in Japan, and it has remarkably increased the operational burden on investigators, but its long-term impact on cancer cooperative groups is unknown. METHODS: a survey was conducted across the nine major cooperative groups that constitute the Japan Cancer Trials Network to assess the impact of Clinical Trials Act on the number of newly initiated trials from fiscal year (from 1 April to 31 March) 2017 to 2022 and that of ongoing trials on 1 April in each year from 2018 to 2023. RESULTS: the number of newly initiated trials dropped from 38 trials in fiscal year 2017 to 26 trials in fiscal year 2018, surged to 50 trials in fiscal year 2019, but then gradually decreased to 25 trials by fiscal year 2022. Specified clinical trials decreased from 32 trials in fiscal year 2019 to 12 trials in fiscal year 2022. The number of ongoing trials was 220 trials in 2018, peaked at 245 trials in 2020, but then gradually decreased to 219 trials by 2023. The number of specified clinical trials has been in consistent decline. By April 2023, of the 20 ongoing non-specified clinical trials, nine adhered to Clinical Trials Act and 11 followed the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects. CONCLUSION: the number of multicentre clinical trials in oncology gradually decreased after the Clinical Trials Act's enforcement, which underscores the need for comprehensive amendment of the Clinical Trials Act to streamline the operational process.

Cancer in Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon between 2015 and 2017.

Protracted conflicts in the Middle East have led to successive waves of refugees crossing borders. Chronic, non-communicable diseases are now recognised as diseases that need to be addressed in such crises. Cancer, in particular, with its costly, multidisciplinary care, poses considerable financial and ethical challenges for policy makers. In 2014 and with funding from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, we reported on cancer cases among Iraqi refugees in Jordan (2010-12) and Syria (2009-11). In this Policy Review, we provide data on 733 refugees referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Lebanon (2015-17) and Jordan (2016-17), analysed by cancer type, demographic risk factors, treatment coverage status, and cost. Results show the need for increased funding and evidence-based standard operating procedures across countries to ensure that patients have equitable access to care. We recommend a holistic response to humanitarian crises that includes education, screening, treatment, and palliative care for refugees and nationals and prioritises breast cancer and childhood cancers.

The State of Cancer Care in America: Impact of State Policy on Access to High-Quality Cancer Care.

Health policy in America has shifted rapidly over the last decade, and states are increasingly exercising greater authority over health policy decision-making. This localization and regionalization of healthcare policy poses significant challenges for patients with cancer, providers, advocates, and policymakers. To identify the challenges and opportunities that lay ahead of stakeholders, NCCN hosted the 2019 Policy Summit: The State of Cancer Care in America on June 27, 2019, in Washington, DC. The summit featured multidisciplinary panel discussions to explore the implications for access to quality cancer care within a shifting health policy landscape from a patient, provider, and lawmaker perspective. This article encapsulates the discussion from this NCCN Policy Summit.

Core elements of national cancer control plans: a tool to support plan development and review.

When developed and implemented effectively, national cancer control plans (NCCPs) improve cancer outcomes at the population level. However, many countries do not have a high-quality, operational NCCP, contributing to disparate cancer outcomes globally. Until now, a standard reference of NCCP core elements has not been available to guide development and evaluation across diverse countries and contexts. In this Policy Review, we describe the methods, process, and outcome of an initiative to develop an itemised and evidence-based comprehensive checklist of core elements for NCCP formulation. The final list provides a ready-to-use guide to support NCCP development and to facilitate internal and external critical appraisal of existing NCCPs for countries of all income levels and settings. Governments, policy makers, and stakeholders can utilise this checklist, while considering their own unique contexts and priorities, from the drafting through to the implementation of NCCPs.

Challenges of international oncology trial collaboration-a call to action.

International collaboration in oncology trials has the potential to enhance clinical trial activity by expediting the recruitment of large patient populations, testing treatments in diverse populations and facilitating the study of rare tumours or specific molecular subtypes. However, a number of challenges continue to hinder the efficient and productive conduct of both commercial and non-commercial international clinical trials. These challenges include complex and burdensome regulatory requirements, the high cost of conducting trials, and logistical challenges associated with ethics review, drug supply and biospecimen collection and management. We propose solutions to promote oncology trial collaboration, such as regulatory reform, harmonisation of trial initiation and management processes and greater recognition and funding of academic (non-commercial) clinical trials. It is only through coordinated effort and leadership from researchers, regulators and those responsible for health systems that the full potential of international trial collaboration can be realised.

Median Survival or Mean Survival: Which Measure Is the Most Appropriate for Patients, Physicians, and Policymakers?

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the efficacy of treatments is crucial for patients, physicians, and policymakers. Median survival, the most common measure used in the outcome reporting of oncology clinical trials, is easy to understand; however, it describes only a single time point. The interpretation of the hazard ratio is difficult, and its underlying statistical assumptions are not always met. The objective of this study was to evaluate alternative measures based on the mean benefit of novel oncology treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for oncology agents between 2013 and 2017. We digitized survival curves as reported in the clinical trials used for the FDA approvals and implemented statistical transformations to calculate for each trial the restricted mean survival time (RMST), as well as the mean survival using Weibull distribution. We compared the mean survival with the median survival benefit in each clinical trial. RESULTS: The FDA approved 83 solid tumor indications for oncology agents between 2013 and 2017, of which 27 approvals based on response rates, whereas 49 approvals were based on survival endpoints (progression-free survival and overall survival). The average improvement in median overall survival or progression-free survival was 4.6 months versus 3.6 months improvement in the average RMST and 6.1 months improvement in mean survival using Weibull distribution. CONCLUSION: Mean survival may supply valuable information for different stakeholders. Its inclusion should be considered in the reporting of prospective clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Mean survival may supply valuable information for different stakeholders. Its inclusion should be considered in the reporting of clinical trials.

"As Long as You Ask": A Qualitative Study of Biobanking Consent-Oncology Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Attitudes, Motivations, and Experiences-the B-PPAE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Consent to biobanking remains controversial, with little empirical data to guide policy and practice. This study aimed to explore the attitudes, motivations, and concerns of both oncology patients and health care professionals (HCPs) regarding biobanking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology patients and HCPs purposively selected from five Australian hospitals. Patients were invited to give biobanking consent as part of a clinical trial and/or for future research were eligible. HCPs were eligible if involved in consenting patients to biobanking or to donate specimens to clinical trials. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients participated, with head and neck (36%) and prostate (18%) the most common cancer diagnoses; all had consented to biobanking. Twenty-two HCPs participated, from across eight cancer streams and five disciplines. Themes identified were (a) biobanking is a "no brainer"; (b) altruism or scientific enquiry; (c) trust in clinicians, science, and institutions; (d) no consent-just do it; (e) respecting patient choice ("opt-out"); (f) respectful timing of the request; (g) need for emotional/family support; (h) context of the biobanking request matters; and (i) factors for biobanking success. DISCUSSION: These findings reinforced previous findings regarding high public trust in, and support for, biobanking. An initial opt-in consent approach with the option of later opt-out was favored by patients to respect and recognize donor generosity, whereas HCPs preferred an upfront opt-out model. Factors impacting biobanking success included the context of the request for use in a trial or specific research question, pre-existing patient and HCP rapport, a local institution champion, and infrastructure. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients and health care professionals (HCPs) who experienced cancer biobanking consent were overwhelmingly supportive of biobanking. The motivations and approaches to seeking consent were largely mirrored between the groups. The findings of this study support the opt-in model of biobanking favored by patients; however, HCPs preferred an opt-out model. Both groups recognize the importance of making the request for biobanking at an appropriate time, preferably with emotional or family support, and respecting the timing of the request and privacy of the patient. Biobanking success can be promoted by hospital departments with a research focus by identifying an institutional biobanking champion and ensuring local infrastructure is available.

Policy Strategies for the "New Normal" in Healthcare to Ensure Access to High-Quality Cancer Care.

In recent years, oncology has seen a rapid increase in the introduction of high-cost innovative therapies while scrutiny around drug pricing has simultaneously amplified. Significant policy shifts impacting health coverage and benefit design are also being implemented, including narrow network health plans, uncertainty around the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges, and threats to preexisting condition protections. Shifting health coverage policy combined with high drug prices and outdated reimbursement systems may create barriers to patient access to innovation and high-quality cancer care. To understand how trends in health policy are impacting the oncology ecosystem, NCCN convened the NCCN Policy Summit: Policy Strategies for the "New Normal" in Healthcare to Ensure Access to High-Quality Cancer Care on June 25, 2018. The summit included discussion of how innovation is changing cancer treatment, care delivery, and ways health systems are responding; the impact of narrow networks on access to academic cancer centers; and how the evolving health policy landscape is affecting access to high-quality cancer care for patients.

Is Watson for Oncology per se Unreasonably Dangerous?: Making A Case for How to Prove Products Liability Based on a Flawed Artificial Intelligence Design.

Artificial intelligence (AI) machines hold the world's curiosity captive. Futuristic television shows like West World are set in desert lands against pink sunsets where sleek, autonomous AI fulfill every human need, desire, and kink. But I, Robot, a movie where robots turn against the humans they serve, reminds us that AI is precarious. Academicians who study how AI interacts with tort law, such as Jessica Allain, David Vladeck, and Sjur Dyrkoltbotn, claim that the current legal regime is incapable of addressing the liability issues AI present. Both Allain and Vladeck focus their research on whether tort law can accommodate claims against fully autonomous AI machines, while Dyrkoltbotn explores how AI can be leveraged to help plaintiffs identify the genesis of their injuries. The solution this article presents is not exclusively tailored to fully autonomous AI and does not identify how technology can be used in tort claims. It instead demonstrates that the current tort law regime can provide relief to plaintiffs who are injured by AI machines. In particular, this article argues that the manner in which Watson for Oncology is designed presents a new context in which courts should adopt a per se rule of liability that favors plaintiffs who bring damage claims against AI machines by expanding the definition of what it means for a device to be unreasonably dangerous.

Defining priority medical devices for cancer management: a WHO initiative.

Medical devices are indispensable for cancer management across the entire cancer care continuum, yet many existing medical interventions are not equally accessible to the global population, contributing to disparate mortality rates between countries with different income levels. Improved access to priority medical technologies is required to implement universal health coverage and deliver high-quality cancer care. However, the selection of appropriate medical devices at all income and hospital levels has been difficult because of the extremely large number of devices needed for the full spectrum of cancer care; the wide variety of options within the medical device sector, ranging from small inexpensive disposable devices to sophisticated diagnostic imaging and treatment units; and insufficient in-country expertise, in many countries, to prioritise cancer interventions and to determine associated technologies. In this Policy Review, we describe the methods, process, and outcome of a WHO initiative to define a list of priority medical devices for cancer management. The methods, approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee, can be used as a model approach for future endeavours to define and select medical devices for disease management. The resulting list provides ready-to-use guidance for the selection of devices to establish, maintain, and operate necessary clinical units within the continuum of care for six cancer types, with the goal of promoting efficient resource allocation and increasing access to priority medical devices, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.

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.

[Topical problems of occupational cancer in Russia.]

The authors present data on occupational oncologic morbidity in Russia by federal districts and regions. Over 2002- 2014, a total of 497 cases of occupational cancer was registered, that is less than 0,3% of minimal expected number of cases. Necessity is to urgent improvement of legislation and methodic basis, informational supply, providing qualitative account of occupational oncologic morbidity. Important role in solving this problem could be played by continued sanitary and hygienic certification of caricnogenically dangerous institutions in RF and creation of Federal register (governmental automated information system) of individuals who had (has) occupational exposure to carcinogenic factors.

Regulatory aspects of human radiolabeled mass balance studies in oncology: concise review.

Human radiolabeled mass balance studies are performed to obtain information about the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of a drug in development. The main goals are to determine the route of elimination and major metabolic pathways. This review provides an overview of the current regulatory guidelines concerning human radiolabeled mass balance studies and discusses scientific trends seen in the last decade with a focus on mass balance studies of anticancer drugs. This paper also provides an overview of mass balance studies of anticancer agents that were executed in the last 10 years.

Delayed diagnosis in primary care-The main cause of sarcoma litigation in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Poor awareness and knowledge of lumps and bumps can impact on patient outcomes and survival. Late referrals or false reassurance may lead to litigation proceedings. The aim of this study was to identify the litigation cost in sarcoma care and identify areas for improvement. METHOD: Orthopaedic litigation between 1995-2010 in England and Wales was obtained from the National Health Service Litigation Authority. Litigation specifically relating to sarcoma in the extremities was identified. Causation, compensation fee, cost of legal defense, and compensation were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 52 litigation claims. Negligence was proven in 71% (n = 37) of cases. The total cost was £4.4 million (mean of £84,000/case). The mean compensation award was £92,000 (range £650-£978,000) and the mean defense cost was £22,000 (range £0-£102,000). Delayed diagnosis accounted for 89% of cases (n = 48). Negligence following diagnosis was infrequent; inappropriate treatment (n = 2), failure to recognize complications of surgery (n = 2), intra-operative problems (n = 1), failure to refer to a specialist unit after a "whoops procedure" (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Once the patient is within the specialist sarcoma unit, there is a very low rate of litigation. Efforts to reduce litigation in sarcoma treatment should focus on early diagnosis and raising awareness of sarcomas. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:361-363. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Addressing future challenges for cancer services: part I.

Jane Maher & Gina Radford speak to Gemma Westcott, Commissioning Editor Jane Maher has been Macmillan's Chief Medical Officer since 1999 and now shares the role as Joint Chief Medical Officer with general practitioner Rosie Loftus, reflecting the growing need for specialists and generalists to work more effectively together. She has been a National Health Service (NHS) Improvement Clinical Leader for over 10 years and is a Consultant Clinical Oncologist at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre where she has worked for more than 20 years, during which she helped develop nonsurgical oncology services in five district general hospitals. Jane chaired the Maher Committee for the Department of Health in 1995, led the UK National Audit of Late Effects Pelvic Radiotherapy for the Royal College Of Radiologists (RCR) in 2000 and, most recently, chaired the 'National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, consequences of treatment work stream'. She co-founded one of the first Cancer Support and Information services in the UK, winning the Nye Bevan award in 1992 and there are now more than 60 units based on this model. She is a member of the Older People and Cancer Clinical Advisory Group. She has written more than 100 published articles and is a UK representative for cancer survivorship in Europe and advises on Cancer survivorship programs in Denmark and Canada. Gina Radford is Deputy Chief Medical Officer for England, a post she took up in January 2015. Prior to that, she has held a number of roles in public health, at local and regional level. Most recently she was as Centre Director for Anglia and Essex for Public Health England, and as part of that role helped lead nationally on the public health response to Ebola. She was until very recently Chair of one of the NICE public health advisory committees. She has previously worked on a number of national projects, including leading the Department of Health's response to the Shipman Enquiry, undertaking a review of specialist public health for CMO Scotland, chairing a national short life working group looking at the issue of making difficult decisions in NHS Scotland, and undertaking the evaluation of the first pilot (regional bowel cancer detection pilot) for the Be Clear on Cancer National Awareness and Early Diagnosis campaign, on behalf of the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK. Outside work, Gina is a Licensed Lay Minister in the Church of England, and is training to be ordained. She enjoys riding, walking the somewhat aging dog, reading and is the village duck warden!

Capacity building for oncology programmes in sub-Saharan Africa: the Rwanda experience.

Despite an estimated 456,000 deaths caused by cancer in sub-Saharan Africa in 2012 and a cancer burden that is predicted to double by 2030, the region accounts for only 0·3% of worldwide medical expenditure for cancer. Challenges to cancer care in sub-Saharan Africa include a shortage of clinicians and training programmes, weak healthcare infrastructure, and inadequate supplies. Since 2011, Rwanda has developed a national cancer programme by designing comprehensive, integrated frameworks of care, building local human resource capacity through partnerships, and delivering equitable, rights-based care. In the 2 years since the inauguration of Rwanda's first cancer centre, more than 2500 patients have been enrolled, including patients from every district in Rwanda. Based on Rwanda's national cancer programme development, we suggest principles that could guide other nations in the development of similar cancer programmes.