Demographic Analysis of Cancer Research Priorities and Treatment Correlations.

Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the "UNCAN.eu" initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45-69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

A Vision for Democratizing Next-Generation Oncology Clinical Trials.

SUMMARY: Revolutionary advancements in oncology have transformed lives, but the clinical trials ecosystem encounters challenges, including restricted access to innovative therapies and a lack of diversity in participant representation. A vision emerges for democratized, globally accessible oncology trials, necessitating collaboration among researchers, clinicians, patients, and policymakers to shift from converting complex, exclusive trials into a dynamic, inclusive force against cancer.

Addressing disparities in European cancer outcomes: a qualitative study Protocol of the BEACON project.

Introduction: Health disparities represent a crucial factor in cancer survival rates, awareness, quality of life, and mental health of people receiving a cancer diagnosis and their families. Income, education, geographic location, and ethnicity are some of the most important underlying reasons for health disparities in cancer across Europe. Costs of healthcare, access to information, psycho-oncological support options, integration of cancer research and innovative care, and multidisciplinary cancer teams are the main target areas when it comes to addressing disparities in the cancer context. As part of the Beacon Project (BEACON), we developed a protocol for a qualitative study to explore and identify any relevant reasons for cancer inequalities and disparities in Europe. Methods: Our four stakeholders namely, cancer patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers will be recruited online, facilitated by collaborative efforts with cancer organizations from various European countries, including but not limited to Italy, Croatia, Estonia, and Slovenia. Qualitative online focus group discussions for each stakeholder will be conducted and transcribed. Subsequently, thematic analysis will be used to identify reasons and aspects that may contribute to the existing disparities in cancer outcomes at various levels of engagement and from different stakeholders' perspectives. Results from focus groups will inform a subsequent Delphi study and a SWOT analysis methodology. Discussion: Although advances in medical research, cancer screening and treatment options are constantly progressing, disparities in access to and awareness of healthcare in cancer patients are even more noticeable. Thus, mapping the capacity and capability of cancer centres in the European Union, creating decision support tools that will assist the four stakeholders' information needs and improving the quality of European cancer centres will be the main objectives of the BEACON project. The current protocol will outline the methodological and practical procedures to conduct online focus group discussions with different stakeholders.

Tackling the implementation gap for the uptake of NGS and advanced molecular diagnostics into healthcare systems.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and liquid biopsy (LB) showed positive results in the fight against different cancer types. This paper aims to assess the uptake of advanced molecular diagnostics/NGS for quick and efficient genetic profiles of tumour cells. For that purpose, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine conducted a series of expert interviews to ascertain the current status across member states. One stakeholder meeting was additionally conducted to prioritize relevant factors by stakeholders. Seven common pillars were identified, and twenty-five measures were defined based on these pillars. Results showed that a multi-faceted approach is necessary for successful NGS implementation and that regional differences may be influenced by healthcare policies, resources, and infrastructure. It is important to consider different correlations when interpreting the results and to use them as a starting point for further discussion.

Aligning Cancer Research Priorities in Europe with Recommendations for Conquering Cancer: A Comprehensive Analysis.

Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders-preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer.

Clouds across the new dawn for clinical, diagnostic and biological data: accelerating the development, delivery and uptake of personalized medicine.

Growing awareness of the genetic basis of disease is transforming the opportunities for improving patient care by accelerating the development, delivery and uptake of personalised medicine and diseases diagnostics. This can mean more precise treatments reaching the right patients at the right time at the right cost. But it will be possible only with a coherent European Union (EU) approach to regulation. For clinical and biological data, on which the EU is now legislating with its planned European Health Data Space (EHDS), it is crucial that the design of this new system respects the constraints also implicit in the testing which generates data. The current EHDS proposal may fail to meet this requirement. It risks being over-ambitious, while taking insufficient account of the demanding realities of data access in daily practice and current economics/business models. It is marred by imprecision and ambiguity, by overlaps with other EU legislation, and by lack of clarity on funding. This paper identifies key issues where legislators should ensure that the opportunities are not squandered by the adoption of over-hasty or ill-considered provisions that jeopardise the gains that could be made in improved healthcare.

Framework for Adoption of Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) Globally in the Oncology Area.

Radical new possibilities of improved treatment of cancer are on offer from an advanced medical technology already demonstrating its significance: next-generation sequencing (NGS). This refined testing provides unprecedentedly precise diagnoses and permits the use of focused and highly personalized treatments. However, across regions globally, many cancer patients will continue to be denied the benefits of NGS as long as some of the yawning gaps in its implementation remain unattended. The challenges at the regional and national levels are linked because putting the solutions into effect is highly dependent on cooperation between regional- and national-level cooperation, which could be hindered by shortfalls in interpretation or understanding. The aim of the paper was to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS and make recommendations for effective implementation based on extensive exchanges with policy makers and stakeholders. As a result, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) developed a maturity framework structured around demand-side and supply-side issues to enable interested stakeholders in different countries to self-evaluate according to a common matrix. A questionnaire was designed to identify the current status of NGS implementation, and it was submitted to different experts in different institutions globally. This revealed significant variability in the different aspects of NGS uptake. Within different regions globally, to ensure those conditions are right, this can be improved by linking efforts made at the national level, where patients have needs and where care is delivered, and at the global level, where major policy initiatives in the health field are underway or in preparation, many of which offer direct or indirect pathways for building those conditions. In addition, in a period when consensus is still incomplete and catching up is needed at a political level to ensure rational allocation of resources-even within individual countries-to enable the best ways to make the necessary provisions for NGS, a key recommendation is to examine where closer links between national and regional actions could complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve the situation for patients.

The gaps between the new EU legislation on in vitro diagnostics and the on-the-ground reality.

The background to this debate is now well-known: an EU policy decision to tighten controls on the devices and diagnostics sector led to the adoption of a regulation in 2017 with a schedule for implementation over coming years - a timetable extended still further by last-minute legislation in early 2022, to provide the sector and regulators with more time to adapt to the changes. Discussions among experts organised in April by the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine (EAPM) exposed continuing challenges that cannot be fully resolved by the recent deferral of implementation deadlines. One salient problem is that there is little awareness of the In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (IVDR) across Europe, and only limited awareness of the different structures of national systems involved in implementing IVDR, with consequent risks for patient and consumer access to in vitro diagnostics (IVDs). The tentative conclusion from these consultations is that despite a will across the sector to seek workable solutions, the obstacles remain formidable, and the potential solutions so far proposed remain more a matter of aspirations than of clear pathways.

Empowering quality data - the Gordian knot of bringing real innovation into healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: The introduction of Personalised Medicine (PM) into healthcare systems could benefit from a clearer understanding of the distinct national and regional frameworks around the world. Recent engagement by international regulators on maximising the use of real-world evidence (RWE) has highlighted the scope for improving the exploitation of the treasure-trove of health data that is currently largely neglected in many countries. The European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) led an international study aimed at identifying the current status of conditions. METHODS: A literature review examined how far such frameworks exist, with a view to identifying conducive factors - and crucial gaps. This extensive review of key factors across 22 countries and 5 regions revealed a wide variety of attitudes, approaches, provisions and conditions, and permitted the construction of a comprehensive overview of the current status of PM. Based on seven key pillars identified from the literature review and expert panels, the data was quantified, and on the basis of further analysis, an index was developed to allow comparison country by country and region by region. RESULTS: The results show that United States of America is leading according to overall outcome whereas Kenya scored the least in the overall outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Still, common approaches exist that could help accelerate take-up of opportunities even in the less prosperous parts of the world.

Fighting Cancer around the World: A Framework for Action.

Tackling cancer is a major challenge right on the global level. Europe is only the tip of an iceberg of cancer around the world. Prosperous developed countries share the same problems besetting Europe-and the countries and regions with fewer resources and less propitious conditions are in many cases struggling often heroically against a growing tide of disease. This paper offers a view on these geographically wider, but essentially similar, challenges, and on the prospects for and barriers to better results in this ceaseless battle. A series of panels have been organized by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) to identify different aspects of cancer care around the globe. There is significant diversity in key issues such as NGS, RWE, molecular diagnostics, and reimbursement in different regions. In all, it leads to disparities in access and diagnostics, patients' engagement, and efforts for a better understanding of cancer.

Making Sure That Orphan Incentives Tip the Right Way in Europe.

The delicate balance of funding research and development of treatments for rare disease is only imperfectly achieved in Europe, and even the current provisional equilibrium is under a new threat from well-intentioned policy changes now in prospect that could-in addition to the intrinsic complexities of research-reduce the incentives on which commercial activity in this area is dependent. The European Union review of its pharmaceutical legislation, for which proposals are scheduled to appear before the end of 2022, envisages adjusting the decade-old incentives to meet objectives that are more precisely targeted. However, researchers, physicians, patients and industry have expressed concerns that ill-considered modifications could have unintended consequences in disrupting the current balance and could reduce rather than increase the flow of innovative treatments for rare diseases.

How Can the EU Beating Cancer Plan Help in Tackling Lung Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, Breast Cancer and Melanoma?

Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in EU countries, and the needs to tackle cancer are obvious. New scientific understanding, techniques and methodologies are opening up horizons for significant improvements in diagnosis and care. However, take-up is uneven, research needs and potential outstrip currently available resources, manifestly beneficial practices-such as population-level screening for lung cancer-are still not generalised, and the quality of life of patients and survivors is only beginning to be given attention it merits. This paper, mainly based on a series of multistakeholder expert workshops organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM), looks at some of those specifics in the interest of planning a way forward. Part of this exercise also involves taking account of the specific nature of Europe and its constituent countries, where the complexities of planning a way forward are redoubled by the wide variations in national and regional approaches to cancer, local epidemiology and the wide disparities in health systems. Despite all the differences between cancers and national and regional resources and approaches to cancer care, there is a common objective in pursuing broader and more equal access to the best available care for all European citizens.

Tackling Thyroid Cancer in Europe-The Challenges and Opportunities.

Thyroid cancer (TC) is the most common malignancy of the endocrine system that affects the thyroid gland. It is usually treatable and, in most cases, curable. The central issues are how to improve knowledge on TC, to accurately identify cases at an early stage that can benefit from effective intervention, optimise therapy, and reduce the risk of overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. Questions remain about management, about treating all patients in referral centres, and about which treatment should be proposed to any individual patient and how this can be optimised. The European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) hosted an expert panel discussion to elucidate some of the challenges, and to identify possible steps towards effective responses at the EU and member state level, particularly in the context of the opportunities in the European Union's evolving initiatives-notably its Beating Cancer Plan, its Cancer Mission, and its research funding programmes. Recommendations emerging from the panel focus on improved infrastructure and funding, and on promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care.

European Health Data Space-An Opportunity Now to Grasp the Future of Data-Driven Healthcare.

The May 2022 proposal from the European commission for a 'European health data space' envisages advantages for health from exploiting the growing mass of health data in Europe. However, key stakeholders have identified aspects that demand clarification to ensure success. Data will need to be freed from traditional silos to flow more easily and to cross artificial borders. Wide engagement will be necessary among healthcare professionals, researchers, and the patients and citizens that stand to gain the most but whose trust must be won if they are to allow use or transfer of their data. This paper aims to alert the wider scientific community to the impact the ongoing discussions among lawmakers will have. Based on the literature and the consensus findings of an expert multistakeholder panel organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) in June 2022, it highlights the key issues at the intersection of science and policy, and the potential implications for health research for years, perhaps decades, to come.

Tackling Mantle Cell Lymphoma in Europe.

An expert panel convened by the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine (EAPM) reflected on achievements and outstanding challenges in Europe in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Through the prism of member state experience, the panel noted advances in outcomes over the last decade, but highlighted issues constituting barriers to better care. The list notably included availability of newer treatments, infrastructure and funding for related testing, and shortages of relevant skills and of research support. The prospect of improvements was held to reside in closer coordination and cooperation within and between individual countries, and in changes in policy and scale of investment at both national and EU levels.

Accelerating the Development and Validation of Liquid Biopsy for Early Cancer Screening and Treatment Tailoring.

Liquid biopsy (LB) is a minimally invasive method which aims to detect circulating tumor-derived components in body fluids. It provides an alternative to current cancer screening methods that use tissue biopsies for the confirmation of diagnosis. This paper attempts to determine how far the regulatory, policy, and governance framework provide support to LB implementation into healthcare systems and how the situation can be improved. For that reason, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) organized series of expert panels including different key stakeholders to identify different steps, challenges, and opportunities that need to be taken to effectively implement LB technology at the country level across Europe. To accomplish a change of patient care with an LB approach, it is required to establish collaboration between multiple stakeholders, including payers, policymakers, the medical and scientific community, and patient organizations, both at the national and international level. Regulators, pharma companies, and payers could have a major impact in their own domain. Linking national efforts to EU efforts and vice versa could help in implementation of LB across Europe, while patients, scientists, physicians, and kit manufacturers can generate a pull by undertaking more research into biomarkers.

Meeting the Need for a Discussion of Unmet Medical Need.

As Europe and the world continue to battle against COVID, the customary complacency of society over future threats is clearly on display. Just 30 months ago, such a massive disruption to global lives, livelihoods and quality of life seemed unimaginable. Some remedial European Union action is now emerging, and more is proposed, including in relation to tackling "unmet medical need" (UMN). This initiative-directing attention to the future of treating disease and contemplating incentives to stimulate research and development-is welcome in principle. But the current approach being considered by EU officials merits further discussion, because it may prove counter-productive, impeding rather than promoting innovation. This paper aims to feed into these ongoing policy discussions, and rather than presenting research in the classical sense, it discusses the key elements from a multistakeholder perspective. Its central concern is over the risk that the envisaged support will fail to generate valuable new treatments if the legislation is phrased in a rigidly linear manner that does not reflect the serpentine realities of the innovation process, or if the definition placed on unmet medical need is too restrictive. It cautions that such an approach presumes that "unmet need" can be precisely and comprehensively defined in advance on the basis of the past. It cautions that such an approach can reinforce the comfortable delusion that the future is totally predictable-the delusion that left the world as easy prey to COVID. Instead, the paper urges reflection on how the legislation that will shortly enter the pipeline can be phrased so as to allow for the flourishing of a culture capable of rapid adaptation to the unexpected.

Towards Better Pharmaceutical Provision in Europe-Who Decides the Future?

Significant progress has been achieved in human health in the European Union in recent years. New medicines, vaccines, and treatments have been developed to tackle some of the leading causes of disease and life-threatening illnesses. It is clear that investment in research and development (R&D) for innovative medicines and treatments is essential for making progress in preventing and treating diseases. Ahead of the legislative process, which should begin by the end of 2022, discussions focus on how Europe can best promote the huge potential benefits of new science and technology within the regulatory framework. The challenges in European healthcare were spelled out by the panellists at the roundtable organised by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM). Outcomes from panellists' discussions have been summarized and re-arranged in this paper under five headings: innovation, unmet medical need, access, security of supply, adapting to progress, and efficiency. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the panel are a call for a better overall holistic vision of the future of pharmaceuticals and health in Europe and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, seeing the delivery of medicines as part of a broader picture of healthcare.

Factors Affecting Citizen Trust and Public Engagement Relating to the Generation and Use of Real-World Evidence in Healthcare.

The potential for the use of real-world data (RWD) to generate real-world evidence (RWE) that can inform clinical decision-making and health policy is increasingly recognized, albeit with hesitancy in some circles. If used appropriately, the rapidly expanding wealth of health data could improve healthcare research, delivery of care, and patient outcomes. However, this depends on two key factors: (1) building structures that increase the confidence and willingness of European Union (EU) citizens to permit the collection and use of their data, and (2) development of EU health policy to support and shape data collection infrastructures, methodologies, transmission, and use. The great potential for use of RWE in healthcare improvement merits careful exploration of the drivers of, and challenges preventing, efficient RWD curation. Literature-based research was performed to identify relevant themes and discussion topics for two sets of expert panels, organized by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine. These expert panels discussed steps that would enable a gradual but steady growth in the quantity, quality, and beneficial deployment of RWE. Participants were selected to provide insight based on their professional medical, economic, patient, industry, or governmental experience. Here, we propose a framework that addresses public trust and access to data, cross-border governance, alignment of evidence frameworks, and demonstrable improvements in healthcare decisions. We also discuss key case studies that support these recommendations, in accordance with the discussions at the expert panels.