What does "urgency" mean when prioritizing cancer treatment? Results from a qualitative study with German oncologists and other experts during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Cancer care in Germany during the COVID-19 pandemic was affected by resource scarcity and the necessity to prioritize medical measures. This study explores ethical criteria for prioritization and their application in cancer practices from the perspective of German oncologists and other experts. METHODS: We conducted fourteen semi-structured interviews with German oncologists between February and July 2021 and fed findings of interviews and additional data on prioritizing cancer care into four structured group discussions, in January and February 2022, with 22 experts from medicine, nursing, law, ethics, health services research and health insurance. Interviews and group discussions were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Narratives of the participants focus on "urgency" as most acceptable criterion for prioritization in cancer care. Patients who are considered curable and those with a high level of suffering, were given a high degree of "urgency." However, further analysis indicates that the "urgency" criterion needs to be further distinguished according to at least three different dimensions: "urgency" to (1) prevent imminent harm to life, (2) prevent future harm to life and (3) alleviate suffering. In addition, "urgency" is modulated by the "success," which can be reached by means of an intervention, and the "likelihood" of reaching that success. CONCLUSION: Our analysis indicates that while "urgency" is a well-established criterion, its operationalization in the context of oncology is challenging. We argue that combined conceptual and clinical analyses are necessary for a sound application of the "urgency" criterion to prioritization in cancer care.

Prognostic Implications of 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT-Derived Parameters on Overall Survival in Various Types of Solid Tumors.

Tumoral fibroblast activation protein expression is associated with proliferation and angiogenesis and can be visualized by PET/CT. We examined the prognostic value of [68Ga]Ga-fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) (68Ga-FAPI)-46 PET/CT for different tumor entities in patients enrolled in 2 prospective imaging studies (NCT05160051, n = 30; NCT04571086, n = 115). Methods: Within 4 wk, 145 patients underwent 68Ga-FAPI-46 and [18F]FDG (18F-FDG) PET/CT. The association between overall survival (OS) and sex, age, tumor entity, total lesion number, highest SUVmax, and the presence of each nodal, visceral, and bone metastasis was tested using univariate Cox regression analysis. Multivariate analyses were performed for prognostic factors with P values of less than 0.05. Results: In the univariate analysis, shorter OS was associated with total lesion number and the presence of nodal, visceral, and bone metastases on 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06, 2.18, 1.69, and 2.05; P < 0.01, < 0.01, = 0.04, and = 0.02, respectively) and 18F-FDG PET/CT (HR, 1.05, 2.31, 1.76, and 2.30; P < 0.01, < 0.01, = 0.03, and < 0.01, respectively) and with SUVmax on 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT (HR, 1.03; P = 0.03). In the multivariate analysis, total lesion number on 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT was an independent risk factor for shorter OS (HR, 1.05; P = 0.02). In patients with pancreatic cancer, shorter OS was associated with total lesion number on 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT (HR, 1.09; P < 0.01) and bone metastases on 18F-FDG PET/CT (HR, 31.39; P < 0.01) in the univariate analysis and with total lesion number on 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT (HR, 1.07; P = 0.04) in the multivariate analyses. In breast cancer, total lesion number on 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT (HR, 1.07; P = 0.02), as well as bone metastases on 18F-FDG PET/CT (HR, 9.64; P = 0.04), was associated with shorter OS in the univariate analysis. The multivariate analysis did not reveal significant prognostic factors. In thoracic cancer (lung cancer and pleural mesothelioma), the univariate and multivariate analyses did not reveal significant prognostic factors. Conclusion: Disease extent on 68Ga-FAPI-46 PET/CT is a predictor of short OS and may aid in future risk stratification by playing a supplemental role alongside 18F-FDG PET/CT.

Prioritization and Resource Allocation in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations for Colorectal and Pancreatic Cancer in Germany.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a scarcity of resources with various effects on the care of cancer patients. This paper provides an English summary of a German guideline on prioritization and resource allocation for colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the context of the pandemic. Based on a selective literature review as well as empirical and ethical analyses, the research team of the CancerCOVID Consortium drafted recommendations for prioritizing diagnostic and treatment measures for both entities. The final version of the guideline received consent from the executive boards of nine societies of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF), 20 further professional organizations and 22 other experts from various disciplines as well as patient representatives. The guiding principle for the prioritization of decisions is the minimization of harm. Prioritization decisions to fulfill this overall goal should be guided by (1) the urgency relevant to avoid or reduce harm, (2) the likelihood of success of the diagnostic or therapeutic measure advised, and (3) the availability of alternative treatment options. In the event of a relevant risk of harm as a result of prioritization, these decisions should be made by means of a team approach. Gender, age, disability, ethnicity, origin, and other social characteristics, such as social or insurance status, as well as the vehemence of a patient's treatment request and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status should not be used as prioritization criteria. The guideline provides concrete recommendations for (1) diagnostic procedures, (2) surgical procedures for cancer, and (3) systemic treatment and radiotherapy in patients with colorectal or pancreatic cancer within the context of the German healthcare system.

Diagnostic Accuracy of 68Ga-FAPI Versus 18F-FDG PET in Patients with Various Malignancies.

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of 68Ga-labeled fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) and 18F-labeled FDG PET for the detection of various tumors, we performed a head-to-head comparison of both imaging modalities across a range of tumor entities as part of our ongoing 68Ga-FAPI PET observational trial. Methods: The study included 115 patients with 8 tumor entities who received imaging with 68Ga-FAPI for tumor staging or restaging between October 2018 and March 2022. Of those, 103 patients received concomitant imaging with 68Ga-FAPI and 18F-FDG PET and had adequate lesion validation for accuracy analysis. Each scan was evaluated for the detection of primary tumor, lymph nodes, and visceral and bone metastases. True or false positivity and negativity to detected lesions was assigned on the basis of histopathology from biopsies or surgical excision, as well as imaging validation. Results: 68Ga-FAPI PET revealed higher accuracy than 18F-FDG PET in the detection of colorectal cancer (n = 14; per-patient, 85.7% vs. 78.6%; per-region, 95.6% vs. 91.1%) and prostate cancer (n = 22; per-patient, 100% vs. 90.9%; per-region, 96.4% vs. 92.7%). 68Ga-FAPI PET and 18F-FDG PET had comparable per-patient accuracy in detecting breast cancer (n = 16, 100% for both) and head and neck cancers (n = 10, 90% for both modalities). 68Ga-FAPI PET had lower per-patient accuracy than 18F-FDG PET in cancers of the bladder (n = 12, 75% vs. 100%) and kidney (n = 10, 80% vs. 90%), as well as lymphoma (n = 9, 88.9% vs. 100%) and myeloma (n = 10, 80% vs. 90%). Conclusion: 68Ga-FAPI PET demonstrated higher diagnostic accuracy than 18F-FDG PET in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer and prostate cancer, as well as comparable diagnostic performance for cancers of the breast and head and neck. Accuracy and impact on management will be further assessed in an ongoing prospective interventional trial (NCT05160051).