The outcomes measured and reported in observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma: A systematic review.

Background: The clinical management of patients with incidental intracranial meningioma varies markedly and is often based on clinician choice and observational data. Heterogeneous outcome measurement has likely hampered knowledge progress by preventing comparative analysis of similar cohorts of patients. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in observational studies. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published full texts describing active monitoring of adult cohorts with incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma (PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL via EBSCO, completed January 24, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were de-duplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty-three published articles and 1 ongoing study were included describing 32 unique studies: study designs were retrospective n = 27 and prospective n = 5. In total, 268 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 77 were defined. Following de-duplication, 178 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 53 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 9 outcome domains and 3 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across observational studies of incidental and untreated intracranial meningioma is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a Core Outcome Set for use in future observational studies.

The outcomes measured and reported in intracranial meningioma clinical trials: A systematic review.

Background: Meningioma clinical trials have assessed interventions including surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, agreement does not exist on what, how, and when outcomes of interest should be measured. To do so would allow comparative analysis of similar trials. This systematic review aimed to summarize the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical trials. Methods: Systematic literature and trial registry searches were performed to identify published and ongoing intracranial meningioma clinical trials (PubMed, Embase, Medline, CINAHL via EBSCO, and Web of Science, completed January 22, 2022). Reported outcomes were extracted verbatim, along with an associated definition and method of measurement if provided. Verbatim outcomes were deduplicated and the resulting unique outcomes were grouped under standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the taxonomy proposed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" (COMET) initiative. Results: Thirty published articles and 18 ongoing studies were included, describing 47 unique clinical trials: Phase 2 n = 33, phase 3 n = 14. Common interventions included: Surgery n = 13, radiotherapy n = 8, and pharmacotherapy n = 20. In total, 659 verbatim outcomes were reported, of which 84 were defined. Following de-duplication, 415 unique verbatim outcomes remained and were grouped into 115 standardized outcome terms. These were classified using the COMET taxonomy into 29 outcome domains and 5 core areas. Conclusions: Outcome measurement across meningioma clinical trials is heterogeneous. The standardized outcome terms identified will be prioritized through an eDelphi survey and consensus meeting of key stakeholders (including patients), in order to develop a core outcome set for use in future meningioma clinical trials.

Management of patients with rare adult solid cancers: objectives and evaluation of European reference networks (ERN) EURACAN.

About 500,000 patients with rare adult solid cancers (RASC) are diagnosed yearly in Europe. Delays and unequal quality of management impact negatively their survival. Since 2017, European reference networks (ERN) aim to improve the quality of care of patients with rare disease. The steering committee of EURACAN, including physicians, researchers and patients review here the previous actions, present objectives of the ERN EURACAN dedicated to RASC. EURACAN promoted management in reference centres, and equal implementation of excellence and innovation in Europe and developed 22 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Additionally, fourteen information brochures translated in 24 EU languages were developed in collaboration with patient advocacy groups (ePAGs) and seventeen training session were organized. Nevertheless, connections to national networks in the 26 participating countries (106 centres), simplification of cross-border healthcare, international multidisciplinary tumour boards, registries and monitoring of the quality of care are still required. In this Health Policy, evaluation criteria of the performances of the network and of health care providers are proposed.

Implementing the European code of cancer practice in rural settings.

Existing evidence often indicates higher cancer incidence and mortality rates, later diagnosis, lower screening uptake and poorer long-term survival for people living in rural compared to more urbanised areas. Despite wide inequities and variation in cancer care and outcomes across Europe, much of the scientific literature explicitly exploring the impact of rurality on cancer continues to come from Australia and North America. The European Code of Cancer Practice or "The Code" is a citizen and patient-centred statement of the most salient requirements for good clinical cancer practice and has been extensively co-produced by cancer patients, cancer professionals and patient advocates. It contains 10 key overarching Rights that a cancer patient should expect from their healthcare system, regardless of where they live and has been strongly endorsed by professional and patient cancer organisations as well as the European Commission. In this article, we use these 10 fundamental Rights as a framework to argue that (i) the issues and needs identified in The Code are generally more profound for rural people with cancer; (ii) addressing these issues is also more challenging in rural contexts; (iii) interventions and support must explicitly account for the unique needs of rural residents living with and affected by cancer and (iv) new innovative approaches are urgently required to successfully overcome the challenges faced by rural people with cancer and their caregivers. Despite equitable healthcare being a key European policy focus, the needs of rural people living with cancer have largely been neglected.

Gender inequity in cancer research leadership in Europe: Time to act.

AIM: Cancer is one of Europe's key research missions, with gender equity a major policy pillar. To benchmark how well European countries perform for gender balance in cancer research, high quality intelligence is required. METHODS: For cancer research papers in Europe (EUR31; the 28 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) from two specific years (2009 and 2019), we evaluated the numbers of female authors overall and then the female last-author presence, as a proxy of female cancer research leadership. RESULTS: Overall, female authorship increased from 42% to 49%. In 2009, females represented 50% or more of cancer research authors in only five EUR31 countries. By 2019, that number had risen to 17. In Eastern European (EE) countries, females were more likely to be in the majority. The presence of female cancer research authors in the last (senior) author position increased from 24% to 34%. Five of the top six countries for female authorship in 2019 were from EE, whereas disappointingly four central European countries (Austria (AT), Czechia (CZ), Germany (DE) and Switzerland (CH)) were below the 25th percentile. A number of European powerhouses of cancer research (UK, DE, CH) underperformed in terms of female cancer research leadership. However, when cancer researchers from these countries worked abroad (e.g. Scandinavia, USA) the percentage of females was similar to that of their host countries. A factor potentially influencing female cancer research participation was availability and relative cost of child-care, which is more favourable in Scandinavia and EE than in central/western Europe. CONCLUSION: Our data show that Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission must ensure gender equity in its future research programmes and support the enhancement of female cancer research leadership opportunities.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Adult glioma.

European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCCs) are explanations of the organisation and actions necessary to provide high-quality care to patients with a specific cancer type. They are compiled by a working group of European experts representing disciplines involved in cancer care, and provide oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers with an overview of the essential requirements in any healthcare system. The focus here is on adult glioma. Gliomas make up approximately 80% of all primary malignant brain tumours. They are highly diverse and patients can face a unique cognitive, physical and psychosocial burden, so personalised treatments and support are essential. However, management of gliomas is currently very heterogeneous across Europe and there are only few formally-designated comprehensive cancer centres with brain tumour programmes. To address this, the ERQCC glioma expert group proposes frameworks and recommendations for high quality care, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. Wherever possible, glioma patients should be treated from diagnosis onwards in high volume neurosurgical or neuro-oncology centres. Multidisciplinary team working and collaboration is essential if patients' length and quality of life are to be optimised.

An inter-specialty cancer training programme curriculum for Europe.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary and multi-professional collaboration is vital in providing better outcomes for patients The aim of the INTERACT-EUROPE Project (Wide Ranging Cooperation and Cutting Edge Innovation As A Response To Cancer Training Needs) was to develop an inter-specialty curriculum. A pilot project will enable a pioneer cohort to acquire a sample of the competencies needed. METHODS: A scoping review, qualitative and quantitative surveys were undertaken. The quantitative survey results are reported here. Respondents, including members of education boards, curriculum committees, trainee committees of European specialist societies and the ECO Patient Advisory Committee, were asked to score 127 proposed competencies on a 7-point Likert scale as to their value in achieving the aims of the curriculum. Results were discussed and competencies developed at two stakeholder meetings. A consultative document, shared with stakeholders and available online, requested views regarding the other components of the curriculum. RESULTS: Eleven competencies were revised, three omitted and three added. The competencies were organised according to the CanMEDS framework with 13 Entrustable Professional Activities, 23 competencies and 127 enabling competencies covering all roles in the framework. Recommendations regarding the infrastructure, organisational aspects, eligibility of trainees and training centres, programme contents, assessment and evaluation were developed using the replies to the consultative document. CONCLUSIONS: An Inter-specialty Cancer Training Programme Curriculum and a pilot programme with virtual and face-to-face components have been developed with the aim of improving the care of people affected by cancer.

A New Framework for Co-Creating Telehealth for Cancer Care with the Patient Community.

The increased use of telehealth in cancer care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has added to our knowledge and experience of the modality with benefits in terms of efficacy, cost, and patient and healthcare professional experience reported. However, telehealth has also been found not to be universally available to all patients with cancer, nor to be appropriate for every healthcare interaction; additionally, not all patients prefer it. Now that coronavirus disease restrictions have essentially ended and an opportunity to re-assess telehealth provision in cancer care presents, we offer a framework that aims to ensure that the needs and preferences of the patient community are included in the development of telehealth provision. Stakeholders in this process include patients, patient advocates, healthcare providers, healthcare services commissioners, managers, and policy makers. The framework outlines how patient advocates can work with other stakeholders as equal partners at all stages of telehealth service development. The patient advocate community has a unique understanding of the patient perspective as well as expertise in healthcare design and delivery. This enables advocates to contribute to shaping telehealth provision, from policy and guideline formulation to patient navigation. Appropriate resources, education and training may be needed for all stakeholders to support the development of an effective telehealth system. Together with other stakeholders, patient advocates can make an important contribution to optimizing appropriate patient-centred telehealth provision in cancer care.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Palliative care and end-of-life care in adults with malignant brain tumors.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review provides updated insights, from the published literature in the past 5 years, based on the 2017 European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) guidelines for palliative care in adults with malignant brain tumors. It provides an overview of palliative care options, including during the end-of-life phase for patients with malignant brain tumors. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted from 2016 to 2021 focusing on four main topics: (1) symptom management, (2) caregiver needs, (3) early palliative care, and (4) care in the end-of-life phase. An international panel of palliative care experts in neuro-oncology synthesized the literature and reported the most relevant updates. A total of 140 articles were included. RESULTS: New insights include that: Hippocampal avoidance and stereotactic radiosurgery results in a lower risk of neurocognitive decline in patients with brain metastases; levetiracetam is more efficacious in reducing seizures than valproic acid as first-line monotherapy antiseizure drug (ASD) in glioma patients; lacosamide and perampanel seem well-tolerated and efficacious add-on ASDs; and a comprehensive framework of palliative and supportive care for high-grade glioma patients and their caregivers was proposed. No pharmacological agents have been shown in randomized controlled trials to significantly improve fatigue or neurocognition. CONCLUSIONS: Since the 2017 EANO palliative care guidelines, new insights have been reported regarding symptom management and end-of-life care, however, most recommendations remain unchanged. Early palliative care interventions are essential to define goals of care and minimize symptom burden in a timely fashion. Interventional studies that address pain, fatigue, and psychiatric symptoms as well as (the timing of) early palliative care are urgently needed.

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.

Cancer literacy - Informing patients and implementing shared decision making.

In order to tailor treatment to their needs, cancer patients are encouraged to be more active and engaged in their care decisions and to be autonomous yet collaborative with their healthcare professionals when it comes to aspects of their treatment in order to get better results. However, this can only happen after providing them with accurate information about cancer and the different treatment alternatives and their potential side effects. However, sharing robust data-based information is often hindered by exposure to misleading information through different media and online platform, where patients might come across unscientifically founded health practices. Increasing health literacy and cancer-specific literacy is essential to fight this negative trend. The idea is that more knowledgeable patients will be able to debunk more easily misinformation they encounter. This is also related to inequalities among cancer patients. Not only levels of cancer literacy within Europe are uneven across and within countries, but there are social groups that, due to specific social determinants, are systematically less informed and skilled regarding cancer care. In this paper an overview of gaps in addressing literacy issues, and the importance of health literacy to empower patients in their journey through treatment is delineated, concluding with some recommendations to improve cancer literacy in Europe.

How to improve efficiency in cancer care: Dimensions, methods, and areas of evaluation.

Efficiency in healthcare is crucial since available resources are scarce, and the cost of inefficient allocation is measured in prior outcomes. This is particularly relevant for cancer. The aim of this paper is to gain a comprehensive overview of the areas and dimensions to improve efficiency, and establish the indicators, different methods, perspectives, and areas of evaluation, to provide recommendations for how to improve efficiency and measure gains in cancer care. METHODS: We conducted a two-phase design. First, a comprehensive scoping literature review was conducted, searching four databases. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 were included if they described experiences and cases of efficiency in cancer care or methods to evaluate efficiency. The results of the literature review were then discussed during two rounds of online consultation with a panel of 15 external experts invited to provide insight and comments to deliberate policy recommendations. RESULTS: 46 papers met the inclusion criteria. Based on the papers retrieved we identified six areas for achieving efficiency gains throughout the entire care pathway and, for each area of efficiency, we categorized the methods and outcomes used to measure efficiency gain. CONCLUSION: This is the first attempt to systemize a scattered body of literature on how to improve efficiency in cancer care and identify key areas of improvement. POLICY SUMMARY: There are many opportunities to improve efficiency in cancer care. We defined seven policy recommendations on how to improve efficiency in cancer care throughout the care pathway and how to improve the measurement of efficiency gains.

Brain tumor patients and COVID-19 vaccines: results of an international survey.

Background: As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to unfold, the advent of multiple approved vaccines has led to a milestone in the fight against the virus. While vaccination rates and side effects are well established in the general population, these are largely unknown in patients with brain tumors. The purpose of this study was to determine if brain tumor patients and their caregivers have received a COVID-19 vaccine, and explore their thoughts and opinions on these vaccines. Methods: An anonymous 31-question online survey available in 8 languages was conducted from June 30, 2021 to August 31, 2021. The survey was open to adult brain tumor patients over the age of 18 and included both categorical and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and modified thematic analyses were performed for all questions as appropriate. Results: A total of 965 unique surveys were completed from 42 countries. The vast majority of both brain tumor patients and their caregivers have been vaccinated against COVID-19 (84.5% and 89.9%, respectively). No patient reported serious adverse events from any vaccine. Less than 10% of patients decided against receiving a vaccination against COVID-19, with the most common reason being concerns over the safety of the vaccine. Patients wanted more specific information on how COVID-19 vaccines might impact their future brain tumor treatment. Conclusions: In conclusion, the majority of brain tumor patients and their caregivers have received COVID-19 vaccines with no major side effects. Patients want more information on how COVID-19 vaccines might directly impact their brain tumor and future management.

Development of 'Core Outcome Sets' for Meningioma in Clinical Studies (The COSMIC Project): protocol for two systematic literature reviews, eDelphi surveys and online consensus meetings.

INTRODUCTION: Meningioma is the most common primary intracranial tumour in adults. The majority are non-malignant, but a proportion behave more aggressively. Incidental/minimally symptomatic meningioma are often managed by serial imaging. Symptomatic meningioma, those that threaten neurovascular structures, or demonstrate radiological growth, are usually resected as first-line management strategy. For patients in poor clinical condition, or with inoperable, residual or recurrent disease, radiotherapy is often used as primary or adjuvant treatment. Effective pharmacotherapy treatments do not currently exist. There is heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in meningioma clinical studies. Two 'Core Outcome Sets' (COS) will be developed: (COSMIC: Intervention) for use in meningioma clinical effectiveness trials and (COSMIC: Observation) for use in clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two systematic literature reviews and trial registry searches will identify outcomes measured and reported in published and ongoing (1) meningioma clinical effectiveness trials, and (2) clinical studies of incidental/untreated meningioma. Outcomes include those that are clinician reported, patient reported, caregiver reported and based on objective tests (eg, neurocognitive tests), as well as measures of progression and survival. Outcomes will be deduplicated and categorised to generate two long lists. The two long lists will be prioritised through two, two-round, international, modified eDelphi surveys including patients with meningioma, healthcare professionals, researchers and those in caring/supporting roles. The two final COS will be ratified through two 1-day online consensus meetings, with representation from all stakeholder groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional review board (University of Liverpool) approval was obtained for the conduct of this study. Participant eConsent will be obtained prior to participation in the eDelphi surveys and consensus meetings. The two systematic literature reviews and two final COS will be published and freely available. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: COMET study ID 1508.