ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022. METHODS: A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with gastric cancer.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with gastric cancer (GC), published in late 2022 and the updated ESMO Gastric Cancer Living Guideline published in July 2023, were adapted in August 2023, according to previously established standard methodology, to produce the Pan-Asian adapted (PAGA) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of Asian patients with GC. The adapted guidelines presented in this manuscript represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with GC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Indonesia (ISHMO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO), coordinated by ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices, drug access restrictions and reimbursement decisions in the different Asian regions represented by the 10 oncological societies. The latter are discussed separately in the manuscript. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with GC across the different regions of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by both Western and Asian trials, whilst respecting the differences in screening practices, molecular profiling and age and stage at presentation. Attention is drawn to the disparity in the drug approvals and reimbursement strategies, between the different regions of Asia.

Artificial intelligence for predictive biomarker discovery in immuno-oncology: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionised treatment of multiple cancer types. However, selecting patients who may benefit from ICI remains challenging. Artificial intelligence (AI) approaches allow exploitation of high-dimension oncological data in research and development of precision immuno-oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review of peer-reviewed original articles studying the ICI efficacy prediction in cancer patients across five data modalities: genomics (including genomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics), radiomics, digital pathology (pathomics), and real-world and multimodality data. RESULTS: A total of 90 studies were included in this systematic review, with 80% published in 2021-2022. Among them, 37 studies included genomic, 20 radiomic, 8 pathomic, 20 real-world, and 5 multimodal data. Standard machine learning (ML) methods were used in 72% of studies, deep learning (DL) methods in 22%, and both in 6%. The most frequently studied cancer type was non-small-cell lung cancer (36%), followed by melanoma (16%), while 25% included pan-cancer studies. No prospective study design incorporated AI-based methodologies from the outset; rather, all implemented AI as a post hoc analysis. Novel biomarkers for ICI in radiomics and pathomics were identified using AI approaches, and molecular biomarkers have expanded past genomics into transcriptomics and epigenomics. Finally, complex algorithms and new types of AI-based markers, such as meta-biomarkers, are emerging by integrating multimodal/multi-omics data. CONCLUSION: AI-based methods have expanded the horizon for biomarker discovery, demonstrating the power of integrating multimodal data from existing datasets to discover new meta-biomarkers. While most of the included studies showed promise for AI-based prediction of benefit from immunotherapy, none provided high-level evidence for immediate practice change. A priori planned prospective trial designs are needed to cover all lifecycle steps of these software biomarkers, from development and validation to integration into clinical practice.

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.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on the management of breast cancer during pregnancy (PrBC).

The management of breast cancer during pregnancy (PrBC) is a relatively rare indication and an area where no or little evidence is available since randomized controlled trials cannot be conducted. In general, advances related to breast cancer (BC) treatment outside pregnancy cannot always be translated to PrBC, because both the interests of the mother and of the unborn should be considered. Evidence remains limited and/or conflicting in some specific areas where the optimal approach remains controversial. In 2022, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on this topic to gain insights from a multidisciplinary group of experts and develop statements on controversial topics that cannot be adequately addressed in the current evidence-based ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. The aim of this consensus-building process was to discuss controversial issues relating to the management of patients with PrBC. The virtual meeting included a multidisciplinary panel of 24 leading experts from 13 countries and was chaired by S. Loibl and F. Amant. All experts were allocated to one of four different working groups. Each working group covered a specific subject area with two chairs appointed: Planning, preparation and execution of the consensus process was conducted according to the ESMO standard operating procedures.

ESMO expert consensus statements (ECS) on the definition, diagnosis, and management of HER2-low breast cancer.

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low breast cancer has recently emerged as a targetable subset of breast tumors, based on the evidence from clinical trials of novel anti-HER2 antibody-drug conjugates. This evolution has raised several biological and clinical questions, warranting the establishment of consensus to optimally treat patients with HER2-low breast tumors. Between 2022 and 2023, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process focused on HER2-low breast cancer. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 32 leading experts in the management of breast cancer from nine different countries. The aim of the consensus was to develop statements on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. The main topics identified for discussion were (i) biology of HER2-low breast cancer; (ii) pathologic diagnosis of HER2-low breast cancer; (iii) clinical management of HER2-low metastatic breast cancer; and (iv) clinical trial design for HER2-low breast cancer. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. A review of the relevant scientific literature was conducted in advance. Consensus statements were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This article presents the developed statements, including findings from the expert panel discussions, expert opinion, and a summary of evidence supporting each statement.

COVID-19 in cancer patients: update from the joint analysis of the ESMO-CoCARE, BSMO, and PSMO international databases.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has significantly affected patients with cancer and revealed unanticipated challenges in securing optimal cancer care across different disciplines. The European Society for Medical Oncology COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international, real-world database, collecting data on the natural history, management, and outcomes of patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: This is the 2nd CoCARE analysis, jointly with Belgian (Belgian Society of Medical Oncology, BSMO) and Portuguese (Portuguese Society of Medical Oncology, PSMO) registries, with data from January 2020 to December 2021. The aim is to identify significant prognostic factors for COVID-19 hospitalization and mortality (primary outcomes), as well as intensive care unit admission and overall survival (OS) (secondary outcomes). Subgroup analyses by pandemic phase and vaccination status were carried out. RESULTS: The cohort includes 3294 patients (CoCARE: 2049; BSMO: 928, all hospitalized by eligibility criteria; PSMO: 317), diagnosed in four distinct pandemic phases (January to May 2020: 36%; June to September 2020: 9%; October 2020 to February 2021: 41%; March to December 2021: 12%). COVID-19 hospitalization rate was 54% (CoCARE/PSMO), ICU admission 14%, and COVID-19 mortality 22% (all data). At a 6-month median follow-up, 1013 deaths were recorded with 73% 3-month OS rate. No significant change was observed in COVID-19 mortality among hospitalized patients across the four pandemic phases (30%-33%). Hospitalizations and ICU admission decreased significantly (from 78% to 34% and 16% to 10%, respectively). Among 1522 patients with known vaccination status at COVID-19 diagnosis, 70% were non-vaccinated, 24% had incomplete vaccination, and 7% complete vaccination. Complete vaccination had a protective effect on hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [0.14-0.38]), ICU admission (odds ratio = 0.29 [0.09-0.94]), and OS (hazard ratio = 0.39 [0.20-0.76]). In multivariable analyses, COVID-19 hospitalization was associated with patient/cancer characteristics, the first pandemic phase, the presence of COVID-19-related symptoms or inflammatory biomarkers, whereas COVID-19 mortality was significantly higher in symptomatic patients, males, older age, ethnicity other than Asian/Caucasian, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2, body mass index <25, hematological malignancy, progressive disease versus no evident disease, and advanced cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The updated CoCARE analysis, jointly with BSMO and PSMO, highlights factors that significantly affect COVID-19 outcomes, providing actionable clues for further reducing mortality.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, staging and treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) was published in 2021. A special, hybrid guidelines meeting was convened by ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) in collaboration with nine other Asian national oncology societies in May 2022 in order to adapt the ESMO 2021 guidelines to take into account the differences associated with the treatment of MBC in Asia. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with MBC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Indonesia (ISHMO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO). The voting was based on the best available scientific evidence and was independent of drug access or practice restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter were discussed when appropriate. The aim of these guidelines is to provide guidance for the harmonisation of the management of patients with MBC across the different regions of Asia, drawing from data provided by global and Asian trials whilst at the same time integrating the differences in genetics, demographics and scientific evidence, together with restricted access to certain therapeutic strategies.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), published in late 2022, were adapted in December 2022, according to previously established standard methodology, to produce the Pan-Asian adapted (PAGA) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of Asian patients with mCRC. The adapted guidelines presented in this manuscript represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Indonesia (ISHMO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO), co-ordinated by ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices, drug access restrictions and reimbursement decisions in the different Asian countries. The latter are discussed separately in the manuscript. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with mCRC across the different countries of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by both Western and Asian trials, whilst respecting the differences in screening practices, molecular profiling and age and stage at presentation, coupled with a disparity in the drug approvals and reimbursement strategies, between the different countries.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies. METHODS: A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective. RESULTS: A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with endometrial cancer was published in 2022. It was therefore decided, by both the ESMO and the Indian Society of Medical and Paediatric Oncology (ISMPO), to convene a virtual meeting in July 2022 to adapt the ESMO 2022 guidelines to take into account the variations in the management of endometrial cancer in Asia. These guidelines represent the consensus opinion of a panel of Asian experts representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Indonesia (ISHMO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO). Voting was based on scientific evidence and was conducted independently of the current treatment practices and treatment access constraints in the different Asian countries, which were discussed when appropriate. The aim of this guideline manuscript is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with endometrial cancer across the different regions of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by Western and Asian trials whilst respecting the variations in clinical presentation, diagnostic practices including molecular profiling and disparities in access to therapeutic options, including drug approvals and reimbursement strategies.

Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022.

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.

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.

Streamlining clinical research: an ESMO awareness call to improve sponsoring and monitoring of clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: During recent years, the burden of bureaucracy in clinical research has increased dramatically, adversely impacting the activity of investigators and clinical research teams. Although compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and other applicable regulations remains unquestionable, their overinterpretation and substitution by the internal operating procedures of sponsors and Contract Research Organizations (CROs) have increased the administrative burden. A survey conducted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO) among 940 investigators confirmed that they considered that the administrative burden in clinical research is excessive; that administrative procedures could be reduced without affecting the safety and the rights of the patients and the quality of the data; and that bureaucracy represents an obstacle for clinical research. METHODS: A panel of physicians with extensive experience in clinical research, composed by members of the ECRO and the ESMO Scientific Medical and Public Policy divisions, analyzed clinical trial procedures related to administrative workflow, pharmacovigilance, and medical care. RESULTS: The panel identified situations that generate debate between investigators and sponsors/CROs and selected real clinical scenarios that exemplify such situations. The panel discussed and proposed specific recommendations for those situations, based on GCP. CONCLUSIONS: This initiative aspires to streamline clinical research procedures and to become a platform for discussion among all clinical trial stakeholders, with the aim of promoting the sustainability of clinical research and the care of cancer patients.

ESMO Expert Consensus Statements on Cancer Survivorship: promoting high-quality survivorship care and research in Europe.

BACKGROUND: The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship. DESIGN AND METHODS: Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research. RESULTS: We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care. CONCLUSIONS: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a) promoting the development of high-quality survivorship care programs, (b) providing educational material and (c) aiding groundbreaking research by reflecting on priorities and by supporting research networking.

Pan-Asian adapted ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with prostate cancer.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of prostate cancer was published in 2020. It was therefore decided, by both the ESMO and the Singapore Society of Oncology (SSO), to convene a special, virtual guidelines meeting in November 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2020 guidelines to take into account the differences associated with the treatment of prostate cancer in Asia. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with prostate cancer representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug access restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter were discussed when appropriate. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with prostate cancer across the different regions of Asia.