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.

Shared medical appointments - an adjunct for chronic disease management in Australia?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of chronic disease continues largely unabated in modern western societies. While the content (physiology, determinants) of these diseases is well studied, processes of dealing with them at the clinical level have been less well considered. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) or group consultations (also often referred to as group visits) are 'a series of individual office visits sequentially attending to each patient's unique medical needs individually, but in a supportive group setting where all can listen, interact and learn'. OBJECTIVE: To examine the potential acceptability of SMAs for the management of chronic diseases in the Australian context. DISCUSSION: SMAs were developed in the US to improve access to care, utilise peer support, reduce costs and improve patient and provider satisfaction in the management of chronic disease. An SMA is a comprehensive medical visit, not just a group education session, where a significant part of the added value comes from the facilitated peer interaction, particularly around aspects of self-management and empowerment. While more studies are required to compare outcomes with conventional one-on-one consultations, the reported gains in time efficiency, patient numbers managed, and patient as well as provider satisfaction, are sufficient to justify further consideration of a trial of SMAs in Australia.

Analysis of Cancer Research Projects in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Quantitative Perspective on Unmet Needs and Opportunities.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the scope and types of cancer research projects in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to identify research gaps and inform future efforts. METHODS: This retrospective observational study summarized information on cancer research projects in SSA from the International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) between 2015 and 2020, alongside 2020 cancer incidence and mortality data from the Global Cancer Observatory. SSA cancer research projects were identified as led by investigators in SSA countries, or by investigators in non-SSA countries with collaborators in SSA, or in database keyword searches. Projects from the Coalition for Implementation Research in Global Oncology (CIRGO) were also summarized. RESULTS: A total of 1,846 projects were identified from the ICRP database, funded by 34 organizations in seven countries (only one, Cancer Association of South Africa, based in SSA); only 156 (8%) were led by SSA-based investigators. Most projects focused on virally induced cancers (57%). Across all cancer types, projects were most frequently related to cervical cancer (24%), Kaposi sarcoma (15%), breast cancer (10%), or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (10%). Gaps were observed for several cancers with higher incidence/mortality burden in SSA; for example, prostate cancer accounted for only 4% of projects but 8% of cancer-related deaths and 10% of new cases. Approximately 26% were dedicated to etiology. Treatment-related research declined over the study period (14%-7% of all projects), while projects related to prevention (15%-20%) and diagnosis/prognosis (15%-29%) increased. Fifteen CIRGO projects were identified; seven were relevant across multiple cancer types, and 12 focused either wholly or partially on cancer control (representing 50% of the total research effort). CONCLUSION: This analysis shows notable discrepancies between cancer burden and research projects and identifies opportunities for future strategic investments in cancer care in SSA.

Trends in International Cancer Research Investment 2006-2018.

The International Cancer Research Partnership (ICRP) is an active network of cancer research funding organizations, sharing information about funded research projects in a common database. Data are publicly available to enable the cancer research community to find potential collaborators and avoid duplication. This study presents an aggregated analysis of projects funded by 120 partner organizations and institutes in 2006-2018, to highlight trends in cancer research funding. Overall, the partners' funding for cancer research increased from $5.562 billion (bn) US dollars (USD) in 2006 to $8.511bn USD in 2018, an above-inflation increase in funding. Analysis by the main research focus of projects using Common Scientific Outline categories showed that Treatment was the largest investment category in 2018, followed by Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis; Cancer Biology; Etiology; Control, Survivorship, and Outcomes; and Prevention. Over the 13 years covered by this analysis, research funding into Treatment and Early Detection, Diagnosis, and Prognosis had increased in terms of absolute investment and as a proportion of the portfolio. Research funding in Cancer Biology and Etiology declined as a percentage of the portfolio, and funding for Prevention and Control, Survivorship and Outcomes remained static. In terms of cancer site-specific research, funding for breast cancer and colorectal cancer had increased in absolute terms but declined as a percentage of the portfolio. By contrast, investment for brain cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, melanoma, and pancreatic cancer increased both in absolute terms and as a percentage of the portfolio.