Search

Background: Genomic and molecular alterations are increasingly important in cancer diagnosis, and scientific advances are opening new treatment avenues. Precision oncology (PO) uses a patient's genomic profile to determine optimal treatment, promising fewer side effects and higher success rates. Within PO, tumor-agnostic (TA) therapies target genomic alterations irrespective of tumor location. However, traditional value frameworks and approval pathways pose challenges which may limit patient access to PO therapies., Objectives: This study describes challenges in assessing PO and TA medicines, explores possible solutions, and provides actionable recommendations to facilitate an iterative life-cycle assessment of these medicines., Methods: After reviewing the published literature, we obtained insights from key stakeholders and European experts across a range of disciplines, through individual interviews and an industry workshop. The research was guided and refined by an international expert committee through 2 sounding board meetings., Results: The current challenges faced by PO and TA medicines are multiple and can be demonstrated through real-world examples of the current barriers and opportunities. A life-cycle approach to assessment should be taken, including key actions at the early stages of evidence generation, regulatory and reimbursement stage, as well as payment and adoption solutions that make use of the evolving evidence base. Working toward these solutions to maximize PO medicine value is a shared responsibility and stands to benefit all stakeholders., Conclusions: Our call to action is to expand access to comprehensive genomic testing, foster a learning health care system, enable fast and equitable access to cost-effective treatments, and ultimately improve health outcomes., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Digital health solutions have the potential to complement traditional healthcare approaches and deliver improved health outcomes, but there are system-wide challenges that need to be addressed. These include fragmentation of the digital health landscape, regulatory processes that lack the agility to accommodate the fast pace of digital health advances, and inadequate transparency around data sharing and data governance. All of these challenges have led to mistrust, limited understanding and sharing of best practices, a lack of digital education and awareness, and insufficient patient and public engagement and involvement. In this paper, we argue that for digital health solutions to fulfil their potential, there needs to be a significant increase in early, meaningful, and sustained engagement with the people they intend to benefit. The uptake as well as the impact of digital solutions created in partnership with patients for patients are greater and more relevant to the communities they address., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have significantly lowered mortality of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients adjusting life expectancy to that of the standard population. However, CML and its treatment with TKIs causes a high disease burden. Physical exercise (PE) could be a non-pharmacological approach to reducing these and improving quality of life., Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the individual disease burden as well as PE preferences of CML patients and to deduce thereof specific PE recommendations., Methods: This multicenter survey was conducted in cooperation with the LeukaNET/Leukemia-patient network including CML patients aged ≥18 years (German Registry of Clinical Trials, DRKS00023698). The severity of selected symptoms was assessed using the adapted Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Symptom Assessment Form: 0 (absent), 1-30 (mild), 31-70 (moderate), or 71-100 (severe). Information about patients' PE needs and preferences depending on their motivation was recorded., Results: A total of 212 questionnaires were analyzed (52% female, median age 54 years). The prevalence of moderate-to-severe symptoms was 49% for fatigue, 40% for musculoskeletal pain, and 37% for concentration problems. Other commonly reported symptoms included skin reactions (42%) and weight gain (24%). The proportion of overweight/obese patients was 52%. Half of all respondents requested more information regarding PE. Patients with CML preferred individual training (82%), located outdoors (71%), at home (47%), or in an indoor swimming pool (31%). Regarding the training frequency, sports-inactive patients preferred a frequency of 1-2 training sessions per week, whereas sports-active patients preferred 3-4 sessions per week (p <0.001). Sports-inactive patients preferred a training time of 15-45 minutes, while sports-active patients preferred 30-60 minutes (p = 0.002). Subsequently, PE recommendations were developed for patients with CML. Combined resistance and endurance training (moderate intensity twice per week for 30 minutes) was recommended for beginners. Obese patients should prioritize joint-relieving sports. To reduce the risk of skin reactions, direct sunlight and possibly water sports should be avoided, and UV protection should be used., Conclusion: Counseling and motivation of CML patients to be physically active should be part of the standard of care as well as support for implementation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Hollenbach, Rogahn, le Coutre, Schulze, Muegge, Geissler, Gruen, Junghanss and Felser.)

Background: In the European Union, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) plays a central role in the complex health research legal framework. It aims to protect the fundamental right to the protection of individuals' personal data, while allowing the free movement of such data. However, it has been criticized for challenging the conduct of research. Existing scholarship has paid little attention to the experiences and views of the patient community. The aim of the study was to investigate 1) the awareness and knowledge of patients, carers, and members of patient organizations about the General Data Protection Regulation, 2) their experience with exercising data subject rights, and 3) their understanding of the notion of "data control" and preferences towards various data control tools. Methods: An online survey was disseminated between December 2022 and March 2023. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Answers to open-ended questions were analyzed using the thematic analysis method. Results: In total, 220 individuals from 28 European countries participated. The majority were patients (77%). Most participants had previously heard about the GDPR (90%) but had not exercised any of their data subject rights. Individual data control tools appeared to be marginally more important than collective tools. The willingness of participants to share personal data with data altruism organizations increased if patient representatives would be involved in the decision-making processes of such organizations. Conclusion: The results highlighted the importance of providing in-depth education about data protection. Although participants showed a slight preference towards individual control tools, the reflection based on existing scholarship identified that individual control holds risks that could be mitigated through carefully operationalized collective tools. The discussion of results was used to provide a critical view into the proposed European Health Data Space, which has yet to find a productive balance between individual control and allowing the reuse of personal data for research., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Lalova-Spinks, Saesen, Silva, Geissler, Shakhnenko, Camaradou and Huys.)

Precision oncology has made remarkable strides in improving clinical outcomes, offering hope to patients with historically difficult-to-treat, as well as rare or neglected cancers. However, despite rapid advancement, precision oncology has reached a critical juncture, where patient access to these life-saving medicines may be hampered by strict requirements by Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for assessing new medicines against appropriate comparator. The very nature of precision oncology-matching a tumour's unique molecular alterations to targeted therapies predicted to elicit response-can make the use of RCTs very difficult, as only a very small number of patients might qualify for a given therapy within a traditional clinical trial setting. Real-world evidence (RWE) has been accepted for regulatory decision-making but has yet to reach widespread acceptance by HTA bodies. As the oncology treatment landscape has evolved towards favouring the concept of precision oncology, there is a growing need for flexibility in the way HTA bodies evaluate new medicines. We must acknowledge that current assessment methodologies can limit access to life-changing medicines for many patients who have no alternative options and that a growing number of precision oncology medicines with proven clinical benefits in rare tumours cannot be reasonably evaluated using traditional methodologies. The objectives of this paper are to advocate a change in mindset regarding best practices in drug assessment models and to propose alternative approaches when considering indications for which RWE is the most compelling data source available., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: JG has provided consultancy via Patvocates on patient engagement to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novavax, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Sobi, UCB and Vifor; and has volunteered for non-profit patient organisations which have received grants from AMGEN, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GSK, IPSEN, Incyte, Janssen, Jazz Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda. LEM is an employee of Fight Bladder Cancer, which has received financial support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Ferring, Janssen, Medtec, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Prokarium, Roche, Sanofi, and Seagen; has received honoraria from Bayer and Future Oncology; and is a volunteer board member of the World Bladder Cancer Patient Coalition, which has received financial support from Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Seagen. BS has no competing interests to declare. CB has participated on advisory boards for Sanofi Aventis, Merck KgA, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer Healthcare, and Novartis; and has consulted for Lilly Imclone, GSO Contract Research, and AOK Rheinland-Hamburg., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Purpose: The Acute Leukemia Advocates Network (ALAN) sought to determine which factors are most associated with poor quality of life (QoL) in patients with acute leukemia and to determine key issues and unmet needs through administration of an online survey distributed worldwide via partner patient organizations., Methods: ALAN developed a questionnaire informed by literature review and based extensively on the hematological malignancy-specific patient-reported outcomes (HM-PRO) measure to assess the impact of acute leukemia on QoL and its relationships with patients' demographics, disease state, disease impact, and support from health care professionals. Univariate and multivariable statistical analysis was used to investigate relationships between HM-PRO scores and the other factors., Results: Of 552 respondents from 42 countries, 332 had acute myeloid leukemia, 139 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and 81 had acute promyelocytic leukemia (survey data collected in 2019). Younger age, female gender, and lower income were all significantly negatively associated with QoL. Weak or moderate correlations were observed between overall support, management, and impact of treatment and diagnosis of acute leukemia. Feeling isolated and having reduced ability to carry out physical or enjoyable activities were the most important individual factors, while the best predictors for QoL impact were age, gender, and income (model r 2 =0.16, complete case n=449)., Conclusions: Findings indicated key factors, particularly age, gender, and socioeconomic state, that clinicians responsible for the care of patients with acute leukemia should be aware of when designing support strategies. The importance of social functioning in relation to patient QoL also should be included in considerations., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Z.P.W. reports: employment by Leukaemia Care; equity ownership of Patient Evidence; consultancy for Acute Leukemia Advocates Network (ALAN), Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, and Pfizer; advisory board membership for ALAN and CML Advocates Network; speakers bureau for Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Jazz, Novartis, and Pfizer. S.N. reports: consultancy role for ALAN. J.G. reports: advisory roles and consultancy on patient engagement to Amgen, Alnylam, Bayer, Biomarin, Boehringer, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Sanofi, Takeda, and UCB; board membership of ALAN, CML Advocates Network, Leukaemia Patient Advocates Foundation, and LeukaNET. S.W. reports: board membership of ALAN; MDS UK organizational grants from and/or honoraria for advisory board role from Novartis, Janssen, and Takeda. B.V. reports: board membership of ALAN. R.C. reports: board membership of LYLE; advisory roles and consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, and Autisme 4700DK. S.S. reports: educational grant from GSK plc, Merck Group, and Dr Wolff; travel support and consultancy from Agios; joint copyright holder of HM-PRO. E.N.O. reports: advisory roles and consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Amgen, Appelis, and Alexion; speakers bureau for Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis. T.I. reports: advisory roles and consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Amgen; principal investigator in sponsor-initiated studies; speaker bureau for Takeda. J.B. reports: employment by IQVIA., (© 2023 Advocate Aurora Health, Inc.)

Background: Physical activity (PA) is a non-pharmacological approach to alleviate symptom burden and improve health-related quality of life (HrQoL) in cancer patients (pts). Whether pts with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) PA behavior changes due to symptom burden and/or knowledge of the putative beneficial effects of PA has not yet been investigated., Methods: We performed a large questionnaire study in MPN pts. Self-reported PA behavior and potential influencing factors of 634 MPN pts were analyzed. Questionnaires were used to assess demographics, anxiety, severity of symptoms, HrQoL, current level of everyday and sports activities, and the level of information regarding the importance/possibilities of PA. According to their PA, the pts were assigned to the three groups: "inactive", "non-targeted active", and "sporty active" and compared with each other., Results: Key findings are that in 73% of the pts, the disease had an impact on PA, with 30% of pts reducing their PA. The prevalence of anxieties (e.g., occurrence of thrombosis and bleeding) regarding PA was 45%. Sporty active pts had a lower symptom burden and better HrQoL ( p ≤ 0.001) compared to the other groups. Inactive pts were significantly older and had a higher body mass index than sporty active pts. Inactive and non-targeted active pts felt less informed about the importance/possibilities of PA ( p = 0.002)., Conclusion: Our results suggest that especially older and non-sporty MPN pts could benefit from motivational as well as disease-specific PA information. This study was registered at the German Registry of Clinical Trials, DRKS00023698., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Felser, Rogahn, le Coutre, Al-Ali, Schulze, Muegge, Gruen, Geissler, Kraze-Kliebhahn and Junghanss.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ML declares honoraria from Bayer, Carnall Farrar, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche unrelated to this work and membership of the board of the European Cancer Organisation (ECO). AA declares Advanced NIH Fellowship unrelated to this work. AMB declares honorarium from Roche unrelated to this work and Presidency of Lung Cancer Europe. MC declares membership of the board of ECO and the European Society of Oncology Pharmacy. FC declares consultancy and advisory board membership of Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Iqvia, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, PierreFabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva, and Touchime unrelated to this work. TC declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, and Takeda unrelated to this work. LD declares consultancy from the International Cancer Research Partnership unrelated to this work. FDN declares grants from the AIRC Foundation for Cancer Research, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, and Fondazione Piemontese per la Ricerca sul Cancro-ONLUS, and consultancy from Pierre Fabre unrelated to this work. JJ declares consultancy from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme unrelated to this work. DK declares honoraria from Merck Sharpe & Dohme unrelated to this work. TKo declares grants from Ipsen, AAA Pharma, Novartis, Isotope Technologies Munich, Victory Net Foundation, and Camulus, and honoraria or support from Cor2Ed, Ipsen, ECO, International Cancer Genome Consortium unrelated to this work. CLV received support from AIRC Foundation. YL is chair of the HERO VBHC and member of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Scientific Committee, the Belgian College of Oncology, and a personal investigator on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/ESTRO E2-RADIATE project. PS declares support from ECO and the European School of Oncology. SO, KO, AS, CA, PN, KA, MA, AC, MPC, ACo, CLD, AE, SE, MG, BJo, OK, TKu, GL, FM, JP, TP, RP, BR, ITR, MJS, GSB, JVH, EV, WW, UW, and RS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The currently valid Regulation (EU) 536/2014 on clinical trials with medicinal products for human use brings some innovations that are of great importance for patients who participate in clinical trials and patients with a need for innovative therapies. These concern patient protection, especially for vulnerable patient groups, as well as the conditions for further use of data obtained in clinical trials. The introduction of the largely publicly available information system CTIS (Clinical Trials Information System) will significantly improve the transparency of ongoing clinical trials. However, the possibilities of redacting commercially confidential information and postponing the publication of trial-related data and documents for several years may affect the scope of transparency. The request for the sponsor to provide a summary of the protocol and a summary of results of the clinical trial in layman's language (within one year after the end of the trial) also means a massive improvement in transparency for patients, even if this period seems too long, especially for patients with life-threatening diseases. Not all patient-relevant goals originally hoped for have been achieved. The systematic involvement of patients and patient organisations in the clinical trial protocol design is not required by the legislation enacted in 2014. The involvement of patients in the ethical review of the authorisation application dossier is only recommended in the introductory justification, but not codified in the law., (© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Objectives: The Innovative Medicines Initiative-funded, multistakeholders project Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive Against Neoplasms in Hematology (HARMONY) created a task force involving patient organizations, medical associations, pharmaceutical companies, and health technology assessment/regulator agencies' representatives to evaluate the suitability of previously established value frameworks (VFs) for assessing the clinical and societal impact of new interventions for hematologic malignancies (HMs)., Methods: Since the HARMONY stakeholders identified the inclusion of patients' points of view on evaluating VFs as a priority, surveys were conducted with the patient organizations active in HMs and part of the HARMONY network, together with key opinion leaders, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators, to establish which outcomes were important for each HM. Next, to evaluate VFs against the sources of information taken into account (randomized clinical trials, registries, real-world data), structured questionnaires were created and filled by HARMONY health professionals to specify preferred data sources per malignancy. Finally, a framework evaluation module was built to analyze existing clinical VFs (American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Society of Medical Oncology, Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, National Comprehensive Cancer Network Evidence Blocks, and patient-perspective VF)., Results: The comparative analysis describes challenges and opportunities for the use of each framework in the context of HMs and drafts possible lines of action for creating or integrating a more specific, patient-focused clinical VF for HMs., Conclusions: None of the frameworks meets the HARMONY goals for a tool that applies to HMs and assesses in a transparent, reproducible, and systematic way the therapeutic value of innovative health technologies versus available alternatives, taking a patient-centered approach and using real-world evidence., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Clinical trials are required to ensure new treatments are safe and effective for patients. The involvement of participants in the planning and execution of clinical trials is critical not only to their success but also so that the participating communities can benefit from them., Competing Interests: Competing interestsJ.G.: Patvocates is providing consultancy and advice on patient engagement to the following companies: Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Biomarin, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB, Vifor. C.B.: During the last 3 years, C.B. has received consulting fees from Acadia pharmaceutical company, AARP, Addex pharmaceutical company, Eli Lily, Enterin pharmaceutical company, GWPharm, H.Lundbeck pharmaceutical company, Novartis pharmaceutical company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson and Johnson pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk pharmaceutical company, Orion Corp pharmaceutical company, Otsuka America Pharm Inc, Sunovion Pharm. Inc, Suven pharmaceutical company, Roche pharmaceutical company, Biogen pharmaceutical compnay, Synexus clinical research organisation and TauRx pharmaceutical company. During the last 3 years C.B. has received research grants from: Synexus clinical research organisation, Roche pharmaceutical company and Novo Nordisk pharmaceutical company. He also receives an honoraium as Faculty on the Harvard Medical Schoold Dementia Cource once annually. E.I.: works for Rare Cancers Australia. C.L.: works for Reverba. G.H. and A.C. declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Precision oncology, where patients are given therapies based on their genomic profile and disease trajectory, is rapidly evolving to become a pivotal part of cancer management, supported by regulatory approvals of biomarker-matched targeted therapies and cancer immunotherapies. However, next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based technologies have revealed an increasing number of molecular-based cancer subtypes with rare patient populations, leading to difficulties in executing/recruiting for traditional clinical trials. Therefore, approval of novel therapeutics based on traditional interventional studies may be difficult and time consuming, with delayed access to innovative therapies. Real-world data (RWD) that describe the patient journey in routine clinical practice can help elucidate the clinical utility of NGS-based genomic profiling, multidisciplinary case discussions, and targeted therapies. We describe key learnings from the setup of WAYFIND-R (NCT04529122), a first-of-its-kind global cancer registry collecting RWD from patients with solid tumors who have undergone NGS-based genomic profiling. The meaning of 'generalizability' and 'high quality' for RWD across different geographic areas was revisited, together with patient recruitment processes, and data sharing and privacy. Inspired by these learnings, WAYFIND-R's design will help physicians discuss patient treatment plans with their colleagues, improve understanding of the impact of treatment decisions/cancer care processes on patient outcomes, and provide a platform to support the design and conduct of further clinical/epidemiologic research. WAYFIND-R demonstrates user-friendly, electronic case report forms, standardized collection of molecular tumor board-based decisions, and a dashboard providing investigators with access to local cohort-level data and the ability to interact with colleagues or search the entire registry to find rare populations. Overall, WAYFIND-R will inform on best practice for NGS-based treatment decisions by clinicians, foster global collaborations between cancer centers and enable robust conclusions regarding outcome data to be drawn, improve understanding of disparities in patients' access to advanced diagnostics and therapies, and ultimately drive advances in precision oncology.

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CAJ reports personal fees from Kite/Gilead, Novartis, BMS/Celgene, Precision Biosciences, Nkarta, AbbVie, Bluebird Bio, Epizyme, Lonza, and Ipsen, outside the submitted work. DV reports personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Kite/Gilead, Kyowa Kirin, Sandoz Canada, Nanostring, Immunovaccine, Roche, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, and Lundbeck/Teva; and research funding (to his institution) from AstraZeneca and Roche, outside the submitted work. GV reports personal fees from Roche, Eisai, Novartis, and Seattle Genetics; and grants from Breast Cancer Now, EORTC, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Pfizer, and IQVIA, outside the submitted work. JaG reports grants from Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Takeda, Servier, UCB, Amgen, Roche, Alnylam, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Biomarin, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Sobi, Gilead, and Bayer, outside the submitted work. JFS reports grants, personal fees, non-financial support, and speakers bureau participation for AbbVie and Roche; personal fees and non-financial support from BMS; personal fees from Genentech, Mei Pharma, Morphosys, Sunesis, and Takeda; and grants and personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. JRW reports personal fees from Merck, Celgene, Cidara, ReViral, Shire, Ansun, Janssen, and Behring, outside the submitted work. KM reports grants from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. LN reports honoraria from ADC Therapeutics, Bayer, and Morphosys; grants and honoraria from BMS/Celgene, Epizyme, Genentech, Gilead/Kite, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, and TG Therapeutics; and grants from Caribou Biosciences and IGM Biosciences, outside the submitted work. M-VM reports personal fees from Janssen, BMS-Celgene, Takeda, Amgen, Sanofi, Oncopeptides, Adaptive, GSK, AbbVie, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, and Regeneron, outside the submitted work. MH reports grants from U24 CA076518 National Cancer Institute and grants from U24 HL138660 National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, during the conduct of the study; grants from Amgen, Vor BioPharma, Gamida Cell, Medac, Magenta Therapeutics, Astellas, OncoImmune, and Genentech; and consulting fees from AlloVir, outside the submitted work. MJM reports personal fees from Genentech, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Bayer, Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Seattle Genetics, Immunovaccine Technology, and Takeda; consulting advisory roles for Merck, Juno Therapeutics, Teva, and Daiichi Sankyo; research funding from IGM Biosciences; and a consulting advisory role and research funding from Rocket Medical, outside the submitted work. PM reports personal fees from Janssen, Celgene, BMS, AbbVie, Sanofi, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. PS reports research support from Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, and Takeda; and honoraria and serving on advisory boards for Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, Takeda, BMS, and SkylineDx, outside the submitted work. SS reports grants and consulting fees from BMS, Janssen, and Magenta; grants from Allogene; and consulting fees from Oncopeptides, outside the submitted work. TCE-G reports previous employment at Roche and personal fees from AbbVie, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

With the increasing use of genomic profiling for diagnosis and therapy guidance in many tumor types, precision oncology is rapidly reshaping cancer care. However, the current trajectory of drug development in oncology results in a paradox: if patients cannot access advanced diagnostics, we may be developing drugs that will reach few patients. In this Perspective, we outline the major challenges to the implementation of precision oncology and discuss critical steps toward resolving these, including facilitation of equal access to genomics tests, ensuring that clinical studies provide robust evidence for new drugs and technologies, enabling physicians to interpret genomics data, and empowering patients toward shared decision-making. A multi-stakeholder approach to evidence generation, value assessment, and healthcare delivery is necessary to translate advances in precision oncology into benefits for patients with cancer globally., (© 2022. Springer Nature America, Inc.)

There are considerable disparities between the quality of cancer care and clinical outcomes for cancer patients in different European countries, regions, hospitals and communities. These have persisted despite the introduction of many European and National Cancer Plans, an extensive portfolio of clinical guidelines and the existence of evidence based guidelines for the good practice in planning cancer healthcare systems. We describe the European Code of Cancer Practice which is a citizen and patient-centred accessible widely disseminated statement of the core requirements for good clinical cancer practice. The Code sets out 10 key overarching Rights of what a patient should expect from their healthcare system each supported by a plain language explanation. The Rights highlight the importance of equal access to affordable and optimal cancer care, good quality information about an individual patient's disease and treatment and about the quality and outcomes of the cancer service they will use. Specialised multidisciplinary cancer care teams, shared decision-making, research and innovation, a focus on quality of life, the integration of supportive and palliative care within oncology are all emphasised. There is a need for a systematic approach to supporting cancer survivors with a survivorship care plan including their rehabilitation, reintegration into society and return to work where appropriate without discrimination. The Code has been co-produced by a team of cancer patients, patient advocates and cancer professionals to bridge the gap between clinical guidelines, healthcare policies and patients' everyday experience. It is robustly evidence-based and supported by a comprehensive review of the medical literature and evidence for good clinical practice. The Code is strongly endorsed by Europe's professional and patient cancer organisations and the European Commission., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To analyze the current situation of cross-border access to clinical trials in the EU with an overview of stakeholders' real-life experience, and to identify the needs, challenges, and potential for facilitation of cross-border access. Methods: We employed a mixed methods design. Semi-structured interviews and an online survey were conducted with a wide range of stakeholders: patient representatives, investigators/physicians, policy and regulatory experts, academic and commercial sponsor representatives, ethics committee members. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. The survey was analyzed descriptively. Results: Three hundred ninety six individuals responded to the survey. The majority were investigators/physicians (46%) and patient representatives (33%). Thirty eight individuals were interviewed. The majority were investigators/physicians (29%) and patient representatives (29%). All European regions were represented in the study. The highest response rate was received from residents of Western European countries (38% of survey respondents, 45% of interviewees), the lowest from Eastern Europe (9% of survey respondents, 5% of interviewees). The study suggested that cross-border participation in clinical trials occurs in practice, however very rarely. Ninety two percentage of survey respondents and the majority of interviewees perceived as needed the possibility to access clinical trials abroad. However, most interviewees also opined that patients ideally should not have to travel in order to access experimental treatment. The lack of access to treatment in the home country of the patient was described as the main motivation to participate in a clinical trial in another country. The logistical and financial burden for patients was perceived as the biggest challenge. Different stakeholders expressed diverging opinions regarding the allocation of financial and organizational responsibility for enabling cross-border access to clinical trials. Participants provided a number of proposals for improving the current system, which were carefully evaluated by the research team and informed future recommendations. Conclusions: Participation in clinical trials abroad is happening rarely but should be facilitated. There was a consensus on the need for reliable and accessible information regarding practical aspects, as well as multi-stakeholder, multi-national recommendations on existing options and best practice on cross-border access to clinical trials. Broader interdisciplinary research is recommended before discussing options in the EU legislative framework to enable clearly defined conditions for cross-border access to clinical trials., (Copyright © 2020 Lalova, Padeanu, Negrouk, Lacombe, Geissler, Klingmann and Huys.)

In CML, treatment-free remission (TFR) refers to having a stable deep molecular response without the need for ongoing tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. Whilst recommendations exist about the technical management of stopping and re-starting therapy, much is still unknown about the experiences of those considering and undertaking TFR. This study sought to obtain the patient perspective, identify areas of unmet needs and create recommendations for improvements. Fifty-six percent of patients reported fear or anxiety during treatment discontinuation, whereas only 7% of patients were asked if they needed psychological support during this period. Where patients re-initiated treatment; 59% felt scared or anxious, and 56% felt depressed. Twenty-six percent of re-initiated patients received psychological and/or emotional support at this time. Sixty percent of patients experienced withdrawal symptoms whilst discontinuing treatment, however, 40% of patients who experienced withdrawal symptoms reported that they were not fully supported by their doctor in managing all the symptoms. Healthcare professionals should further consider how they monitor the psychological well-being of patients who are discontinuing or re-initiating treatment, and review what support is offered in response to identified concerns. Surveillance of withdrawal symptoms should be a priority during treatment discontinuation, along with how healthcare professionals assist in the management of these.

Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is the most common acute leukemia in adults and has an unacceptably low cure rate. In recent years, a number of new treatment strategies and compounds were developed for the treatment of AML. There were several randomized controlled clinical trials with the objective to improve patients' management and patients' outcome in AML. Unfortunately, these trials are not always directly comparable since they do not measure the same outcomes, and currently there are no core outcome sets that can be used to guide outcome selection and harmonization in this disease area. The HARMONY (Healthcare Alliance for Resourceful Medicine Offensive against Neoplasms in Hematology) Alliance is a public-private European network established in 2017 and currently includes 53 partners and 32 associated members from 22 countries. Amongst many other goals of the HARMONY Alliance, Work Package 2 focuses on defining outcomes that are relevant to each hematological malignancy. Accordingly, this pilot study will be performed to define a core outcome set in AML., Methods: The pilot study will use a three-round Delphi survey and a final consensus meeting to define a core outcome set. Participants will be recruited from different stakeholder groups, including patients, clinicians, regulators and members of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. At the pre-Delphi stage, a literature research was conducted followed by several semi-structured interviews of clinical public and private key opinion leaders. Subsequently, the preliminary outcome list was discussed in several multi-stakeholder face-to-face meetings. The Delphi survey will reduce the preliminary outcome list to essential core outcomes. After completion of the last Delphi round, a final face-to-face meeting is planned to achieve consensus about the core outcome set in AML., Discussion: As part of the HARMONY Alliance, the pilot Delphi aims to define a core outcome set in AML on the basis of a multi-stakeholder consensus. Such a core outcome set will help to allow consistent comparison of future clinical trials and real-world evidence research and ensures that appropriate outcomes valued by a range of stakeholders are measured within future trials.

Context: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in parallel with clinical evidence to inform decisions made by industry, clinicians, regulators, health technology assessment bodies and other health-care decision-makers. In addition, PRO data can also guide shared decision making and individual patient choice. Yet, the quality of many PROs in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal and requires improvement to add value to health care and policy decision making., Objective: To show how the integration of the patient and/or patient advocate at all stages of PRO development can help to realize the full potential of PROs., Methods: We examined the literature to show that the patient voice is often absent from the planning and implementation of PROs in cancer clinical trials. Good practice examples from the literature were combined with guideline recommendations, training or educational resources, and our own experience to create detailed practical steps for the inclusion of patients and/or patient advocates throughout PRO development., Results: Patient or patient advocates can play an active role in shaping PROs that are meaningful to the patient. They can contribute to content, choice of medium and implementation in a way that may support PRO completion and minimize missing data. Patients and their advocates can work to ensure PRO findings are disseminated appropriately in a way that is accessible to patients., Conclusion: This practical guidance aims to optimize PRO development and implementation in clinical trials, resulting in robust, relevant data that reflect the patient experience and that support decisions made by all stakeholders involved in research and health care., (© 2019 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Meaningful patient engagement (PE) in medicines development and during the life cycle of a product requires all stakeholders have a clear understanding of respective expectations., Objective: A qualitative survey was undertaken to understand stakeholder expectations., Design: The survey explored 4 themes from the perspective of each stakeholder group: meaning, views, expectations and priorities for PE. Participants were grouped into 7 categories: policymakers/regulators; health-care professionals (HCPs); research funders; payers/purchasers/HTA; patients/patient representatives; pharmaceutical/life sciences industry; and academic researchers., Results: Fifty-nine interviews were conducted across a range of geographies, PE experience and job seniority/role. There was consensus across stakeholders on meaning of PE; importance of promoting PE to a higher level than currently; need for a more structured process and guidance. There was little consensus on stakeholder expectations and roles. Policymakers/regulators were expected by others to drive PE, create a framework and facilitate PE, provide guidelines of good practice and connect stakeholders, but this expectation was not shared by the policymakers/regulators group. HCPs were seen as the link between patients and other stakeholders, but HCPs did not necessarily share this view., Discussion and Conclusions: Despite broad stakeholder categories, clear themes emerged: there is no "leader"; no stakeholder has a clear view on how to meaningfully engage with patients; there are educational gaps; and a structure and guidance for PE is urgently required. Given the diversity of stakeholders, there needs to be multistakeholder collaborative leadership. Effective collaboration requires consensus on roles, responsibilities and expectations to synergize efforts to deliver meaningful PE in medicines life cycle., (© 2018 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Tremendous progress in treatment and outcomes has been achieved across the whole range of haematological malignancies in the past two decades. Although cure rates for aggressive malignancies have increased, nowhere has progress been more impactful than in the management of typically incurable forms of haematological cancer. Population-based data have shown that 5-year survival for patients with chronic myelogenous and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, indolent B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma has improved markedly. This improvement is a result of substantial changes in disease management strategies in these malignancies. Several haematological malignancies are now chronic diseases that are treated with continuously administered therapies that have unique side-effects over time. In this Commission, an international panel of clinicians, clinical investigators, methodologists, regulators, and patient advocates representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examine adverse events in haematological malignancies. The issues pertaining to assessment of adverse events examined here are relevant to a range of malignancies and have been, to date, underexplored in the context of haematology. The aim of this Commission is to improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials in haematological malignancies by critically examining the current process of adverse event assessment, highlighting the need to incorporate patient-reported outcomes, addressing issues unique to stem-cell transplantation and survivorship, appraising challenges in regulatory approval, and evaluating toxicity in real-world patients. We have identified a range of priority issues in these areas and defined potential solutions to challenges associated with adverse event assessment in the current treatment landscape of haematological malignancies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The value of patient involvement (PI) in medicines research and development (R&D) is increasingly recognized by all health stakeholders. Despite numerous ongoing PI initiatives, PI so far lacks structure and consistency in approach. Limited formal documentation of PI activities further hampers the sharing of experience and learnings, preventing timely and systematic implementation. This article summarizes the outcomes of several multistakeholder discussions during 2013-2016 in a practical roadmap for PI in medicines R&D. The roadmap highlights specific opportunities for PI along the 4 key stages of the medicines R&D life cycle and is illustrated with concrete examples. This roadmap's aim is to provide a tool to facilitate PI during medicines research and development and is being shared to encourage implementation and further refinement.

Optimal adherence to CML therapy is of key importance to maximize treatment effectiveness. Two clinical studies (ADAGIO and Hammersmith) have proven a clear correlation between adherence and achieving optimal treatment response and have revealed that non-adherence is common in CML patients (Marin et al. in J Clin Oncol 28(24):2381-2388, 2010, Noens et al. in Haematologica 99(33):437-447, 2014). The aim of this study is to assess the extent of suboptimal adherence and to investigate motivations and behavioural patterns of adherence in a worldwide patient sample. Questionnaires were provided by the CML Advocates Network and were filled in by patients online and offline. Patient characteristics, treatment and motivations were collected. Adherence was assessed by the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence scale. Logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the influence of different factors on adherence. Overall, 2 546 questionnaires from 63 countries and 79 CML patient organisations were evaluable. 32.7% of participants were highly adherent, 46.5% were in the medium and 20.7% in the low adherence group. Factors increasing the probability of being in the high adherence group are older age, male sex, management of side effects, only one tablet per day and feeling well informed about CML by the doctor. More than 2 years since diagnosis were significantly lowering the chance as was the use of reminding tools. Living arrangements, multiple medication and personal payment obligations increased the probability to be at least in the medium adherent group. This is the most comprehensive study conducted to date to gain knowledge about factors causing non-adherence in CML. Better information on the disease, medication and management of side effects, supported by haematologists, is key to improve adherence.

In this implementation phase of the European Cancer Patient's Bill of Rights (BoR), we confirm the following three patient-centred principles that underpin this initiative:The right of every European citizen to receive the most accurate information and to be proactively involved in his/her care.The right of every European citizen to optimal and timely access to a diagnosis and to appropriate specialised care, underpinned by research and innovation.The right of every European citizen to receive care in health systems that ensure the best possible cancer prevention, the earliest possible diagnosis of their cancer, improved outcomes, patient rehabilitation, best quality of life and affordable health care. The key aspects of working towards implementing the BoR are:Agree our high-level goal. The vision of 70% long-term survival for patients with cancer in 2035, promoting cancer prevention and cancer control and the associated progress in ensuring good patient experience and quality of life.Establish the major mechanisms to underpin its delivery. (1) The systematic and rigorous sharing of best practice between and across European cancer healthcare systems and (2) the active promotion of Research and Innovation focused on improving outcomes; (3) Improving access to new and established cancer care by sharing best practice in the development, approval, procurement and reimbursement of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments.Work with other organisations to bring into being a Europe based centre that will (1) systematically identify, evaluate and validate and disseminate best practice in cancer management for the different countries and regions and (2) promote Research and Innovation and its translation to maximise its impact to improve outcomes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD) is a not-for-profit independent multinational coalition of patients, patient stakeholders, and the pharmaceutical industry with interests across diverse disease areas and conditions. PFMD aims to facilitate an integrated approach to medicines development with all stakeholders involved early in the development process. A key strength of the coalition that differentiates it from other groups that involve patients or patient groups is that PFMD has patient organizations as founding members, ensuring that the patient perspective is the starting point when identifying priorities and developing solutions to meet patients' needs. In addition, PFMD has from inception been formed as an equal collaboration among patient groups, patients, and pharmaceutical industry and has adopted a unique trans-Atlantic setup and scope that reflects its global intent. This parity extends to its governance model, which ensures at least equal or greater share of voice for patient group members. PFMD is actively inviting additional members and aims to expand the collaboration to include stakeholders from other sectors. The establishment of PFMD is particularly timely as patient engagement (PE) has become a priority for many health stakeholders and has led to a surge of mostly disconnected activities to deliver this. Given the current plethora of PE initiatives, an essential first step has been to determine, based on a comprehensive mapping, those strategic areas of most need requiring a focused initial effort from the perspective of all stakeholders. PFMD has identified four priority areas that will need to be addressed to facilitate implementation of PE. These are (1) culture and process change, (2) development of a global meta-framework for PE, (3) information exchange, and (4) training. This article discusses these priority themes and ongoing or planned PFMD activities within each., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The following authors are employees: LD (UCB Biopharma); AH (Amgen [Europe] GmbH); RS (Pfizer Inc); VG (AstraZeneca); AG (GlaxoSmithKline); PR (Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd); IS (Ismedica Ltd; medical writing and editorial support).

The purpose of medicines is to improve patients' lives. Stakeholders involved in the development and lifecycle management of medicines agree that more effective patient involvement is needed to ensure that patient needs and priorities are identified and met. Despite the increasing number and scope of patient involvement initiatives, there is no accepted master framework for systematic patient involvement in industry-led medicines research and development, regulatory review, or market access decisions. Patient engagement is very productive in some indications, but inconsistent and fragmentary on a broader level. This often results in inefficient drug development, increasing evidence requirements, lack of patient-centered outcomes that address unmet medical needs and facilitate adherence, and consequently, lack of required therapeutic options and high costs to society and involved parties. Improved patient involvement can drive the development of innovative medicines that deliver more relevant and impactful patient outcomes and make medicine development faster, more efficient, and more productive. It can lead to better prioritization of early research; improved resource allocation; improved trial protocol designs that better reflect patient needs; and, by addressing potential barriers to patient participation, enhanced recruitment and retention. It may also improve trial conduct and lead to more focused, economically viable clinical trials. At launch and beyond, systematic patient involvement can also improve the ongoing benefit-risk assessment, ensure that public funds prioritize medicines of value to patients, and further the development of the medicine. Progress toward a universal framework for patient involvement requires a joint, precompetitive, and international approach by all stakeholders, working in true partnership to consolidate outputs from existing initiatives, identify gaps, and develop a comprehensive framework. It is essential that all stakeholders participate to drive adoption and implementation of the framework and to ensure that patients and their needs are embedded at the heart of medicines development and lifecycle management.

Plain English Summary: Biobanks are collections of donations of biological material (DNA, cells, tissue etc.) and related data which are very valuable for research into human diseases. A variety of biobanks exist for example within hospitals, research institutes, pharmaceutical companies and patient organisations. The role of patients in biobanking is changing from being seen simply as donors, to actual collaborators in the design, development and the running of biobanks. In this article, we provide a number of examples of patients acting as partners at the heart of biobanking, where their voice and perspective is being seen and used as a valuable resource for the biobank. Our aim is that these examples can be used by those who work with patients in biobank-based research, to design future strategies for patient and public involvement in all biobanks., Abstract: Biobanks and biobanking research plays an increasingly important role in healthcare research and delivery as health systems become more patient-centred and medicine becomes more personalised. There is also growing acceptance and appreciation of the value that patients, patient advocacy organisations and the public can bring as stakeholders in biobanking and more generally in research. Therefore, the importance of active, early and sustained engagement and involvement of patient and public representatives in biobanks will become increasingly relevant. Organising and facilitating patient and public involvement in biobanking takes considerable time and effort for all stakeholders involved. Therefore, for any biobank operator considering involving patients and the public in their biobanking activities, consideration of best practices, current guidance, ethical issues and evaluation of involvement will be important. In this article, we demonstrate that patients are much more than donors to biobanks-they are collaborators at the heart of biobanking with an important voice to identify perspective, which can be an extremely valuable resource for all biobanks to utilise. The case studies herein provide examples of good practice of patient involvement in biobanking as well as outcomes from these practices, and lessons learned. Our aim is to provide useful insights from these efforts and potential future strategies for the multiple stakeholders that work with patients and the public involved in biobank-based research.

Purpose: Many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, data in hematological cancers are lacking on which types of CAM are being used, what information sources on CAM patients use and to what extent CAM is being addressed in the consultation with the hematologist., Methods: We developed a standardized questionnaire on CAM which was provided online to the representatives of the worldwide Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Advocates Network., Results: A total of 53 leaders of patients' advocacy groups for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) patients from 35 countries responded to the survey. In almost all countries, CAM is important for CML patients and is widely used in addition to conventional leukemia treatment. Mostly, patients have to pay by themselves. General practitioners, herbalists, healers and naturopaths are the main sources for CAM treatments. Information on CAM is derived most frequently from the Internet, and family and friends, but rarely provided by the oncologist. Disclosure of CAM use to the oncologist is low, but increases if oncologists offer CAM., Conclusions: In spite of very different health care systems, the features of CAM usage are similar in the different countries. We suggest extending the cooperation of self-help and scientists in order to provide training of oncologists on CAM and quality-controlled, evidence-based information on CAM on the Internet both for patients as well as health professionals as a promising strategy to increase safe use of CAM in patients with CML.

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)