Search

The World Health Organization, in response to the growing burden of fungal disease, established a process to develop a fungal priority pathogens list (FPPL). This systematic review aimed to evaluate the epidemiology and impact of invasive fungal disease due to Mucorales. PubMed and Web of Science were searched to identify studies published between January 1, 2011 and February 23, 2021. Studies reporting on mortality, inpatient care, complications and sequelae, antifungal susceptibility, risk factors, preventability, annual incidence, global distribution, and emergence during the study time frames were selected. Overall, 24 studies were included. Mortality rates of up to 80% were reported. Antifungal susceptibility varied across agents and species, with the minimum inhibitory concentrations lowest for amphotericin B and posaconazole. Diabetes mellitus was a common risk factor, detected in 65%-85% of patients with mucormycosis, particularly in those with rhino-orbital disease (86.9%). Break-through infection was detected in 13.6%-100% on azole or echinocandin antifungal prophylaxis. The reported prevalence rates were variable, with some studies reporting stable rates in the USA of 0.094-0.117/10 000 discharges between 2011 and 2014, whereas others reported an increase in Iran from 16.8% to 24% between 2011 and 2015. Carefully designed global surveillance studies, linking laboratory and clinical data, are required to develop clinical breakpoints to guide antifungal therapy and determine accurate estimates of complications and sequelae, annual incidence, trends, and global distribution. These data will provide robust estimates of disease burden to refine interventions and better inform future FPPL., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology.)

The World Health Organization, in response to the growing burden of fungal disease, established a process to develop a fungal priority pathogens list. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the epidemiology and impact of eumycetoma. PubMed and Web of Science were searched to identify studies published between 1 January 2011 and 19 February 2021. Studies reporting on mortality, inpatient care, complications and sequelae, antifungal susceptibility, risk factors, preventability, annual incidence, global distribution, and emergence during the study time frames were selected. Overall, 14 studies were eligible for inclusion. Morbidity was frequent with moderate to severe impairment of quality of life in 60.3%, amputation in up to 38.5%, and recurrent or long-term disease in 31.8%-73.5% of patients. Potential risk factors included male gender (56.6%-79.6%), younger age (11-30 years; 64%), and farming occupation (62.1%-69.7%). Mycetoma was predominantly reported in Sudan, particularly in central Sudan (37%-76.6% of cases). An annual incidence of 0.1/100 000 persons and 0.32/100  000 persons/decade was reported in the Philippines and Uganda, respectively. In Uganda, a decline in incidence from 3.37 to 0.32/100  000 persons between two consecutive 10-year periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2019) was detected. A community-based, multi-pronged prevention programme was associated with a reduction in amputation rates from 62.8% to 11.9%. With the pre-specified criteria, no studies of antifungal drug susceptibility, mortality, and hospital lengths of stay were identified. Future research should include larger cohort studies, greater drug susceptibility testing, and global surveillance to develop evidence-based treatment guidelines and to determine more accurately the incidence and trends over time., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology.)

Recognising the growing global burden of fungal infections, the World Health Organization (WHO) established an advisory group consisting of experts in fungal diseases to develop a Fungal Priority Pathogen List. Pathogens were ranked based on their research and development needs and perceived public health importance using a series of global surveys and pathogen characteristics derived from systematic reviews. This systematic review evaluates the features and global impact of invasive disease caused by Candida glabrata (Nakaseomyces glabrata). PubMed and Web of Science were searched for studies reporting on mortality, morbidity (hospitalization and disability), drug resistance (including isolates from sterile and non-sterile sites, since these reflect the same organisms causing invasive infections), preventability, yearly incidence, diagnostics, treatability, and distribution/emergence in the last 10 years. Candida glabrata (N. glabrata) causes difficult-to-treat invasive infections, particularly in patients with underlying conditions such as immunodeficiency, diabetes, or those who have received broad-spectrum antibiotics or chemotherapy. Beyond standard infection prevention and control measures, no specific preventative measures have been described. We found that infection is associated with high mortality rates and that there is a lack of data on complications and sequelae. Resistance to azoles is common and well described in echinocandins-in both cases, the resistance rates are increasing. Candida glabrata remains mostly susceptible to amphotericin and flucytosine. However, the incidence of the disease is increasing, both at the population level and as a proportion of all invasive yeast infections, and the increases appear related to the use of antifungal agents., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology.)

The World Health Organization, in response to the growing burden of fungal disease, established a process to develop a fungal pathogen priority list. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the epidemiology and impact of infections caused by Talaromyces marneffei, Coccidioides species, and Paracoccidioides species. PubMed and Web of Sciences databases were searched to identify studies published between 1 January 2011 and 23 February 2021 reporting on mortality, complications and sequelae, antifungal susceptibility, preventability, annual incidence, and trends. Overall, 25, 17, and 6 articles were included for T. marneffei, Coccidioides spp. and Paracoccidioides spp., respectively. Mortality rates were high in those with invasive talaromycosis and paracoccidioidomycosis (up to 21% and 22.7%, respectively). Hospitalization was frequent in those with coccidioidomycosis (up to 84%), and while the duration was short (mean/median 3-7 days), readmission was common (38%). Reduced susceptibility to fluconazole and echinocandins was observed for T. marneffei and Coccidioides spp., whereas >88% of T. marneffei isolates had minimum inhibitory concentration values ≤0.015 μg/ml for itraconazole, posaconazole, and voriconazole. Risk factors for mortality in those with talaromycosis included low CD4 counts (odds ratio 2.90 when CD4 count <200 cells/μl compared with 24.26 when CD4 count <50 cells/μl). Outbreaks of coccidioidomycosis and paracoccidioidomycosis were associated with construction work (relative risk 4.4-210.6 and 5.7-times increase, respectively). In the United States of America, cases of coccidioidomycosis increased between 2014 and 2017 (from 8232 to 14 364/year). National and global surveillance as well as more detailed studies to better define sequelae, risk factors, outcomes, global distribution, and trends are required., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology.)

Purpose: Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology., Materials and Methods: A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression., Results: Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties., Conclusion: The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I 2  = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I 2  = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I 2  = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I 2  = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Competing Interests: AG reports consulting fees from Seattle Genetics and speaking honoraria from Curio. BW reports research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ontario Institute of Cancer Research, Queen's University, National Breast Cancer Foundation of Australia, and the Kidney Cancer Research Network of Canada; and honoraria from AstraZeneca. WvdG reports institutional research grants from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and SpringworksTx; and institutional consulting fees from SpringworksTx, PTC Therapeutics, and Agenus. ES-P-d-C reports speaking honoraria from Lactrealis and is on the Board of Directors of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. SS reports travel support from Queen's University. FYM reports consulting fees from Cancer em foco, AstraZeneca, and IASLC. BLM reports speaking honoraria from Servier Pharmaceuticals. SB reports honoraria for advisory boards from Taiho, Astellas, Merck, and Amgen. DG reports consulting fees from Vivio Health; stock ownership in TailorMed and Vivio Health; and serves as Board Member of Optimal Cancer Care Alliance. BG reports consulting fees from Vivio Health. KH reports research support from Pfizer. DK reports speaking honoraria from Amgen and MSD. KK reports consulting fees from Vivio Health and stock ownership in Vivio Health and Cadex Genomics. DC is the Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet Oncology. All other authors declare no competing interests. The opinions expressed by the authors are their own and this material should not be interpreted as representing the official viewpoint of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health, or the National Cancer Institute. The CSO organising committee gratefully acknowledges Robert J Shillman PhD (Doctor Bob) for his support of the initial planning meeting in April, 2023.

Before 2005, cancer and other non-communicable diseases were not yet health and development agenda priorities. Since the 2005 World Health Assembly Resolution, which encouraged WHO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to jointly work on cancer control, progress was achieved in low-income and middle-income countries on a small scale. Recently, rapid acceleration in UN collaboration and global cancer activities has focused attention in global cancer control. This Policy Review presents the evolution of the IAEA, IARC, and WHO joint advisory service to help countries assess needs and capacities throughout the comprehensive cancer control continuum. We also highlight examples per country, showcasing a snapshot of global good practices to foster an exchange of experiences for continuous improvement in the integrated mission of Programme of Action for Cancer Therapy (imPACT) reviews and follow-up support. The future success of progress in cancer control lies in the high-level political and financial commitments. Linking the improvement of cancer services to the strengthening of health systems after the COVID-19 pandemic will also ensure ongoing advances in the delivery of care across the cancer control continuum., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022. World Health Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd/Inc/BV. All rights reserved.)

Oral cancer (OC) is a debilitating disease with a high mortality rate when diagnosed in advanced stage. Conversely, early-stage OC has a high survival rate, supporting a need for early detection programmes. A previous systematic review of clinical trials evaluating efficacy of screening for OC was inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of screening for oral lesions on reducing mortality and incidence of OC by looking at a broader spectrum of evidence. The search for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with a control group was conducted in PubMed, OVID, Cochrane, CINAHL and grey literature sources. Risk of bias for included studies was assessed with the tools developed by the Cochrane collaboration. Six out of two identified randomized trials and five observational studies had moderate to high risk of bias. Nevertheless, the predictions on impact of OC screening on incidence and mortality were similar across the majority of the studies. The meta -analysis concluded on a 26% decrease in OC mortality, and an 19% decrease in advanced OC cases as a result of OC screening in high-risk population. Three out of four studies did not identify an impact of screening on OC incidence. No positive impact of OC screening on incidence or mortality among general population was identified in the only available randomized trial. Consistency in the outcomes and the limitations of the few available studies suggest a need for real-life setting research to evaluate the overall effectiveness of screening for OC in high-risk population., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data., Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review., Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks., Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

Purpose: The WHO essential medicines list (EML) guides selection of drugs for national formularies. Here, we evaluate which medicines are considered highest priority by Indian oncologists and the extent to which they are available in routine practice., Methods: This is a secondary analysis of an electronic survey developed by the WHO EML Cancer Medicine Working Group. The survey was distributed globally using a hierarchical snowball method to physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy. The survey captured the 10 medicines oncologists considered highest priority for population health and their availability in routine practice., Results: The global study cohort included 948 respondents from 82 countries; 98 were from India and 67 were from other low- and middle-income countries. Compared with other low- and middle-income countries, the Indian cohort was more likely to be medical oncologist (70% v 31%, P < .001) and work exclusively in the private health system (52% v 17%, P < .001). 14/20 most commonly selected medicines were conventional cytotoxic drugs. Universal access to these medicines was reported by a minority of oncologists; risks of significant out-of-pocket expenditures for each medicine were reported by 19%-58% of oncologists. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was reported by 58%-67% of oncologists for rituximab and trastuzumab. Risks of financial toxicity were substantially higher within the private health system compared with the public system., Conclusion: Most high-priority cancer medicines identified by Indian oncologists are generic chemotherapy agents that provide substantial improvements in survival and are already included in WHO EML. Access to these treatments remains limited by major financial burdens experienced by patients. This is particularly acute within the private health system. Strategies are urgently needed to ensure that high-quality cancer care is affordable and accessible to all patients in India.

Purpose: Access to essential cancer medicines is a major determinant of childhood cancer outcomes globally. The degree to which pediatric oncologists deem medicines listed on WHO's Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) essential is unknown, as is the extent to which such medicines are accessible on the front lines of clinical care., Methods: An electronic survey developed was distributed through the International Society of Pediatric Oncology mailing list to members from 87 countries. Respondents were asked to select 10 cancer medicines that would provide the greatest benefit to patients in their context; subsequent questions explored medicine availability and cost. Descriptive and bivariate statistics compared access to medicines between low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs), upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and high-income countries (HICs)., Results: Among 159 respondents from 44 countries, 43 (27%) were from LMICs, 79 (50%) from UMICs, and 37 (23%) from HICs. The top five medicines were methotrexate (75%), vincristine (74%), doxorubicin (74%), cyclophosphamide (69%), and cytarabine (65%). Of the priority medicines identified, 87% (27 of 31) are represented on the 2021 EMLc and 77% (24 of 31) were common to the lists generated by LMIC, UMIC, and HIC respondents. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability for each of the top medicines ranged from 9% to 46% for LMIC, 25% to 89% for UMIC, and 67% to 100% for HIC. Risk of catastrophic expenditure was more common in LMIC (8%-20%), compared with UMIC (0%-28%) and HIC (0%)., Conclusion: Most medicines that oncologists deem essential for childhood cancer treatment are currently included on the EMLc. Barriers remain in access to these medicines, characterized by gaps in availability and risks of catastrophic expenditure for families that are most pronounced in low-income settings but evident across all income contexts., Competing Interests: Scott C. HowardConsulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, BTG, ServierSpeakers' Bureau: Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals Dorothy LombeThis author is a member of the Journal of Global Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Bishal GyawaliThis author is a member of the Journal of Global Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Vivio Health Felipe RoitbergHonoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Oncologia BrasilConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), MSD (Inst), Bayer (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst) Elisabeth G. E. De VriesConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), NSABP Foundation (Inst), Crescendo Biologics (Inst)Research Funding: Amgen (Inst), Synthon (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), G1 Therapeutics (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Roche (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Servier (Inst), Crescendo Biologics (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: ESMO (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: World Health Organization (Inst)Uncompensated Relationships: RECIST (Inst) Richard SullivanThis author is a member of the Journal of Global Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Honoraria: PfizerConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Collision tumors are rare and may comprise components with different behavior, treatments, and prognosis. We report an unprecedented case of aggressive thyroid collision tumor containing widely invasive oncocytic carcinoma (OC), classical and hobnail (HPTC) variants of papillary carcinoma, and poorly differentiated carcinoma (PDTC). The patient underwent total thyroidectomy, radioactive iodine therapy, and within months progressed with local recurrence, and pulmonary metastases requiring neck dissection, external radiotherapy and systemic treatment with sorafenib. The rapid progression, dedifferentiated metastatic lesions, and failure to treatments resulted in the patient's death. The great variety of histological types and the evolution of this case were a challenge for the management of metastatic disease. Widely invasive OC, HPTC and PDTC are considered to have a worse prognosis. HPTC has never been reported as a component of a collision tumor. HPTC and PDTC should call attention to a possible higher-grade transformation.

Background: The WHO Essential Medicines List (EML) identifies priority medicines that are most important to public health. Over time, the EML has included an increasing number of cancer medicines. We aimed to investigate whether the cancer medicines in the EML are aligned with the priority medicines of frontline oncologists worldwide, and the extent to which these medicines are accessible in routine clinical practice., Methods: This international, cross-sectional survey was developed by investigators from a range of clinical practice settings across low-income to high-income countries, including members of the WHO Essential Medicines Cancer Working Group. A 28-question electronic survey was developed and disseminated to a global network of oncologists in 89 countries and regions by use of a hierarchical snowball method; each primary contact distributed the survey through their national and regional oncology associations or personal networks. The survey was open from Oct 15 to Dec 7, 2020. Fully qualified physicians who prescribe systemic anticancer therapy to adults were eligible to participate in the survey. The primary question asked respondents to select the ten cancer medicines that would provide the greatest public health benefit to their country; subsequent questions explored availability and cost of cancer medicines. Descriptive statistics were used to compare access to medicines between low-income and lower-middle-income countries, upper-middle-income countries, and high-income countries., Findings: 87 country-level contacts and two regional networks were invited to participate in the survey; 46 (52%) accepted the invitation and distributed the survey. 1697 respondents opened the survey link; 423 were excluded as they did not answer the primary study question and 326 were excluded because of ineligibility. 948 eligible oncologists from 82 countries completed the survey (165 [17%] in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 165 [17%] in upper-middle-income countries, and 618 [65%] in high-income countries). The most commonly selected medicines were doxorubicin (by 499 [53%] of 948 respondents), cisplatin (by 470 [50%]), paclitaxel (by 423 [45%]), pembrolizumab (by 414 [44%]), trastuzumab (by 402 [42%]), carboplatin (by 390 [41%]), and 5-fluorouracil (by 386 [41%]). Of the 20 most frequently selected high-priority cancer medicines, 19 (95%) are currently on the WHO EML; 12 (60%) were cytotoxic agents and 13 (65%) were granted US Food and Drug Administration regulatory approval before 2000. The proportion of respondents indicating universal availability of each top 20 medication was 9-54% in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, 13-90% in upper-middle-income countries, and 68-94% in high-income countries. The risk of catastrophic expenditure (spending >40% of total consumption net of spending on food) was more common in low-income and lower-middle-income countries, with 13-68% of respondents indicating a substantial risk of catastrophic expenditures for each of the top 20 medications in lower-middle-income countries versus 2-41% of respondents in upper-middle-income countries and 0-9% in high-income countries., Interpretation: These data demonstrate major barriers in access to core cancer medicines worldwide. These findings challenge the feasibility of adding additional expensive cancer medicines to the EML. There is an urgent need for global and country-level policy action to ensure patients with cancer globally have access to high priority medicines., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FR, LM, and AI are employees of WHO. MS, DL, LM, EGEDV, DT, FR, RS, BG, and CMB are members of the WHO Essential Medicines List Cancer Medicine Working Group. EGEDV reports institutional financial support for research from Amgen, Bayer, Crescendo Biologics, CytomX Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, Genentech, Regeneron, Roche, Servier, and Synthon, and institutional financial support for participation on data safety monitoring boards and advisory boards of Daiichi Sankyo, NSABP, and Crescendo Biologics. FR reports honoraria for lectures from Dr Reddy's and payments for participation on advisory boards from Boehringer-Ingelheim and MSD. BG reports consulting fees from Vivio Health. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier. This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.)

Competing Interests: Murallitharan MunisamyStock and Other Ownership Interests: Sanofi/Aventis, MMPKV HEALTHCARE SDN BHDHonoraria: AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: MSDResearch Funding: Pfizer Kingsley NdohStock and Other Ownership Interests: Geron Omolola SalakoConsulting or Advisory Role: Stack DiagnosticsSpeakers' Bureau: Janssen and JanssenPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I have intellectual property rights to Oncopadi Digital Cancer Clinic Felipe RoitbergHonoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle Health Science, Dr. Reddy's, Oncologia BrasilConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, TakedaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Existing literature has described the projected increase in cancer incidence and the associated deficiencies in the cancer workforce. However, there is currently a lack of research into the necessary policy and planning steps that can be taken to mitigate this issue. Herein, we review current literature in this space and highlight the importance of implementing oncology workforce registries. We propose the establishment of cancer workforce registries using the WHO Minimum Data Set for Health Workforce Registry by adapting the data set to suit the multidisciplinary nature of the cancer workforce. The cancer workforce registry will track the trends of the workforce, so that evidence can drive decisions at the policy level. The oncology community needs to develop and optimize methods to collect information for these registries. National cancer societies are likely to continue to lead such efforts, but ministries of health, licensing bodies, and academic institutions should contribute and collaborate., Competing Interests: Scott R. BerryStock and Other Ownership Interests: Oncology EducationConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, MD Briefcase, Apo Biologix, AmgenOther Relationship: Cancerlink/Oncology Education Felipe RoitbergHonoraria: Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Nestle health science, Dr Reddy's, Oncologia BrazilConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD OncologyResearch Funding: Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, Bayer, AstraZeneca, TakedaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objective: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) improves survival of patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen has been associated with a significant risk of clinically relevant toxicity. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and feasibility of AC for NSCLC patients in a real-world setting., Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of patients with stage I-III NSCLC undergoing surgery with curative intent between 2009 and 2018. AC was administered at the discretion of physicians. The patients were divided into two groups: AC group and no AC (control) group. Study outcomes included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), as well as the safety profile and feasibility of the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen in a real-world setting., Results: The study involved 231 patients, 80 of whom received AC. Of those, 55 patients received the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen. Survival analyses stratified by tumor stage showed that patients with stage II NSCLC in the AC group had better RFS (p = 0.036) and OS (p = 0.017) than did those in the no AC group. Among patients with stage III NSCLC in the AC group, RFS was better (p < 0.001) and there was a trend toward improved OS (p = 0.060) in comparison with controls. Of those who received the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen, 29% had grade 3-4 febrile neutropenia, and 9% died of toxicity., Conclusions: These results support the benefit of AC for NSCLC patients in a real-world setting. However, because the cisplatin-vinorelbine regimen was associated with alarming rates of toxicity, more effective and less toxic alternatives should be investigated.

Purpose: Delays and disruptions in health systems because of the COVID-19 pandemic were identified by a previous systematic review from our group. For improving the knowledge about the pandemic consequences for cancer care, this article aims to identify the effects of mitigation strategies developed to reduce the impact of such delays and disruptions., Methods: Systematic review with a comprehensive search including formal databases, cancer and COVID-19 data sources, gray literature, and manual search. We considered clinical trials, observational longitudinal studies, cross-sectional studies, before-and-after studies, case series, and case studies. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by specific tools. The mitigation strategies identified were described in detail and their effects were summarized narratively., Results: Of 6,692 references reviewed, 28 were deemed eligible, and 9 studies with low to moderate methodological quality were included. Five multiple strategies and four single strategies were reported, and the possible effects of mitigating delays and disruptions in cancer care because of COVID-19 are inconsistent. The only comparative study reported a 48.7% reduction observed in the number of outpatient visits to the hospital accompanied by a small reduction in imaging and an improvement in radiation treatments after the implementation of a multiple organizational strategy., Conclusion: The findings emphasize the infrequency of measuring and reporting mitigation strategies that specifically address patients' outcomes and thus a scarcity of high-quality evidence to inform program development. This review reinforces the need of adopting standardized measurement methods to monitor the impact of the mitigation strategies proposed to reduce the effects of delays and disruptions in cancer health care because of COVID-19.

Purpose: There has been noteworthy concern about the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on health services including the management of cancer. In addition to being considered at higher risk for worse outcomes from COVID-19, people with cancer may also experience disruptions or delays in health services. This systematic review aimed to identify the delays and disruptions to cancer services globally., Methods: This is a systematic review with a comprehensive search including specific and general databases. We considered any observational longitudinal and cross-sectional study design. The selection, data extraction, and methodological assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by specific tools. The delays and disruptions identified were categorized, and their frequency was presented., Results: Among the 62 studies identified, none exhibited high methodological quality. The most frequent determinants for disruptions were provider- or system-related, mainly because of the reduction in service availability. The studies identified 38 different categories of delays and disruptions with impact on treatment, diagnosis, or general health service. Delays or disruptions most investigated included reduction in routine activity of cancer services and number of cancer surgeries; delay in radiotherapy; and delay, reschedule, or cancellation of outpatient visits. Interruptions and disruptions largely affected facilities (up to 77.5%), supply chain (up to 79%), and personnel availability (up to 60%)., Conclusion: The remarkable frequency of delays and disruptions in health care mostly related to the reduction of the COVID-19 burden unintentionally posed a major risk on cancer care worldwide. Strategies can be proposed not only to mitigate the main delays and disruptions but also to standardize their measurement and reporting. As a high number of publications continuously are being published, it is critical to harmonize the upcoming reports and constantly update this review.

Objective: Lung cancer is an important health problem due to its high incidence and mortality. The treatment of metastatic disease improved after the molecular pathways of cancer came to be known. However, targeted therapy is unavailable to many patients treated within the Brazilian Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS, Unified Health Care System). Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib versus that of chemotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer in the context of the SUS., Methods: Different analytical models were developed based on data in the literature. The outcomes were presented in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per QALY gained. All costs related to treatment and supportive therapies were included in the models., Results: In one model, data from retrospective studies showed 2.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 1.169. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$48,451.29 (for gefitinib) to R$85,559.22 (for erlotinib). In another model, data from a meta-analysis showed -0.01 life-years saved and a mean QALY gain of 0.178. The ICER per QALY gained ranged from R$27,028.30 (for gefitinib) to R$75,203.26 (for erlotinib)., Conclusions: There is no ideal analytical model for the SUS. However, targeted therapy with EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors has been shown to be cost-effective in various scenarios. The adoption of drug price discounts will improve the cost-effectiveness of treatment.

Background: Over the past 5 years, 55 new anticancer drugs have been launched worldwide. Considering the increasing costs of innovative treatments, both the number and the relevance of cost-effectiveness analyses have increased, meaningfully supporting decision making by stakeholders and policy makers. Notably, cost-effective treatments remain unavailable to patients because they are still unaffordable for a multitude of payers., Objectives: To discuss the differences between cost-effectiveness and affordability., Methods: We reviewed the most relevant data on the divergences between cost-effectiveness and affordability. In addition, we included our recommendations to improve patients' access to innovative cancer therapies., Results: The increasing costs of recently launched antineoplastic drugs, as high as $150 000 per year, represent a major barrier to patients' access to treatments globally. In Brazil, for example, patients' access to innovative treatments depends greatly on whether the individual has private health insurance. In the public health sector, patients' access to cost-effective innovative treatments varies according to the financial capacity of the facility, leading to inequalities within the same healthcare system., Conclusions: We conclude that because of the socioeconomic inequality mostly seen in lower and middle-income countries, it is difficult to define a cost-effectiveness threshold by region or a willingness-to-pay threshold affordable to the entire population. We consider that benchmark interventions might help to find an affordable willingness-to-pay threshold, and league table interventions might help policy makers, physicians, and the society to share the decision making., (Copyright © 2019 ISPOR--The professional society for health economics and outcomes research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lung cancer is the fourth most common cancer in Brazil. In the 2000s, better understanding of molecular pathways led to development of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatments that have improved outcomes. However, these treatments are unavailable in most Brazilian public healthcare services (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS)., Objective: To assess the potential number of years of life not saved, the budget impact of the treatment and strategies to improve access., Design and Setting: Pharmacoeconomic study assessing the potential societal and economic impact of adopting EGFR-targeted therapy within SUS., Methods: We estimated the number of cases eligible for treatment, using epidemiological data from the National Cancer Institute. We used data from a single meta-analysis and from the Lung Cancer Mutation Consortium (LCMC) study as the basis for assessing differences in patients' survival between use of targeted therapy and use of chemotherapy. The costs of targeted treatment were based on the national reference and were compared with the amount reimbursed for chemotherapy through SUS., Results: There was no life-year gain with EGFR-targeted therapy in the single meta-analysis (hazard ratio, HR, 1.01). The LCMC showed that 1,556 potential life-years were not saved annually. We estimated that the annual budget impact was 125 million Brazilian reais (BRL) with erlotinib, 48 million BRL with gefitinib and 52 million BRL with afatinib. Their incremental costs over chemotherapy per life-year saved were 80,329 BRL, 31,011 BRL and 33,225 BRL, respectively. A drug acquisition discount may decrease the budget impact by 30% (with a 20% discount). A fixed cost of 1,000 BRL may decrease the budget impact by 95%., Conclusion: Reducing drug acquisition costs may improve access to EGFR-targeted therapy for lung cancer.

Total thyroidectomy, radioiodine (RAI) therapy, and TSH suppression are the mainstay treatment for differentiated thyroid carcinomas (DTCs). Treatments for metastatic disease include surgery, external-beam radiotherapy, RAI, and kinase inhibitors for progressive iodine-refractory disease. Unresectable locoregional disease remains a challenge, as standard therapy with RAI becomes unfeasible. We report a case of a young patient who presented with unresectable papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC), and treatment with sorafenib allowed total thyroidectomy and RAI therapy. A 20-year-old male presented with severe respiratory distress due to an enlarging cervical mass. Imaging studies revealed an enlarged multinodular thyroid gland, extensive cervical adenopathy, severe tracheal stenosis, and pulmonary micronodules. He required an urgent surgical intervention and underwent tracheostomy and partial left neck dissection, as the disease was deemed unresectable; pathology revealed PTC. Treatment with sorafenib was initiated, resulting in significant tumor reduction allowing near total thyroidectomy and bilateral neck dissection. Postoperatively, the patient underwent radiotherapy for residual tracheal lesion, followed by RAI therapy for avid cervical and pulmonary disease. The patient's disease remains stable 4 years after diagnosis. Sorafenib has been approved for progressive RAI-refractory metastatic DTCs. In this case report, we describe a patient with locally advanced PTC in whom treatment with sorafenib provided sufficient tumor reduction to allow thyroidectomy and RAI therapy, suggesting a potential role of sorafenib as an induction therapy of unresectable DTC.