Search

BACKGROUND: Supportive care to ensure optimal quality of life is an essential component of cancer care and symptom control across the lifespan. Ongoing advances in cancer treatment, increasing toxicity from many novel treatment regimes, and variations in access to care and cancer outcomes across the globe and resource settings present significant challenges for supportive care delivery. To date, no overarching framework has been developed to guide supportive care development worldwide. As an initial step of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Supportive Care 2030 Movement, we developed a targeted, unifying set of ambition statements to envision the future of supportive cancer care. METHODS: From September 2022 until June 2023, we used a modified Delphi methodology to develop and attain consensus about ambition statements related to supportive cancer care. Leaders of MASCC Study Groups were invited to participate in an Expert Panel for the first two Delphi rounds (and a preliminary round to suggest potential ambition statements). Patient Advocates then examined and provided input regarding the ambition statements. FINDINGS: Twenty-seven Expert Panelists and 11 Patient Advocates participated. Consensus was attained on 13 ambition statements, with two sub-statements. The ambition statements addressed global standards for guideline development and implementation, coordinated and individualized care, dedicated supportive oncology services, self-management, needs for screening and actions, patient education, behavioral support, financial impact minimization, comprehensive survivorship care, and timely palliative care, reflecting collaboration, coordination and team-based approach across all levels. INTERPRETATION: This study is the first to develop shared ambitions for the future of supportive cancer care on a global level. These ambition statements can facilitate a coordinated, resource-stratified, and person-centered approach and inform research, education, clinical services, and policy efforts. FUNDING: This project received funding support from Prof Raymond Chans NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1194051).

Life-threatening thrombotic events and neurological symptoms are prevalent in COVID-19 and are persistent in patients with long COVID experiencing post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection1-4. Despite the clinical evidence1,5-7, the underlying mechanisms of coagulopathy in COVID-19 and its consequences in inflammation and neuropathology remain poorly understood and treatment options are insufficient. Fibrinogen, the central structural component of blood clots, is abundantly deposited in the lungs and brains of patients with COVID-19, correlates with disease severity and is a predictive biomarker for post-COVID-19 cognitive deficits1,5,8-10. Here we show that fibrin binds to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, forming proinflammatory blood clots that drive systemic thromboinflammation and neuropathology in COVID-19. Fibrin, acting through its inflammatory domain, is required for oxidative stress and macrophage activation in the lungs, whereas it suppresses natural killer cells, after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fibrin promotes neuroinflammation and neuronal loss after infection, as well as innate immune activation in the brain and lungs independently of active infection. A monoclonal antibody targeting the inflammatory fibrin domain provides protection from microglial activation and neuronal injury, as well as from thromboinflammation in the lung after infection. Thus, fibrin drives inflammation and neuropathology in SARS-CoV-2 infection, and fibrin-targeting immunotherapy may represent a therapeutic intervention for patients with acute COVID-19 and long COVID.

BACKGROUND: The global cancer burden is rising, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), highlighting a critical research gap in understanding disparities in supportive care access. To address this, the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) Health Disparities Committee initiated a global survey to investigate and delineate these disparities. This study aims to explore and compare supportive care access disparities between LMIC and High-Income Countries (HIC). METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among active members of MASCC. Members, representing diverse healthcare professions received email invitations. The survey, available for 3 weeks, comprised sections covering (1) sociodemographic information; (2) clinical service/practice-related disparities in their region/nation; (3) population groups facing disparities within their region or country. Chi-squared or Fishers exact test for cross-sectional analyses, and a multivariable logistic regression model was employed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 218 active members participated, with one-quarter (26.6%) from LMIC and 18.4% ethnic minorities, timely cancer care (43.7%) and timely supportive care (45.0%) emerged as the most pressing disparities globally. Notably, participants from LMIC underscored cancer drug affordability (56.4%) and supportive care guideline implementation (56.4%) as critical issues. Economically disadvantaged populations were noted as more likely to face disparities by both LMIC and HIC (non-US-based) respondents, while US-based respondents identified racial/ethnic minorities as facing more disparities. CONCLUSION: This global survey reveals significant disparities in cancer supportive care between LMIC and HIC, with a particular emphasis on medication affordability and guideline implementation in LMIC. Addressing these disparities requires targeted intervention, considering specific regional priorities.

Screening trials for cardiovascular disease have not demonstrated a reduction in all-cause mortality. The Danish Cardiovascular Screening trial (DANCAVAS) involved men aged 65-74 years old who were randomized to an invitation to undergo screening or not. While the 5-year interim analysis did not show a statistically significant benefit in the primary outcome of all-cause mortality, HR 0.95 (CI 0.90-1.00), a sub-group analysis of men age 65-69 did show a lower hazard ratio of 0.89 (CI 0.83-0.96). Given the widening difference between screened and un-screened participants, as well as the benefit in younger subjects, it is likely that the next analysis will demonstrate a statistically-significant benefit of screening. In this commentary we argue why this trial will almost certainly become one of the most influential screening trials and why heeding its most important lesson, the use of coronary artery calcium scoring, has the potential to save countless lives.