Search

Abstract 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 Fisher's 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.

Real-world evidence for patients with advanced EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in Canada is limited. This study’s objective was to use previously validated DARWENTM artificial intelligence (AI) to extract data from electronic heath records of patients with non-squamous NSCLC at University Health Network (UHN) to describe EGFR mutation prevalence, treatment patterns, and outcomes. Of 2154 patients with NSCLC, 613 had advanced disease. Of these, 136 (22%) had common sensitizing EGFR mutations (cEGFRm; ex19del, L858R), 8 (1%) had exon 20 insertions (ex20ins), and 338 (55%) had EGFR wild type. One-year overall survival (OS) (95% CI) for patients with cEGFRm, ex20ins, and EGFR wild type tumours was 88% (83, 94), 100% (100, 100), and 59% (53, 65), respectively. In total, 38% patients with ex20ins received experimental ex20ins targeting treatment as their first-line therapy. A total of 57 patients (36%) with cEGFRm received osimertinib as their first-line treatment, and 61 (39%) received it as their second-line treatment. One-year OS (95% CI) following the discontinuation of osimertinib was 35% (17, 75) post-first-line and 20% (9, 44) post-second-line. In this real-world AI-generated dataset, survival post-osimertinib was poor in patients with cEGFR mutations. Patients with ex20ins in this cohort had improved outcomes, possibly due to ex20ins targeting treatment, highlighting the need for more effective treatments for patients with advanced EGFRm NSCLC.

PURPOSEThe study aims to explore unmet social needs and sources of financial toxicities in patients as noted by health care professionals and researchers in cancer supportive care, shedding light on potential health disparities.METHODSIn this cross-sectional survey, we anonymously surveyed active members of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC). The survey, structured in three sections, included questions regarding the routine assessment of social needs during patient consultations, sociodemographic aspects, factors influencing financial toxicity (FT), perceived support for managing FT, and available/desirable resources.RESULTSA total of 218 MASCC members were included, predominantly from high-income countries (HIC, 73.4%), with many age 41-60 years (56.5%) and female (56.9%). Drug/treatment cost and insurance coverage were the main sources for FT among the HIC, whereas participants from low-middle–income countries (LMIC) considered transportation cost, loss of employment because of cancer diagnosis, and unavailability of return-to-work services as the top three sources of FT. Respondents from LMIC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.01 [95% CI, 1.15 to 7.93]) and physicians (aOR, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.15 to 6.21]) were more likely to routinely assess financial coverages. Socioeconomic status was consistently ranked as one of the top three sources of financial toxicities by participants from LMIC (34%), HIC excluding the United States (38%), those who do not self-identify as racial/ethnic minority (36%), and physicians (40%).CONCLUSIONThis global survey of health care professionals and researchers in HIC and LMIC revealed varying approaches to assessing financial coverage and social needs. Socioeconomic status emerged as a consistent concern across countries, affecting financial toxicities. The study highlights the need for tailored approaches and improved resource visibility while emphasizing clinicians' pivotal role in addressing financial aspects of cancer care.