Search

Objectives: The objective of this study was to characterize the epidemiological development of cancer in the Middle East and Africa since 2000 and to quantify its current economic impact., Methods: Nine countries were studied: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates. Information on causes of death and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) was obtained from the World Health Organization. Information on cancer incidence was collected from local cancer registries and estimations by the World Health Organization. The economic burden of cancer was estimated from local health expenditure data and from age-specific mortality data., Results: Between 2000 and 2019, cancer went from third-leading to second-leading cause of death (10% to 13% of all deaths) across these 9 countries. It also climbed from the sixth-leading to third-leading cause of DALYs (6% to 8% of all DALYs). New cancer cases per 100 000 inhabitants increased by 10% to 100% between 2000 and 2019, whereas future increases until 2040 range from 27% in Egypt to 208% in the United Arab Emirates, solely because of expected demographic changes. The economic burden of cancer ranged from around USD 15 per capita in the 4 African countries to USD 79 in Kuwait in 2019., Conclusions: Cancer is becoming one of the leading causes of disease burden in the Middle East and Africa. Patient numbers are expected to rise strongly in the coming decades. Increasing healthcare expenditure on appropriate cancer care is important to improve patient outcomes and can attenuate the economic impact of cancer on society., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

European cancer research stakeholders met in October 2022 in Heidelberg, Germany, at the 5 th Gago conference on European Cancer Policy, to discuss the current cancer research and cancer care policy landscape in Europe. Meeting participants highlighted gaps in the existing European programmes focusing on cancer research, including Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP), the Mission on Cancer (MoC), Understanding Cancer (UNCAN.eu), and the joint action CRANE, and put forward the next priorities, in the form of the Heidelberg Manifesto for cancer research. This meeting report presents all discussions that shed light on how infrastructures can be effectively shaped for translational, prevention, clinical and outcomes cancer research, with a focus on implementation and sustainability and while engaging patients and the public. In addition, we summarize recommendations on how to introduce frameworks for the digitalization of European cancer research. Finally, we discuss what structures, commitment, and resources are needed to establish a collaborative cancer research environment in Europe to achieve the scale required for innovation., (© 2023 The Authors. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

The high prices of new anticancer drugs and the marginal added benefit perceived by some stakeholders have fuelled a debate on the value of anticancer drugs in the European Union, even though an agreed definition of what constitutes a drug's value does not exist. In this Perspective, we discuss the value of drugs from different viewpoints and objectives of decision makers: for regulators, assessment of the benefit-risk balance of a drug is a cornerstone for approval; payers rely on cost-effectiveness analyses carried out by health technology assessment agencies for reimbursement decisions; for patients, treatment choices are based on personal preferences and attitudes to risk; and clinicians can use several scales (such as the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS)) that have been developed as an attempt to measure value objectively. Although a unique definition that fully captures the concept of value is unlikely to emerge, herein we discuss the importance of understanding different perspectives, and how regulators can help to inform different decision makers., (© 2021. Springer Nature Limited.)

Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures - namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research - were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost., (© 2021 The Authors. Molecular Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

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.)

Background: Cancer care is evolving rapidly, and costs and value of new treatments are frequently debated. Up-to-date evidence on the total cost of cancer is needed to inform policy decisions. This study estimates the cost of cancer in Europe in 2018 and extends a previous analysis for 1995-2014., Methods: Cancer-specific health expenditure were derived from national estimates. Data on cancer drug sales were obtained from IQVIA. The productivity loss from premature mortality was estimated from data from Eurostat and the World Health Organization. Estimates of the productivity loss from morbidity and informal care costs were based on previous studies., Findings: The total cost of cancer was €199 billion in Europe (EU-27 plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) in 2018. Total costs ranged from €160 per capita in Romania to €578 in Switzerland (after adjustment for price differentials). Health expenditure on cancer care were €103 billion, of which €32 billion were spent on cancer drugs. Informal care costs were €26 billion. The total productivity loss was €70 billion, composed of €50 billion from premature mortality and €20 billion from morbidity., Interpretation: Health expenditure on cancer care were of a similar magnitude as the sum of non-health-care costs in 2018. Over the last two decades, health spending on cancer has increased faster than the increase in cancer incidence. The productivity loss from premature mortality has decreased because of reductions in mortality in the working-age population. Trends in informal care costs and productivity loss from morbidity are uncertain because of lack of comparable data., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement T.H. and P.L. are employed at IHE, an independent research organization receiving funding from both public and private sector organizations. B.J. reports personal fees from BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche and N.W. from Janssen, MSD, Novartis, and Oasmia for participation in advisory boards and educational activities outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG) and 'ESMO Open-Cancer Horizons' roundtable discussion brought together stakeholders from several European Union (EU) countries involved in drug development, drug authorisation and reimbursement or otherwise affected by delayed and unequal access to innovative anticancer drugs. The approval process of drugs is well established and access delays can be caused directly or indirectly by national or regional decision-making processes on reimbursement. The two key aspects for those involved in reimbursement decisions are first the level of evidence required to decide and second pricing, which can be challenging for some innovative oncology compounds, especially in Eastern and South-Eastern European countries. Other important factors include: available healthcare budget; the structure and sophistication of healthcare authorities and health technology assessment processes; societal context and political will. From the point of view of the pharmaceutical industry, better alignment between stakeholders in the process and adaptive pathway initiatives is desirable. Key aspects for patients are improved access to clinical trials, preapproval availability and reports on real-world evidence. Restricted access limits oncologists' daily work in Eastern and South-Eastern EU countries. The roundtable discussion suggested considering the sequencing of regulatory approval and reimbursement decisions together with more flexible contracting as a possible way forward. The panel concluded that early and regular dialogue between all stakeholders including regulators, payers, patient stakeholders and industry is required to improve the situation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The current work of AB (for MoCA and as unpaid expert for the Austrian Federal Administrative Court) informs about payers’ attitudes/concerns regarding the reimbursement of expensive medicines. However, the opinions expressed here cannot be construed as an official position of any payer organisation. LKS received relevant financial funding for activities outside the submitted work, which are speaker’s fees from Roche, Novartis, BMS and MSD. GK received relevant financial funding outside the submitted work from MSD. AL: the views expressed in this article are the personal views of the the co-author and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the European Medicines Agency or one of its committees or working parties. LM is a paid employee of Fight Bladder Cancer UK, and a volunteer board member of the World Bladder Cancer Patient Coalition. Fight Bladder Cancer UK has received financial support from BMS, Janssen, MSD and F. Hoffman-La Roche AG. The World Bladder Cancer Patient Coalition has received financial support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD and Photocure. AR is an employee of MSD International and owns shares of MSD. MSD has supported this meeting together with Boehringer Ingelheim. NW received project grants and consulting and speaking fees from a large number of pharmaceutical companies, including MSD. CZ received honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Imugene, Ariad, Pfizer, Merrimack/Shire, Merck KGaA, Fibrogen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier, Eli Lilly and Amgen., (© Author (s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: There is an intense debate about the cost of cancer and the value of new treatments. However, there is limited data on the cost of cancer in the European Union (EU) and how costs relate to the burden of disease. This paper presents new estimates on the development of the cost of cancer in the EU 1995-2014, with a focus on the major cost components: total health expenditure, cancer drugs, and production loss due to premature mortality., Methods: Data on overall health expenditure were combined with national disease estimates to derive cancer-specific health expenditure. Data on drug sales were obtained from IMS Health, and epidemiological data were used to calculate life years lost due to cancer., Findings: Health expenditure on cancer increased continuously from €35.7 billion in 1995 to €83.2 billion in 2014 in the EU and spending on cancer drugs from €7.6 billion in 2005 to €19.1 billion in 2014 (current prices). Yet the share of total health expenditure devoted to cancer was mostly constant (around 6 per cent). While expenditures on cancer drugs increased in both absolute and relative terms, other expenditures were stable or decreased, despite increases in cancer incidence driven by a growing and ageing population. Reductions in cancer mortality during working age resulted in decreasing production loss due to premature mortality., Interpretation: Health spending on cancer as a share of total health expenditure is rather low and stable despite the growing incidence and relative burden of cancer. Problems to reallocate funding in health care systems under economic pressure may be one explanation and shifting costs from inpatient to ambulatory care another., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient information in cancer clinical trial is challenging. The value of audio-recording interventions for patients considering participating in clinical trials is unclear. The primary aim of this randomized study was to investigate effects of audio-recorded information on knowledge and understanding in patients considering participation in a clinical trial., Material and Methods: Patients scheduled for information about a phases 2 or 3 trial by one of the 13 participating oncologists at the Department of Oncology during the study period (2008-2013) were eligible. The intervention consisted of an audio-recording on compact disc (CD) of the information at the medical consultation in which the patients were informed about a trial. Knowledge and understanding was measured by the questionnaire, Quality of Informed Consent., Results: A total of 130 patients were randomized, 70% of the calculated sample size (n = 186). Sixty-seven patients were randomized to the intervention. In total, 101 patients (78%) completed questionnaires. No statistical significant differences were found between the groups with respect to knowledge and understanding. The level of knowledge was relatively high, with the exceptions of the risks associated with, and the unproven nature of, the trial. Overall, patients who declined participation scored statistically significant lower on knowledge., Conclusion: The present study was underpowered and the results should therefore be interpreted with caution. Still, 130 patients were included with a response rate of 78%. A CD including the oral information about a clinical trial did not show any effects on knowledge or understanding. However, the levels of knowledge were high, possible due to the high levels of education in the study group. Information on risks associated with the trial is still an area for improvement.

Background: An informed consent from patients participating in cancer clinical trials is mandatory according to international and national guidelines and laws. Insufficient knowledge and understanding by trial participants have been reported in several studies., Purpose: The aims of this study were to investigate factors of importance for knowledge and understanding about cancer clinical trials among trial participants., Methods: All patients consenting to a phase II or III clinical trial during 1 year were invited (n = 325). Data on knowledge and perceived understanding were collected by a questionnaire, Quality of Informed Consent., Results: are based on data from 268 patients (82%). Associations between knowledge and perceived understanding as well as clinical, socio-economic factors, and factors related to the informed consent procedure were tested. Results In the multivariate analysis no statistically significant associations were found between knowledge and any of the factors. Patients who reported longer time for trial information before their decision to participate, those who found the decision easy to take, and patients who reported use of other information sources had statistically significant higher perceived understanding. No differences in mean scores for knowledge or perceived understanding were found for any of the clinical factors (age, gender, diagnostic group, trial phase), socio-economic factors (education, marital status), and the following factors related to the informed consent procedure; presence of relative or nurse at information about the trial or previous participation in clinical trials., Limitations: No study specific questions were included due to the number of trials (n = 35)., Conclusion: Strategies to increase patients' knowledge needs to be elaborated in order to improve the fulfilment of the requirements of informed consent in participants in cancer clinical trials.

The aim of this study was to explore the fulfilment of the requirements of informed consent in patients participating in cancer clinical trials. All patients consenting to a phase II or III clinical trial during one year were included (n=325, 176 women, 54%). Data were collected by a questionnaire, Quality of Informed Consent. The response rate was 87%. High levels of knowledge (>80%) were found for items concerning voluntariness, randomisation, benefits for future patients, participation in a research trial, and the right to withdraw. Less than 50% responded correctly to items about risks associated with the trial, the unproven nature of the trial and issues about insurances. High levels of perceived understanding were reported. Despite high levels of knowledge and perceived understanding in the majority of elements of informed consent, improvements are warranted regarding knowledge about risks, the unproven nature of the treatment and the duration of treatment.