Search

Background: Discrepancies between the outcomes of cancer patients between Western European and Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries have often been observed. Despite the enormous economic and civilizational progress made in these countries after the abolishment of the communist regime, structural problems persist., Summary: The present article reviews the domains of medical oncology education, human resources in oncology, cancer care, and clinical research in CEE in order to comprehensively assess the current situation and needs, describe important initiatives, and also propose ways to improving cancer outcomes in the region. Activities are under way to address these issues in national action plans to divert funding into oncology-related education, research, the purchase of equipment, and the attainment of modern hospital organization and structures., Key Message: Over the past more than 30 years, CEE countries have made enormous economic and societal progress. Nevertheless, challenges especially in the health care sector persist., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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.)

Introduction: Surgical oncology is a defined specialty within the European Board of Surgery within the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Variation in training and specialization still occurs across Europe. There is a need to align the core knowledge needed to fulfil the criteria across subspecialities in surgical oncology., Material and Methods: The core curriculum, established in 2013, was developed with contributions from expert advisors from within the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) and related subspeciality experts., Results: The current version reiterates and updates the core curriculum structure needed for current and future candidates who plans to train for and eventually sit the European fellowship exam for the European Board of Surgery in Surgical Oncology. The content included is not intended to be exhaustive but, rather to give the candidate an idea of expectations and areas for in depth study, in addition to the practical requirements. The five elements included are: Basic principles of oncology; Disease site specific oncology; Generic clinical skills; Training recommendations, and, lastly; Eligibility for the EBSQ exam in Surgical Oncology., Conclusions: As evidence-based care for cancer patients evolves through research into basic science, translational research and clinical trials, the core curriculum will evolve, mature and adapt to deliver continual improvements in cancer outcomes for patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest There are no conflicts of interest reported., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improved substantially in the last decades. Novel targeted and immune-oncologic drugs were introduced into routine treatment. Despite accelerated development and subsequent drug registrations by the European Medicinal Agency (EMA), novel drugs for NSCLC are poorly accessible in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries., Material and Methods: The Central European Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a survey among experts from 10 CEE countries to provide an overview on the availability of novel drugs for NSCLC and time from registration to reimbursement decision in their countries., Results: Although first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were reimbursed and available in all countries, for other registered therapies-even for ALK inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitors in first-line-there were apparent gaps in availability and/or reimbursement. There was a trend for better availability of drugs with longer time from EMA marketing authorization. Substantial differences in access to novel drugs among CEE countries were observed. In general, the availability of drugs is not in accordance with the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS), as defined by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Time spans between drug registrations and national decisions on reimbursement vary greatly, from less than 3 months in one country to more than 1 year in the majority of countries., Conclusion: The access to novel drugs for NSCLC in CEE countries is suboptimal. To enable access to the most effective compounds within the shortest possible time, reimbursement decisions should be faster and ESMO MCBS should be incorporated into decision making., (© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Background: A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire., Methods: Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months., Results: Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses., Conclusion: Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research.

Cancer research is an essential part of national cancer control programmes, and the emerging economies of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Russian Federation and Central Asia (R-CA) (Commonwealth of Independent States) remain relatively understudied. Here, we map the cancer research activity from the 29 countries across these regions over a 10-year period (2007-2016), using a standard scientometric approach. Research activity was compared with the countries' wealth and with the disease burden from different cancers, and analyses were also performed by the research domain (e.g. fundamental cancer biology, surgery). We found that although there was a correlation between outputs and national wealth, there were many outliers; the CEE countries publishing relatively more, and the R-CA, less. Outputs reflected cancer burdens, but there was a relative paucity of research on lung, colorectal, gastric and pancreatic cancer, as well as research domains such as screening and palliative care. Clinical trials accounted for only 3% of all research outputs from all countries, and were very international, with on average 1.5 CEE countries and 8.0 others involved in each article, and they were heavily cited (on average, 84 times in 5 years). Poland was by far the most research-active country, but significant needs and opportunities have been identified to expand the cancer research activity in all CEE and R-CA countries to enhance national cancer control planning., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This was a prospective phase II study of cisplatin and bortezomib (CB) in the first line treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) with validation of progression free survival rate at 18 weeks (PFSR-18)(1) as primary end-point., Methods: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with histologically proven MPM and performance status (PS) 0/1, were treated with cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 and bortezomib 1.3mg/m(2) on days 1, 4, 8, 11 every 3 weeks. The primary end-point validation utilised the landmark method., Results: Between 2007 and 2010 82 patients were entered. PFSR-18 was 53% (80% confidence intervals, CIs, 42-64%). The overall survival (OS) was 13.5 months (95% CI 10.5-15) with 56% (95% CI 44-66%) alive at 1 year. The median PFS was 5.1months (95% CI 3.3-6.5) and the response rate was 28.4% (95% CI 18.9-39.5%). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were hyponatremia (46%), hypokalaemia (17%), fatigue (12.2%), thrombocytopenia (11%), neutropenia (9.7%) and neurotoxicity (motor, sensory, other: 1.2%, 8.5%, 2.4%). There were two toxic deaths (32 and 74days) due to acute pneumonitis and cardiac arrest. End-point validation showed that patients with no progression/progression at 18 weeks had median OS of 16.9/11.9 months, respectively. Hazard ratio was 0.46 (CI 0.32-0.67), logrank test and C-index were 0.007 and 0.60., Conclusion: The 50% PFSR-18 for CB was contained within the 80% CI for (42-64%). Therefore the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Accordingly this combination does not warrant further investigation. PFSR-18 was confirmed as a strong predictor of survival., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Continuation of trastuzumab plus capecitabine (XH) showed a significantly improved overall response rate and time to progression compared with capecitabine (X) alone in women with HER2-positive breast cancer progressing during trastuzumab treatment. Here, we report the final analysis on overall survival., Patients and Methods: Patients with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer who progressed during treatment with trastuzumab with or without 1st-line metastatic chemotherapy were prospectively randomised to X (2500mg/m(2) on days 1-14, q3w) or XH (6 (8)mg/kg, q3w). Overall survival was a pre-specified secondary end-point., Results: Median follow-up at June 2010 was 20.7months. Fifty nine of 74 and 60 of 77 patients died in the X and XH arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 20.6 and 24.9months with X and XH, respectively (HR=0.94 [0.65-1.35]; p=0.73). Performance status and metastatic site were independent prognosticators for overall survival. No difference between treatment arms was observed for patients who achieved clinical response or clinical benefit, respectively. Patients who continued/restarted anti-HER2 treatment (trastuzumab or lapatinib) after 2nd progression (N=52) had a post-progression survival of 18.8 compared with 13.3months for those who did not receive 3rd line treatment with anti-HER2 agents (N=88) (HR 0.63; p=0.02)., Conclusions: Final overall survival analysis of the GBG-26 study did not demonstrate a significant survival benefit for treatment beyond progression with trastuzumab. However, in a post-hoc analysis, patients receiving anti-HER2 treatment as 3rd line therapy showed a better post-progression survival than those not receiving this targeted treatment., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A distinctive subset of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is oligometastatic disease, which is characterized by single or few detectable metastatic lesions. The existing treatment guidelines for patients with localized MBC include surgery, radiotherapy, and regional chemotherapy. The European School of Oncology-Metastatic Breast Cancer Task Force addressed the management of these patients in its first consensus recommendations published in 2007. The Task Force endorsed the possibility of a more aggressive and multidisciplinary approach for patients with oligometastatic disease, stressing also the need for clinical trials in this patient population. At the sixth European Breast Cancer Conference, held in Berlin in March 2008, the second public session on MBC guidelines addressed the controversial issue of whether MBC can be cured. In this commentary, we summarize the discussion and related recommendations regarding the available therapeutic options that are possibly associated with cure in these patients. In particular, data on local (surgery and radiotherapy) and chemotherapy options are discussed. Large retrospective series show an association between surgical removal of the primary tumor or of lung metastases and improved long-term outcome in patients with oligometastatic disease. In the absence of data from prospective randomized studies, removal of the primary tumor or isolated metastatic lesions may be an attractive therapeutic strategy in this subset of patients, offering rapid disease control and potential for survival benefit. Some improvement in outcome may also be achieved with optimization of systemic therapies, possibly in combination with optimal local treatment.

Purpose: We recently reported DNA methylation of the paired-like homeodomain transcription factor 2 (PITX2) gene to be strongly correlated with increased risk of recurrence in node-negative, hormone receptor-positive, tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients using fresh frozen specimens. Aims of the present study were to establish determination of PITX2 methylation for routine analysis in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) breast cancer tissue and to test PITX2 DNA methylation as a biomarker for outcome prediction in an independent patient cohort., Patients and Methods: Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology was validated for FFPE tissue by comparing methylation measurements in FFPE specimens with those in fresh frozen specimens from the same tumor. The impact of PITX2 methylation on time to distant metastasis was then evaluated in FFPE specimens from hormone receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancer patients (n = 399, adjuvant tamoxifen monotherapy)., Results: Reproducibility of the PCR assay in replicate measurements (r(s) > or = 0.95; n = 150) and concordant measurements between fresh frozen and FFPE tissues (r(s) = 0.81; n = 89) were demonstrated. In a multivariate model, PITX2 methylation added significant information (hazard ratio = 2.35; 95% CI, 1.20 to 4.60) to established prognostic factors (tumor size, grade, and age)., Conclusion: PITX2 methylation can be reliably assessed by real-time PCR technology in FFPE tissue. Together with our earlier studies, we have accumulated substantial evidence that PITX2 methylation analysis holds promise as a practical assay for routine clinical use to predict outcome in node-negative, tamoxifen-treated breast cancer, which might allow, based on future validation studies, the identification of low-risk patients who may be treated by tamoxifen alone.

The 2003 St. Gallen consensus panel divided the many available adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) regimens into those with "standard efficacy" (ACx4, CMFx6) and those with "superior efficacy" (FA(E)Cx6, CA(E)Fx6, A(E)-->CMF, TACx6, ACx4--> paclitaxel (P)x4 or docetaxel (D)x4) but also greater complexity, toxicity and cost. This paper will summarize the latest information on long-term side effects of the "superior" regimens and 5-year benefits reported in taxane trials, including those of a "new" sequential regimen, FECx3--> docetaxelx3. Rapidly expanding evidence of marked heterogeneity in the magnitude of CT benefits according to the tumour oestrogen receptor (ER) status, a claim made for many years by IBCSG investigators, will be reviewed; it will lead to the conclusion that a revolution needs to take place in the way oncologists think about the CT added value and design adjuvant clinical trials. The conclusions proposed to the 2005 St. Gallen consensus panel are that: adequately dosed anthracycline-based CT regimens remain an acceptable standard for many women; a lower threshold for using taxanes in sequence or combination with anthracyclines (A) is justified in the presence of an ER-negative or low-ER tumour status, other aggressive biologic features (such as HER-2 overexpression), fear about A-induced cardiotoxicity; no recommendation can yet be made as far as the optimal taxane-A regimen, the best taxane or the best taxane schedule.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel (AT) with a standard doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) regimen as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were anthracycline-naive and had bidimensionally measurable metastatic breast cancer. Two hundred seventy-five patients were randomly assigned to be treated with AT (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) as an intravenous bolus plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) as a 3-hour infusion) or AC (doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2)) every 3 weeks for a maximum of six cycles. A paclitaxel (200 mg/m(2)) and cyclophosphamide (750 mg/m(2)) dose escalation was planned at cycle 2 if no grade >or= 3 neutropenia occurred in cycle 1. The primary efficacy end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were response rate (RR), safety, overall survival (OS), and quality of life., Results: A median number of six cycles were delivered in the two treatment arms. The relative dose-intensity and delivered cumulative dose of doxorubicin were lower in the AT arm. Dose escalation was only possible in 17% and 20% of the AT and AC patients, respectively. Median PFS was 6 months in the two treatments arms. RR was 58% versus 54%, and median OS was 20.6 versus 20.5 months in the AT and AC arms, respectively. The AT regimen was characterized by a higher incidence of febrile neutropenia, 32% versus 9% in the AC arm., Conclusion: No differences in the efficacy study end points were observed between the two treatment arms. Treatment-related toxicity compromised doxorubicin-delivered dose-intensity in the paclitaxel-based regimen