Search

Understanding the diversity in cancer research priorities and the correlations among different treatment modalities is essential to address the evolving landscape of oncology. This study, conducted in collaboration with the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) and Childhood Cancer International-Europe (CCI-E) as part of the “UNCAN.eu” initiative, analyzed data from a comprehensive survey to explore the complex interplay of demographics, time since cancer diagnosis, and types of treatments received. Demographic analysis revealed intriguing trends, highlighting the importance of tailoring cancer research efforts to specific age groups and genders. Individuals aged 45–69 exhibited highly aligned research priorities, emphasizing the need to address the unique concerns of middle-aged and older populations. In contrast, patients over 70 years demonstrated a divergence in research priorities, underscoring the importance of recognising the distinct needs of older individuals in cancer research. The analysis of correlations among different types of cancer treatments underscored the multidisciplinary approach to cancer care, with surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, precision therapy, and biological therapies playing integral roles. These findings support the need for personalized and combined treatment strategies to achieve optimal outcomes. In conclusion, this study provides valuable insights into the complexity of cancer research priorities and treatment correlations in a European context. It emphasizes the importance of a multifaceted, patient-centred approach to cancer research and treatment, highlighting the need for ongoing support, adaptation, and collaboration to address the ever-changing landscape of oncology.

IntroductionHealth disparities represent a crucial factor in cancer survival rates, awareness, quality of life, and mental health of people receiving a cancer diagnosis and their families. Income, education, geographic location, and ethnicity are some of the most important underlying reasons for health disparities in cancer across Europe. Costs of healthcare, access to information, psycho-oncological support options, integration of cancer research and innovative care, and multidisciplinary cancer teams are the main target areas when it comes to addressing disparities in the cancer context. As part of the Beacon Project (BEACON), we developed a protocol for a qualitative study to explore and identify any relevant reasons for cancer inequalities and disparities in Europe.MethodsOur four stakeholders namely, cancer patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers will be recruited online, facilitated by collaborative efforts with cancer organizations from various European countries, including but not limited to Italy, Croatia, Estonia, and Slovenia. Qualitative online focus group discussions for each stakeholder will be conducted and transcribed. Subsequently, thematic analysis will be used to identify reasons and aspects that may contribute to the existing disparities in cancer outcomes at various levels of engagement and from different stakeholders’ perspectives. Results from focus groups will inform a subsequent Delphi study and a SWOT analysis methodology.DiscussionAlthough advances in medical research, cancer screening and treatment options are constantly progressing, disparities in access to and awareness of healthcare in cancer patients are even more noticeable. Thus, mapping the capacity and capability of cancer centres in the European Union, creating decision support tools that will assist the four stakeholders’ information needs and improving the quality of European cancer centres will be the main objectives of the BEACON project. The current protocol will outline the methodological and practical procedures to conduct online focus group discussions with different stakeholders.

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

Effective cancer diagnosis, treatment and control depend on interactions among numerous distinct factors, from technology to data to skills to sociology. But a crucial influence is the extent to which the health system takes account of the distinct perspectives of the many different groups of interdependent stakeholders concerned with cancer, including patients, practitioners and planners. This paper provides some elucidation as to how far and how efficiently these interactions currently take place in Europe. It also makes some tentative suggestions as to how conscious systematic interventions could improve cancer outcomes. It is based on a series of expert panels and surveys conducted by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) that provided information at the national level on three selected parameters: implementation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) and liquid biopsy (LB), attitudes of patients to prevention and practices of sharing genomic data among healthcare professionals (HCPs). The varying data infrastructure highlights the urgent need for substantial improvements to accommodate the increasing importance of genomics data in cancer diagnosis and care. Additionally, we identify disparities in age-specific approaches to cancer prevention, emphasising the necessity for tailored strategies to address unique age group perspectives. Moreover, distinct regional prioritizations in cancer treatment underscore the importance of considering regional variations when shaping future cancer care strategies. This study advocates for collaborative data sharing supported by technological innovation to overcome these challenges, ultimately fostering a holistic and equitable provision of cancer care in Europe.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and liquid biopsy (LB) showed positive results in the fight against different cancer types. This paper aims to assess the uptake of advanced molecular diagnostics/NGS for quick and efficient genetic profiles of tumour cells. For that purpose, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine conducted a series of expert interviews to ascertain the current status across member states. One stakeholder meeting was additionally conducted to prioritize relevant factors by stakeholders. Seven common pillars were identified, and twenty-five measures were defined based on these pillars. Results showed that a multi-faceted approach is necessary for successful NGS implementation and that regional differences may be influenced by healthcare policies, resources, and infrastructure. It is important to consider different correlations when interpreting the results and to use them as a starting point for further discussion.

Improvements in cancer care require a new degree of collaboration beyond the purely medical sphere, extending deeply into the world of other stakeholders—preeminently patients but also the other stakeholders in the hardware and software of care. Cancer remains a global health challenge, necessitating collaborative efforts to understand, prevent, and treat this complex disease. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive analysis was conducted, aligning the prioritization of cancer research measures in 13 European countries with 13 key recommendations for conquering cancer in the region. The study utilized a survey involving both patients and citizens, alongside data from IQVIA, a global healthcare data provider, to assess the availability and access to single-biomarker tests in multiple European countries. The results revealed a focused approach toward understanding, preventing, and treating cancer, with each country emphasizing specific research measures tailored to its strengths and healthcare objectives. This analysis highlights the intricate relationship between research priorities, access to biomarker tests, and financial support. Timely access to tests and increased availability positively influence research areas such as cancer prevention, early detection, ageing, and data utilization. The alignment of these country-specific measures with 13 recommendations for conquering cancer in Europe underscores the importance of tailored strategies for understanding, preventing, and treating cancer.

Radical new possibilities of improved treatment of cancer are on offer from an advanced medical technology already demonstrating its significance: next-generation sequencing (NGS). This refined testing provides unprecedentedly precise diagnoses and permits the use of focused and highly personalized treatments. However, across regions globally, many cancer patients will continue to be denied the benefits of NGS as long as some of the yawning gaps in its implementation remain unattended. The challenges at the regional and national levels are linked because putting the solutions into effect is highly dependent on cooperation between regional- and national-level cooperation, which could be hindered by shortfalls in interpretation or understanding. The aim of the paper was to define and explore the necessary conditions for NGS and make recommendations for effective implementation based on extensive exchanges with policy makers and stakeholders. As a result, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) developed a maturity framework structured around demand-side and supply-side issues to enable interested stakeholders in different countries to self-evaluate according to a common matrix. A questionnaire was designed to identify the current status of NGS implementation, and it was submitted to different experts in different institutions globally. This revealed significant variability in the different aspects of NGS uptake. Within different regions globally, to ensure those conditions are right, this can be improved by linking efforts made at the national level, where patients have needs and where care is delivered, and at the global level, where major policy initiatives in the health field are underway or in preparation, many of which offer direct or indirect pathways for building those conditions. In addition, in a period when consensus is still incomplete and catching up is needed at a political level to ensure rational allocation of resources—even within individual countries—to enable the best ways to make the necessary provisions for NGS, a key recommendation is to examine where closer links between national and regional actions could complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve the situation for patients.

Recent advances in biomedicine are opening the door to new approaches, and treatment and prevention are being transformed by novel medicines based on genetic engineering, innovative cell-based therapies and tissue-engineered products, and combinations of a medical device with embedded cell or tissue components. These advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) hold one of the keys to making a reality of genuinely personalised medicine. There are an estimated 450 companies across the globe working on the development of gene therapies and more than 1,000 clinical trials underway worldwide, and some 20–30 new ATMPs filings are expected in Europe annually over the next 5 years. But challenges confront the sector, complicating the translation from research into patient access. Scientific, clinical development and regulatory issues are compounded by limited experience with clinical and commercial use, limited manufacturing know-how, high costs, and difficulties in accessing development funding and investment. Pricing and reimbursement and market access issues are an additional challenge, particularly in Europe, where unfamiliarity with the technology and uncertainty over the use of real-world evidence induce caution among clinicians, health technology assessment bodies and payers. There is a need for a review of the suitability of the regulatory and market access framework for these products, focused development of data, public/private partnerships, and fuller collaboration governments, doctors, insurers, patients, and pharmaceutical companies. This paper makes specific recommendations for all stakeholders, ranging from early dialogue on potential products, linking of clinical data and patient registries or standardisation of control frameworks, to a comprehensive approach to evidence generation, assessment, pricing, and payment for ATMPs.

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and related dementia is one of the growing threats to the sustainability of health and care systems in developed countries, and efforts to find therapies have had scant success. The main reasons for this are lack of efficient therapy, which is linked to too late discovery of the disease itself. With this in mind, biomarkers are recognised as an element which can bring a major contribution to research, helping elucidate the disease and the search for treatments. They are also playing an increasing role in early detection and timely diagnosis, which are considered the principal hopes of effective management in the absence of an effective drug. The current arsenal of biomarkers could already, if more widely deployed, provide an effective minimum service to patients and health systems. A concerted action by policy makers and stakeholders could drive progress in access to AD biomarker testing to provide an optimum service in the medium term. This paper discusses how to improve the use of and access to biomarker testing in the detection and diagnosis of AD and other diseases featuring dementia, and how EU healthcare systems could benefit. It outlines the challenges, lists the achievements to date, and highlights the actions needed to allow biomarker testing to deliver more fully on their potential in AD.

“A ship in the harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are built for,” observed that sage 19th century philosopher William Shedd. In other words, technology of high potential is of little value if the potential is not exploited. As the shape of 2020 is increasingly defined by the coronavirus pandemic, digitalisation is like a ship loaded with technology that has a huge capacity for transforming mankind’s combat against infectious disease. But it is still moored safely in harbour. Instead of sailing bravely into battle, it remains at the dockside, cowering from the storm beyond the breakwaters. Engineers and fitters constantly fine-tune it, and its officers and deckhands perfect their operating procedures, but that promise is unfulfilled, restrained by the hesitancy and indecision of officialdom. Out there, the seas of the pandemic are turbulent and uncharted, and it is impossible to know in advance everything of the other dangers that may lurk beyond those cloudy horizons. However, the more noble course is for orders to be given to complete the preparations, to cast off and set sail, and to join other vessels crewed by valiant healthcare workers and tireless researchers, already deeply engaged in a rescue mission for the whole of the human race. It is the destiny of digitalisation to navigate those oceans alongside other members of that task force, and the hour of destiny has arrived. This article focuses on the potential enablers and recommendation to maximise learnings during the era of COVID-19.

Since developments are global in the healthcare arena, more should be done to align EU and other big markets’ regulatory practices for rare disease patients. Notwithstanding efforts and cooperation between the US and EU aimed to harmonize their strategic plans in the field of orphan drugs, regulatory criteria and procedures to gain the designation, terms and classifications should be still harmonised. Aligning the criteria of prevalence and support to orphan medicines in the various jurisdictions internationally, would facilitate patient recruitment eventually at global level, so as to gain the data and the biological insights required to identify biomarkers and appropriate endpoints needed for progressing clinical development. A conducive regulatory environment can further support the development of medicines to treat rare diseases. Overall there is a need for joined-up regulatory process coordination. Better integration of regulatory pathways and better integration of regulatory systems, such as scientific tools and methods to generate evidence, would be helpful. There is a need to revise and agree the current frameworks to be improved which will take into account the considerations and challenges to diagnose and treat different rare diseases and improve quality of life. Deliberative processes with multi-stakeholders’ involvement for reimbursement should be considered. This paper explores the successes and limitation of both the regulation and its implementation mechanisms in the current regulatory context, and suggests some improvements that could maximise its benefits and boost rare disease research even further.

The scope and potential of personalised health care are underappreciated and underrealised, often because of resistance to change. The consequence is that many inadequacies of health care in Europe persist unnecessarily, and many opportunities for improvement are neglected. This article identifies the principal challenges, outlines possible approaches to resolving them, and highlights the benefits that could result from greater adoption of personalised health care. It locates the discussion in the context of European policy, focusing particularly on the most recent and authoritative reviews of health care in the EU Member States, and on the newly acquired spirit of readiness and pragmatism among European officials to embrace change and innovative technologies in a new decade. It highlights the attention now being given by policymakers to incentives, innovation, and investment as levers to improve European citizens’ prospects in a rapidly evolving world, and how these distinct and disruptive themes contribute to a renaissance in thinking about delivering optimal health care in Europe. It explores the chances offered to patients by specific initiatives in health domains such as cancer and antimicrobial resistance, and by innovative science, novel therapies, earlier diagnosis tools, and deeper understanding of health promotion and prevention. And it reflects on how health care providers could benefit from a shift towards better primary care and towards deploying health data more effectively, including the use of artificial intelligence, coupled with a move to a smoother organisational/regulatory structure and realigned professional responsibilities. The conclusion is that preparing Europe’s health care systems for the inevitable strains of the coming years is both possible and necessary. A more courageous approach to embracing personalised health care could guarantee the sustainability of Europe’s health care systems before rising demands and exponential costs overwhelm them – an exercise in future-proofing, in ensuring that they are equipped to withstand whatever lies ahead. A focus on the potential and implementation of personalised care would permit more efficient use of resources and deliver better quality health-preserving care.

Tackling cancer is a major challenge right on the global level. Europe is only the tip of an iceberg of cancer around the world. Prosperous developed countries share the same problems besetting Europe–and the countries and regions with fewer resources and less propitious conditions are in many cases struggling often heroically against a growing tide of disease. This paper offers a view on these geographically wider, but essentially similar, challenges, and on the prospects for and barriers to better results in this ceaseless battle. A series of panels have been organized by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) to identify different aspects of cancer care around the globe. There is significant diversity in key issues such as NGS, RWE, molecular diagnostics, and reimbursement in different regions. In all, it leads to disparities in access and diagnostics, patients’ engagement, and efforts for a better understanding of cancer.

An expert panel convened by the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine (EAPM) reflected on achievements and outstanding challenges in Europe in mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Through the prism of member state experience, the panel noted advances in outcomes over the last decade, but highlighted issues constituting barriers to better care. The list notably included availability of newer treatments, infrastructure and funding for related testing, and shortages of relevant skills and of research support. The prospect of improvements was held to reside in closer coordination and cooperation within and between individual countries, and in changes in policy and scale of investment at both national and EU levels.

Liquid biopsy (LB) is a minimally invasive method which aims to detect circulating tumor-derived components in body fluids. It provides an alternative to current cancer screening methods that use tissue biopsies for the confirmation of diagnosis. This paper attempts to determine how far the regulatory, policy, and governance framework provide support to LB implementation into healthcare systems and how the situation can be improved. For that reason, the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) organized series of expert panels including different key stakeholders to identify different steps, challenges, and opportunities that need to be taken to effectively implement LB technology at the country level across Europe. To accomplish a change of patient care with an LB approach, it is required to establish collaboration between multiple stakeholders, including payers, policymakers, the medical and scientific community, and patient organizations, both at the national and international level. Regulators, pharma companies, and payers could have a major impact in their own domain. Linking national efforts to EU efforts and vice versa could help in implementation of LB across Europe, while patients, scientists, physicians, and kit manufacturers can generate a pull by undertaking more research into biomarkers.

The delicate balance of funding research and development of treatments for rare disease is only imperfectly achieved in Europe, and even the current provisional equilibrium is under a new threat from well-intentioned policy changes now in prospect that could—in addition to the intrinsic complexities of research—reduce the incentives on which commercial activity in this area is dependent. The European Union review of its pharmaceutical legislation, for which proposals are scheduled to appear before the end of 2022, envisages adjusting the decade-old incentives to meet objectives that are more precisely targeted. However, researchers, physicians, patients and industry have expressed concerns that ill-considered modifications could have unintended consequences in disrupting the current balance and could reduce rather than increase the flow of innovative treatments for rare diseases.

Cancer is the second leading cause of mortality in EU countries, and the needs to tackle cancer are obvious. New scientific understanding, techniques and methodologies are opening up horizons for significant improvements in diagnosis and care. However, take-up is uneven, research needs and potential outstrip currently available resources, manifestly beneficial practices—such as population-level screening for lung cancer—are still not generalised, and the quality of life of patients and survivors is only beginning to be given attention it merits. This paper, mainly based on a series of multistakeholder expert workshops organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM), looks at some of those specifics in the interest of planning a way forward. Part of this exercise also involves taking account of the specific nature of Europe and its constituent countries, where the complexities of planning a way forward are redoubled by the wide variations in national and regional approaches to cancer, local epidemiology and the wide disparities in health systems. Despite all the differences between cancers and national and regional resources and approaches to cancer care, there is a common objective in pursuing broader and more equal access to the best available care for all European citizens.

Thyroid cancer (TC) is the most common malignancy of the endocrine system that affects the thyroid gland. It is usually treatable and, in most cases, curable. The central issues are how to improve knowledge on TC, to accurately identify cases at an early stage that can benefit from effective intervention, optimise therapy, and reduce the risk of overdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. Questions remain about management, about treating all patients in referral centres, and about which treatment should be proposed to any individual patient and how this can be optimised. The European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) hosted an expert panel discussion to elucidate some of the challenges, and to identify possible steps towards effective responses at the EU and member state level, particularly in the context of the opportunities in the European Union’s evolving initiatives—notably its Beating Cancer Plan, its Cancer Mission, and its research funding programmes. Recommendations emerging from the panel focus on improved infrastructure and funding, and on promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration between national and European initiatives to complement, support, and mutually reinforce efforts to improve patient care.

The May 2022 proposal from the European commission for a ‘European health data space’ envisages advantages for health from exploiting the growing mass of health data in Europe. However, key stakeholders have identified aspects that demand clarification to ensure success. Data will need to be freed from traditional silos to flow more easily and to cross artificial borders. Wide engagement will be necessary among healthcare professionals, researchers, and the patients and citizens that stand to gain the most but whose trust must be won if they are to allow use or transfer of their data. This paper aims to alert the wider scientific community to the impact the ongoing discussions among lawmakers will have. Based on the literature and the consensus findings of an expert multistakeholder panel organised by the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) in June 2022, it highlights the key issues at the intersection of science and policy, and the potential implications for health research for years, perhaps decades, to come.

As Europe and the world continue to battle against COVID, the customary complacency of society over future threats is clearly on display. Just 30 months ago, such a massive disruption to global lives, livelihoods and quality of life seemed unimaginable. Some remedial European Union action is now emerging, and more is proposed, including in relation to tackling “unmet medical need” (UMN). This initiative—directing attention to the future of treating disease and contemplating incentives to stimulate research and development—is welcome in principle. But the current approach being considered by EU officials merits further discussion, because it may prove counter-productive, impeding rather than promoting innovation. This paper aims to feed into these ongoing policy discussions, and rather than presenting research in the classical sense, it discusses the key elements from a multistakeholder perspective. Its central concern is over the risk that the envisaged support will fail to generate valuable new treatments if the legislation is phrased in a rigidly linear manner that does not reflect the serpentine realities of the innovation process, or if the definition placed on unmet medical need is too restrictive. It cautions that such an approach presumes that “unmet need” can be precisely and comprehensively defined in advance on the basis of the past. It cautions that such an approach can reinforce the comfortable delusion that the future is totally predictable—the delusion that left the world as easy prey to COVID. Instead, the paper urges reflection on how the legislation that will shortly enter the pipeline can be phrased so as to allow for the flourishing of a culture capable of rapid adaptation to the unexpected.

Significant progress has been achieved in human health in the European Union in recent years. New medicines, vaccines, and treatments have been developed to tackle some of the leading causes of disease and life-threatening illnesses. It is clear that investment in research and development (R&D) for innovative medicines and treatments is essential for making progress in preventing and treating diseases. Ahead of the legislative process, which should begin by the end of 2022, discussions focus on how Europe can best promote the huge potential benefits of new science and technology within the regulatory framework. The challenges in European healthcare were spelled out by the panellists at the roundtable organised by European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM). Outcomes from panellists’ discussions have been summarized and re-arranged in this paper under five headings: innovation, unmet medical need, access, security of supply, adapting to progress, and efficiency. Some of the conclusions that emerged from the panel are a call for a better overall holistic vision of the future of pharmaceuticals and health in Europe and a collaborative effort among all stakeholders, seeing the delivery of medicines as part of a broader picture of healthcare.

Introduction As part of the PIONEER (Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe) Consortium, we will explore which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are currently being researched to previously defined clinical and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa).Methods and analysis This research project will follow the following four steps: (1) a broad systematic literature review of DPFs for all stages of PCa, covering evidence from 2014 onwards; (2) discussion of systematic review findings by a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) risk of bias assessment and applicability with Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) and (4) additional quantitative assessments if required.Ethics and dissemination We aim to develop an online tool to present the DPFs identified in this research and make them available across all stakeholders. There are no ethical implications.

Rapid and continuing advances in biomarker testing are not being matched by take-up in health systems, and this is hampering both patient care and innovation. It also risks costing health systems the opportunity to make their services more efficient and, over time, more economical. This paper sets out the potential of biomarker testing, the unfolding precision and range of possible diagnosis and prediction, and the many obstacles to adoption. It offers case studies of biomarker testing in breast, ovarian, prostate, lung, thyroid and colon cancers, and derives specific lessons as to the potential and actual use of each of them. It also draws lessons about how to improve access and alignment, and to remedy the data deficiencies that impede development. And it suggests solutions to outstanding issues – notably including funding and the tangled web of obtaining reimbursement or equivalent coverage that Europe’s fragmented health system implies. It urges a European evolution towards an initial minimum testing scenario, which would guarantee universal access to a suite of biomarker tests for the currently most common conditions, and, further into the future, to an optimum testing scenario in which a much wider range of biomarker tests would be introduced and become part of a more sophisticated health system articulated around personalised medicine. For exploiting genomics to the full, it argues the need for a new policy framework for Europe. Biomarker testing is not an issue that can be treated in isolation, since the purpose of testing is to improve health. Its use is therefore always closely linked to specific health challenges and needs to be viewed in the broader policy context in the EU and more widely. The paper is the result of extensive engagement with experts and decision makers to develop the framework, and consequently represents a wide consensus of views on how healthcare systems should respond from push and pull factors at local, national and cross-border and EU level. It contains strong views and clear recommendations springing from the convictions of patients, clinicians, academics, medicines authorities, HTA bodies, payers, the diagnostic, pharmaceutical and ICT industries, and national policy makers.