Search

Introduction: Fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) mutations and fusions are relevant biomarkers in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, the prevalence of genomic alterations and their impact on clinical outcomes in a Latin American population remains unknown. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of FGFR mutations and/or fusions in patients with mUC in Latin America (LATAM) and its association with clinicopathological characteristics, Bellmunt's prognostic model, and survival outcomes., Patients and Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study from 2016 to 2019 of patients with mUC from several LACOG LATAM institutions. FGFR alterations were analyzed by real-time PCR and/or next-generation sequencing in tumor samples and clinicopathologic characteristics and survival outcomes data were collected. The prevalence of FGFR, patient characteristics, and treatment in real-world settings were summarized. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate the associations of FGFR mutation and/or fusion status with median overall survival (mOS), median time to treatment failure (mTTF), and clinicopathological characteristics., Results: In total, 222 patients were screened. Of these, 196 patients were considered eligible and were included in the analysis. FGFR mutations and/or fusions were found in 35 (17.9%) patients. There was no statistical difference in mOS and mTTF in FGFR-altered and non-altered patients (13.1 vs. 16.8 months, P = .20 and 3.9 vs. 4.1 months, P = .96, respectively). Bellmunt's prognostic model correctly predicted overall survival (P = .049)., Conclusions: This is the largest study evaluating the prevalence of FGFR alterations in patients with mUC in the LATAM population. FGFR alterations in mUC were found in 17.9% of the patients, and the presence of this biomarker was not associated with OS. We validated Bellmunt's prognostic model in this cohort., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Gustavo Werutsky reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Accurate information about locoregional treatments in breast cancer neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) trials is vital to support surgical decision-making and allow meaningful interpretation of long-term oncological outcomes. This systematic review (PROSPERO registration CRD42023470891) aimed to describe the current practice of outcome reporting in NST studies. A systematic search identified primary research studies published 01/01/2018-08/09/2023 reporting outcomes in patients receiving NST for breast cancer followed by locoregional treatment. Included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) with >250 participants reporting at least one locoregional treatment outcome. Outcomes were extracted verbatim and categorised using content analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise results. Of the 3111 abstracts screened, 137 studies (22 RCTs and 115 NRS) reporting at least one locoregional outcome in 575,531 patients were included. The 137 studies reported a total of 510 surgical outcomes with a median of 3 (range 1-12) per study. No single outcome was reported in all studies. Type of breast (n = 129, 94.2 %) and axillary (n = 86, 62.8 %) surgery were reported most frequently. Only 34 % (n = 47) studies reported how treatment response was assessed and if/how this informed surgical decision-making. Only a fifth (n = 28) reported outcomes relating to surgical de-escalation. Only 72 studies (52.6 %) reported any radiation therapy (RT)-related outcome, most frequently whether RT had been received (n = 63/72, 87.5 %). Current reporting of locoregional treatment outcomes in NST studies is poor, inconsistent and urgently needs to be improved. A core outcome set and reporting guidelines may improve the quality and value of future research., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest SMcI reports speaker honoraria from MSD, Roche, BD and Astra Zeneca; advisory boards for Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Roche and Astra Zeneca; conference travel and support from Roche, Lilly and MSD, and institutional research funding from Novartis. HI reports consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer and Gilead; honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Taiho and Kyowa Kirin, and institutional research funding from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo and Astra Zeneca. H-BL reports being a co-founder and member of the DCGen Co., Ltd board of directors; research funding from Devicor Medical Product, Inc.; consulting fees and honoraria from Alvogen, Boryung, Hologic, Lilly, Need, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Celltrion, and Shin Poong. PD reports institutional research funding from Cepheid and Roche; consulting fees from Roche, and honoraria from Astra Zeneca and Oncoviews, and conference and travel support from Roche. NZ reports consulting fees from Lilly, Eisai, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis and Gilead; honorarium from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Gilead, Novartis, Lilly and Astra Zeneca; and conference travel support from Novartis, Roche, Pfizer and Lilly. The remaining authors have no conflicts or competing of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: RTXM83, a biosimilar of rituximab, was approved after physicochemical, functional, non-clinical, and clinical studies demonstrated their similarity; these studies included RTXM83-AC-01-11, a multicentric double-blind international prospective pivotal study. Long-term data on biosimilars can potentially elucidate their clinical robustness and facilitate their broader adoption., Methods: In this retrospective observational study, we analyzed a dataset from a Brazilian cohort previously randomized in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study followed by the assessment of long-term outcomes in an observational extension phase from randomization in the RTXM83-AC-01-11 study to the last recorded evaluation. Patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) received either reference rituximab (R) or RTXM83 plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) as adjuvant treatment., Results: The median follow-up period was 77.0 months. Patients with initial DLBCL stages III and IV comprised 50% of the R-CHOP group and 40% of the biosimilar group. Five (18.5%) patients, including two RTXM83-CHOP-treated and three R-CHOP-treated individuals, experienced late adverse events (AEs) of interest. No new safety signs were established. At the final assessment, the progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 93.3% and 50.0% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. Median PFS was not achieved in the RTXM83-CHOP group, which was 40.5 months in the R-CHOP group. The overall survival (OS) rates were 100% and 66.7% in the RTXM83-CHOP and R-CHOP groups, respectively. The median OS was not reached in any group., Conclusion: This study demonstrated the long-term safety and effectiveness of RTXM83 in treating DLBCL; outcomes comparable to those of the reference product and potentially improved access to treatment have been indicated. However, further research with more diverse patient groups can validate these findings and advocate the broader adoption of biosimilars in cancer care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04928573. June 16, 2021, "retrospectively registered"., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To analyze marital outcomes, divorce or separation, and its association with demographic, socioeconomic, and clinicopathological factors among breast cancer (BC) survivors after 2-years of diagnosis., Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of marital status at baseline and at years 1 and 2 of follow-up of women aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with invasive BC participating in the AMAZONA III (GBECAM0115) study. The BC diagnosis occurred between January 2016 and March 2018 at 23 institutions in Brazil., Results: Of the 2974 women enrolled in AMAZONA III, 599 were married or living under common law at baseline. Divorce or separation occurred in 35 (5.8%) patients at 2 years of follow-up. In the multivariate analysis, public health insurance coverage was associated with a higher risk of marital status change (8.25% vs. 2.79%, RR 3.09, 95% CI 1.39 - 7.03, p = 0.007). Women who underwent mastectomy, adenomastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy were associated with a higher risk of divorce or separation (8.1% vs. 4.49%, RR 1.97, 95 CI 1.04 - 3.72, p = 0.0366) than those who underwent breast-conserving surgery., Conclusion: Women covered by the public health system and those who underwent mastectomy, adenomastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy were associated with a higher risk of divorce or separation. This evidence further supports the idea that long-term marital stability is associated with a complex interplay between socioeconomic conditions and stressors, such as BC diagnosis and treatment. ClinicalTrials Registration: NCT02663973., Competing Interests: Conflicts to interest: none to declare

The burden of cancer exerts a disproportionate impact across different regions and population subsets. Disease-specific attributes, coupled with genetic and socioeconomic factors, significantly influence cancer treatment outcomes. Precision oncology promises the development of safe and effective options for specific ethnic phenotypes and clinicodemographic profiles. Currently, clinical trials are concentrated in resource-rich geographies with younger, healthier, white, educated, and empowered populations. Vulnerable and marginalized people are often deprived of opportunities to participate in clinical trials. Despite consistent endeavors by regulators, industry, and other stakeholders, factors including diversity in trial regulations and patient and provider-related cultural, logistic, and operational barriers limit the inclusiveness of clinical trials. Understanding and addressing these constraints by collaborative actions involving regulatory initiatives, industry, patient advocacy groups, community engagement in a culturally sensitive manner, and designing and promoting decentralized clinical trials are vital to establishing a clinical research ecosystem that promotes equity in the representation of population subgroups., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved., Methods and Analysis: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely., Registration: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SM reports speaker honoraria from MSD, Roche, BD and Astra Zeneca; advisory boards for Lilly, Novartis, MSD, Roche and Astra Zeneca; conference travel and support from Roche, Lilly and MSD; and institutional research funding from Novartis. HI reports consulting fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer and Gilead; honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo, Chugai, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Taiho and Kyowa Kirin; and institutional research funding from Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo and Astra Zeneca. PD reports institutional research funding from Cepheid and Roche; consulting fees from Roche, and honoraria from Astra Zeneca and Oncoviews; and conference and travel support from Roche. H-BL reports research funding from Devicor Medical Product Inc. and is a co-founder and director of DCGen Co. Ltd. ALR reports consulting fees from Astra Zeneca and royalties from Myriad Genetics. GW reports consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo and Roche; honoraria from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Pfizer and Daiichi-Sankyo; and institutional research funding from Astra Zeneca/Medimmune, Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MSD, Merck, Bayer, Janssen, Astellas Pharma, Libbs and Takeda. NZ reports consulting fees from Lilly, Eisai, Astra Zeneca, MSD, Novartis and Gilead; honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis, Lilly and Astra Zeneca; and conference travel and support from Novartis, Astra Zeneca and Lilly. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Clinical research is the cornerstone of improvements in cancer care. However, it has been conducted predominantly in high-income countries with few clinical trials available in Brazil and other low-and-middle-income countries (LMIC). Of note, less than one-third of registered clinical trials addressing some of the most commonly diagnosed cancers (breast, lung and cervical) recruited patients from LMIC in the last years. The Institute Project CURA promoted the fourth CURA meeting, discussing barriers to cancer clinical research and proposing potential solutions. A meeting was held in São Paulo, Brazil, in June 2023 with representatives from different sectors: Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (Anvisa), National Commission of Ethics in Research (CONEP), non-governmental organisations, such as the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group, the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology (SBOC), Contract Research Organisations, pharmaceutical companies and investigators. A total of 16 experts pointed out achievements as shortening the time of regulatory processes involving Anvisa and CONEP, development of staff training programs, maintenance of the National Program of Oncological Attention (PRONON), and the foundation of qualified centres in North and Northeast Brazilian regions. Participants also highlighted the need to be more competitive in the field, which requires optimising ongoing policies and implementing new strategies as decentralisation of clinical research centres, public awareness campaigns, community-centered approaches, collaborations and partnerships, expansion of physicians-directed policies, exploring the role of the steering committee. Active and consistent reporting of the initiatives might help to propagate ongoing advances, increasing Brazilian participation in clinical cancer research. Engagement of all players is crucial to maintain continuous progress with further improvements in critical points including regulatory timelines and increments in qualified human resources which aligned with new educational initiatives focused on physicians and the general population will expand access to cancer clinical trials in Brazil., Competing Interests: Heloisa Resende has received research funding from Novartis and Roche, all outside the scope of this manuscript. Gustavo Werutsky has received research funding from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb Brazil, Pfizer, Roche and Roche/Genentech, all outside the scope of this manuscript. Has consulting or advisory role at Merck. Carlos H Barrios has received research funding from AB Science, Abbvie, Abraxis BioScience, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Biomarin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clinica Atlantis, Covance, Daiichi Sankyo, Exelixis, GlaxoSmith-Kline, Halozyme, ImClone Systems, INC Research, inVentiv Health, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medivation, Merck, Merck KGaA, Merrimack, Millennium, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Polyphor, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Shanghai Henlius Biotech and Taiho Pharmaceutical, all outside the scope of this manuscript. Has consulting or advisory role at AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Libbs, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and United Medical. Has stock and other ownership interests in MedSIR and Tummi. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.)

Purpose: Cyclin inhibitors plus endocrine therapy represent the reference standard for hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (ABC). Efficacy results on hard end points such as overall survival come from well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, a limitation of RCTs is the low external results validity, and their extrapolation to a broader population may not be appropriate. Real-world studies can overcome these limitations, also increasing the reliability of RCTs., Materials and Methods: The BrasiLEEira was an observational, longitudinal, retrospective, multicenter study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ribociclib plus nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors in Brazilian women age 18 years or older with HR+/HER2- ABC. The study was approved by the institutional review boards of all 11 hospitals. Data were collected anonymously from medical records using an electronic case report form designed by an independent academic research organization, which conducted the study considering all recommendations of international guidelines. The primary end point was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Secondary end points included mortality, dose reduction, and safety., Results: The mean age of 76 patients was 57 years, and 28.9% were Black/Brown. The most prevalent comorbidity was arterial hypertension (34.7%). About 26.0% had endocrine-resistant disease, and 54.1% had more than three metastatic sites. The PFS rate was 77.6%. Three patients died (3.9%). Dose reductions occurred in 37.7% of patients. The most common adverse event was neutropenia (68.4%)., Conclusion: The high-quality evidence from the BrasiLEEira study corroborates the RCTs' findings, expanding its validity to a broader spectrum and underrepresented population who may benefit from ribociclib treatment.

Introduction: Stage III NSCLC is a heterogeneous disease, representing approximately one-third of newly diagnosed lung cancers. Brazil lacks detailed information regarding stage distribution, treatment patterns, survival, and prognostic variables in locally advanced NSCLC., Methods: RELANCE/LACOG 0118 is an observational, retrospective cohort study assessing sociodemographic and clinical data of patients diagnosed with having stage III NSCLC from January 2015 to June 2019, regardless of treatment received. The study was conducted across 13 cancer centers in Brazil. Disease status and survival data were collected up to June 2021. Descriptive statistics, survival analyses, and a multivariable Cox regression model were performed. p values less than 0.05 were considered significant., Results: We recruited 403 patients with stage III NSCLC. Most were male (64.0%), White (31.5%), and smokers or former smokers (86.1%). Most patients had public health insurance (67.5%), had stage IIIA disease (63.2%), and were treated with concurrent chemoradiation (53.1%). The median follow-up time was 33.83 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 30.43-37.50). Median overall survival (OS) was 27.97 months (95% CI: 21.57-31.73), and median progression-free survival was 11.23 months (95% CI: 10.70-12.77). The type of treatment was independently associated with OS and progression-free survival, whereas the types of health insurance and histology were independent predictors of OS only., Conclusions: Brazilian patients with stage III NSCLC with public health insurance are diagnosed later and have poorer OS. Nevertheless, patients with access to adequate treatment have outcomes similar to those reported in the pivotal trials. Health policy should be improved to make lung cancer diagnosis faster and guarantee prompt access to adequate treatment in Brazil., Competing Interests: Dr. Cordeiro de Lima reports receiving research grant from 10.13039/100002491Bristol-Myers Squibb (for the institution); payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck Serono, and Novartis; support for attending meetings from 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca and 10.13039/100004337Roche; and having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board in AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, and Janssen. Dr. De Castro Jr., reports having consulting or advisory roles from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, Merck Serono, Janssen, Libbs, Sanofi, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Takeda; receiving payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, Janssen, Merck Serono, Bayer, and Takeda; receiving support for attending meetings from Boehringer Ingelheim, 10.13039/100004319Pfizer, 10.13039/100004326Bayer, Roche, 10.13039/100009947Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, 10.13039/100004336Novartis, Eli Lilly, and 10.13039/100002429Amgen; and having participation on data safety monitoring board or advisory board in Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, Merck Serono, Janssen, Libbs, Sanofi, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen, and Takeda. Dr. Werutsky reports receiving grants or contracts from Novartis, Roche/10.13039/100004328Genentech, AstraZeneca/10.13039/501100004628MedImmune, Eli Lilly, 10.13039/100004330GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Brazil, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck, Bayer, 10.13039/100005565Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Astellas, Libbs, Takeda, 10.13039/100006436Celgene, and GlaxoSmithKline; consulting fees from Merck; and payment or honoraria for lectures from Pfizer, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Libbs, and Merck. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Epidemiological and clinical cancer research is essential to understanding tumour behaviour and developing new therapies in oncology. However, several countries including Brazil as well as many other regions of the world have limited participation in cancer research. Despite 625,000 new cancer cases recorded in Brazil in 2022, only 2.2% of ongoing cancer clinical trials are available in the country. We conducted an online survey to describe physician engagement with research and to identify the main barriers precluding participation in and conduct of clinical cancer research in the country., Methods: An anonymous online survey of 23 objective questions was sent by e-mail to Brazilian members of the Latin American Cooperative Oncology Group and the Brazilian Society of Clinical Oncology. The first 13 questions addressed demographic information, medical training and previous research participation. In the second part, the main barriers to engagement and participation in clinical trials in Brazil were addressed. Continuous variables were measured by median and range. Analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC)., Results: 109 physicians answered the survey. Most participants were oncologists ( N = 98, 89.9%), living in capital cities ( N = 84, 77.1%), were from the Southeast region of Brazil ( N = 63, 57.8%) and worked at institutions providing exclusively private healthcare ( N = 59, 54.1%). Of the 109 respondents, 83 (76.1%) reported working in research centres (as investigators or sub-investigators). Surprisingly, 31.2% of physicians recognised they invite less than 1% of their patients to participate in clinical trials, even though 98 (89.9%) considered the participation of patients in clinical trials extremely relevant. The main barriers compromising the conduct of research in the country were the low number of available trials (48.2%) and the lack of qualified human resources to staff research sites (22.9%). Other reported barriers were the lengthy regulatory approval process (42.2%), followed by a lack of awareness of clinical research by patients resulting in low recruitment rates (24.1%). Of the 26 (23.8%) respondents not working with research, 25 (96.1%) reported interest in being involved, 31.8% have tried participating in research and 62.4% reported limited knowledge of trial procedures., Conclusion: These results suggest a clear need to further engage physicians in clinical research activities in Brazil. Patient education strategies should improve the low recruitment rates and secondarily increase the number of proposed trials in the country., Competing Interests: Heloisa Resende has received research funding from Novartis and Roche, all outside the scope of this manuscript. Taiane Francieli Rebelatto has no relationships to disclose. Gustavo Werutsky has received research funding from AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Bristol-Myers Squibb Brazil, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Roche/Genentech, all outside the scope of this manuscript. Has consulting or advisory role at Merck. Gustavo Gössling has received research funding from AstraZeneca/Merck and Janssen Oncology, all outside the scope of this manuscript. Vinícius Aguiar has no relationships to disclose. Guilherme Lopes has no relationships to disclose. Biazi Assis has no relationships to disclose. Lilian Arruda has no relationships to disclose. Carlos H Barrios has received research funding from AB Science, Abbvie, Abraxis BioScience, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Biomarin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Clinica Atlantis, Covance, Daiichi Sankyo, Exelixis, GlaxoSmithKline, Halozyme, ImClone Systems, INC Research, inVentiv Health, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Medivation, Merck, Merck KGaA, Merrimack, Millennium, Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Polyphor, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Shanghai Henlius Biotech and Taiho Pharmaceutical, all outside the scope of this manuscript. Has consulting or advisory role at AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Libbs, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech and United Medical. Has stock and other ownership interests in MedSIR and Tummi., (© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.)

Breast cancer (BC) is the most prevalent cancer in women in Latin America and the Caribbean. We compiled real-world data (RWD) on the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and patient outcomes of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), addressing the main barriers to optimal care in Latin America. The prevalence of TNBC varies between 11% and 38.5% of all BC cases diagnosed in the region, and TNBC primarily affects young patients. Delays in BC diagnosis, with consequent advanced disease stages and barriers to access efficient therapies, particularly due to high costs, negatively impact patient outcomes. Cancer clinical trials are an opportunity to access standard and novel therapies for patients with this aggressive BC subtype and thus must be prioritised. Finally, generating RWD and cost-effectiveness studies in a region with limited resources is critical for decision-makers to define the incorporation of new technologies for the treatment of BC., Competing Interests: JG reports grants from Roche. GW reports grants or contracts from Novartis, Roche/Genentech, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Brazil, MSD, Merck, Bayer, Janssen, BMS, Astellas, Libbs, Takeda, Celgene, GSK; consulting fees from Merck; payment or honoraria for lectures from Pfizer, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Libbs, and Merck. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.)

Introduction: Prospective data about quality of life (QoL) in men with breast cancer (BC) are lacking. A prospective registry (EORTC10085) of men with all BC stages, including a QoL correlative study, was performed as part of the International Male Breast Cancer Program., Methods: Questionnaires at BC diagnosis included the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 (BC specific module), adapted for men. High functioning and global health/QoL scores indicate high functioning levels/high QoL; high symptom-focused measures scores indicate high symptoms/problems levels. EORTC reference data for healthy men and women with BC were used for comparisons., Results: Of 422 men consenting to participate, 363 were evaluable. Median age was 67 years, and median time between diagnosis and survey was 1.1 months. A total of 114 men (45%) had node-positive early disease, and 28 (8%) had advanced disease. Baseline mean global health status score was 73 (SD: 21), better than in female BC reference data (62, SD: 25). Common symptoms in male BC were fatigue (22, SD: 24), insomnia (21, SD: 28), and pain (16, SD: 23), for which women's mean scores indicated more burdensome symptoms at 33 (SD: 26), 30 (SD: 32), and 29 (SD: 29). Men's mean sexual activity score was 31 (SD: 26), with less sexual activity in older patients or advanced disease., Conclusions: QoL and symptom burden in male BC patients appears no worse (and possibly better) than that in female patients. Future analyses on impact of treatment on symptoms and QoL over time, may support tailoring of male BC management., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective:  Breast cancer (BC) biomarkers, such as hormone receptors expression, are crucial to guide therapy in BC patients. Antiandrogens have been studied in BC; however, limited data are available on androgen receptor (AR) expression test methodology. We aim to report the core needle biopsy (CNB) accuracy for AR expression in BC., Methods:  Patients diagnosed with stage I-III invasive BC from a single institution were included. Androgen receptor expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) using 1 and 10% cutoff and the AR expression in surgical specimens (SS) was the gold standard. Kappa coefficients were used to evaluate the intraprocedural agreement., Results:  A total of 72 patients were included, with a mean age of 61 years old and 84% were Luminal A or B tumors. The prevalence of AR expression in all BC samples was 87.5% using a cutoff ≥ 10% in SS. With a cutoff value ≥ 1%, CNB had an accuracy of 95.8% (Kappa value = 0.645; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.272-1.000; p  < 0.001) and 86.1% (Kappa value = 0.365; 95% CI: 0.052-0.679; p  < 0.001) when ≥ 10% cutoff was used for AR positivity. Androgen receptor expression in CNB (cutoff ≥ 1%) had a sensitivity of 98.5%, specificity of 60%, positive predictive value of 97.0%, and a negative predictive value of 76.9% in the detection of AR expression in SS., Conclusion:  Core needle biopsy has good accuracy in evaluating AR expression in BC. The accuracy of CNB decreases with higher cutoff values for AR positivity., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Rapidly expanding systemic treatment options, combined with improved screening, diagnostic, surgical, and radiotherapy techniques, have led to improved survival outcomes for many cancers over time. However, these overall survival gains have disproportionately benefited patients in high-income countries, whereas patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to experience challenges in accessing timely and guideline concordant care. In September 2022, the Accelerating Anticancer Agent Development and Validation workshop was held, focusing on global cancer drug development. Panelists discussed key barriers such as the lack of diagnostic services and human resources, drug accessibility and affordability, lack of research infrastructure, and regulatory and authorization challenges, with a particular focus on Africa and Latin America. Potential opportunities to improve access and affordability were reviewed, such as the importance of prioritizing investments in diagnostics, investing health infrastructure and work force planning, coordinated drug procurement efforts and streamlined regulatory processing, incentivized pricing through regulatory change, and the importance of developing and promoting clinical trials that can answer relevant clinical questions for patients in LMICs. As a cancer community, we must continue to advocate for and work toward equitable access to high-quality interventions for patients, regardless of their geographical location.

Background: Although biosimilar uptake has increased (at a variable pace) in many countries, there have been recent concerns about the long-term sustainability of biosimilar markets. The aim of this manuscript is to assess the sustainability of policies across the biosimilar life cycle in selected countries with a view to propose recommendations for supporting biosimilar sustainability. Methods: The study conducted a comparative analysis across 17 countries from North America, South America, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Biosimilar policies were identified and their sustainability was assessed based on country-specific reviews of the scientific and grey literature, validation by industry experts and 23 international and local non-industry experts, and two advisory board meetings with these non-industry experts. Results: Given that European countries tend to have more experience with biosimilars and more developed policy frameworks, they generally have higher sustainability scores than the other selected countries. Existing approaches to biosimilar manufacturing and R&D, policies guaranteeing safe and high-quality biosimilars, exemption from the requirement to apply health technology assessment to biosimilars, and initiatives counteracting biosimilar misconceptions are considered sustainable. However, biosimilar contracting approaches, biosimilar education and understanding can be ameliorated in all selected countries. Also, similar policies are sometimes perceived to be sustainable in some markets, but not in others. More generally, the sustainability of the biosimilar landscape depends on the nature of the healthcare system and existing pharmaceutical market access policies, the experience with biosimilar use and policies. This suggests that a general biosimilar policy toolkit that ensures sustainability does not exist, but varies from country to country. Conclusion: This study proposes a set of elements that should underpin sustainable biosimilar policy development over time in a country. At first, biosimilar policies should guarantee the safety and quality of biosimilars, healthy levels of supply and a level of cost savings. As a country gains experience with biosimilars, policies need to optimise uptake and combat any misconceptions about biosimilars. Finally, a country should implement biosimilar policies that foster competition, expand treatment options and ensure a sustainable market environment., Competing Interests: GC-H has received consultancy and speaker fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Libbs, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and UCB. OM and GH work at Nile, secretary general of the French think tank “Biosimilaires” and have links of interest with Accord Healthcare, Amgen, Biogen, and Sandoz. MT has received personal honoraria for lectures and participation in advisory boards from Amgen, Medscape, Jörg Eickeler, Onkowissen, Organon, Pfizer, Viatris, Vifor. He received manuscript support by Amgen, Roche, Servier and travel expenses by Amgen, Hexal, I-Med-Institute, Pfizer, Roche. Congress support was given by Amgen, Hexal, Pfizer, Roche. TW, MP, and RS were commissioned to support the project that informed this analysis and they assume editorial responsibility as contributors to the study. Charles River Associates is an economic consultancy company. SS is one of the founding members of the KU Leuven Fund on Market Analysis of Biologics and Biosimilars following Loss of Exclusivity (MABEL Fund). SS was involved in a stakeholder roundtable on biologics and biosimilars sponsored by Amgen, Pfizer and MSD, and he has participated in advisory board meetings for Amgen, Pfizer, Organon and Sandoz. He has contributed to studies on biologics and biosimilars for Hospira, Celltrion, Mundipharma and Pfizer; and he has had speaking engagements for Amgen, Celltrion, Organon and Sandoz. Author AB was employed by Matrix Global Advisors. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed., (Copyright © 2023 Alnaqbi, Bellanger, Brill, Castañeda-Hernández, Clopés Estela, Delgado Sánchez, García-Alfonso, Gyger, Heinrich, Hezard, Kakehasi, Koehn, Mariotte, Mennini, Mayra Pérez-Tapia, Pistollato, Saada, Sasaki, Tambassis, Thill, Werutsky, Wilsdon and Simoens.)

99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC is an easily available and cheaper radionuclide that could be used for somatostatin-receptor-based imaging of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 99m Tc-EDDA/HYNIC-TOC compared to 111 In-DTPA-octreotide in patients (pts) with NETs. We performed a prospective diagnostic study including pts with biopsy-confirmed NET and at least one visible lesion at conventional imaging. Two independent nuclear medicine physicians evaluated pts who underwent 99m Tc and 111 In scans and images. The primary outcome was comparative diagnostic accuracy of 99m Tc and 111 In. Secondary outcomes include safety. Nine pts were included and performed 14 paired scans. Overall, 126 lesions were identified. 99m Tc demonstrated superior sensitivity both when all images were analysed (93.7, 95% CI 88.1% - 96.8% versus 74.8%, 95% CI 66.6 - 81.6%, p < 0.001) and when liver-specific images were analysed (97.8%, 95% CI 92.7% - 99.5% versus 85.1%, 95% CI 76.6% - 91.0%, p < 0.001). 99m Tc was also associated with a lower negative likelihood ratio (LR) (0.002, 95% CI 0.009 - 0.1 versus 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 - 0.42, p = 0.009) when evaluating hepatic lesions. Adverse events happened in 3 pts after 111 In and in 2 pts after 99m Tc, all grade 1. The 99m Tc demonstrated a higher sensitivity overall and a better negative LR in liver-specific images compared to 111 In in pts with NETs. Our findings suggest that 99m Tc is an alternative to 111 In and is especially useful in ruling out liver metastases. NCT02691078., Competing Interests: Dr Moriguchi-Jeckel and Dr Werutsky report grants from Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP) for the conduct of the study. Drs R. Madke, Viana, Nabinger, and Fernandes report employment relationships with the RPH Group. Dr. Werutsky reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, GSK, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Seattle Genetics outside the submitted work. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© the authors; licensee ecancermedicalscience.)

Background: The safety and effectiveness of moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer were demonstrated by several trials. This study aimed to evaluate the current patterns of practice and prescription preference about moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy to assess possible aspects that affect the decision-making process regarding the use of fractionation in breast cancer patients in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We also aimed to identify factors that can restrain the utilization of moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer., Materials an Methods: Radiation oncologists from LAC were invited to contribute to this study. A 38-question survey was used to evaluate their opinions., Results: A total of 173 radiation oncologists from 13 countries answered the questionnaire. The majority of respondents (84.9%) preferred moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy as their first choice in cases of whole breast irradiation. Whole breast plus regional nodal irradiation, post-mastectomy (chest wall and regional nodal irradiation) without reconstruction, and post-mastectomy (chest wall and regional node irradiation) with reconstruction hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy was preferred by 72.2% 71.1%, and 53.7% of respondents, respectively. Breast cancer stage, and flap-based breast reconstruction were the factors associated with absolute contraindications for the use of hypofractionated schedules., Conclusion: Even though moderately hypofractionated post-operative radiation therapy for breast cancer is considered a new standard to the vast majority of the patients, its unrestricted application in clinical practice across LAC still faces reluctance., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (© 2023 Greater Poland Cancer Centre.)

Background: Tumor boards (TB) are synonymous with quality of care but have been occasionally misunderstood and underutilized. This survey aimed to evaluate health professionals' perceptions of TBs in Brazil. Materials & methods: The survey was sent electronically. Results: Of 206 respondents, 67.8% attended TBs at least once and 82.4% dedicated at least 1 h weekly to them; 64.2% preferred a more &educational' model over case discussions only; 63.1% had institutional leadership capable of promoting multidisciplinarity; 21.1 and 32.7% of the physicians and nonphysicians, respectively, felt intimidated to express their opinions; 91.6% believed that TBs improve cancer outcomes. Postpandemic, 52.7% preferred a hybrid (virtual/face-to-face) model. Conclusion: This study provides a glimpse of the reality of TBs in Brazil, with potential implications for clinical practice.

Background: Dual anti-HER2-targeted therapy in breast cancer (BC) significantly increased the rate of pathological complete response (pCR) compared to single blockade when added to chemotherapy. However, limited data exist on the long-term impact on survival of the additional increase in pCR., Methods: Neoadjuvant lapatinib and/or trastuzumab treatment optimisation (NCT00553358) is an international, randomised, open-label, phase III study investigating the addition of lapatinib to chemotherapy plus trastuzumab in HER2-positive early BC. Ten-year event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS) and safety were assessed on intention-to-treat population. The association between pCR and EFS or OS was investigated in landmark population., Results: A total of 455 patients were randomised to receive lapatinib (154), trastuzumab (149) or the combination (152). Ten-year EFS estimates were 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54%-71%) in the lapatinib group, 64% (95% CI, 55%-72%) in the trastuzumab group and 67% (95% CI, 58%-74%) in the combination group. Ten-year OS rates were 76% (95% CI, 67%-83%), 75% (95% CI, 66%-82%) and 80% (95% CI, 73%-86%) in the lapatinib, trastuzumab and combination groups, respectively. Women who achieved a pCR had improved EFS (hazard ratio 0.48, 95% CI, 0.31-0.73) and OS (hazard ratio 0.37, 95% CI, 0.20-0.63) compared with those who did not. The numerical difference in survival according to pCR status was greater in women treated with the combination and those with hormone-receptor-negative tumours. There were no new or long-term safety concerns., Conclusions: Patients with HER2-positive BC showed a durable survival benefit of neoadjuvant anti-HER2, irrespective of treatment arm. Patients who achieve pCR have significantly better outcomes than patients without pCR., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Breast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer among women in Brazil. Evidence shows that delayed treatment onset is associated with increased mortality. This study aimed to evaluate median days between diagnosis and treatment and factors associated with delayed start of treatment (> 60 days after diagnosis): stage, treatment received, subtype, epidemiological characteristics, and type of healthcare coverage., Methods: This analysis included 1709 stage I-III BC patients from AMAZONA III, a prospective, observational study, diagnosed from January 2016 to March 2018 in 22 centers in Brazil., Results: The median number of days from diagnosis to beginning of first oncologic treatment was 46 days (IQR 28-75) overall, 43 days (IQR 25-75) for stage I disease, 49 days (IQR 28-81) for stage II, and 44 days (IQR 30-68) for stage III, (p = 0.1180). According to first treatment received, diagnosis-to-treatment interval was 43 days (IQR 29-65) for neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 48 days (IQR 26-81) for surgery. Diagnosis-to-treatment interval was higher in women treated in the public system versus the private system (56 vs. 34 days, p < 0.0001). Patients in the public system had an increased odds of delayed treatment initiation (OR 4.74 95% CI 3.09-7.26, p < .0001). The longer interval from diagnosis to treatment in the public system was independent of clinical stage, type of treatment (systemic vs surgery first), subtype and region of the country., Conclusion: By characterizing the delays in care delivery, our study will aid stakeholders to better design interventions and allocate resource to improve timely treatment for breast cancer in Brazil., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier: NCT02663973, registered on January, 26th, 2016., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), progress has been made in some national and regional cancer control initiatives, which have proved useful in reducing diagnostic and treatment initiation delays. However, there are still significant gaps, including a lack of oncology clinical trials. In this article, we will introduce the current status of the region's clinical research in cancer, with a special focus on academic cancer research groups and investigator-initiated research (IIR) initiatives. Investigators in LAC have strived to improve cancer research despite drawbacks and difficulties in funding, regulatory timelines, and a skilled workforce. Progress has been observed in the representation of this region in clinical trial development and conduct, as well as in scientific productivity. However, most oncology trials in the region have been sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, highlighting the need for increased funding from governments and private foundations. Improvements in obtaining and/or strengthening the LAC cancer research group's financing will provide opportunities to address cancer therapies and management shortcomings specific to the region. Furthermore, by including this large, ethnic, and genetically diverse population in the world's research agenda, one may bridge the gap in knowledge regarding the applicability of results of clinical trials now mainly conducted in populations from the Northern Hemisphere.

The incidence of cancer in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) is increasing yearly and is expected to reach 2.4 million new cases by 2040, with a more pronounced effect in Central America and South America. In addition, cancer is already the most frequent cause of premature death for most countries in LAC, and the second cause of death independent of country socioeconomic status, clearly demonstrating that the cancer burden in LAC should be addressed now rather than considered as an issue to be dealt with in the future. LAC countries performed in a mid-range zone in terms of income and mortality-to-incidence ratio compared to other countries globally. The LAC continent has, in general, a median income per capita and a median availability of radiotherapy (RDT) machines per capita. Patients that have private health coverage are more likely to receive preventive care such as pap smears and mammography in many countries of the LAC. The human development index was negatively related to mortality from oral cancer in the LAC countries with medium and low Human Development Index (HDI). Cancer treatment adverse events can negatively affect survivors' workability compromising their return to work after diagnosis. In conclusion, the cancer burden can be a major public health issue with a considerable socioeconomic impact in LAC countries. It is demonstrated in several studies that unequal access to optimal care is frequent in LAC and that health insurance type may impact patients' diagnosis and outcome., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest All authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Advances in comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) of lung adenocarcinomas (LUADs) led to personalized treatment for patients. This study evaluated medical oncologists' attitudes toward CGP in a scenario where sponsored funding for CGP was available., Methods: We designed an online survey assessing CGP use and treating physicians' confidence, composed of three self-confidence domains, which are as follows: confidence in interpreting CGP results, confidence in treating oncogenic-driven LUAD, and confidence in managing tyrosine kinase inhibitor adverse events. The survey was distributed to medical oncologists who treat lung cancer in Brazil. Comparisons between groups were performed using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Univariable and multivariable (adjusted OR) analyses were performed., Results: Among 104 respondents who treat patients with lung cancer, 55% were from the Southeast region, 28% had high lung cancer clinical load, and 33% had in-house molecular testing. More than half (51%) of the participants request CGP systematically to stage IV LUAD. As for provider confidence, 67% stated being confident in all three domains: 76% confident in interpreting CGP, 84% confident in treating oncogenic-driven LUAD, and 81% in managing tyrosine kinase inhibitor adverse events. Providers' confidence was associated with systematically requesting CGP to stage IV LUAD ( p  = 0.013). After controlling for the variables of interest, systematic requesting CGP for stage IV LUAD revealed a significant association with the provider's confidence (adjusted OR = 0.35, p  = 0.028, 95% CI: 0.14-0.84). The major challenge for properly requesting CGP was the long turnaround time and the fear of treatment delays., Conclusions: Even though CGP for stage IV LUAD in Brazil is fully sponsored, only half of the oncologists in our survey systematically request it.. Requesting CGP was associated with providers' confidence. Improving access and promoting providers' awareness of CGP utility is necessary to increase CGP use and better inform treatment decisions., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background: Healthy lifestyle is capable of positively modifying the survival of breast cancer (BC) patients. We aimed to evaluate how physician's lifestyle influences on the prescription of healthy habits to BC patients., Methods: An online questionnaire to evaluate physician lifestyle and prescription of healthy habits to BC patients was developed and circulated by e-mail to physicians dedicated to treat BC patients. A multivariate Poisson regression analysis assessed which factors of physician lifestyle could influence on prescription of healthy habits., Results: A total of 267 physicians answered the questionnaire from October to November 2018. In terms of physician lifestyle, 228 (85.4%) had healthy eating habits and 236 (88.4%) practiced physical activity. Overall, 84.3% of the physicians advised their BC patients on the importance of lifestyle modification. Physicians who did not exercise regularly have a higher probability of not advising for health lifestyle (RR 2.48; p = 0.0265) as opposite to physicians ≥ 50 years-old (RR 0.37; p = 0.0118). Obesity treatment and management was performed by 45.3% of physicians. Being a breast surgeon (RR 1.29; p = 0.0025) or radiation oncologists (RR 1.82; p = 0.0025) were associated with not performing obesity treatment and management. About 53.4% of physicians referred overweight or obese patients to a dietitian and/or endocrinologist. Male gender (RR 1.35; p = 0.0296), breast surgeons (RR 1.99; p = 0.0001), and clinical practice in public health system (RR 1.53; p = 0.0012) were associated with not referring as opposed to physicians ≥ 50 years-old (RR 0.46; p = 0.0005)., Conclusion: Our survey showed some influence of physician's lifestyle on the prescription of healthy habits to BC patients. Physicians who practice physical activity regularly had a higher probability of advising lifestyle modification and about half of physicians did some type of overweight and obese management., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Despite the advances in the approach to non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with CNS metastasis, access to timely diagnosis and treatment may not be optimal in many instances. Our main objective was to describe a cohort of patients with NSCLC with brain metastases from public and private cancer centers, and the differences between patients' presentation, treatment, and outcomes., Methods: GBOT-LACOG 0417 is a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with NSCLC and CNS metastasis in Brazil. All patients had confirmed diagnosis of NSCLC between January 2010 and December 2015. CNS metastases were identified by imaging., Results: A total of 273 patients were included. Patients treated at public institutions were more often Black or Brown (38.8% v 15.4%), current or former smoker (88.6% v 60.0%), of squamous cell histology (25.0% v 9.1%), EGFR- and ALK -negative (95.9% v 74.9%), and were less frequently assessed by using brain magnetic resonance imaging (38.8% v 83.6%). At public institutions, patients were more often symptomatic (78.1% v 44.6%) and had worse performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 2 or higher 61.5% v 10.3%). CNS metastases were larger (median size 25 v 15 mm) and more often surrounded by edema (67.7% v 55.2%) at public institutions. Patients at public institutions were more frequently treated with whole-brain radiation therapy (72.9% v 45.4%) and less frequently with radiosurgery (6.3% v 24.1%). Among patients from private care, median overall survival was 24.2 months (95% CI, 20.0 to 30.6), significantly higher than in public care (median 12.1 months; 95% CI, 6.7 to 13.6; P < .001)., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the discrepancy between public and private health care system in the critical setting of patients with CNS metastasis from NSCLC., Competing Interests: Fabio ChavesConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca/BrazilSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca/Brazil, Servier Pedro de MarchiHonoraria: SanofiConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, TakedaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, RocheTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb Gilberto de Castro JrHonoraria: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Amgen, JanssenConsulting or Advisory Role: Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bayer, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Yuhan, Merck Serono, Janssen, Libbs, Sanofi, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, Roche, Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Janssen, AmgenTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono Clarissa BaldottoHonoraria:AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology Brazil, Roche Oncology Brazil, Takeda Oncology Brazil, BMS Brazil, Janssen Oncology Brazil, Pfizer Oncology Brazil, MD HealthConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD, AstraZeneca, Janssen Oncology Brazil, Novartis, Novartis, Takeda Brazil, Roche Oncology BrazilSpeakers' Bureau: Roche Oncology Brazil, BMS Brazil, Janssen Oncology Brazil, MSD, MSD, Instituto D'Or de Pesquisa e EnsinoResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Roche/Genentech, Janssen OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Janssen Oncology Eldsamira MascarenhasConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Janssen, Pfizer Gustavo WerutskyHonoraria: Pfizer, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Libbs, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: OrganonResearch Funding: Novartis, Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca/MedImmune (Inst), Roche/Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb Brazil (Inst), Roche (Inst) Luiz H. AraujoConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, RocheSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer IngelheimResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Merck (Inst), Roche (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Objectives: Cervical cancer is the fourth most common cancer in women worldwide. Epidemiological and quality of life (QoL) data in patients with cervical cancer from low- and middle-income countries are scarce. We aimed to describe sociodemographic and clinicopathological characteristics and quality of life of patients with cervical cancer at diagnosis in Brazil., Methods: EVITA is a prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed patients with cervical cancer from May 2016 to December 2017, stages I-IVB, from 16 Brazilian sites representing the five Brazilian regions. At baseline, medical evaluation was performed and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CX24/C30 questionnaires were administered., Results: A total of 631 patients were included. Mean±SD age was 49.3±13.9 years; skin color was non-white in 65.3%, and 68.0% had ≤8 years of formal education. In total, 85.1% of patients had a Pap smear. The main reasons reported by patients for not having a Pap smear were: lack of interest (46.9%), shame or embarrassment (19.7%), lack of knowledge (19.7%), and difficulty with access (9.1%). Most patients were diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease (FIGO clinical stage II-IV in 81.8%- stage II in 35.2%, stage III in 36.1%, and stage IV in 10.5%). Patients with clinical stage III-IV had worse physical functioning and role functioning., Conclusions: Cervical cancer in Brazil is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage. Most patients have low formal education and are unemployed. Lack of interest was identified as a main reason for not having a screening test, and limited access was reported as a reason by <10% of the patients. Awareness campaigns must be a governmental priority, specially focused on the needy population, along with wide access to treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Hormone receptor-positive (HR + ) human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative (HER2 - ) tumors represent the most common subtype of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). International guidelines clearly state that endocrine therapy (ET) should be considered the preferred first-line therapy for these patients in the absence of very symptomatic visceral disease or evidence of endocrine resistance. Nonetheless compliance with guidelines significantly vary worldwide for many different reasons. Historically, a substantial proportion of patients with HR + HER2 - MBC have been treated with chemotherapy (CT) in first-line setting, jeopardizing patients' quality of life without a significant benefit in outcome. In 17 observational studies, including more than 63,000 patients, ET was most frequently used in first-line treatment of HR + /HER2 - MBC (range, 42%-87%), nonetheless a high proportion of patients received CT (13%-66%) as initial therapy. More recently, results of clinical trials with CDK 4/6 inhibitors improved response, progression-free and overall survival in this population and are currently the standard of care. There was a trend toward increased use of ET in recent years. This review article aims to evaluate real-world data on patterns of first-line treatment of HR + HER2 - MBC with a special focus on the use of CT in this setting and the potential implications and perceived preliminary changes after the introduction of CDK 4/6 inhibitors., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Challenges of health systems in Latin America and the Caribbean include accessibility, inequity, segmentation, and poverty. These challenges are similar in different countries of the region and transcend national borders. The increasing digital transformation of health care holds promise of more precise interventions, improved health outcomes, increased efficiency, and ultimately reduced health-care costs. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the adoption of digital health tools is in early stages and the quality of cancer registries, electronic health records, and structured databases are problematic. Cancer research and innovation in the region are limited due to inadequate academic resources and translational research is almost fully dependent on public funding. Regulatory complexity and extended timelines jeopardise the potential improvement in participation in international studies. Emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, big data, and cancer research represent an opportunity to address the health-care challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean collectively, by optimising national capacities, sharing and comparing best practices, and transferring scientific and technical capabilities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests CHB reports institutional research grant from Pfizer, Pharma Mar, Polyphor, Henlius Biotech, Merck KGaA, Millennium, LEO Pharma, ImClone Systems, Exelixis, Medivation, Asana Biosciences, AB Science, Abraxis Biosciences, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, BioMarin, Astellas Pharma, AbbVie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merrimack, Mylan, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Roche/Genentech, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Amgen; advisory board consulting from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Lilly, Zodiac, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Eisai, Roche/Genentech, Pfizer, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline; and stocks from MedSIR, Biomarker, and Tummi, outside the submitted work; he declares no relevant conflicts of interests related to this Series paper. AFC declares financial research support from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and The Foundation for Clinical and Applied Cancer Research (FICMAC); he received honoraria as advisor, participated in speakers’ bureau, and gave expert testimony to Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Celldex Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, Eli Lilly, and FICMAC. CR reports grants or contracts from Pfizer–Lung Cancer Research Foundation (for the EMPOWER ME trial); consulting fees (for advisory board) from ArcherDX, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Boston Pharmaceuticals; payment or honoraria for educational events from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; participation on a safety monitoring board from MD Serono; leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group, paid or unpaid from the International Society of Liquid Biopsy (Vice President), the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (Deputy Chair of the Educational Committee), European School of Oncology (Scientific Board Member), the European Society for Medical Oncology (Faculty of Advanced Lung Cancer), and research support (unpaid) from Guardant Health. EdA reports research support and grants from Roche; and grants from Libbs, Pierre Fabre, Zodiacs, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Roche, Servier, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. OA reports personal fees from Pfizer, Lilly, Merck, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Roche, outside the submitted work. RD declares advisory role for Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim; speaker's fees from Roche, Ipsen, Amgen, Servier, Sanofi, Libbs, and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and research grants from Merck and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. EC reports honoraria for lectures and consulting or advisory role from Merck outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)