| 1. |
- Aapro, Matti, et al.
(författare)
-
Identifying critical steps towards improved access to innovation in cancer care: a European CanCer Organisation position paper
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Cancer. - : Elsevier BV. - 0959-8049 .- 1879-0852. ; 82, s. 193-202
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2017 In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Aapro, Matti, et al.
(författare)
-
The MAGIC survey in hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer: When might multigene assays be of value?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Breast. - : Elsevier BV. - 0960-9776 .- 1532-3080. ; 33, s. 191-199
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- © 2017 Background A modest proportion of patients with early stage hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2−) breast cancer benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. Traditionally, treatment recommendations are based on clinical/pathologic criteria that are not predictive of chemotherapy benefit. Multigene assays provide prognostic and predictive information that can help to make more informed treatment decisions. The MAGIC survey evaluated international differences in treatment recommendations, how traditional parameters are used for making treatment choices, and for which patients treating physicians feel most uncertain about their decisions. Methods The MAGIC survey captured respondents' demographics, practice patterns, relevance of traditional parameters for treatment decisions, and use of or interest in using multigene assays. Using this information, a predictive model was created to simulate treatment recommendations for 672 patient profiles. Results The survey was completed by 911 respondents (879 clinicians, 32 pathologists) from 52 countries. Chemo-endocrine therapy was recommended more often than endocrine therapy alone, but there was substantial heterogeneity in treatment recommendations in 52% of the patient profiles; approximately every fourth physician provided a different treatment recommendation. The majority of physicians indicated they wanted to use multigene assays clinically. Lack of reimbursement/availability were the main reasons for non-usage. Conclusions The survey reveals substantial heterogeneity in treatment recommendations. Physicians have uncertainty in treatment recommendations in a high proportion of patients with intermediate risk features using traditional parameters. In HR+, HER2− patients with early disease the findings highlight the need for additional markers that are both prognostic and predictive of chemotherapy benefit that may support more-informed treatment decisions.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Birgegård, Gunnar, 1944-, et al.
(författare)
-
Cancer-related anemia : pathogenesis, prevalence and treatment
- 2005
-
Ingår i: Oncology. - : S. Karger AG. - 0030-2414 .- 1423-0232. ; 68:Suppl 1, s. 3-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer-related anemia is a cytokine-mediated disorder resulting from complex interactions between tumor cells and the immune system. Overexpression of certain inflammatory cytokines results in shortened survival of red blood cells, suppression of erythroid progenitor cells, impaired iron utilization, and inadequate erythropoietin production. Numerous other factors may also contribute to the development of anemia in cancer patients. The European Cancer Anaemia Survey (ECAS) has provided the most current, comprehensive, prospectively collected data on the incidence and prevalence of anemia among cancer patients, as well as important perspectives on anemia treatment and relationship of hemoglobin and performance status. ECAS enrolled over 15,000 treated and untreated patients with various malignancies from cancer centers in 24 European countries and followed them for up to 6 months. The initial analysis of the ECAS data revealed that 39% of the total cancer patient population was anemic (hemoglobin <12.0 g/dl) at enrollment, although the rate varied according to tumor type, disease status, and cancer treatment status. Of the patients who were not anemic at enrollment and started cancer treatment during the survey, those undergoing chemotherapy--either alone or in combination with radiotherapy--had the highest incidence of anemia (63 and 42%, respectively). Low hemoglobin levels correlated with poor performance status and only 40% of patients who were anemic at some time during the survey received treatment for their anemia. These findings are noteworthy, since a growing body of clinical evidence indicates that the treatment of anemia can significantly improve patients' quality of life and may also improve the clinical outcome.
|
|
| 6. |
- Lawler, Mark, et al.
(författare)
-
European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. Oncology. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 24:1, s. e11-e56
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Pisani, Eduardo, et al.
(författare)
-
How to improve efficiency in cancer care: Dimensions, methods, and areas of evaluation
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Cancer Policy. - : Elsevier. - 2213-5383 .- 2213-5383. ; 34
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Efficiency in healthcare is crucial since available resources are scarce, and the cost of inefficient allocation is measured in prior outcomes. This is particularly relevant for cancer. The aim of this paper is to gain a comprehensive overview of the areas and dimensions to improve efficiency, and establish the indicators, different methods, perspectives, and areas of evaluation, to provide recommendations for how to improve efficiency and measure gains in cancer care. Methods: We conducted a two-phase design. First, a comprehensive scoping literature review was conducted, searching four databases. Studies published between 2000 and 2021 were included if they described experiences and cases of efficiency in cancer care or methods to evaluate efficiency. The results of the literature review were then discussed during two rounds of online consultation with a panel of 15 external experts invited to provide insight and comments to deliberate policy recommendations. Results: 46 papers met the inclusion criteria. Based on the papers retrieved we identified six areas for achieving efficiency gains throughout the entire care pathway and, for each area of efficiency, we categorized the methods and outcomes used to measure efficiency gain. Conclusion: This is the first attempt to systemize a scattered body of literature on how to improve efficiency in cancer care and identify key areas of improvement. Policy summary: There are many opportunities to improve efficiency in cancer care. We defined seven policy recommendations on how to improve efficiency in cancer care throughout the care pathway and how to improve the measurement of efficiency gains. © 2022
|
|
| 9. |
- Ringborg, Ulrik, et al.
(författare)
-
The Porto European Cancer Research Summit 2021
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Molecular Oncology. - : Wiley. - 1574-7891 .- 1878-0261. ; 15:10, s. 2507-2543
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Key stakeholders from the cancer research continuum met in May 2021 at the European Cancer Research Summit in Porto to discuss priorities and specific action points required for the successful implementation of the European Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). Speakers presented a unified view about the need to establish high-quality, networked infrastructures to decrease cancer incidence, increase the cure rate, improve patient's survival and quality of life, and deal with research and care inequalities across the European Union (EU). These infrastructures, featuring Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) as key components, will integrate care, prevention and research across the entire cancer continuum to support the development of personalized/precision cancer medicine in Europe. The three pillars of the recommended European infrastructures – namely translational research, clinical/prevention trials and outcomes research – were pondered at length. Speakers addressing the future needs of translational research focused on the prospects of multiomics assisted preclinical research, progress in Molecular and Digital Pathology, immunotherapy, liquid biopsy and science data. The clinical/prevention trial session presented the requirements for next-generation, multicentric trials entailing unified strategies for patient stratification, imaging, and biospecimen acquisition and storage. The third session highlighted the need for establishing outcomes research infrastructures to cover primary prevention, early detection, clinical effectiveness of innovations, health-related quality-of-life assessment, survivorship research and health economics. An important outcome of the Summit was the presentation of the Porto Declaration, which called for a collective and committed action throughout Europe to develop the cancer research infrastructures indispensable for fostering innovation and decreasing inequalities within and between member states. Moreover, the Summit guidelines will assist decision making in the context of a unique EU-wide cancer initiative that, if expertly implemented, will decrease the cancer death toll and improve the quality of life of those confronted with cancer, and this is carried out at an affordable cost.
|
|
| 10. |
- Sullivan, Richard, et al.
(författare)
-
Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries
- 2011
-
Ingår i: The Lancet Oncology. - London : Lancet Oncology. - 1470-2045 .- 1474-5488. ; 12:10, s. 933-980
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.
|
|
