Search

PURPOSEMetastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC) poses a challenge to health care systems, given its treatment complexity and mortality. We aimed to describe the characteristics, treatment patterns, and survival outcomes of Mexican patients with mUC.METHODSA retrospective study was conducted across eight centers for adults with mUC from January /2001 to December 2021. We recorded medical history, eligibility for first-line platinum therapy, treatment lines received, and access to novel drugs. Descriptive statistics were used and survival analysis, including Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model, was performed.RESULTSWe identified 379 patients with mUC; 37 were excluded, and 76% was male, with a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 8.4 months. Among those who received a first-line treatment (65%), cisplatin-based chemotherapy (45%) was the most common followed by carboplatin (39%). Causes of cisplatin ineligibility were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≥2 (41%) and glomerular filtration rate

PURPOSEMultiple disparities have been recognized in the area of location, gender, and funding for leadership in oncology clinical trials. Understanding their intersectionality is crucial to be able to formulate policies and actions, to ensure research is representative of the global oncology community. Here, data from phase III trials presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting of 2022 (ASCO22) were analyzed.METHODSThe location of institution, gender of lead and senior authors, and funding source for solid tumor phase III trial abstracts presented at the ASCO22 were analyzed. World Bank analytical grouping version 2021-2022 was used to describe regions and countries as high (HIC), upper-middle (UMIC), lower-middle (LoMIC), and low-income (LIC).RESULTSAcross 239 phase III abstracts, lead and senior authors respectively represented HIC institutions in 83% and 85%, UMIC in 13% and 12%, and LoMIC in 4% and 3%. No authors worked in LICs or sub-Saharan Africa. Women accounted for 29% of lead and 23% of senior authors. This distribution persisted across regions, with women as lead authors ranging from 19% (UMIC) to 31% (HIC), and as senior authors from 7% (UMIC) to 25% (HIC). Industry funded 62% of trials, academia 17%, and others 15%; 6% lacked funding. Industry funding was highest in HIC trials (66% for lead and senior authors), followed by UMICs (55% lead, 53% senior) and LoMICs (11% lead, 0% senior). Industry-sponsored trials were proportionally equally represented among female and male senior authors (63% each).CONCLUSIONThere is marked intersectionality in leadership of oncology clinical trials presented at the world's largest oncology conference.

Recognizing the rising incidence, prevalence, and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has committed to expanding its engagement at a global level. In 2017, the ASCO Academic Global Oncology Task Force sought to define the potential role for ASCO in supporting global oncology as an academic field. A set of recommendations to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline were created through a consensus-based process involving participation by a diverse group of global oncology and global health practitioners; these recommendations were then published. The recommendations included developing a set of global oncology competencies for trainees and faculty interested in a career in academic global oncology. Here, we describe the global oncology competencies developed by this task force. These competencies consist of knowledge and skills needed in general global health as well as cancer-specific care and research, including understanding global cancer health disparities, defining unique resources and needs in low- and middle-resource settings, and promoting international collaboration. Although the competencies were originally developed for US training programs, they are intended to be widely applicable globally. By formalizing the training of oncologists and supporting career pathways in the field of global oncology, we can make progress in achieving global equity in cancer care and control.

PURPOSEUrothelial cancer accounts for approximately 3% of new cancer cases worldwide, with a high burden of disease in countries with medium and low human development indexes where its incidence and mortality are increasing. The purpose of this consensus is to develop statements on the evaluation and treatment of locally advanced and metastatic urothelial carcinoma that would further guide the clinical practice in Latin America.METHODSA systematic review of the literature was conducted by an independent team of methodologists. Then, a modified Delphi method was developed with clinical specialists from different Latin American countries.RESULTSForty-two consensus statements, based on evidence, were developed to address the staging, the evaluation (suitability for chemotherapy, risk assessment, and biomarkers), and systemic treatment (first-line and subsequent therapies) of locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The statements made in this consensus are suggested practice recommendations in the Latin American context; however, the importance of a complete and individualized patient evaluation as a guide for therapeutic selection is highlighted. The availability and affordability of support tools for the evaluation of the disease, as well as specific therapies, may limit the application of the best practices suggested.RecommendationsTherapeutic decisions need to be tailored to the context-specific clinical setting and availability of resources. Local research is promoted to improve outcomes for patients with this challenging cancer in Latin America.

PURPOSEGlobal Oncology is the movement to improve equitable access to cancer control and care, recognizing challenges because of economic and social factors between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC, MIC, and LIC, respectively). The JCO Global Oncology (JCO GO) is a major platform dedicated to publishing peer-reviewed research relevant to populations with limited resources. To assess the success of its goals of encouraging global interaction and increasing MIC and LIC engagement, we analyzed authorship and readership patterns.METHODSMetadata of logged views between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2019, of articles published in 2018 by JCO GO were identified using Google Analytics. The country of origin of each author and those who accessed the journal were categorized according to the 2019 income group World Bank Classification (WBC).RESULTSOne hundred thirty-two articles were published in JCO GO in 2018. Corresponding authors came from 34 nations: 35% HIC, 47% MIC, and 18% LIC. The top publishing countries were the United States, India, Brazil, Mexico, and Nigeria. Article authors were solely from within one WBC group in 41% (23% HIC, 16% MIC, and 2% LIC). In those with mixed-WBC authorship origins, collaborations were 42% HIC + MIC, 11% HIC + LIC, and 6% HIC + MIC + LIC, but none with MIC + LIC. Regarding viewing, 87,860 views originated from 180 countries (82% of the WBC list): 35% HIC, 51% MIC, and 14% LIC. The most common accessing nations were the United States, India, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and Ethiopia.CONCLUSIONMore than half of JCO GO's authorship comes from mixed WBC groups, with viewership extending to most of the world's nations. Areas to address are low level of LIC corresponding authors, few papers from authors across all WBC groups, no publications from MIC + LIC collaborations, and a low percentage of readership by LIC. These data provide focus to target interventions aimed at reducing the academic segregation of LIC and improving interactions across all WBC countries.

In recognition of the rising incidence and mortality of cancer in low- and middle-resource settings, as well as the increasingly international profile of its membership, ASCO has prioritized efforts to enhance its engagement at a global level. Among the recommendations included in the 2016 Global Oncology Leadership Task Force report to the ASCO Board of Directors was that ASCO should promote the recognition of global oncology as an academic field. The report suggested that ASCO could serve a role in transitioning global oncology from an informal field of largely voluntary activities to a more formal discipline with strong research and well-defined training components. As a result of this recommendation, in 2017, ASCO formed the Academic Global Oncology Task Force (AGOTF) to guide ASCO’s contributions toward formalizing the field of global oncology. The AGOTF was asked to collect and analyze key issues and barriers toward the recognition of global oncology as an academic discipline, with an emphasis on training, research, and career pathways, and produce a set of recommendations for ASCO action. The outcome of the AGOTF was the development of recommendations designed to advance the status of global oncology as an academic discipline.

Purpose In the accompanying article, “Survey of Fertility Preservation Options Available to Patients With Cancer Around the Globe,” we showed that specific fertility preservation services may not be offered at various sites around the world because of cultural and legal barriers. We assessed global and regional experiences as well as the legal status of third-party reproduction and adoption to serve as a comprehensive international data set and resource for groups that wish to begin oncofertility interventions. Methods We provide data on the legalities of third-party assisted reproductive technologies and other family-building options in the 28 oncofertility-practicing countries surveyed. Results We found regional and country differences that will be important in the development of tailored resources for physicians and for patient brochures that are sensitive to these local restrictions and cultural norms. Conclusion Because many patients first consult Web-based materials, the formal assessment of the availability of these options provides members of the global oncofertility community with data to which they might otherwise not have ready access to better serve their patients.

PURPOSEOncofertility practice continues to grow in developing countries despite the lack of health care services, especially those related to cancer care. The purpose of this study is to further explore oncofertility practice in these countries and identify opportunities for field-wide coalescence.METHODSWe generated a survey to learn more about oncofertility practice in nine developing countries within our Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network—Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, and India. Their responses were collected, reviewed, and discussed.RESULTSSurveyed centers from the nine developing countries continue to experience a similar set of common challenges, including a lack of awareness among providers and patients, cultural and religious constraints, lack of insurance coverage and funding to help to support oncofertility programs, and high out-of-pocket costs for patients. Despite these barriers, many opportunities exist and there is great potential for the future.CONCLUSIONThe current need is to unify the new technologies and best practices that emerge from rural communities and developing countries with those in large metropolitan cities, both domestically (US based) and abroad, into a functional unit: the Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network. The Oncofertility Professional Engagement Network will bridge the gap between domestic and international programs to establish a strong global network in which members share resources, methodologies and experiences and further build cultural competency.

Purpose Oncofertility focuses on providing fertility and endocrine-sparing options to patients who undergo life-preserving but gonadotoxic cancer treatment. The resources needed to meet patient demand often are fragmented along disciplinary lines. We quantify assets and gaps in oncofertility care on a global scale. Methods Survey-based questionnaires were provided to 191 members of the Oncofertility Consortium Global Partners Network, a National Institutes of Health–funded organization. Responses were analyzed to measure trends and regional subtleties about patient oncofertility experiences and to analyze barriers to care at sites that provide oncofertility services. Results Sixty-three responses were received (response rate, 25%), and 40 were analyzed from oncofertility centers in 28 countries. Thirty of 40 survey results (75%) showed that formal referral processes and psychological care are provided to patients at the majority of sites. Fourteen of 23 respondents (61%) stated that some fertility preservation services are not offered because of cultural and legal barriers. The growth of oncofertility and its capacity to improve the lives of cancer survivors around the globe relies on concentrated efforts to increase awareness, promote collaboration, share best practices, and advocate for research funding. Conclusion This survey reveals global and regional successes and challenges and provides insight into what is needed to advance the field and make the discussion of fertility preservation and endocrine health a standard component of the cancer treatment plan. As the field of oncofertility continues to develop around the globe, regular assessment of both international and regional barriers to quality care must continue to guide process improvements.