Search

Background: The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.Main Body: This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.Conclusion: Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe's lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Comprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care. Methods: The JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care. Results: Of the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals' self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study. Conclusions: Based on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Differences in cancer survival exist between countries in Europe. Benchmarking of good practices can assist cancer centers to improve their services aiming for reduced inequalities. The aim of the BENCH-CAN project was to develop a cancer care benchmark tool, identify performance differences and yield good practice examples, contributing to improving the quality of interdisciplinary care. This paper describes the development of this benchmark tool and its validation in cancer centers throughout Europe.Methods: A benchmark tool was developed and executed according to a 13 step benchmarking process. Indicator selection was based on literature, existing accreditation systems, and expert opinions. A final format was tested in eight cancer centers. Center visits by a team of minimally 3 persons, including a patient representative, were performed to verify information, grasp context and check on additional questions (through semi-structured interviews). Based on the visits, the benchmark methodology identified opportunities for improvement.Results: The final tool existed of 61 qualitative and 141 quantitative indicators, which were structured in an evaluative framework. Data from all eight participating centers showed inter-organization variability on many indicators, such as bed utilization and provision of survivorship care. Subsequently, improvement suggestions for centers were made; 85% of which were agreed upon.Conclusion: A benchmarking tool for cancer centers was successfully developed and tested and is available in an open format. The tool allows comparison of inter-organizational performance. Improvement opportunities were successfully identified for every center involved and the tool was positively evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 10-20% of patients with gastric cancer (GC) have HER2+ tumors. Addition of trastuzumab (T) to cisplatin/fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (CT) improved survival in metastatic, HER2+ GC. When pertuzumab (P) was added to neoadjuvant T and CT, a significant increase in histopathological complete response rate was observed in HER2+ breast cancer. This study aims to investigate the added benefit of using both HER2 targeting drugs (T alone or the combination of T + P), in combination with perioperative CT for localized HER2+ GC.Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, open-label, phase II trial. HER2 status from patients with resectable GC (UICC TNM7 tumor stage Ib-III) will be centrally determined. Two hundred and-fifteen patients from 52 sites in 14 countries will be centrally randomized (1:2:2 ratio) to one of the following treatment arms: 1. Standard: CT alone. CT regimens will be FLOT (5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, taxotere) CapOx (capecitabine, oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) according to investigator's choice in Europe, and cisplatin/capecitabine in Asia. 2. Experimental arm 1: CT as in control group, plus T (8 mg/kg loading dose, followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks) at day 1, independent of CT chosen for 3 cycles of 3 weeks before and after surgery. 3. Experimental arm 2: CT plus T as in experimental arm 1, plus P (840 mg every 3 weeks) on day 1. Adjuvant treatment with T or T + P will continue for 17 cycles in total. Stratification factors are: histology (intestinal/non-intestinal); region (Asia vs Europe); location (GEJ vs non-GEJ); HER2 immunohistochemistry score (IHC 3+ vs IHC 2+/FISH+) and chemotherapy regimen. Primary objective is to detect an increase in the major pathological response rate from 25 to 45% either with CT plus T alone, or with CT plus the combination of T and P.Discussion: Depending on the results of the INNOVATION trial, the addition of HER2 targeted treatment with either T or T and P to CT may inform future study designs or become a standard in the perioperative management HER2+ GC.Trial Registration: This article reports a health care intervention on human participants and was registered on July 10, 2014 under ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02205047 ; EudraCT: 2014-000722-38. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The landscape for cancer research is profoundly different today from that only one decade ago. Basic science is moving rapidly and biotechnological revolutions in molecular targeting and immunology have completely modified the opportunities and concepts for cancer treatment. In contrast to the recent past where cytotoxic molecules were screened in the laboratory and then tested in early clinical studies with toxicity as endpoint instead of the often poorly defined mechanism for its potential anti-tumor effect, we now have entered the age of molecular therapeutics, rationally designed to target "strategic" checkpoints that underlie the malignant phenotype. Translational research in early clinical trials (Phase I and II) is an integral aspect of the development of the new generation of cancer drugs as it is necessary to implement radically different early phase clinical trial design and to validate new biological end-points if the full potential of these new agents is to be realized. The "proof of principle with mechanistic analysis" strategy will allow optimisation of therapy from the beginning, and provide important feedback to pre-clinical drug developers. Translational research is also essential in late (phase III) clinical trials in defining different patient populations that may benefit to differing degrees from new treatments, and thus provide further insight and refine clinical practice in a more and more patient-tailored approach. In this editorial we will discuss the integration of Translational Research in the Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The burden of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is not well understood, and the number of patients likely to receive treatment in Europe has not been quantified. The aim of this study was to forecast the annual number of patients with squamous and non-squamous advanced NSCLC likely to receive second and third lines of therapy (LOT) from 2016 to 2020 in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. Methods: A patient count model (PCM) was developed in Microsoft Excel to estimate the number of patients with refractory advanced NSCLC eligible to receive systemic treatment. Using historical population-based cancer registry data, segmented linear regression ("Joinpoint") was used to forecast age- and sex-stratified lung cancer incidence rates in each country through 2020. Yearly incident case count totals by country were apportioned according to NSCLC histology and stage at diagnosis. Country-specific treatment rates came from a recent medical chart review study, and early- to advanced-stage disease progression rates were estimated over a 10-year interval. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed to estimate variability in the patient counts. Results: The combined number of squamous and non-squamous advanced NSCLC patients estimated to receive second and third LOT, respectively, in 2016 were France = 11,600 and 3500; Germany = 15,100 and 4900; Italy = 13,500 and 2500; Spain = 9400 and 2100. The forecasted numbers of patients receiving second and third LOT, respectively, in 2020 were France = 13,900 and 4200; Germany = 16,200 and 5200; Italy = 15,100 and 2600; Spain = 11,000 and 2500. Conclusions: Driven by growth in the incidence of NSCLC among women, the model forecasts an overall increase in the number of patients with advanced-stage squamous and non-squamous NSCLC likely to receive systemic treatment in the year 2020. The results highlight the significant burden of refractory advanced NSCLC and the need for more robust surveillance data to accurately quantify the burden of disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]