Search

This manuscript provide a landscape on the medical oncology by 2020 in 12 European Countries. This highlights the need of a central database for medical oncology to better define the demand of medical oncology.Background In the United States, there will be a shortage of medical oncologists (MO) by 2020. However, this information is not available for Europe. The aim of this study was to assess the current number of MO in the 27 European Union (27-EU) countries and to predict their availability by 2020. Material and methods Between June 2012 and January 2013, a survey was submitted to health authorities, medical oncology societies, and personal contacts in all 27-EU countries in order to gather annual data on the number of practicing MO. Data were collected by e-mail, telephone contact, or through research on official websites. Data regarding cancer incidence in 2008 and projections for 2015 and 2020 were obtained through Globocan. The mean annual increase in the number of MO was calculated for each country. The total number of MO by 2015 and 2020 was estimated, and the ratio of new cancer cases versus number of MO was calculated for 2008, 2015, and 2020. Results Twelve countries provided sufficient data. The average mean annual increase in the total number of MO was 5.3% (range 1.8%–8.7%), with Belgium being the lowest and UK the highest. The 2008 ratio of cancer cases versus MO was lowest in Hungary (113) and highest in UK (1067). A favorable decrease in this ratio was estimated in most countries. Conclusion Our estimates, based on incidence and not on prevalence, indicate that MO availability will probably meet the projected need in most of the 12 countries analyzed, provided that: (i) these countries maintain their rate of annual increase in MO; and (ii) no unforeseen changes occur in cancer incidence. Unfortunately, minimal information is available for Eastern Europe. Our data call for the prospective surveillance of the cancer burden and MO availability to ensure adequate and equal care for cancer patients throughout Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To establish a transborder virtual tumor board (VTB) fostering state-of-the-art management of cancer patients by exchanging knowledge and expertise among oncologists in Central and Southeastern Europe (CEE)., Methods: We established and implemented a VTB based on the WebEx platform. This allowed for password-protected and secure upload of patient cases to be presented and discussed among colleagues from various oncology centers scattered throughout CEE in order to arrive at a recommendation for further diagnoses and/or treatment., Results: A total of 73 cases from 16 oncology centers located in 11 CEE countries were uploaded by 22 physicians; 71 were discussed over the course of 17 virtual meetings between June 2018 and May 2019 and 12 different kinds of malignant diseases were discussed with lung cancer (46.6%), melanoma (19.2%) and bladder cancer (13.6%) being the most commonly presented tumor entities. Of the discussed patients, 93.3% had stage IV disease at the time of presentation, 62.6% received chemotherapy or targeted treatment and 67.1% were treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs). The most common causes for presentation and discussion of patient cases were related to the use of ICPIs (80%)., Conclusion: When the need for expertise exceeds locally available resources, web-based VTBs provide a feasible way to discuss patient cases and arrive at conclusions regarding diagnoses and/or treatment across large geographic distances. Moreover, VTBs provide an innovative way for proper, state-of-the-art management of patients with malignant diseases in times of social distancing and the resulting need for restricted interaction during the current SARS-CoV‑2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2) pandemic., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes., Patients and Methods: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively., Results: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale., Conclusion: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated., Trial Registration Number: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov)., Eudract Study Number: 2013-003170-27., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Z.K. has participated in advisory boards of and received speaker fees or travel support from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca and Novartis. M.G-G.- has received honoraria from Pfizer and Eisai and has participated in advisory boards of Genentech and Daiichi Sankyo. He has received travel support from Pfizer, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche and Kern. M.R.B. has received speaker fees and advisory grants from Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. E.Ca., who has a stock and other ownership interests from Lilly, has received travel and accommodation support from Roche, and her husband, who has participated in consulting and advisory board activities with Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Celgene, Roche Pharma, Janssen, Amgen, Incyte, AbbVie and Pfizer, has received travel and accommodation support from Celgene, Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb. His institution has received research funding from Celgene, Janssen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer and AbbVie. GEICAM has received research funding from Roche/Genentech, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Pfizer, Celgene, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre and Takeda. E.Ci. has received advisory board honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche and speakers' honoraria from Roche, Lilly and Pfizer, and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Pfizer and Roche. M.Mu. has received travel and congress assistance support from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. B.B. has received advisory board honoraria from Roche, Novartis and MSD and speakers' honoraria from Roche, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer and Pierre Fabre, and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Pfizer. M.Marg. has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer and Eisai. Her institution, ICO-Badalona. B-ARGO (Badalona Applied Research Group in Oncology) Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, has received research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Eisai and Kern, and she has received travel and congress assistance support from Roche. A.A. has received advisory board fees from Bayer, Spain. E.A. has received advisory board fees from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genomic Health and Nanostring. He has received travel support from Celgene. His institution, Hospitales Regional y Virgen de la Victoria, Málaga, has received research funding from Roche, Pfizer, Sysmex, Merck Sharp & Dohme and Nanostring. J.d.l.H-R. has received speaker's honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis and Lilly. M.R. has received honoraria from Novartis, Roche and Pfizer. I.M.A-L. has received consulting or advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Palex and Roche; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche and Eisai; travel and congress assistance support from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche and Eisai and research funding from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca and Roche. E.G-Y. has received honoraria and travel support and has participated in advisory boards for Pfizer, Roche, Novartis and Eli Lilly. S.G-S. has received consulting or advisory board honoraria from Pfizer, MSD, GSK and Roche and speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Novartis. C.A.R. has received consulting or advisory board honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, SeaGen, DaiiChi Sankyo and Roche and speakers' honoraria from MSD, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Nanostring, Amgen and Eisai. S.S. has received consulting or advisory board or speakers' honoraria from Roche, Eisai, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, MSD and Genomic Health. M.C. is employed by Pfizer and has the company's stock options. X.H. is employed by Pfizer and has the company's stock options. C.Z. has received consulting fees and speaker's honoraria from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Imugene, Ariad, Pfizer, Merrimack, Merck KGaA, FibroGen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier, Shire, Eli Lilly and Athenex. His institution, Central European Cancer Center, Wiener Privatklinik Hospital, has received fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck KGaA. M.Mart. has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Taiho Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, PharmaMar, Eli Lilly, PUMA, Taiho Oncology and Pfizer; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer and contracted research fees from Roche, Novartis and PUMA. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. A complete list of the PEARL trial collaborators is provided in the Supplementary Appendix., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) improved substantially in the last decades. Novel targeted and immune-oncologic drugs were introduced into routine treatment. Despite accelerated development and subsequent drug registrations by the European Medicinal Agency (EMA), novel drugs for NSCLC are poorly accessible in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries., Material and Methods: The Central European Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a survey among experts from 10 CEE countries to provide an overview on the availability of novel drugs for NSCLC and time from registration to reimbursement decision in their countries., Results: Although first-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors were reimbursed and available in all countries, for other registered therapies-even for ALK inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitors in first-line-there were apparent gaps in availability and/or reimbursement. There was a trend for better availability of drugs with longer time from EMA marketing authorization. Substantial differences in access to novel drugs among CEE countries were observed. In general, the availability of drugs is not in accordance with the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS), as defined by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). Time spans between drug registrations and national decisions on reimbursement vary greatly, from less than 3 months in one country to more than 1 year in the majority of countries., Conclusion: The access to novel drugs for NSCLC in CEE countries is suboptimal. To enable access to the most effective compounds within the shortest possible time, reimbursement decisions should be faster and ESMO MCBS should be incorporated into decision making., (© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

This article analyzes the availability of different diagnostic procedures of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and the reimbursement landscape of drugs for NSCLC in countries of central and southeastern Europe (CEE). A survey was conducted by the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group. Results of the survey show that both availability and reimbursement of diagnoses of molecular alterations in NSCLC, the detection of which is essential for therapeutic decisions, varies widely between countries of CEE. Not only is "reflex" testing often substituted by analyses performed only "on demand," but reimbursement of such assessments varies widely between unavailability and payments by the health care system or even pharmaceutical companies. It was concluded that a structured access to testing and reimbursement should be the aim in order to provide patients with appropriate therapeutic options. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article provides an overview of the limitations in lung cancer treatment in countries of central and southeastern Europe, as well as the reimbursement status of various lung cancer treatment regimens in these countries, which directly impacts treatment options., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2018.)

The value of any new therapeutic strategy or treatment is determined by the magnitude of its clinical benefit balanced against its cost. Evidence for clinical benefit from new treatment options is derived from clinical research, in particular phase III randomised trials, which generate unbiased data regarding the efficacy, benefit and safety of new therapeutic approaches. To date, there is no standard tool for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies, which may range from trivial (median progression-free survival advantage of only a few weeks) to substantial (improved long-term survival). Indeed, in the absence of a standardised approach for grading the magnitude of clinical benefit, conclusions and recommendations derived from studies are often hotly disputed and very modest incremental advances have often been presented, discussed and promoted as major advances or 'breakthroughs'. Recognising the importance of presenting clear and unbiased statements regarding the magnitude of the clinical benefit from new therapeutic approaches derived from high-quality clinical trials, the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit for cancer medicines, the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). This tool uses a rational, structured and consistent approach to derive a relative ranking of the magnitude of clinically meaningful benefit that can be expected from a new anti-cancer treatment. The ESMO-MCBS is an important first step to the critical public policy issue of value in cancer care, helping to frame the appropriate use of limited public and personal resources to deliver cost-effective and affordable cancer care. The ESMO-MCBS will be a dynamic tool and its criteria will be revised on a regular basis., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The use of immunotherapy in the management of cancer is growing, and a range of new immunotherapeutic strategies is becoming available. It is important that people involved in the care of cancer understand how cancer immunotherapies differ from conventional chemotherapy and apply this knowledge to their clinical practice. Therefore, from August-September 2011 we undertook a survey of awareness, attitudes, and perceptions of cancer immunotherapy among 426 healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Europe with the aim of identifying and prioritizing educational needs. Nearly all (98%) HCPs were aware of cancer immunotherapy. While 68% of HCPs indicated a high level of interest in cancer immunotherapies, only 24% of the HCPs had direct experience with them. Overall perceptions of cancer immunotherapy among HCPs were largely positive (60%) and rarely negative (3%). The key advantages of cancer immunotherapy were perceived to be good safety and tolerability (75%), a targeted mechanism of action (61%) and good efficacy (48%). The leading barriers to use of immunotherapies were costs of treatment (58%), past clinical trial failures (45%), and access/formulary restrictions (44%). The results indicate that, among the respondents, awareness of cancer immunotherapy was high but that knowledge levels varied and direct experience with their use was limited. There appears to be a need for educational activities on cancer immunotherapy, as well as generation and communication of clinical data on long-term efficacy and safety.

Background: Continuation of trastuzumab plus capecitabine (XH) showed a significantly improved overall response rate and time to progression compared with capecitabine (X) alone in women with HER2-positive breast cancer progressing during trastuzumab treatment. Here, we report the final analysis on overall survival., Patients and Methods: Patients with HER2-positive, advanced breast cancer who progressed during treatment with trastuzumab with or without 1st-line metastatic chemotherapy were prospectively randomised to X (2500mg/m(2) on days 1-14, q3w) or XH (6 (8)mg/kg, q3w). Overall survival was a pre-specified secondary end-point., Results: Median follow-up at June 2010 was 20.7months. Fifty nine of 74 and 60 of 77 patients died in the X and XH arm, respectively. Median overall survival was 20.6 and 24.9months with X and XH, respectively (HR=0.94 [0.65-1.35]; p=0.73). Performance status and metastatic site were independent prognosticators for overall survival. No difference between treatment arms was observed for patients who achieved clinical response or clinical benefit, respectively. Patients who continued/restarted anti-HER2 treatment (trastuzumab or lapatinib) after 2nd progression (N=52) had a post-progression survival of 18.8 compared with 13.3months for those who did not receive 3rd line treatment with anti-HER2 agents (N=88) (HR 0.63; p=0.02)., Conclusions: Final overall survival analysis of the GBG-26 study did not demonstrate a significant survival benefit for treatment beyond progression with trastuzumab. However, in a post-hoc analysis, patients receiving anti-HER2 treatment as 3rd line therapy showed a better post-progression survival than those not receiving this targeted treatment., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)