The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has rapidly spread globally since being identified as a public health emergency of major international concern and has now been declared a pandemic ...by the World Health Organization (WHO). In December 2019, an outbreak of atypical pneumonia, known as COVID‐19, was identified in Wuhan, China. The newly identified zoonotic coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), is characterized by rapid human‐to‐human transmission. Many cancer patients frequently visit the hospital for treatment and disease surveillance. They may be immunocompromised due to the underlying malignancy or anticancer therapy and are at higher risk of developing infections. Several factors increase the risk of infection, and cancer patients commonly have multiple risk factors. Cancer patients appear to have an estimated twofold increased risk of contracting SARS‐CoV‐2 than the general population. With the WHO declaring the novel coronavirus outbreak a pandemic, there is an urgent need to address the impact of such a pandemic on cancer patients. This include changes to resource allocation, clinical care, and the consent process during a pandemic. Currently and due to limited data, there are no international guidelines to address the management of cancer patients in any infectious pandemic. In this review, the potential challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID‐19 infection pandemic will be addressed, with suggestions of some practical approaches.
Implications for Practice
The main management strategies for treating cancer patients during the COVID‐19 epidemic include clear communication and education about hand hygiene, infection control measures, high‐risk exposure, and the signs and symptoms of COVID‐19. Consideration of risk and benefit for active intervention in the cancer population must be individualized. Postponing elective surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy for cancer patients with low risk of progression should be considered on a case‐by‐case basis. Minimizing outpatient visits can help to mitigate exposure and possible further transmission. Telemedicine may be used to support patients to minimize number of visits and risk of exposure. More research is needed to better understand SARS‐CoV‐2 virology and epidemiology.
Cancer patients have an increased risk of contracting COVID‐19. This article addresses the challenges associated with managing cancer patients during the COVID‐19 infection pandemic and suggests some practical approaches.
The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) version 1.0 (v1.0) was published in May 2015 and was the first version of a validated and reproducible tool to assess the magnitude of ...clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. The ESMO-MCBS was designed to be a dynamic tool with planned revisions and updates based upon recognition of expanding needs and shortcomings identified since the last review.
The revision process for the ESMO-MCBS incorporates a nine-step process: Careful review of critiques and suggestions, and identification of problems in the application of v1.0; Identification of shortcomings for revision in the upcoming version; Proposal and evaluation of solutions to address identified shortcomings; Field testing of solutions; Preparation of a near-final revised version for peer review for reasonableness by members of the ESMO Faculty and Guidelines Committee; Amendments based on peer review for reasonableness; Near-final review by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board; Final amendments; Final review and approval by members of the ESMO-MCBS Working Group and the ESMO Executive Board.
Twelve issues for revision or amendment were proposed for consideration; proposed amendments were formulated for eight identified shortcomings. The proposed amendments are classified as either structural, technical, immunotherapy triggered or nuanced. All amendments were field tested in a wide range of studies comparing scores generated with ESMO-MCBS v1.0 and version 1.1 (v1.1).
ESMO-MCBS v1.1 incorporates 10 revisions and will allow for scoring of single-arm studies. Scoring remains very stable; revisions in v1.1 alter the scores of only 12 out of 118 comparative studies and facilitate scoring for single-arm studies.
Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every ...country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence‐based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real‐world data.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has long affirmed that the recognition and management of individuals with an inherited susceptibility to cancer are core elements of oncology care. ...ASCO released its first statement on genetic testing in 1996 and updated that statement in 2003 and 2010 in response to developments in the field. In 2014, the Cancer Prevention and Ethics Committees of ASCO commissioned another update to reflect the impact of advances in this area on oncology practice. In particular, there was an interest in addressing the opportunities and challenges arising from the application of massively parallel sequencing-also known as next-generation sequencing-to cancer susceptibility testing. This technology introduces a new level of complexity into the practice of cancer risk assessment and management, requiring renewed effort on the part of ASCO to ensure that those providing care to patients with cancer receive the necessary education to use this new technology in the most effective, beneficial manner. The purpose of this statement is to explore the challenges of new and emerging technologies in cancer genetics and provide recommendations to ensure their optimal deployment in oncology practice. Specifically, the statement makes recommendations in the following areas: germline implications of somatic mutation profiling, multigene panel testing for cancer susceptibility, quality assurance in genetic testing, education of oncology professionals, and access to cancer genetic services.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a subcommittee to develop recommendations on improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer in response to a critical need ...identified by the Institute of Medicine. Older adults experience the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths and make up the majority of cancer survivors. Older adults are also the fastest growing segment of the US population. However, the evidence base for treating this population is sparse, because older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials, and trials designed specifically for older adults are rare. The result is that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat older adults, who represent the majority of patients with cancer. Clinicians and patients are forced to extrapolate from trials conducted in younger, healthier populations when developing treatment plans. This has created a dearth of knowledge regarding the risk of toxicity in the average older patient and about key end points of importance to older adults. ASCO makes five recommendations to improve evidence generation in this population: (1) Use clinical trials to improve the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer, (2) leverage research designs and infrastructure for generating evidence on older adults with cancer, (3) increase US Food and Drug Administration authority to incentivize and require research involving older adults with cancer, (4) increase clinicians' recruitment of older adults with cancer to clinical trials, and (5) use journal policies to improve researchers' reporting on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants.
An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology Schnog, John-John B; Samson, Michael J; Gans, Rijk O B ...
British journal of cancer,
11/2021, Letnik:
125, Številka:
11
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of ...low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.
Treatment allocation is extremely complex in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because this neoplasm arises, in most cases, in patients with cirrhosis and additional comorbidities. The ...“stage hierarchy” approach, which involves linking each stage (or substage) of the disease to a specific treatment, has become the main proposed treatment strategy for the clinical management of HCC, particularly in the West. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) scheme serves as the main example of the application of this strategy. In an attempt to increase the plasticity of the “stage hierarchy” approach as well as its adaptability to the requirements of real‐world clinical practice, the latest versions of European and American guidelines have introduced certain relevant elements of flexibility, which were not intrinsic to the original BCLC scheme. These elements are as follows: the “treatment stage migration” strategy, which allows moving to another treatment (generally the one that is associated with the subsequent stage) if the approach linked with the current stage proves to be unfeasible, and the “treatment stage alternative” approach, which proposes further therapeutic options for each BCLC‐defined stage. In regard to most of the solid cancers, another potential strategy is to consider the treatment decision to be hierarchically dictated by the efficacy of each therapy with complete or partial independence from the tumor stage. This concept of “therapeutic hierarchy” has been historically endorsed by the Asia‐Pacific treatment algorithm as well as by the recent Italian multisociety guidelines. The present review provides a critical analysis of the different conceptual approaches to HCC management, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages and focusing on the remarkable differences between the stage‐guided and the hierarchical strategies.
PDF
