METHODS: We surveyed one key stakeholder from each of 27 countries with expertise in survivorship care on questions including the components/structure of follow-up care, delivery of treatment summaries and survivorship care plans, and involvement of primary care in survivorship. Descriptive analyses were performed to characterize results across countries and variations between the WHO income categories (low, middle, high). We also performed a qualitative content analysis of narratives related to survivorship care challenges to identify major themes.
RESULTS: Seven low- or /lower-middle-income countries (LIC/LMIC), seven upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), and 13 high-income countries (HICs) were included in this study. Results indicate that 44.4% of countries with a National Cancer Control Plan currently address survivorship care. Additional findings indicate that HICs use guidelines more often than those in LICs/LMICs and UMICs. There was great variation among countries regardless of income level. Common challenges include issues with workforce, communication and care coordination, distance/transportation issues, psychosocial support, and lack of focus on follow-up care.
CONCLUSION: This information can guide researchers, providers, and policy makers in efforts to improve the quality of survivorship care on a national and global basis. As the number of cancer survivors increases globally, countries will need to prioritize their long-term needs. Future efforts should focus on efforts to bridge oncology and primary care, building international partnerships, and implementation of guidelines.
METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of three GWAS comprising 684 patients with type 2 diabetes and 955 controls of Southern Han Chinese descent. We followed up the top signals in two independent Southern Han Chinese cohorts (totalling 10,383 cases and 6,974 controls), and performed in silico replication in multiple populations.
RESULTS: We identified CDKN2A/B and four novel type 2 diabetes association signals with p
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older with no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Neurologically stable patients with CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to lazertinib 240 mg once daily orally or gefitinib 250 mg once daily orally, stratified by mutation status and race. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1.
RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients received double-blind study treatment across 96 sites in 13 countries. Median PFS was significantly longer with lazertinib than with gefitinib (20.6 v 9.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58; P < .001). The PFS benefit of lazertinib over gefitinib was consistent across all predefined subgroups. The objective response rate was 76% in both groups (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.59). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 24.9) with lazertinib versus 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 10.9) with gefitinib. Overall survival data were immature at the interim analysis (29% maturity). The 18-month survival rate was 80% with lazertinib and 72% with gefitinib (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P = .116). Observed safety of both treatments was consistent with their previously reported safety profiles.
CONCLUSION: Lazertinib demonstrated significant efficacy improvement compared with gefitinib in the first-line treatment of EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC, with a manageable safety profile.