MyMedR

Displaying all 6 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Fulltext Barriers in access to oncology drugs - a global crisis

Barrios C, de Lima Lopes G, Yusof MM, Rubagumya F, Rutkowski P, Sengar M

Nat Rev Clin Oncol, 2023 Jan;20(1):7-15.
PMID: 36380066 DOI: 10.1038/s41571-022-00700-7

In the past decade, oncologists worldwide have seen unprecedented advances in drug development and approvals but have also become increasingly cognizant of the rising costs of and increasing inequities in access to these therapies. These trends have resulted in the current problematic situation in which dramatic disparities in outcomes exist among patients with cancer worldwide owing, in part, to the lack of access to drugs that provide clinically meaningful benefits. In this Viewpoint, we have asked six oncologists working in different countries to describe how they perceive this issue in their region and propose potential solutions.
Roles of cancer registries in enhancing oncology drug access in the Asia-Pacific region

Soon SS, Lim HY, Lopes G, Ahn J, Hu M, Ibrahim HM, et al.

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2013;14(4):2159-65.
PMID: 23725106

Cancer registries help to establish and maintain cancer incidence reporting systems, serve as a resource for investigation of cancer and its causes, and provide information for planning and evaluation of preventive and control programs. However, their wider role in directly enhancing oncology drug access has not been fully explored. We examined the value of cancer registries in oncology drug access in the Asia-Pacific region on three levels: (1) specific registry variable types; (2) macroscopic strategies on the national level; and (3) a regional cancer registry network. Using literature search and proceedings from an expert forum, this paper covers recent cancer registry developments in eight economies in the Asia-Pacific region - Australia, China, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand - and the ways they can contribute to oncology drug access. Specific registry variables relating to demographics, tumor characteristics, initial treatment plans, prognostic markers, risk factors, and mortality help to anticipate drug needs, identify high-priority research area and design access programs. On a national level, linking registry data with clinical, drug safety, financial, or drug utilization databases allows analyses of associations between utilization and outcomes. Concurrent efforts should also be channeled into developing and implementing data integrity and stewardship policies, and providing clear avenues to make data available. Less mature registry systems can employ modeling techniques and ad-hoc surveys while increasing coverage. Beyond local settings, a cancer registry network for the Asia-Pacific region would offer cross-learning and research opportunities that can exert leverage through the experiences and capabilities of a highly diverse region.
Fulltext Treatment of Patients With Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline

Costas-Chavarri A, Nandakumar G, Temin S, Lopes G, Cervantes A, Cruz Correa M, et al.

J Glob Oncol, 2019 02;5:1-19.
PMID: 30802158 DOI: 10.1200/JGO.18.00214

PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the treatment and follow-up of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer.
METHODS: ASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel that reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus process with additional experts for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from 12 guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations from six guidelines form the evidence base and provide evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more on all recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS: For nonmaximal settings, the recommended treatments for colon cancer stages nonobstructing, I-IIA: in basic and limited, open resection; in enhanced, adequately trained surgeons and laparoscopic or minimally invasive surgery, unless contraindicated. Treatments for IIB-IIC: in basic and limited, open en bloc resection following standard oncologic principles, if not possible, transfer to higher-level facility; in emergency, limit to life-saving procedures; in enhanced, laparoscopic en bloc resection, if not possible, then open. Treatments for obstructing, IIB-IIC: in basic, resection and/or diversion; in limited or enhanced, emergency surgical resection. Treatment for IIB-IIC with left-sided: in enhanced, may place colonic stent. Treatment for T4N0/T3N0 high-risk features or stage II high-risk obstructing: in enhanced, may offer adjuvant chemotherapy. Treatment for rectal cancer cT1N0 and cT2n0: in basic, limited, or enhanced, total mesorectal excision principles. Treatment for cT3n0: in basic and limited, total mesorectal excision, if not, diversion. Treatment for high-risk patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy: in basic, limited, or enhanced, may offer adjuvant therapy. Treatment for resectable cT3N0 rectal cancer: in enhanced, base neoadjuvant chemotherapy on preoperative factors. For post-treatment surveillance, a combination of medical history, physical examination, carcinoembryonic antigen testing, imaging, and endoscopy is performed. Frequency depends on setting. Maximal setting recommendations are in the guideline. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines .
NOTICE: It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guidelines are intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
Fulltext Early Detection for Colorectal Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline

Lopes G, Stern MC, Temin S, Sharara AI, Cervantes A, Costas-Chavarri A, et al.

J Glob Oncol, 2019 02;5:1-22.
PMID: 30802159 DOI: 10.1200/JGO.18.00213

PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on the early detection of colorectal cancer in four tiers to clinicians, patients, and caregivers.
METHODS: American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of medical oncology, surgical oncology, surgery, gastroenterology, health technology assessment, cancer epidemiology, pathology, radiology, radiation oncology, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (Consensus Ratings Group) for two round(s) of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from eight guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations form the evidence base. These guidelines, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of 75% or more.
CONCLUSION: In nonmaximal settings, for people who are asymptomatic, are ages 50 to 75 years, have no family history of colorectal cancer, are at average risk, and are in settings with high incidences of colorectal cancer, the following screening options are recommended: guaiac fecal occult blood test and fecal immunochemical testing (basic), flexible sigmoidoscopy (add option in limited), and colonoscopy (add option in enhanced). Optimal reflex testing strategy for persons with positive screens is as follows: endoscopy; if not available, barium enema (basic or limited). Management of polyps in enhanced is as follows: colonoscopy, polypectomy; if not suitable, then surgical resection. For workup and diagnosis of people with symptoms, physical exam with digital rectal examination, double contrast barium enema (only in basic and limited); colonoscopy; flexible sigmoidoscopy with biopsy (if contraindication to latter) or computed tomography colonography if contraindications to two endoscopies (enhanced only).
Fulltext Primary Prevention of Cervical Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Resource-Stratified Guideline

Arrossi S, Temin S, Garland S, Eckert LO, Bhatla N, Castellsagué X, et al.

J Glob Oncol, 2017 Oct;3(5):611-634.
PMID: 29094100 DOI: 10.1200/JGO.2016.008151

PURPOSE: To provide resource-stratified (four tiers), evidence-based recommendations on the primary prevention of cervical cancer globally.
METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of oncology, obstetrics/gynecology, public health, cancer control, epidemiology/biostatistics, health economics, behavioral/implementation science, and patient advocacy experts. The Expert Panel reviewed existing guidelines and conducted a modified ADAPTE process and a formal consensus-based process with additional experts (consensus ratings group) for one round of formal ratings.
RESULTS: Existing sets of guidelines from five guideline developers were identified and reviewed; adapted recommendations formed the evidence base. Five systematic reviews, along with cost-effectiveness analyses, provided evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of ≥ 75%.
RECOMMENDATIONS: In all resource settings, two doses of human papillomavirus vaccine are recommended for girls age 9 to 14 years, with an interval of at least 6 months and possibly up to 12 to 15 months. Individuals with HIV positivity should receive three doses. Maximal and enhanced settings: if girls are age ≥ 15 years and received their first dose before age 15 years, they may complete the series; if no doses were received before age 15 years, three doses should be administered; in both scenarios, vaccination may be through age 26 years. Limited and basic settings: if sufficient resources remain after vaccinating girls age 9 to 14 years, girls who received one dose may receive additional doses between age 15 and 26 years. Maximal, enhanced, and limited settings: if ≥ 50% coverage in the priority female target population, sufficient resources, and cost effectiveness, boys may be vaccinated to prevent other noncervical human papillomavirus-related cancers and diseases. Basic settings: vaccinating boys is not recommended.
It is the view of the American Society of Clinical Oncology that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
Adaptation of international guidelines for metastatic colorectal cancer: an asian consensus

Cheng AL, Li J, Vaid AK, Ma BB, Teh C, Ahn JB, et al.

Clin Colorectal Cancer, 2014 Sep;13(3):145-55.
PMID: 25209093 DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2014.06.004

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most common cancers worldwide, but marked epidemiological differences exist between Asian and non-Asian populations. Hence, a consensus meeting was held in Hong Kong in December 2012 to develop Asia-specific guidelines for the management of metastatic CRC (mCRC). A multidisciplinary expert panel, consisting of 23 participants from 10 Asian and 2 European countries, discussed current guidelines for colon or rectal cancer and developed recommendations for adapting these guidelines to Asian clinical practice. Participants agreed that mCRC management in Asia largely follows international guidelines, but they proposed a number of recommendations based on regional 'real-world' experience. In general, participants agreed that 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) infusion regimens in doublets can be substituted with UFT (capecitabine, tegafur-uracil) and S1 (tegafur, 5-chloro-2,4-dihydroxypyridine and oxonic acid), and that the monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab are recommended for KRAS wild type tumors. For KRAS mutant tumors, bevacizumab is the preferred biological therapy. FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin) is preferred for initial therapy in Asian patients. The management of mCRC is evolving, and it must be emphasized that the recommendations presented here reflect current treatment practices and thus might change as more data become available.