MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were 303 consecutive adult cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in an academic medical center. The short form Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS-SF), which covers three domains of symptoms (global distress, physical- and psychological symptoms) was used to cross-sectionally measure symptom frequency and associated distress via self-reporting. One-way ANOVA and t-tests were used to test mean differences among MSAS-SF subscale scores.

RESULTS: Complete data were available for 303 patients. The mean number of symptoms was 14.5. The five most prevalent were fatigue, dry mouth, hair loss, drowsiness and lack of appetite. Overall, symptom burden and frequency were higher than in other published MSAS-SF studies. Higher symptom frequency was also found to be significantly related to greater distress in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted based on incident lung cancer cases diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 in Lampang (Thailand), Penang (Malaysia), Singapore and Yogyakarta (Indonesia). Cases (n = 3413) were defined using the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology third edition. In Singapore, a clinical series obtained from the National Cancer Centre was used to identify patients, while corresponding population-based cancer registries were used elsewhere. Tumor and clinical information were abstracted by chart review according to a predefined study protocol. Molecular testing of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangement, ROS1 gene rearrangement and BRAF V600 mutation was recorded.

RESULTS: Among 2962 cases with a specified pathological diagnosis (86.8%), most patients had non-squamous NSCLC (75.8%). For cases with staging information (92.1%), the majority presented with metastatic disease (71.3%). Overall, molecular testing rates in the 1528 patients with stage IV non-squamous NSCLC were 67.0% for EGFR, 42.3% for ALK, 39.1% for ROS1, 7.8% for BRAF and 36.1% for PD-L1. Among these patients, first-line systemic treatment included chemotherapy (25.9%), targeted therapy (35.6%) and immunotherapy (5.9%), with 31% of patients having no record of antitumor treatment. Molecular testing and the proportion of patients receiving treatment were highly heterogenous between the regions.

METHODS: This retrospective study examined data of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC from 18 major hospitals (public, private, or university teaching hospitals) throughout Malaysia between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2020 from the National Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgical Database (NCTSD). Data on baseline characteristics, treatments, radiological findings, and pathological findings were collected. Overall survival (OS) and time on treatment (TOT) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS: There were 1581 NSCLC patients in the NCTSD. Based on ALK gene-rearrangement test results, only 65 patients (4.1%) had ALK-positive advanced NSCLC. Of these 65 patients, 59 received standard-of-care treatment and were included in the analysis. Crizotinib was the most commonly prescribed ALK inhibitor, followed by alectinib and ceritinib. Patients on ALK inhibitors had better median OS (62 months for first-generation inhibitors, not reached at time of analysis for second-generation inhibitors) compared to chemotherapy (27 months), but this was not statistically significant (P=0.835) due to sample-size limitations. Patients who received ALK inhibitors as first-line therapy had significantly longer TOT (median of 11 months for first-generation inhibitors, not reached for second-generation inhibitors at the time of analysis) compared to chemotherapy (median of 2 months; P<0.01).

METHODS: This retrospective study of patients with NSCLC from 18 major hospitals (public, private or university teaching hospitals) enrolled in Malaysia's National Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgical Database (NCTSD) assessed the efficacy of lower doses of afatinib on treatment outcomes in a real-world clinical practice. Data on clinical characteristics, afatinib dosing, and treatment outcomes for patients included in NCTSD from 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2020 were analyzed.

RESULTS: Of the 133 patients studied, 94.7% had adenocarcinoma. Majority of the patients (60.9%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion and 23.3% had EGFR exon 21 L858R point mutation. The mean age of patients was 64.1 years and majority (83.5%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2-4 at diagnosis. The most common afatinib starting doses were 40 mg (37.6%), 30 mg (29.3%), and 20 mg (26.3%) once daily (OD), respectively. A quarter of patients had dose reduction (23.3%) due to side effects or cost constraints. Majority of the patients had partial response to afatinib (63.2%) whilst 2.3% had complete response. Interestingly, the objective response rate was significantly higher (72.3%) with afatinib OD doses of less than 40 mg compared to 40 mg (54.0%) (P=0.032). Patients on lower doses of afatinib were two times more likely to achieve an objective response [odds ratio =2.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.20-5.83; P=0.016]. These patients had a numerically but not statistically longer median time to treatment failure (TTF). Median TTF (95% CI) for the overall cohort was 12.4 (10.02-14.78) months. Median overall survival (95% CI) was 21.30 (15.86-26.75) months.

METHODS: We conducted a population-based study using data from the Global Cancer Observatory (GLOBOCAN) 2022 and predicted global radiotherapy demands and workforce requirements in 2050. We obtained incidence figures for 29 types of cancer across 183 countries and derived the cancer-specific radiotherapy use rate using the 2013 Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation model. We delineated the proportion of people with cancer who require radiotherapy and can be accommodated within the existing installed capacity, assuming an optimal use rate of 50% or 64%, in both 2022 and 2050. A use rate of 50% corresponds to the global average and a use rate of 64% considers potential re-treatment scenarios, as indicated by the 2013 Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) radiotherapy use rate model. We established specified requirements for teletherapy units at a ratio of 1:450 patients, for radiation oncologists at a ratio of 1:250 patients, for medical physicists at a ratio of 1:450 patients, and for radiation therapists at a ratio of 1:150 patients in all countries and consistently using these ratios. We collected current country-level data on the radiotherapy-professional workforce from national health reports, oncology societies, or other authorities from 32 countries.

FINDINGS: In 2022, there were an estimated 20·0 million new cancer diagnoses, with approximately 10·0 million new patients needing radiotherapy at an estimated use rate of 50% and 12·8 million at an estimated use rate of 64%. In 2050, GLOBOCAN 2022 data indicated 33·1 million new cancer diagnoses, with 16·5 million new patients needing radiotherapy at an estimated use rate of 50% and 21·2 million at an estimated use rate of 64%. These findings indicate an absolute increase of 8·4 million individuals requiring radiotherapy from 2022 to 2050 at an estimated use rate of 64%; at an estimated use rate of 50%, the absolute increase would be 6·5 million individuals. Asia was estimated to have the highest radiotherapy demand in 2050 (11 119 478 [52·6%] of 21 161 603 people with cancer), followed by Europe (3 564 316 [16·8%]), North America (2 546 826 [12·0%]), Latin America and the Caribbean (1 837 608 [8·7%]), Africa (1 799 348 [8·5%]), and Oceania (294 026 [1·4%]). We estimated that the global radiotherapy workforce in 2022 needed 51 111 radiation oncologists, 28 395 medical physicists, and 85 184 radiation therapists and 84 646 radiation oncologists, 47 026 medical physicists, and 141 077 radiation therapists in 2050. We estimated that the largest proportion of the radiotherapy workforce in 2050 would be in upper-middle-income countries (101 912 [38·8%] of 262 624 global radiotherapy professionals).

INTERPRETATION: Urgent strategies are required to empower the global health-care workforce and facilitate the fundamental human right of access to suitable health care. A collective effort with innovative and cost-contained health-care strategies from all stakeholders is warranted to enhance global accessibility to radiotherapy and address challenges in cancer care.

FUNDING: China Medical Board Global Health Leadership Development Program, Shanghai Science and Technology Committee Fund, China Ministry of Science and Technology Department of International Cooperation High Level Cooperation and Exchange Projects, and Fudan University Office of Global Partnerships Key Projects Development Fund.

METHODS: Six key sections were chosen: (1) high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) oligometastatic prostate cancer, (3) castration-naïve prostate cancer, (4) castrate resistant prostate cancer, (5) use of osteoclast-targeted therapy and (6) global access to prostate cancer drugs. There were 101 consensus questions, consisting of 91 questions from APCCC 2017 and 10 new questions from MyAPCCC 2018, selected and modified by the steering committee; of which, 23 questions were assessed in both ideal world and real-world settings. A panel of 22 experts, comprising of 11 urologists and 11 oncologists, voted on 101 predefined questions anonymously. Final voting results were compared with the APCCC 2017 outcomes.

RESULTS: Most voting results from the MyAPCCC 2018 were consistent with the APCCC 2017 outcomes. No consensus was achieved for controversial topics with little level I evidence, such as management of oligometastatic disease. No consensus was reached on using high-cost drugs in castration-naïve or castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer in real-world settings. All panellists recommended using generic drugs when available.

METHODS: In this phase 3, international, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with advanced NSCLC with EGFR exon 20 insertions who had not received previous systemic therapy to receive intravenous amivantamab plus chemotherapy (amivantamab-chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone. The primary outcome was progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were allowed to cross over to receive amivantamab monotherapy.

RESULTS: A total of 308 patients underwent randomization (153 to receive amivantamab-chemotherapy and 155 to receive chemotherapy alone). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy group (median, 11.4 months and 6.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.53; P<0.001). At 18 months, progression-free survival was reported in 31% of the patients in the amivantamab-chemotherapy group and in 3% in the chemotherapy group; a complete or partial response at data cutoff was reported in 73% and 47%, respectively (rate ratio, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.68; P<0.001). In the interim overall survival analysis (33% maturity), the hazard ratio for death for amivantamab-chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.09; P = 0.11). The predominant adverse events associated with amivantamab-chemotherapy were reversible hematologic and EGFR-related toxic effects; 7% of patients discontinued amivantamab owing to adverse reactions.