ESMO expert consensus statements on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Financial toxicity, defined as both the objective financial burden and subjective financial distress from a cancer diagnosis and its treatment, is a topic of interest in the assessment of the quality of life of patients with cancer and their families. Current evidence implicates financial toxicity in psychosocial, economic and other harms, leading to suboptimal cancer outcomes along the entire trajectory of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, survivorship and palliation. This paper presents the results of a virtual consensus, based on the evidence base to date, on the screening and management of financial toxicity in patients with and beyond cancer organized by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) in 2022.

METHODS

A Delphi panel of 19 experts from 11 countries was convened taking into account multidisciplinarity, diversity in health system contexts and research relevance. The international panel of experts was divided into four working groups (WGs) to address questions relating to distinct thematic areas: patients with cancer at risk of financial toxicity; management of financial toxicity during the initial phase of treatment at the hospital/ambulatory settings; financial toxicity during the continuing phase and at end of life; and financial risk protection for survivors of cancer, and in cancer recurrence. After comprehensively reviewing the literature, statements were developed by the WGs and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment, and voting.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 25 evidence-informed consensus statements were developed, which answer 13 questions on financial toxicity. They cover evidence summaries, practice recommendations/guiding statements and policy recommendations relevant across health systems. These consensus statements aim to provide a more comprehensive understanding of financial toxicity and guide clinicians globally in mitigating its impact, emphasizing the importance of further research, best practices and guidelines.

Risk-adapted modulation through de-intensification of cancer treatments: an ESMO classification

BACKGROUND

The landscape of clinical trials testing risk-adapted modulations of cancer treatments is complex. Multiple trial designs, endpoints, and thresholds for non-inferiority have been used; however, no consensus or convention has ever been agreed to categorise biomarkers useful to inform the treatment intensity modulation of cancer treatments.

METHODS

An expert subgroup under the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Precision Medicine Working Group shaped an international collaborative project to develop a classification system for biomarkers used in the cancer treatment de-intensification, based on a tiered approach. A group of disease-oriented clinical, translational, methodology and public health experts, and patients' representatives provided an analysis of the status quo, and scanned the horizon of ongoing clinical trials. The classification was developed through multiple rounds of expert revisions and inputs.

RESULTS

The working group agreed on a univocal definition of treatment de-intensification. Evidence of reduction in the dose-density, intensity, or cumulative dose, including intermittent schedules or shorter treatment duration or deletion of segment(s) of the standard regimens, compound(s), or treatment modality must be demonstrated, to define a treatment de-intensification. De-intensified regimens must also portend a positive impact on toxicity, quality of life, health system burden, or financial toxicity. ESMO classification categorises the biomarkers for treatment modulation in three tiers, based on the level of evidence. Tier A includes biomarkers validated in prospective, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trials. The working group agreed that in non-inferiority clinical trials, boundaries are highly dependent upon the disease scenario and endpoint being studied and that the absolute differences in the outcomes are the most relevant measures, rather than relative differences. Biomarkers tested in single-arm studies with a threshold of non-inferiority are classified as Tier B. Tier C is when the validation occurs in prospective-retrospective quality cohort investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

ESMO classification for the risk-guided intensity modulation of cancer treatments provides a set of evidence-based criteria to categorise biomarkers deemed to inform de-intensification of cancer treatments, in risk-defined patients. The classification aims at harmonising definitions on this matter, therefore offering a common language for all the relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, patients, decision-makers, and for clinical trials.

Access to essential anticancer medicines for children and adolescents in Europe

BACKGROUND

Essential anticancer medicines are an indispensable component of multidisciplinary treatment of paediatric malignancies. A European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) study reported inequalities in the availability of anticancer medicines for adult solid tumours and provided a model for the present survey. The aim of this survey was to assess the accessibility of essential medicines used in paediatric cancer patients aged 0 to 18 years across Europe from 2016 to 2018.

METHODS

A list of medicines was drawn with input from the European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP Europe) Clinical Research Council referring to the World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (WHO EMLc) 2017. A survey was sent to nominated national clinician and pharmacist rapporteurs and parent associations in up to 37 countries; answers were obtained from 34 countries.

RESULTS

The full survey list contained 68 medicines, including 24 on the WHO EMLc 2017. Health professionals reported that 35% of all medicines were prescribed off-label in at least one country and that 44% were always available in >90% of countries. Only 63% of the EMLc 2017 medicines were reported as always available. The main determinant of unavailability was shortages, reported for 72% of medicines in at least one country. Out-of-pocket costs were reported in eight countries. Twenty-seven percent of orally administered medicines were never available in child-friendly formulations. Parents detailed individual efforts and challenges of facilitating ingestion of oral medicines as prescribed. Inequalities in access to pain control during procedures were reported by parents across Europe.

CONCLUSIONS

Children and adolescents with cancer in Europe experience lack of access to essential medicines. Urgent actions are needed to address shortages, financial accessibility, availability of safe age-appropriate oral formulations, and pain management across Europe.

The 'critical mass' survey of palliative care programme at ESMO designated centres of integrated oncology and palliative care

Background

The ESMO Designated Centres (ESMO-DCs) of Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care (PC) Incentive Programme has grown steadily. We aimed to characterise the level of PC clinical services, education and research at ESMO-DCs.

Methods

We sent all 184 ESMO-DCs an electronic survey consisting of 78 questions examining the DC characteristics, palliative care clinical programme (structure, processes, and outcomes), primary PC delivery by oncologists, education, research and attitudes and beliefs towards the ESMO-DC programme.

Results

The response rate was 83% (152/184). 115 (76%) ESMO-DCs were from Europe, 87 (57%) were tertiary care centres. 136 (90%) had inpatient consultation teams, 135 (89%) had outpatient PC clinics, 107 (71%) had dedicated acute care beds, and 75 (50%) offered community-based PC. An estimated 70% (interquartile range [IQR] 28-80%) of patients with advanced cancer had a PC consultation before death, occurring 90 days before death (median, IQR 40-150 days) for outpatients and 21 days (IQR 14-45 days) for inpatients. 59 (39%) offered PC fellowship programme; 47 (32%) had mandatory PC rotations for oncology fellows. Ninety-nine (65%) had double-boarded palliative oncologists. 118 (78%) of the ESMO-DCs reported that routine symptom screening was offered in the oncology clinic and 30% of patients had documented end-of-life discussions by their oncologists. Most centres (>80%) perceived the ESMO-DC programme to increase their status.

Conclusions

The ESMO-DCs had a high level of PC infrastructure and provided access to a large proportion of patients with advanced cancer. The survey supports that the 13 criteria required for ESMO designation set a robust framework for integration, stimulated investment of resources into some palliative care programmes prior to accreditation, and raised the interest about palliative care among clinicians, trainees and patients.

ESMO European Consortium Study on the availability, out-of-pocket costs and accessibility of antineoplastic medicines in Europe

BACKGROUND

The management of cancer is predicated on the availability and affordability of anticancer therapies, which may be either curative or noncurative.

AIM

The primary aims of the study were to evaluate (i) the formulary availability of licensed antineoplastic medicines across Europe; (ii) patient out-of-pocket costs for the medications and (iii) the actual availability of the medication for a patient with a valid prescription.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The survey tool was based on the previous ESMO studies that addressed the availability and accessibility of opioids for the management of cancer pain. A total of 185 field reporters from 49 countries were invited to participate. The preliminary set of data was posted on the ESMO website for open peer-review, and amendments have been incorporated into the final report.

RESULTS

There are substantial differences in the formulary availability, out-of-pocket costs and actual availability for many anticancer medicines. The most profound lack of availability is in countries with lower levels of economic development, particularly in Eastern Europe, and these are largely related to the cost of targeted agents approved in the last 10 years. Discrepancies are less profound among medications on the WHO model essential medicines list (EML) for cancer and in curative settings. However, medicine shortages also affect WHO EML medicines, with relevant therapeutic implications for many patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost and affordability of anticancer treatments with recent market approval is the major factor contributing to inequity of access to anticancer medications. This is especially true with regards to new medications used in the management of EGFR- or ALK-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic melanoma, metastatic renal cell cancer, RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, HER2 overexpressed breast cancer and castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer.

Indicators of integration of oncology and palliative care programs: an international consensus

BACKGROUND

Recently, the concept of integrating oncology and palliative care has gained wide professional and scientific support; however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is unavailable. We conducted a Delphi Survey to develop a consensus list of indicators on integration of specialty palliative care and oncology programs for advanced cancer patients in hospitals with ≥100 beds.

METHODS

International experts on integration rated a list of indicators on integration over three iterative rounds under five categories: clinical structure, processes, outcomes, education, and research. Consensus was defined a priori by an agreement of ≥70%. Major criteria (i.e. most relevant and important indicators) were subsequently identified.

RESULTS

Among 47 experts surveyed, 46 (98%), 45 (96%), and 45 (96%) responded over the three rounds. Nineteen (40%) were female, 24 (51%) were from North America, and 14 (30%) were from Europe. Sixteen (34%), 7 (15%), and 25 (53%) practiced palliative care, oncology, and both specialties, respectively. After three rounds of deliberation, the panelists reached consensus on 13 major and 30 minor indicators. Major indicators included two related to structure (consensus 95%-98%), four on processes (88%-98%), three on outcomes (88%-91%), and four on education (93%-100%). The major indicators were considered to be clearly stated (9.8/10), objective (9.4/10), amenable to accurate coding (9.5/10), and applicable to their own countries (9.4/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Our international experts reached broad consensus on a list of indicators of integration, which may be used to identify centers with a high level of integration, and facilitate benchmarking, quality improvement, and research.

Cancer-related pain: a pan-European survey of prevalence, treatment, and patient attitudes

BACKGROUND

The European Pain in Cancer survey sought to increase understanding of cancer-related pain and treatment across Europe.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with all stages of cancer participated in a two-phase telephone survey conducted in 11 European countries and Israel in 2006-2007. The survey screened for patients experiencing pain at least weekly, then randomly selected adult patients with pain of at least moderate intensity occurring several times per week for the last month completed a detailed attitudinal questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 5084 adult patients contacted, 56% suffered moderate-to-severe pain at least monthly. Of 573 patients randomly selected for the second survey phase, 77% were receiving prescription-only analgesics, with 41% taking strong opioids either alone or with other drugs for cancer-related pain. Of those prescribed analgesics, 63% experienced breakthrough pain. In all, 69% reported pain-related difficulties with everyday activities; however, 50% believed that their quality of life was not considered a priority in their overall care by their health care professional.

CONCLUSIONS

Across Europe and Israel, treatment of cancer pain is suboptimal. Pain and pain relief should be considered integral to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer; management guidelines should be revised to improve pain control in patients with cancer.

Use of tranquilizers and sleeping pills among cancer patients is associated with a poorer quality of life

PURPOSE

To evaluate the association between sleeping pill/tranquilizer (SP/T) use and quality of life (QOL) among cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Oncology patients (n = 909) in three Israeli hospitals were interviewed in clinics, day centers and in-patient departments regarding SP/T use in the previous week. Crude and adjusted QOL scores, measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), were compared in users vs. non-users.

RESULTS

Sleeping pill/tranquilizer use was self-reported by 234 (25.7%) participants, but rarely documented in medical charts. Factors associated with SP/T use were female gender (adjusted Odds ratio, OR: 1.79; 95% Confidence interval, CI: 1.22-2.62, age (OR: 4.6; 95% CI: 1.66-12.53 for age 70+), place of birth (OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.19-3.26 for Eastern Europe compared with Israel), concomitant use of painkillers (OR: 2.88; 95% CI: 1.97-4.20) and presence of cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.48-3.91). Controlling these factors as well as disease status, users had a poorer QOL on all functional scales (p < 0.001) as well as global QOL. Furthermore, users reported increased severity of symptoms, especially fatigue, insomnia, pain, dyspnea and constipation (p < 0.01), compared to non-users.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SP/T, reported by one fourth of cancer patients, was associated with substantially poorer QOL and increased severity of symptoms. Causal inference is not possible given the cross-sectional design. Periodic inquiry regarding use of these medications in the Oncology Clinic is recommended since it may identify patients with poor QOL and unmet needs.

Strategies to manage the adverse effects of oral morphine: an evidence-based report

Successful pain management with opioids requires that adequate analgesia be achieved without excessive adverse effects. By these criteria, a substantial minority of patients treated with oral morphine (10% to 30%) do not have a successful outcome because of (1) excessive adverse effects, (2) inadequate analgesia, or (3) a combination of both excessive adverse effects along with inadequate analgesia. The management of excessive adverse effects remains a major clinical challenge. Multiple approaches have been described to address this problem. The clinical challenge of selecting the best option is enhanced by the lack of definitive, evidence-based comparative data. Indeed, this aspect of opioid therapeutics has become a focus of substantial controversy. This study presents evidence-based recommendations for clinical-practice formulated by an Expert Working Group of the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Research NETWORK: These recommendations highlight the need for careful evaluation to distinguish between morphine adverse effects from comorbidity, dehydration, or drug interactions, and initial consideration of dose reduction (possibly by the addition of a co analgesic). If side effects persist, the clinician should consider options of symptomatic management of the adverse effect, opioid rotation, or switching route of systemic administration. The approaches are described and guidelines are provided to aid in selecting between therapeutic options.

Determinants of the use of complementary therapies by patients with cancer

PURPOSE

We performed a survey of Israeli oncology patients to examine the extent of their use of complementary therapies (CT) and to compare sociodemographic, psychologic, and medical characteristics, attitudes, and quality of life of users and nonusers of CT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Questionnaires were administered to 1,027 patients attending ambulatory and inpatient hematology or oncology facilities at three hospitals. Medical information was extracted from charts. Univariate and multivariate comparisons of users and nonusers of CT were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 526 participants (51.2%) had used CT since their diagnosis, and 357 patients (34.9%) had used CT recently (in the past 3 months). Factors that multivariate analysis found to be significantly associated (P <.05) with recent CT use were as follows: female sex; age 35 to 59 years; more education; coming to the hospital by private car; advanced disease status; having a close friend or a relative with cancer; and attending support groups or individual counseling. After controlling for these factors, individually examined psychosocial variables associated with recent CT use included the following (odds ratios [OR] with 95% confidence intervals [CI]): needs unmet by conventional medicine (OR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.95 to 3.89); helplessness (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.91); incomplete trust in the doctor (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.06); and changed outlook or beliefs since the diagnosis of cancer (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.02). Functional quality of life (including physical, emotional, social, and role function) and symptom (fatigue and diarrhea) scores were significantly worse for recent CT users compared with nonusers, controlling for age, sex, and current disease status.

CONCLUSION

Characteristics associated with CT use include age, sex, education, and advanced disease. Significant associations between CT use and attending supportive psychotherapy, unmet needs, helplessness, and worse emotional and social function indicate considerable distress, suggesting that increased attention to psychosocial needs within oncologic settings is warranted.

Morphine and alternative opioids in cancer pain: the EAPC recommendations

An expert working group of the European Association for Palliative Care has revised and updated its guidelines on the use of morphine in the management of cancer pain. The revised recommendations presented here give guidance on the use of morphine and the alternative strong opioid analgesics which have been introduced in many parts of the world in recent years. Practical strategies for dealing with difficult situations are described presenting a consensus view where supporting evidence is lacking. The strength of the evidence on which each recommendation is based is indicated.

New strategies in opioid therapy for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

The last decade has seen a great increase in the range of opioid agents and formulations available for the treatment of chronic pain, raising new clinical questions and options.

METHODS

The author conducted an extensive review of the existing medical literature on opioid agents and formulations currently available.

RESULTS

Opioids remain the cornerstone of pharmacotherapy for cancer pain. In addition to severity of pain, coexisting disease, response to previous therapy, the drug's pharmacokinetics and available formulations influence the choice of an opioid agent. Short-half-life drugs, such as morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, oxycodone, and oxymorphone, are generally favored initially because they are easier to titrate than long-half-life agents. Long-acting controlled-release opioid preparations can lessen the inconvenience of around-the-clock administration of drugs with a short duration of action. In recent years several new formulations have been developed, including controlled-release morphine suppositories and suspensions; controlled-release tablets of oxycodone, hydromorphone, and codeine; and transdermal fentanyl, a patch that allows 3-day dosing and avoids the first-pass effect of the liver. Most patients who receive controlled-release opioids should be provided with a rescue dose of an immediate-release opioid to treat pain that may break through the controlled-release schedule.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the important advances in the last decade in the treatment of chronic pain is the realization that the goals of care and the best means of achieving them differ not only among individuals but often for a single patient throughout a long course of care. Physicians must not only be knowledgeable but also flexible in their approach to managing cancer pain. An understanding of the range of opioid agents and the formulations available can allow physicians to maintain the best possible quality of life for their patients with chronic pain.