Abstract 2344
Background
The Economist Intelligence Unit takes a strategic approach to understand the impact of policy on lung cancer. Recommendations from our research, sponsored by MSD, will assist countries to improve systemic responses because outcomes remain poor and costs remain high despite scientific progress.
Methods
Our research centres on 13 countries: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, and the UK. Our literature review drew evidence from internationally-recognised sources and falls into 5 domains operationalised by 17 indicators assessing performance across the entire patient journey. After consultation with European experts, we populated our scorecard comparing policy and practice, examining service delivery, systems, access, financing and governance. Examination of preliminary findings in country workshops with clinicians, patient organisations and other key stakeholders enabled us to obtain nuanced information providing a clearer grasp on care than obtained from desk research alone.
Results
While patches of good practice exist, no country scores highly across all of our measurements. All but one country has a national cancer control plan: 75% are over five years old and do not incorporate recent oncological innovations. Clinical guidelines lack details on accelerating suspected lung cancer patients for diagnosis, referral pathways to secondary/tertiary care, supportive/palliative care, shared decision-making and psychological support within a specified time. Cancer registries exist in each country, yet clinicians report that clinically-focused cancer registries could house important information. Only 5 countries reimburse all four commonly used biomarkers for lung cancer.
Conclusions
Room for improvement in lung cancer policy exists across all the countries and domains we have studied. Our workshops ensured we focus on the most important opportunities for improving the delivery of lung cancer care relevant for each country. Now, based on the recommendations coming out of the research and agreed upon by stakeholders, we are in the policy development phase of our work where our goal is to assist policymakers improve care for people living with lung cancer in Europe.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
MSD.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2673 - Clinical activity of vofatamab (V), an FGFR3 selective antibody in combination with pembrolizumab (P) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), updated interim analysis of FIERCE-22
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2600 - Atezolizumab (atezo) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): a long-term overall survival (OS) and safety update from the Phase III IMvigor211 study
Presenter: Michiel Van der Heijden
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3598 - Three-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 Trial: Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Versus Investigator’s Choice (Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, or Vinflunine) in Recurrent, Advanced Urothelial Cancer (UC)
Presenter: Andrea Necchi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2382 - First Report of Efficacy and Safety From a Phase 2 Trial of Tislelizumab, an Anti-PD-1 Antibody, for the Treatment of PD-L1+ Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (UC) in Asian Patients
Presenter: Dingwei Ye
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2388 - Quality of Life of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer (mUC) Patients Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) Following Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy and a Checkpoint Inhibitor (CPI): Data from EV-201 Cohort 1
Presenter: Bradley McGregor
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3748 - Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (atezo) in patients (pts) with autoimmune disease (AID): subgroup analysis of the SAUL study in locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma
Presenter: Yohann Loriot
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1126 - Validation of the VIO prognostic index in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors
Presenter: Rafael Morales Barrera
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3693 - Pathologic outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk muscle invasive bladder cancer
Presenter: Justin Matulay
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4840 - Analysis of response to prior therapies and therapies after treatment with erdafitinib in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-positive patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1221 - Clinical outcomes by sex with atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy in patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Jean Hoffman-censits
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract