Van Loon, Katherine

By 2045, more than three quarters of global cancer deaths are projected to occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); however, the global availability of cancer care remains constrained by high costs and inequitable access. Value-based frameworks that integrate clinical benefit with affordability, feasibility, and equity are essential to better guide research prioritization, resource allocation, and regulatory policies in LMICs. A key component of a value-based approach is the generation of high-quality, locally relevant data to support evidence-based implementation of cancer prevention and control strategies. Herein, we provide three contemporary examples from JCO Global Oncology which demonstrate how economic evaluation in cancer research can address locally relevant, health system–specific questions.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Abstract Background The incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (yoCRC) is increasing. It is unknown if there are survival differences between young and older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods We studied the association of age with survival in 2326 mCRC patients enrolled in the Cancer and Leukemia Group B and SWOG 80405 trial, a multicenter, randomized trial of first-line chemotherapy plus biologics. The primary and secondary outcomes of this study were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively, which were assessed by Kaplan-Meier method and compared among younger vs older patients with the log-rank test. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on Cox proportional hazards modeling, adjusting for known prognostic variables. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Of 2326 eligible subjects, 514 (22.1%) were younger than age 50 years at study entry (yoCRC cohort). The median age of yoCRC patients was 44.3 vs 62.5 years in patients aged 50 years and older. There was no statistically significant difference in OS between yoCRC vs older-onset patients (median = 27.07 vs 26.12 months; adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.10; P = .78). The median PFS was also similar in yoCRC vs older patients (10.87 vs 10.55 months) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% CI = 0.92 to 1.13; P = .67). Patients younger than age 35 years had the shortest OS with median OS of 21.95 vs 26.12 months in older-onset patients with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.08 (95% CI = 0.81 to 1.44; Ptrend = .93). Conclusion In this large study of mCRC patients, there were no statistically significant differences in survival between patients with yoCRC and CRC patients aged 50 years and older.