Treatment Guidance for Patients With Lung Cancer During the Coronavirus 2019 Pandemic

The global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic continues to escalate at a rapid pace inundating medical facilities and creating substantial challenges globally. The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in patients with cancer seems to be higher, especially as they are more likely to present with an immunocompromised condition, either from cancer itself or from the treatments they receive. A major consideration in the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic is to balance the risk of patient exposure and infection with the need to provide effective cancer treatment. Many aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection currently remain poorly characterized and even less is known about the course of infection in the context of a patient with cancer. As SARS-CoV-2 is highly contagious, the risk of infection directly affects the cancer patient being treated, other cancer patients in close proximity, and health care providers. Infection at any level for patients or providers can cause considerable disruption to even the most effective treatment plans. Lung cancer patients, especially those with reduced lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities are more likely to have increased risk and mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 as one of its common manifestations is as an acute respiratory illness. The purpose of this manuscript is to present a practical multidisciplinary and international overview to assist in treatment for lung cancer patients during this pandemic, with the caveat that evidence is lacking in many areas. It is expected that firmer recommendations can be developed as more evidence becomes available

Quality Measures for Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards and Their Role in Improving Cancer Care

While multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) are widely used in managing patients with cancer, their impact on patient care and outcome is not routinely measured in different settings. The authors conducted a literature review in Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and Web of Science using the following keywords: cancer, multidisciplinary, tumor board, quality performance indicator, lung cancer, and lymphoma. Standards from various accreditation and professional organizations were reviewed to compile relevant standards for MTB. A list of quality performance indicators that can be used to improve MTBs’ performance and impact was compiled. Specific examples for non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer MTBs were presented. Guidance was provided to help MTB team members select implement the appropriate quality measures. The functions and impact of MTBs should be monitored and evaluated by a set of measures that help guide MTBs to improve their performance and provide better care to their patients

The Process of NCCN Guidelines™ Adaptation to the Middle East and North Africa Region

The NCCN developed clinical practice guidelines for oncology that set the standard of cancer care in the United States. Because of wide acceptance of, need for, and interest in standardized treatment practices across the world, NCCN launched initiatives to help international groups adapt these guidelines. This article describes the initiative in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. A group of oncology experts and key opinion leaders were assembled into 7 specific committees to develop treatment guidelines for breast cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, prostate cancer, hepatobiliary cancer, lymphoma, and palliative care. The committees reviewed the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) to identify any modifications required for them to be more applicable to the MENA region based on available evidence and regional experience. These modifications were discussed with NCCN experts and summarized for each specific area. The development of these guidelines generated a strong interest in the region to develop more evidence-based practice and create further networking and collaboration

The trends of complementary alternative medicine use among cancer patients

Abstract Background The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is common among cancer patients and it may reflect the individual and societal beliefs on cancer therapy. Our study aimed to evaluate the trends of CAM use among patients with cancer between 2006 and 2018. Methods We included 2 Cohorts of patients with cancer who were recruited for Cohort 1 between 2006 and 2008 and for Cohort 2 between 2016 and 2018. The study is a cross-sectional study obtaining demographic and clinical information and inquiring about the types of CAM used, the reasons to use them and the perceived benefits. We compared the changes in the patterns of CAM use and other variables between the two cohorts. Results A total of 1416 patients were included in the study, with 464 patients in Cohort 1 and 952 patients in Cohort 2. Patients in Cohort 2 used less CAM (78.9%) than Cohort 1 (96.8%). Cohort 1 was more likely to use CAM to treat cancer compared to Cohort 2 (84.4% vs. 73%, respectively, p < 0.0001,); while Cohort 2 used CAM for symptom management such as pain control and improving appetite among others. Disclosure of CAM use did not change significantly over time and remains low (31.6% in Cohort 1 and 35.7% for Cohort 2). However, physicians were more likely to express an opposing opinion against CAM use in Cohort 2 compared to Cohort 1 (48.7% vs. 19.1%, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion There is a significant change in CAM use among cancer patients over the decade, which reflects major societal and cultural changes in this population. Further studies and interventions are needed to improve the disclosure to physicians and to improve other aspects of care to these patients

The use of complementary and alternative medicine by patients with cancer: a cross-sectional survey in Saudi Arabia

Abstract Background A significant proportion of cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) along with conventional therapies (CT), whereas a smaller proportion delay or defer CT in favor of CAM. Previous studies exploring CAM use among cancer patients in the Middle East region have shown discrepant results. This study investigates the prevalence and pattern of CAM use by Saudi cancer patients. It also discusses the possible benefits and harm related to CAM use by cancer patients, and it explores the beliefs patients hold and their transparency with health care providers regarding their CAM use. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in oncology wards and outpatient clinics by using face-to-face interviews with the participants. Results A total of 156 patients with a median age of 50 years (18–84) participated in the study. The prevalence of CAM use was 69.9%; the most prominent types of CAM were those of a religious nature, such as supplication (95.4%), Quran recitation (88.1%), consuming Zamzam water (84.4%), and water upon which the Quran has been read (63.3%). Drinking camel milk was reported by 24.1% of CAM users, whereas camel urine was consumed by 15.7%. A variety of reasons were given for CAM use: 75% reported that they were using CAM to treat cancer, enhance mood (18.3%),control pain (11.9%), enhance the immune system (11%),increase physical fitness (6.4%), and improve appetite (4.6%). Thirty percent of CAM users had discussed the issue with their doctors; only 7.7% had done so with their nurses. Conclusions The use of CAM, including camel products, is highly prevalent among cancer patients in the Middle East, but these patients do not necessarily divulge their CAM use to their treating physicians and nurses. Although CAM use can be beneficial, some can be very harmful, especially for cancer patients. Association is known between camel products and brucellosis and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV). Both can lead to tremendous morbidity in immune-compromised patients. Doctor–patient communication regarding CAM use is of paramount importance in cancer care

Implementation of Country-Wide Pharmacoeconomic Principles in Cancer Care in Developing Countries: Expert based recommendations

Background: Cancer care is a major challenge to health care and for optimal outcomes, health systems need to align policy across many areas of public life. The recognition that even the wealthiest nations can fail optimum outcomes indicates a need for increased efficiency in cancer control programs. Fundamental to this is the efficient direction of resources – a process that can be optimised through economic measures.This manuscript contains expert recommendations on how decision maker scan implement pharmacoeconomic principles at national level in developing countries. // Methods: A multidisciplinary panel of 10 experts was formed of oncologists, clinical pharmacists, health economists, chronic disease control and public health experts from different countries and health care sectors. The panel developed consensus recommendations for different stakeholders using a framework analysis methods. // Results: Recommendations were categorized to national level, hospital level, industry level and public- community level to support decisionmakers in implementing pharmacoeconomic principles in a systematic way. The recommendations included having proper well-structured data driven processes with specific role for each stakeholders. We proposed requirement structures and process in such a way that they can be customized based on individual country plans. // Conclusions: The expert panel recommendations will serve as a guide to relevant stakeholders at a country level. Adaptation of these recommendations to each setting is important to accommodate the situation and needs of each country

Erlotinib in Patients with Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Middle Eastern Population

Background: Although erlotinib is widely used in the management of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), no prior studies were conducted in Middle Eastern population. Our study aims at evaluating erlotinib prospectively in this population. Patients and Methods: This open-label, prospective, single-arm, multicenter Phase IV clinical trial of erlotinib as single agent evaluated safety and efficacy of Erlotinib in Middle Eastern patients with advanced NSCLC. Results: A total of 56 patients were enrolled in five sites in Saudi Arabia. Majority of patients were males (60%) with median age of 57 years (34–80), Stage IV (98%), and adenocarcinoma (84%). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance Status III (41.1%). Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations were present in 24 patients out of 36 patients tested (67%). The most common reported adverse events (AEs) were rash 36 (64%), diarrhea 29 (52%), fatigue 10 (18%), and anorexia 5 (9%). Grade 4 or 5 AEs were not observed. Complete response was achieved in 2 (3.6%) and overall disease control was 60.8%. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in patients with EGFR mutation than wild type (20 vs. 3 months, P = 0.002). Progression-free survival was 10 months and significantly longer in patients with EGFR mutation than wild type (16 vs. 6 months, P = 0.037). Patients with unknown EGFR status had PSF and OS better than wild-type patients and worse than patients with EGFR mutation. Cox regression analysis showed that older age (P = 0.029, HR 1.064), EGFR wild type (P = 0.014, hazard ratio [HR]: 8.497), and receiving radiation (P = 0.033, HR 6.433) significantly increase risk of death for patients receiving erlotinib. Conclusion: Erlotinib has efficacy and safety profile in Middle Eastern population similar to the reported literature. The empiric use of erlotinib in patients with unknown EGFR status in our patient population is warranted due to high prevalence of the mutation. However, it should not be used in confirmed wild-type disease