Lung cancer is one of the most incident types of cancer and a leading cause of cancer mortality in Brazil. We reviewed the current status of lung cancer by searching relevant data on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in the country. This review highlights several issues that need to be addressed, including smoking control, patient lack of awareness, late diagnosis, and disparities in the access to cancer health care facilities in Brazil. We propose strategies to help overcome these limitations and challenge health care providers, as well as the society and governmental representatives, to work together and to take a step forward in fighting lung cancer.

Fundamentally precision oncology illustrates the path in which molecular profiling of tumors can illuminate their biological behavior, diversity, and likely outcomes by identifying distinct genetic mutations, protein levels, and other biomarkers that underpin cancer progression. Next-generation sequencing became an indispensable diagnostic tool for diagnosis and treatment guidance in current clinical practice. Nowadays, tissue analysis benefits from further support through methods like comprehensive genomic profiling and liquid biopsies. However, precision medicine in the field of oncology presents specific hurdles, such as the cost-benefit balance and widespread accessibility, particularly in countries with low- and middle-income. A key issue is how to effectively extend next-generation sequencing to all cancer patients, thus empowering treatment decision-making. Concerns also extend to the quality and preservation of tissue samples, as well as the evaluation of health technologies. Moreover, as technology advances, novel next-generation sequencing assessments are being developed, including the study of Fragmentomics. Therefore, our objective was to delineate the primary uses of next-generation sequencing, discussing its’ applications, limitations, and prospective paths forward in Oncology.

Background: Methods: Results: Conclusion:

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic remains a public health emergency of global concern. Determinants of mortality in the general population are now clear, but specific data on patients with cancer remain limited, particularly in Latin America.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A longitudinal multicenter cohort study of patients with cancer and confirmed COVID-19 from Oncoclínicas community oncology practice in Brazil was conducted. The primary end point was all-cause mortality after isolation of the SARS-CoV-2 by Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in patients initially diagnosed in an outpatient environment. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis and recursive partitioning modeling to define the baseline clinical determinants of death in the overall population.RESULTS: From March 29 to July 4, 2020, 198 patients with COVID-19 were prospectively registered in the database, of which 167 (84%) had solid tumors and 31 (16%) had hematologic malignancies. Most patients were on active systemic therapy or radiotherapy (77%), largely for advanced or metastatic disease (64%). The overall mortality rate was 16.7% (95% CI, 11.9 to 22.7). In univariate models, factors associated with death after COVID-19 diagnosis were age ≥ 60 years, current or former smoking, coexisting comorbidities, respiratory tract cancer, and management in a noncurative setting ( P < .05). In multivariable logistic regression and recursive partitioning modeling, only age, smoking history, and noncurative disease setting remained significant determinants of mortality, ranging from 1% in cancer survivors under surveillance or (neo)adjuvant therapy to 60% in elderly smokers with advanced or metastatic disease.CONCLUSION: Mortality after COVID-19 in patients with cancer is influenced by prognostic factors that also affect outcomes of the general population. Fragile patients and smokers are entitled to active preventive measures to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and close monitoring in the case of exposure or COVID-19-related symptoms.

Scientific and professional development opportunities for early career scientists in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) are limited and not consistent. There is a disproportionately low number of biomedical and clinical researchers in LMIC’s relative to their high burden of disease, a disparity that is aggravated by emigration of up to 70% of scientists from their countries of birth for education and employment elsewhere. To help address this need, a novel University-accredited, immersive fellowship program was established by a large public-academic-private network. We sought to describe the program and summarize progress and lessons learned over its first 7-years. Hallmarks of the program are a structured learning curriculum and bespoke research activities tailored to the needs of each fellow. Research projects expose the scientists to state-of-the-art methodologies and leading experts in their fields while also ensuring that learnings are implementable within their home infrastructure. Fellows run seminars on drug discovery and development that reinforce themes of scientific leadership and teamwork together with practical modules on addressing healthcare challenges within their local systems. Industry mentors achieve mutual learning to better understand healthcare needs in traditionally underserved settings. We evaluated the impact of the program through an online survey of participants and by assessing research output. More than 140 scientists and clinicians from 25 countries participated over the 7-year period. Evaluation revealed strong evidence of knowledge and skills transfer, and beneficial self-reported impact on fellow’s research output and career trajectories. Examples of program impact included completion of post-graduate qualifications; establishment and implementation of good laboratory- and clinical- practice mechanisms; and becoming lead investigators in local programs. There was a high retention of fellows in their home countries (> 75%) and an enduring professional network among the fellows and their mentors. Our experience demonstrates an example for how multi-sectoral partners can contribute to scientific and professional development of researchers in LMICs and supports the idea that capacity-building efforts should be tailored to the specific needs of beneficiaries to be maximally effective. Lessons learned may be applied to the design and conduct of other programs to strengthen science ecosystems in LMICs.