Introduction: Due to the increasing global burden of cancer and the shortage of trained medical oncologists, training General Practitioners (GPs) in Oncology (known as GPOs) has been proposed as a means to potentially ease some burden on medical oncologists with heavy workloads, especially in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), by tasksharing and task-shifting. We undertook a scoping review to identify and characterise the existing training programmes and curricula for GPOs globally. Design:We searched three major electronic databases: EMBASE, Medline/PubMed and Education Source for articles that described a medical oncology training programme for GPs. All study types were eligible in this review. We followed a two-stage standardised screening process using two independent reviewers to evaluate the eligibility of the articles.Results: Five peer-reviewed articles were included in our review and grey literature scans identified an additional seven GPO training programmes for a total of 12 programmes and their curricula. All of the included studies were from high-income countries. The duration of programmes varied from comprehensive programmes structured over 2 years (n = 2) to shorter duration medical oncology training activities (n = 2), a short, 1.5-day workshop and a 10-hour course. In the grey literature, GPO training programme durations ranged from 2 weeks to 13 months. A mixture of delivery methods was employed including didactic lectures and clinical rotations. Conclusion:This scoping review identified a small number of heterogeneous studies and grey literature sources that described and/or evaluated medical oncology training programmes for GPs. The information synthesised here can be used to foster the collaboration needed for the continued development of GPO programmes that could help address the problem of lack of workforce to meet the rising burden of cancer, especially in LMICs.

Background Ramucirumab is a widely used cancer drug having gained six regulatory approvals in various advanced solid tumors. Thus, assessing the risk-benefit profile of such a commonly used drug across multiple tumor types is necessary to inform clinical and reimbursement decisions. To objectively assess the risks and benefits of ramucirumab in patients with advanced solid tumors, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and conference abstracts for all RCTs of ramucirumab in patients with advanced solid cancer was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Data on treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs), fatal adverse events (FAEs), primary endpoint, gains in median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) with their hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and quality of life (QOL) were extracted from each RCT. Summary relative risks (RR) with 95% CI for SAEs and FAEs were calculated by pooling data across the RCTs using random-effects model. Treatment benefit was evaluated descriptively in terms of median and HR with 95% CI of OS and PFS gains as well as improvements in QOL. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS), a validated tool, was used to objectively quantify clinical benefit of ramucirumab in approved settings. Findings Ten RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Compared with the control arm, the use of ramucirumab was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing SAE (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05–1.21, incidence 37.5% v 33.5%). The increase in risk of FAE (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.96–2.07, incidence 1.8% v 1.3%) was not statistically significant. Using the ESMO MCBS tool, clinical benefit with ramucirumab was not substantial in any indication, five of six approvals scoring a “negligible benefit” score of 1 or 2. QOL was either not reported (30%) or not improved (70%) in these RCTs. Interpretation In this meta-analysis of RCTs, use of ramucirumab in patients with advanced cancer was associated with increased risk of treatment related serious and possibly fatal adverse events but the magnitude of clinical benefit from ramucirumab was mostly negligible with no trial reporting an improvement in QOL. These relative risks and benefits should be considered in clinical and regulatory decision making. Funding None.

Did you know your muscles can feel exhausted without actually being exhausted? It turns out that your brain is just as important as your muscles when it comes to fatigue, or physical tiredness. You can experience “peripheral” fatigue, which is fatigue originating from the muscles, or you can experience central fatigue, which originates from the brain and central nervous system. By studying both the brain and the muscles, scientists can examine which is causing your fatigue. But how? Do we need to perform brain surgery to get answers? Luckily, special techniques involving stimulation of the nerves and muscles can be used instead! In this article, we illustrate how scientists determine if the tiredness you feel after exercising is caused by central or peripheral fatigue or maybe both. We will also explore the differences between the two.