Modern Oncology: When Survival Is Not Enough

New therapies, “hidden” effects and the need to assess not only how long patients live, but how they live

Modern Oncology: When Survival Is Not Enough

New therapies, “hidden” effects and the need to assess not only how long patients live, but how they live

Modern oncology is changing at an unprecedented pace. Immunotherapies, antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs), bispecific antibodies and new targeted therapies are creating treatment opportunities that would have been unimaginable only a few years ago.

Cancer treatment is becoming increasingly personalised and tailored to the biological and molecular characteristics of each tumour, while overall survival is being extended for many people living with cancer.

Yet alongside this remarkable scientific progress, a critical question is emerging:

What does it really mean to live longer after — or with — cancer?

A recent Nature Medicine editorial, entitled “Oncology must confront hidden side effects”, highlights precisely this challenge. While cancer drug development is advancing at remarkable speed, the approaches used to record, assess and manage long-term treatment-related toxicities — and their impact on patients’ quality of life — have not evolved at the same pace.

When a “mild” side effect becomes a major burden

Therapeutic success can create a new reality: people are living longer, but some must also manage treatment-related adverse effects for months, years or even for the rest of their lives.

An adverse event classified clinically as low-grade is not necessarily insignificant to the person experiencing it.

A persistent rash, diarrhoea, stomatitis or other symptoms may substantially affect daily functioning, psychological wellbeing and social life when they continue over long periods.

Similarly, some immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors can become chronic, persist for years or even be irreversible.

This highlights an important limitation of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), which are widely used to classify and grade treatment-related adverse events.

The duration of adverse events is not adequately reflected, while functional and psychological consequences may also remain outside traditional toxicity assessment.

As a result, what may be considered “manageable” according to conventional clinical criteria can feel very different to the patient living with it every day.

Quality of life cannot be an afterthought

A second important issue is the timing of quality-of-life evidence.

In some cases, quality-of-life findings are reported considerably later than the primary results of a clinical trial, and sometimes after a new drug has already been approved.

This means that patients making treatment decisions during the early years of a new therapy may not yet have a complete picture of how it could affect their daily functioning, emotional wellbeing and overall quality of life.

At the same time, the questionnaires and tools used to assess quality of life need to evolve continuously.

And this cannot happen without the direct involvement of patients themselves.

The experiences and priorities of people receiving treatment should form part of how treatment impact is assessed, rather than being treated as information that is added later.

The example of daraxonrasib

The Nature Medicine editorial highlights the pan-RAS inhibitor daraxonrasib as a telling example. The therapy has shown important survival benefits for patients with aggressive RAS-driven advanced pancreatic cancer, a setting in which treatment options have historically been limited.

At the same time, most patients experienced acneiform rash, with diarrhoea and stomatitis also reported as lower-grade treatment-related adverse events.

Full quality-of-life data — including information on daily functioning and emotional wellbeing — were not yet available because follow-up remained relatively short.

This example illustrates a much wider issue.

If we know that a therapy can significantly extend life, but we do not yet fully understand what that life will be like, an essential part of the information is missing from the conversation between patients and their healthcare teams.

This also has direct implications for informed consent.

Whenever evidence is available, patients need information not only about response rates and survival but also about the potential short- and long-term consequences of treatment for their everyday lives.

The same treatment is not experienced in the same way by everyone

The toxicity profile of a treatment is not identical for every patient.

It may vary according to the drug’s mechanism of action, a person’s physical condition, co-existing long-term conditions, genetic background and other individual characteristics.

Particular attention is needed for populations that have historically been excluded from, or underrepresented in, clinical trials, as their experiences of treatment-related toxicity may differ.

The editorial points, for example, to sex-related differences in adverse events associated with immunotherapy and racial disparities in adverse events observed with CAR-T cell therapy.

This makes real-world data particularly important.

Clinical trials remain fundamental to establishing the safety and efficacy of new treatments. However, broader use in everyday clinical practice may reveal treatment effects that were not fully captured in the populations included in initial studies.

One example is the bispecific antibody amivantamab in lung cancer, where the full extent and severity of some skin toxicities became clearer after a broader patient population was exposed to the treatment.

Moving beyond clinical silos

This changing landscape also demands a different approach to the organisation of cancer care.

The adverse effects of modern cancer therapies do not always fit within a single organ system or medical specialty.

Traditional clinical and disciplinary silos can limit the transfer of knowledge needed to identify, monitor and manage emerging toxicities effectively.

The response therefore needs to be interdisciplinary.

Collaborative networks, updated guidance, systematic reporting, dedicated registries and effective knowledge exchange are increasingly important so that new or rare adverse effects can be recognised early and managed appropriately.

Above all, the patient voice must be heard

Perhaps the most important change concerns how we define treatment success itself.

Survival remains a fundamental goal of oncology.

But it cannot be the only one.

We also need to understand whether people can work, move, sleep, eat, participate in family and social life, maintain as much independence as possible and manage the effects of treatment on their everyday lives.

In other words, we need to know not only how much time a treatment adds to life, but also what that time means to the person living it.

Patients should therefore not enter the process only at the end, as recipients of treatment.

Their perspectives need to be incorporated from the design of clinical trials and assessment tools through to post-approval monitoring and the real-world use of new cancer therapies.

From survival to living after — and with — cancer

Progress in oncology is undeniable, and it brings genuine hope.

The next challenge is to ensure that longer survival is accompanied by quality of life, functioning, meaningful information, participation and dignity.

Modern cancer care therefore needs to move beyond asking only:

“How much longer can this patient live?”

and give equal importance to another question:

“How will this person live during that additional time?”

For Kapa3, this discussion goes to the heart of truly person-centred cancer care: care that sees not only the disease and the treatment, but the person, their everyday life, their needs, their choices and the life that continues during and after cancer.

Source and references

Main source:
Nature Medicine. “Oncology must confront hidden side effects.” Volume 32, July 2026. Published online 8 July 2026. DOI: 10.1038/s41591-026-04554-9.

Barron CC et al. Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer. 2023;11.
Gyawali B et al. Lancet Oncology. 2025;26–e89.
O’Reilly EM et al. New England Journal of Medicine. 2026. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2605555.
Unger JM et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2022;40:1474–1486.
Rayapureddy AK et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2026;44.
Hines MR et al. Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. 2023;29:438.e1–438.e16.

find more s41591-026-04554-9

Kapa3 joins PERIFORMANCE: From Information to Trust in Cancer Care

Kapa3 – Cancer Guidance Centre is pleased to announce that its proposal, “From Information to Trust: MYRTO Patient & Citizen Lab for Equal Access in Cancer Care,” has been selected for funding under the PERIFORMANCE Open Call for Bottom-Up Stakeholder Engagement Initiatives in Cancer Research & Care.

The initiative places patients, caregivers, healthcare and social care professionals, civil society organisations and local communities at the heart of the process, creating a participatory framework for the ethical, trustworthy and inclusive use of AI-enabled cancer navigation.

Putting patients and citizens at the centre

The project is closely linked to MYRTO, Kapa3’s AI-enabled digital social assistant designed to support people affected by cancer in navigating health, social care, administrative procedures and rights-related information.

PERIFORMANCE funding will not support the core technical development of MYRTO. Instead, the project will focus on building the participatory, educational and ethical layer around the tool, ensuring that its future development is shaped by the real needs, experiences and expectations of the people who will use it.

This approach reflects a key principle for Kapa3: technology should not replace human care. When designed responsibly, however, it can become a powerful tool for improving access, empowerment and equality.

From local communities to a national dialogue

The engagement pathway will include regional listening activities, a thematic focus on vulnerable and underrepresented groups, and a central MYRTO Patient & Citizen Lab in Athens.

Particular attention will be given to caregivers, older patients, migrants, people with disabilities, people with low health or digital literacy, socially vulnerable groups and people living far from specialised oncology services.

The Athens Lab will be integrated into Kapa3’s national conference “Equality in Access”, creating a space for synthesising regional experiences, identifying trust criteria and collecting patient and caregiver perspectives on AI-supported navigation.

What does trust in AI-supported cancer navigation mean?

At the heart of the project lies a fundamental question:

What does a person need in order to trust a digital tool during one of the most sensitive periods of their life?

Through co-creation and stakeholder engagement, the initiative will explore issues such as:

reliability and clarity of information,
data protection and privacy,
accessibility and digital inclusion,
responsible use of Artificial Intelligence,
prevention of bias and exclusion,
human oversight,
and clear referral pathways to appropriate professionals when human support is needed.

Bringing together science, civil society and lived experience

Kapa3 will coordinate the initiative and lead its design, implementation, facilitation, patient and community outreach, dissemination and reporting.

The project will be supported by a multidisciplinary academic and scientific collaboration network involving the International Hellenic University – Department of Nursing, University of West Attica – Department of Occupational Therapy, Democritus University of Thrace – Department of Social Work, and University of the Peloponnese – Department of Nursing. simasiaAI will provide technical support for MYRTO-related digital materials and the AI navigation environment.

The project is expected to produce practical resources including a Patient Guidance Toolkit, a Trust & Human Escalation Checklist, a Training and Dissemination Package, and an Engagement & Trust Report.

From information to trust

For Kapa3, participation in PERIFORMANCE marks another step towards ensuring that the patient voice is present not only when new services and technologies are evaluated, but from the very beginning of their design.

With MYRTO, the question is no longer simply:

“How can we provide more information?”

It is increasingly:

“How can we turn information into understanding, trust, safety and real access?”

Because responsible digital health innovation begins with people.

New Disability Benefits Registry: What’s Changing and How It Will Make Life Easier for Citizens and People with Disabilities.

As part of the digital transformation of social care, the joint ministerial decision on the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the “Disability Benefits Registry.”

This new digital tool on the National Disability Portal promises to put an end to the bureaucracy and the fragmentation of information that both people with disabilities and their families face on a daily basis.

A government-wide initiative.
The scope and significance of this initiative are underscored by the fact that the decision was signed by the overwhelming majority of government members—ranging from the Ministries of Finance, Health, and Labor, all the way to the Ministries of Education, Infrastructure & Transportation, Environment, and Digital Governance. This broad consensus highlights that benefits for people with disabilities are not limited to financial allowances alone, but extend to tax exemptions, transportation assistance, educational
facilities, social services, and special provisions across the entire public sector.

What is the Disability Benefits Registry?

The Registry is a specialized subsystem of the National Disability Portal. Its purpose is to collect, record, and transparently document all accommodations, allowances, benefits, and services to which people with disabilities or their related individuals are entitled.

What does the documentation of each benefit include?

For each available benefit or accommodation, the Registry will document the following in a standardized and clear manner:
• Title & Description: the distinctive title and brief description of the benefit.
• Legal Framework & Competent Authorities: the applicable provisions and the competent agencies
responsible for awarding or granting the benefit.
• Eligibility Requirements: the disability-related and other requirements for receiving the benefit.
• Financial Details & Frequency: the frequency and monetary value (exact amount or range), provided
that it is quantified in monetary terms.
• Application Process: detailed instructions for submitting the application and a direct link to the National Registry of Administrative Procedures “MITOS.”

Who is the Operating Agency, and what are the agencies’ obligations?

The Organization for Welfare Benefits and Social Solidarity (OPEKA) is designated as the operating agency for the Registry. It is responsible for ensuring continuous operation, maintaining the system, verifying the accuracy of entries, and issuing access credentials.
With regard to data entry personnel and data updates, each competent Ministry, Agency, and Municipality shall designate authorized “Data Entry Personnel”; such designations must be made within 10 days of publication.

They are required to complete the initial registration of benefits within one (1) month of the
decision’s publication, to immediately update the system in the event of changes or new benefits, and to annually verify the accuracy of the data.

Public Access and Information.

One of the most significant benefits of the new regulatory framework is that all information in the registry is public and accessible to everyone via the Internet. This provides immediate, accurate, and comprehensive information to those interested, without requiring them to travel or contact multiple public agencies—a process that often causes considerable inconvenience to thousands of people.

The creation of the Disability Benefits Registry is a positive step toward ensuring equal access to information and reducing bureaucratic burdens.

Head and Neck Cancer: The Importance of Early Diagnosis and Prevention.

July 27 has been designated as World Head and Neck Cancer Day (WHNCD). The initiative was launched on July 27, 2014, during the 5th World Congress of the International Federation of Head and Neck Oncology Societies (IFHNOS) in New York, with the goal of raising awareness, education, and the
promotion of prevention. The declaration is supported by dozens of scientific communities worldwide, governments, and, most notably, the UICC (Union for International Cancer Control).

What is Head and Neck Cancer?
This type of cancer includes tumors located in the oral cavity, the lips, the pharynx, the larynx, the
salivary glands, the thyroid gland, the skin of the region, and the cervix.

In terms of prevalence, it is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Seventy-five percent of cases are located in the mouth and pharynx, while the most common histological type is squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). For example, more specifically in Greece in 2012, 1,350 new cases were recorded, a figure that accounted for 3.3% of all new cancer diagnoses in the country.

Based on these percentages, 30% of cases occur in the tongue, 20% on the lip, 15% on the floor of the
mouth and in the larynx, and 10% in the pharynx.

Risk Factors

Understanding the factors that increase the risk is the first step towards prevention. Everyday habits, such as smoking and alcohol consumption, place a significant strain on the body. In particular, 70 per cent of those affected are long-term smokers, with current smokers facing a 300 per cent higher risk. When
smoking is combined with alcohol, the two have a negative synergistic effect, multiplying the likelihood of developing the disease. At the same time, in recent years there has been an increase in HPV-positive cancers, mainly of the pharynx, which often occur in younger people with no history of smoking or
alcohol consumption. Finally, it is worth noting that up to 25 per cent of cases are observed in patients who have never smoked and have no other known risk factors.

Suspicious lesions and symptoms

Delay in diagnosis is the most unfavourable prognostic factor. Conversely, 85–90 per cent of cases can be
cured if diagnosed at an early stage.

Suspected precancerous lesions

Particular care is required when identifying suspected precancerous lesions in the oral cavity. These
include leukoplakia, a white patch of unknown aetiology that does not flake off, in which, in 20–25 per
cent of cases, cancer or severe dysplasia is present. Even more dangerous is erythroplakia, where the rate
of co-occurrence with cancer or severe dysplasia reaches 90 per cent. At the same time, suspicious lesions
include punctate leukoplakia, as well as any chronic ulcer – that is, a sore that is not caused by any
obvious injury and remains unhealed for more than two weeks.

Symptoms requiring medical assessment

There are also certain suspicious symptoms that necessitate immediate assessment by a doctor. These include any unexplained swelling, lump or puffiness in the mouth or throat area, as well as persistent pain when chewing, swallowing or speaking, or pain that radiates to the ear. Furthermore, symptoms such as hoarseness, a change in the tone of the voice, and unexplained bleeding inside the mouth are signs that
should not be ignored.

Prevention and Screening
Screening is particularly important for people over the age of 45, smokers, people who drink alcohol, or
those with a history of HPV infection. Screening involves four simple steps:
1. Neck: Palpation of the lymph nodes and the thyroid gland.
2. Lips: External examination.
3. Mouth: Examination of the tongue, floor of the mouth, cheeks, gums and soft palate.
4. Pharynx: Examination of the tonsils, soft palate and base of the tongue.

The importance of early intervention

Despite advances in surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, the 5-year survival rate remains at around 60 per cent. Furthermore, treatments for advanced-stage disease can affect patients’ quality of life, causing functional (difficulty speaking, chewing, swallowing and breathing), aesthetic or psychological problems.

Mapping the efficiency of cancer care in Greece: findings from the All.Can Greece report

Cancer care efficiency in Greece remains one of the most complex and pressing challenges for the Greek health system — not only in terms of its clinical burden, but also in how care is organized around the patient.

With approximately 63,000 new cancer cases diagnosed annually and more than 32,000 cancer-related deaths each year, Greece faces a steadily increasing oncological burden. Projections suggest that cancer incidence will rise by around 23% by 2040, further intensifying pressure on health services.

Against this backdrop, All.Can Greece has published a landmark report titled “Mapping the Efficiency of Cancer Care in Greece”, based on the pilot implementation of the All.Can Action Guide for Efficient Cancer Care.

Rather than simply describing the current situation, the report aims to measure it — identifying where efficiency is lost across the cancer care pathway and where targeted reforms could make the greatest impact.

Cancer care efficiency in Greece: delays in care delivery

One of the most critical findings of the report relates to delays in the patient journey.

Despite the existence of modern infrastructure and highly specialized oncology centres, significant delays persist between initial suspicion, diagnosis, and the start of treatment.

These delays are not the result of a single bottleneck, but of systemic fragmentation:

fragmented referral pathways,
limited coordination between levels of care,
and the absence of standardized clinical protocols.

A key structural weakness is the lack of systematic monitoring of waiting times and time-to-treatment indicators. As a result, inefficiencies remain partially invisible to the system itself, limiting the ability to implement targeted improvements.

Fragmentation across the care continuum

The report highlights a broader issue of fragmentation in cancer care delivery.

The patient journey from primary care to specialist oncology services is often not clearly structured or consistently coordinated. Referral pathways depend heavily on individual practice rather than standardized national protocols.

A major gap is the absence of structured patient navigation services. In practice, this means that patients and families are often left to navigate a complex system on their own, increasing delays and adding unnecessary psychological burden.

At the same time, multidisciplinary tumor boards represent a positive development, supporting collaborative clinical decision-making across specialties. However, systematic monitoring of their performance remains limited.

The development of Comprehensive Cancer Centers is identified as a promising step forward, although further regulatory strengthening and clearer governance structures are still needed to maximize their impact.

Patient-centered care: progress with remaining gaps

Greece has made notable progress in collecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs), reflecting a growing commitment to integrating patient perspectives into care delivery.

However, patients’ access to their own clinical data remains limited, restricting their ability to actively participate in decision-making processes.

In addition, patient education and shared decision-making are not yet systematically embedded across the health system.

Another important gap concerns survivorship care. As cancer survival rates improve, the lack of structured long-term follow-up pathways leaves many patients without continuous support after active treatment ends.

Key policy directions

The report outlines several strategic priorities for improving cancer care efficiency in Greece:

Development of a comprehensive national cancer strategy with clear targets and governance mechanisms
Strengthening coordination across all levels of care
Implementation of standardized clinical pathways with defined time-to-treatment and quality indicators
Investment in oncology workforce capacity, particularly in shortage specialties
Establishment of structured patient navigation programmes
Acceleration of Comprehensive Cancer Center development
Systematic use of health data for monitoring performance and accountability
Greater patient engagement through PROMs, PREMs, and shared decision-making

Conclusion: a system with strong foundations but limited integration

Greece has many of the essential building blocks for a high-performing cancer care system — including infrastructure, clinical expertise, and emerging digital health capabilities.

However, the key challenge lies not in the existence of these components, but in their integration.

The All.Can Greece report highlights a system that is still operating in silos: strong individual elements that do not yet function as a fully connected care pathway.

In oncology, this lack of integration is not merely an organizational issue. It directly affects timeliness, patient experience, and ultimately outcomes.

The opportunity now lies in moving from fragmented capacity to coordinated care — where patients no longer have to bridge the gaps between system components themselves.

Source: Mapping-the-Efficiency-of-Cancer-Care-in-Greece-FINAL

Text/adaptation: Ifiyenia Anastasiou for Kapa3

EOPYY: New reimbursement framework for respiratory devices – What changes for patients

The reimbursement of respiratory devices under EOPYY has been updated through a new decision published in the Government Gazette (FEK) on April 27, 2026.

On April 27, 2026, a new EOPYY decision was published in the Government Gazette, establishing revised reimbursement prices for respiratory devices such as CPAP, Auto CPAP, and BiPAP machines.

These are medical devices primarily used by patients with respiratory disorders, including sleep apnoea, and they represent a fundamental part of daily treatment and quality of life.

EOPYY reimbursement for respiratory devices: what changes

With this regulation:

specific reimbursement prices are defined for each category of respiratory device
the prices apply to all products included in the Reimbursed Medical Devices Register
previous decisions for the same categories are replaced

Prices are unified per device category, regardless of manufacturer or commercial model.

What this means for patients

The new EOPYY reimbursement framework for respiratory devices provides a clearer structure for people living with respiratory conditions who depend on these devices in their daily lives:

it clarifies what is covered by EOPYY
it strengthens transparency regarding equipment costs
it ensures access to essential therapeutic tools that are not a choice, but a necessity

In some cases, a patient co-payment may apply when the device price exceeds the reimbursement amount.

Temporary nature of the regulation

The decision is considered temporary, as it is part of a transitional framework until the completion of the negotiation process for final pricing.

Nevertheless, it is fully applicable from the moment of its publication in the Government Gazette and constitutes the current reimbursement framework.

A more human perspective

Behind technical terms, codes, and regulatory tables, there are people who rely on these devices to breathe better, sleep better, and maintain a more stable daily life.

A clear reimbursement framework is not merely an administrative measure. It helps reduce uncertainty in situations that are already difficult to manage.

Source

The full text of the decision, along with the detailed list of reimbursed respiratory devices and corresponding prices, is available (in Greek) in the Government Gazette (FEK) of April 27, 2026.

Text/adaptation: Ifiyenia Anastasiou for Kapa3

Person-centred cancer care: a new global report for more sustainable health systems

Cancer continues to place a growing burden on individuals, health systems, and society, making it essential to strengthen person-centred cancer care and rethink how care is delivered. New cancer diagnoses are expected to rise by nearly 77% by 2050, further straining already pressured healthcare systems.

Many countries report limited access to treatments, workforce shortages, and long waiting times as key challenges. In this context, policymakers must rethink how cancer care is delivered, ensuring that limited resources are used effectively while maintaining access to high-quality services.

The report titled “Implementing Person-Centred Cancer Care to Improve Outcomes, Experiences and Efficiency”, published by All.Can International, is based on evidence and studies from 2018–2025. It brings together insights from experts across 11 countries and aims to support policymakers and health systems in redesigning cancer care towards a more person-centred and efficient model.

The report highlights that person-centred cancer care is a practical, high-impact approach that improves patient experience while strengthening the resilience of health systems. It places individuals at the centre of care, taking into account their needs, values, and goals, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all clinical pathway.

The framework is structured around seven key areas of intervention, with a common goal: better care for patients and more sustainable health systems.

1. Early diagnosis and timely initiation of treatment

Late diagnosis remains a major global challenge. Limited health literacy, low participation in screening programmes, and weaknesses in primary care often lead to delays in treatment.

The report recommends more tailored public information, taking into account health literacy levels and cultural context. It also emphasises the co-design of screening programmes with communities to improve participation and enable earlier diagnosis.

2. Coordinated and multidisciplinary care

Lack of coordination between services leads to delays and unequal care provision. Strengthening multidisciplinary teams and introducing patient navigation can help individuals move more smoothly through the healthcare system and receive more consistent care.

3. Digital tools and system integration

Fragmented data management and limited interoperability between health systems remain major barriers. Developing integrated data infrastructures, national cancer registries, and using technologies such as artificial intelligence can improve efficiency and coordination.

4. Telemedicine and remote care

At the same time, digital health services can reduce geographical barriers and bring care closer to patients. However, investment in infrastructure and training is necessary to ensure equitable access.

The use of wearable health technologies and mobile applications can support continuous monitoring and care beyond hospital settings.

5. Communication and shared decision-making

Effective communication between healthcare professionals and patients remains a critical challenge. Shared decision-making models, the use of patient experience data, and culturally appropriate communication can strengthen trust and improve care quality.

At the same time, involving caregivers in communication processes is essential, as their needs are often overlooked.

6. Supportive care and survivorship

Access to psychosocial and supportive care remains limited in many settings, negatively affecting quality of life. Integrating support services throughout the care pathway is essential, especially as more people live with and beyond cancer.

The report also highlights the importance of advance care planning, which can reduce unnecessary hospitalisations and support patient autonomy.

7. Financial support and access to care

The financial burden of cancer remains a major barrier to accessing care. The report recommends improved reimbursement systems, financial navigation services, and support for indirect costs to reduce financial toxicity for patients and their families.

Person-centred cancer care in Greece

Although the report has a global scope, its findings are highly relevant for countries like Greece. Challenges such as delays in diagnosis, inequalities in access, workforce pressure, and limited system integration reflect real issues within the Greek healthcare system.

In this context, the transition towards more coordinated, digitally supported, and person-centred cancer care becomes particularly important.

Call to action

Therefore, policymakers must urgently embed person-centred care into national cancer strategies. Collaboration with people with lived experience of cancer is essential to designing more equitable, efficient, and sustainable health systems.

Adopting this approach can contribute to earlier diagnosis, improved quality of care, better use of resources, and ultimately more resilient health systems in the face of rising cancer burden.

You can read the full report here: Person-centred-cancer-care-improving-outcomes-experiences-and-efficiency-2

Text/Adaptation: Ifiyenia Anastasiou for Kapa3