About this Research Topic
Governmental drug legislation plays a critical role in the cancer management: if in one sense they are fundamental organizations in guaranteeing patient safety, on the other they often represent one of the potential bottlenecks in the cancer management pathway. In fact, while experimentation and science often proceed at high speed, many national drug approval agencies lead to a significant delay in the usability of the drug by individuals with cancer.
Furthermore, this leads to a disparity between different countries in currently available treatments. Therefore, in recent years, drug agencies are experiencing increasing pressure to speed up the approval process for new drugs and also in the setting of rising costs of new drugs. Indeed, over the last decade, agencies in many countries have established expedited programs to assist doctors and patients.
The genitourinary area is not exempt from this problem. A further diversity is represented by the prescription of anti-tumor drugs, in some states the exclusive prerogative of the oncologist, in others also of other specialists such as the urologist and the radiation oncologist. This makes comparisons between specialists and the standardization of care more difficult particularly given the heterogeneity of treatment globally.
The goal of this research topic is to provide information to readers about differences and issues in drug policies and cancer drug approvals in genitourinary cancer. This includes both cost-benefit analyzes of different drugs, their effectiveness, their availability, and usability in the various national health systems. Another goal of this research topic is to provide updated and new evidence about the oncological outcomes of currently used and promising therapies for the management of genitourinary cancers.
The research topic welcomes original articles, reviews, and commentary articles about immunotherapy and systemic treatment for the management of genitourinary cancers, with a special focus not only on the oncological outcomes but also on the costs, availability, and drug policies.
Furthermore, this leads to a disparity between different countries in currently available treatments. Therefore, in recent years, drug agencies are experiencing increasing pressure to speed up the approval process for new drugs and also in the setting of rising costs of new drugs. Indeed, over the last decade, agencies in many countries have established expedited programs to assist doctors and patients.
The genitourinary area is not exempt from this problem. A further diversity is represented by the prescription of anti-tumor drugs, in some states the exclusive prerogative of the oncologist, in others also of other specialists such as the urologist and the radiation oncologist. This makes comparisons between specialists and the standardization of care more difficult particularly given the heterogeneity of treatment globally.
The goal of this research topic is to provide information to readers about differences and issues in drug policies and cancer drug approvals in genitourinary cancer. This includes both cost-benefit analyzes of different drugs, their effectiveness, their availability, and usability in the various national health systems. Another goal of this research topic is to provide updated and new evidence about the oncological outcomes of currently used and promising therapies for the management of genitourinary cancers.
The research topic welcomes original articles, reviews, and commentary articles about immunotherapy and systemic treatment for the management of genitourinary cancers, with a special focus not only on the oncological outcomes but also on the costs, availability, and drug policies.
Keywords: Drug policy, Drug approval, Genitourinary Cancer
Important Note: All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.
