Search

Bringing therapeutic innovation and the latest science to routine patient care, while safeguarding principles of affordability and equality, is a challenging mission in the current complex multi‐stakeholder environment. Precision oncology and new approaches to clinical trials (methods and clinical setting) have dramatically changed clinical research and the clinical development of new treatments. Improved understanding of molecular biology and immunology paves the way for innovative pharmacological approaches. However, we argue that the evidence generated during the clinical development of these new products for the purpose of obtaining marketing authorisations often does not address fundamental questions concerning the impact of these new interventions on the most relevant clinical outcomes: namely, quality of life and patient survival. Similarly, patient populations (for example defined by biomarkers), treatment duration, and sequence and combination of treatments within current treatment pathways are often poorly defined by clinical developments for regulatory purposes. Finally, the lack of integrated translational research within the pathway of development is a major limiting factor to delivering cost‐effective and affordable, evidence‐based care to clinical practice. This leaves many gaps in the knowledge on the efficacy and therapeutic use of medicines, which can impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems, possibly to the detriment of more cost‐effective interventions. We argue that policy changes are required to integrate clinical research and healthcare to inform clinical practice. New routes toward optimising the integration of drug development and care are being proposed to achieve this ultimate goal. Fundamental questions addressing clinically relevant outcomes (survival, quality of life) are often not addressed during drug development. Poorly informative datasets on effectiveness and optimal use of treatments are not in the best interests of patients and contribute to undue expenditures. Policy changes are needed to integrate informative, conflict‐of‐interest‐free, applied, translational and clinical research in healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The survival of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma ( HL) has improved from 70% to 90% in clinical trials. However, population-based data has shown lower survival. In this study, clinical trial data were linked with cancer registry to identify trial and non-trial participants and differences in overall survival and associated factors were assessed. In 1986-2004, 27% of HL patients aged 15-70 years participated in clinical trials. Compared to non-trial participants, trial participants were younger (median age, 31 vs. 34 years), had staging registered more accurately and had an 8% higher 20-year survival rate (73% vs. 65%). After adjusting for baseline differences, no differences in survival (hazard ratio = 0·96, 95% confidence interval 0·82-1·12), or in subgroup analysis according to stage, remained. Over time, increased administration of chemotherapy in combination with radiotherapy, together with the decreased use of radiotherapy alone was observed among the trial population. This trend was later followed in non-trial participants, coinciding with a similar 'take-up' in survival. The observed superior survival among patients with HL treated in clinical trials can be largely explained by the differences in baseline characteristics, particularly younger age. High trial participation rate and centralized expertise facilitates the implementation of trial findings to real-world practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Emerging technologies and progress in data processing allowed for new insights on gene expression, genomics and epigenomics, and mechanisms of cancer genesis and progression. The development of new therapeutic strategies should therefore be triggered by the understanding of the underlying biology through sophisticated clinical trials. Therefore, the methodology and the design of cancer clinical trials as well as the methods of their implementation are under profound changes. Targeting specific pathways has open the hope of a more focused and personalized medicine which has the potential to bring more efficient and tailored treatments to patients. It has been questioned therefore whether clinical trials traditionally designed for specific tumor types could not re-visited towards trials gathering patients based on molecular features rather than pure pathology criteria. The complexity of the cancer biology being the result of so many different interactive mechanisms whether driving or not the process of cancer cells is an additional level of complexity to approach more inclusive clinical trial access. Nevertheless, a number of innovative solutions to address biological challenges across histologies have been initiated and the question of whether histology agnostic trials could be conceived is a logical next question. This paper questions the advantages and the limits of clinical trials performed across tumor types bearing similar selected molecular features and looks further into the feasibility of such histology agnostic trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Infertility due to anticancer treatments is a major source of distress for young patients with cancer. A survey was performed among breast cancer patients younger than 35 years, to evaluate the acceptance of chemotherapy in the context of infertility risk. Methods After obtaining written informed consent, we asked 400 premenopausal, early stage breast cancer patients aged ≤35 years to complete a short, previously pilot-tested questionnaire. Three hundred and eighty-nine patients were evaluable. The association between the explanatory variables and the outcome variables was assessed using logistic regression. Results Two hundred and twenty-eight (59%) participants wanted to have (more) children in the future, whereas 158 (41%) did not. Fifty-seven (36%) of the latter did not want additional children because of fear of cancer recurrence. Thirty-two women (8%) stated they would not accept chemotherapy should it reduce their fertility. This was dependent upon already having children, the wish to have (further) children, geographical area, disease stage, and already planned chemotherapy. One hundred and seventy-one women who would agree to chemotherapy (48%) would accept a risk of infertility of 76-100%. This acceptance was dependent on already having children and the wish to have (more) children. Of the 355 participants (91%) accepting chemotherapy, 48 would accept it only for ≥20% gain in cure. Conclusion For the majority of young patients with breast cancer, cure remains their first priority; for this, they are willing to accept a considerable decrease in future fertility, and only less than 10% will forego chances of cure to preserve fertility. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]