Search

Background: Advanced ovarian cancer patients have a poor prognosis, mainly because the disease is diagnosed at a late stage. A number of therapeutic approaches, such as neoadjuvant and maintenance therapies, have been developed to try to improve treatment outcome. In parallel, the targeted therapies bevacizumab and olaparib have recently been approved for ovarian cancer treatment. The goal of our survey was to provide a comprehensive, global depiction of advanced ovarian cancer treatments across different regions. Patients and methods: Oncologists from France, Italy, Germany, the UK, and the USA were invited to participate in an online survey. Participants were eligible if they personally managed at least 15 ovarian cancer patients. Quantitative questions addressed the proportion of patients in neoadjuvant, treatment, and maintenance settings; proportion of BRCA-positive patients; and the type of treatment prescribed per setting and per line of therapy, depending on the patient's BRCA status. Results: A total of 138 respondents completed our survey in Europe and 132 in the USA. The proportions of patients in treatment, maintenance, and remission were identical across each country and line of treatment at 60%, 20%, and 20%, respectively. The proportion of BRCA-tested patients ranged from 45% in Italy to 73% in the USA, with 10% (UK)-21% (Italy) of tested patients having a positive status. Levels of bevacizumab and olaparib prescriptions differed based on the country, line of treatment, and setting, with a significant share of patients receiving both drugs outside of their approved indications for ovarian cancer treatment. Conclusion: This survey provides real-world data on how advanced ovarian cancer patients are currently treated: 1) BRCA testing was not performed systematically, which raises concerns regarding access to treatment and 2) absence of consensus regarding which chemotherapeutic regimens or targeted therapy to use in different stages of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context:Policy and legislative efforts to improve the biomedical innovation process must rely on a detailed and thorough analysis of drug development and industry output. Objective:As part of our efforts to build a publicly-available database on the characteristics of drug development, we present work undertaken to test methods for compiling data from public sources. These initial steps are designed to explore challenges in data extraction, completeness and reliability. Specifically, filing dates for Investigational New Drugs (IND) applications with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were chosen as the initial objective data element to be collected. Materials and methods:FDA’s Drugs@FDA database and the Federal Register (FR) were used to collect IND dates for the 587 New Molecular Entities (NMEs) approved between 1994 and 2014. When available, the following data were captured: approval date, IND number, IND date and source of information. Results:At least one IND date was available for 445 (75.8%) of the 587 NMEs. The Drugs@FDA database provided IND dates for 303 (51.6%) NMEs and the FR contributed with 297 (50.6%) IND dates. Out of the 445 NMEs for which an IND date was obtained, 274 (61.6%) had more than one date reported. Discussion:Key finding of this paper is a considerable inconsistency in reliably available or reported data elements, in this particular case, IND application filing dates as assembled from publicly-available sources. Conclusion:Our team will continue to focus on finding ways to collect relevant information to measure impact of drug innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]