Transitional dynamics in oncology clinical trials: evaluating the impact of Clinical Trials Act on cooperative groups

OBJECTIVE

large-scale multicentre clinical trials conducted by cooperative groups have generated a lot of evidence to establish better standard treatments. The Clinical Trials Act was enforced on 1 April 2018, in Japan, and it has remarkably increased the operational burden on investigators, but its long-term impact on cancer cooperative groups is unknown.

METHODS

a survey was conducted across the nine major cooperative groups that constitute the Japan Cancer Trials Network to assess the impact of Clinical Trials Act on the number of newly initiated trials from fiscal year (from 1 April to 31 March) 2017 to 2022 and that of ongoing trials on 1 April in each year from 2018 to 2023.

RESULTS

the number of newly initiated trials dropped from 38 trials in fiscal year 2017 to 26 trials in fiscal year 2018, surged to 50 trials in fiscal year 2019, but then gradually decreased to 25 trials by fiscal year 2022. Specified clinical trials decreased from 32 trials in fiscal year 2019 to 12 trials in fiscal year 2022. The number of ongoing trials was 220 trials in 2018, peaked at 245 trials in 2020, but then gradually decreased to 219 trials by 2023. The number of specified clinical trials has been in consistent decline. By April 2023, of the 20 ongoing non-specified clinical trials, nine adhered to Clinical Trials Act and 11 followed the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects.

CONCLUSION

the number of multicentre clinical trials in oncology gradually decreased after the Clinical Trials Act's enforcement, which underscores the need for comprehensive amendment of the Clinical Trials Act to streamline the operational process.

Taking It to the States: Adapting Information Blocking Legislation to Oncology

Oncologists have successfully pushed for new state laws on how we release life-changing test results

Navigating the Regulatory Landscape to Develop Pediatric Oncology Drugs: Expert Opinion Recommendations

Regulatory changes have been enacted in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to encourage the development of new treatments for pediatric cancer. Here, we review some of the factors that have hampered the development of pediatric cancer treatments and provide a comparison of the US and EU regulations implemented to address this clinical need. We then provide some recommendations for each stage of the oncology drug development pathway to help researchers maximize their chance of successful drug development while complying with regulations. A key recommendation is the engagement of key stakeholders such as regulatory authorities, pediatric oncologists, academic researchers, patient advocacy groups, and a Pediatric Expert Group early in the drug development process. During drug target selection, sponsors are encouraged to consult the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the FDA target list, in addition to relevant US and European consortia that have been established to characterize and prioritize oncology drug targets. Sponsors also need to carefully consider the resourcing requirements for preclinical testing, which include ensuring appropriate access to the most relevant databases, clinical samples, and preclinical models (cell lines and animal models). During clinical development, sponsors can account for the pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations specific to a pediatric population by developing pediatric formulations, selecting suitable PD endpoints, and employing sparse PK sampling or modeling/simulation of drug exposures where appropriate. Additional clinical considerations include the specific design of the clinical trial, the potential inclusion of children in adult trials, and the value of cooperative group trials.

The Financial Effect of Medicare Coverage Design and Safety Net Options for Cancer Care

BACKGROUND

National spending on specialty medications accounted for approximately $193 billion in 2016. The coverage design for Medicare Parts B and D has shifted medication costs to patients, which may prohibit patients from starting or maintaining therapy due to affordability. As a result, patients have enrolled in safety net financial options, such as patient assistance and foundation programs. Safety net options may provide savings not otherwise realized by Medicare; however, they may have a negative financial effect on health systems and pharmaceutical manufacturers.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) quantify financial savings to Medicare as a result of patient enrollment in patient assistance programs and (b) quantify the financial effect of safety net options for patients, manufacturers, and the academic medical center that participated in this study.

METHODS

A single-center, nonrandomized, retrospective pilot study of Medicare beneficiaries was conducted. Patients who were prescribed hematology/oncology specialty medications and enrolled in safety net options between July 2015 and June 2017 were included. Investigators collected data related to fill history, drug cost, and prescription coverage. The primary outcome was the overall cost savings to Medicare as a result of patient enrollment in patient assistance programs. Secondary outcomes included total patient out-of-pocket savings as a result of foundation copayment support, financial effect on manufacturers as a result of patient assistance programs, and health system revenue impact as a result of safety net options. Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

This study included 114 patients. Medicare saved $5,083,816.83 over 2 years as a result of patient assistance programs. Eight foundations provided $240,350.04 in patient insurance copayments. Nine manufacturers provided 2,243 free drug doses, valued at $3,379,032.34. The participating medical center missed the opportunity for $6,481,543.55 in revenue due to patient assistance programs.

CONCLUSIONS

The participating medical center's efforts to improve access to oncology care took considerable time and resources. These activities, as well as unreimbursed infusion services, were costs to the medical center that may not be recognized by Medicare. Manufacturers also supported patient access through their sponsored patient assistance programs. The use of these services and safety net options resulted in cost savings to Medicare and their beneficiaries.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. Findings from this study were part of a podium research presentation at the Great Lakes Pharmacy Residency Conference; April 25, 2018; West Lafayette, IN.

Challenges of international oncology trial collaboration-a call to action

International collaboration in oncology trials has the potential to enhance clinical trial activity by expediting the recruitment of large patient populations, testing treatments in diverse populations and facilitating the study of rare tumours or specific molecular subtypes. However, a number of challenges continue to hinder the efficient and productive conduct of both commercial and non-commercial international clinical trials. These challenges include complex and burdensome regulatory requirements, the high cost of conducting trials, and logistical challenges associated with ethics review, drug supply and biospecimen collection and management. We propose solutions to promote oncology trial collaboration, such as regulatory reform, harmonisation of trial initiation and management processes and greater recognition and funding of academic (non-commercial) clinical trials. It is only through coordinated effort and leadership from researchers, regulators and those responsible for health systems that the full potential of international trial collaboration can be realised.

Median Survival or Mean Survival: Which Measure Is the Most Appropriate for Patients, Physicians, and Policymakers?

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the efficacy of treatments is crucial for patients, physicians, and policymakers. Median survival, the most common measure used in the outcome reporting of oncology clinical trials, is easy to understand; however, it describes only a single time point. The interpretation of the hazard ratio is difficult, and its underlying statistical assumptions are not always met. The objective of this study was to evaluate alternative measures based on the mean benefit of novel oncology treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for oncology agents between 2013 and 2017. We digitized survival curves as reported in the clinical trials used for the FDA approvals and implemented statistical transformations to calculate for each trial the restricted mean survival time (RMST), as well as the mean survival using Weibull distribution. We compared the mean survival with the median survival benefit in each clinical trial.

RESULTS

The FDA approved 83 solid tumor indications for oncology agents between 2013 and 2017, of which 27 approvals based on response rates, whereas 49 approvals were based on survival endpoints (progression-free survival and overall survival). The average improvement in median overall survival or progression-free survival was 4.6 months versus 3.6 months improvement in the average RMST and 6.1 months improvement in mean survival using Weibull distribution.

CONCLUSION

Mean survival may supply valuable information for different stakeholders. Its inclusion should be considered in the reporting of prospective clinical trials.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Mean survival may supply valuable information for different stakeholders. Its inclusion should be considered in the reporting of clinical trials.

Facing internet fake-medicine and web para-pharmacy in the total absence of official recommendations from medical societies

PURPOSE

Internet fake information, parapharmacy and counterfeit drugs are a market of hundreds of billion dollars. Misleading internet data decrease patients' compliance to medical care, promote use of questionable and detrimental practices, and jeopardize patient outcome. This is particularly harmful among cancer patients, especially when pain and nutritional aspects are considered. Provision of Web recommendations for the general audience (patients, relatives, general population) from official medical-providers might be useful to outweigh the detrimental internet information produced by non-medical providers.

METHODS

370 oncology and anesthesiology related societies were analyzed. Our objective was to evaluate the magnitude of web-recommendation for cancer cachexia and cancer pain for the general audience provided by official medical organizations' web sites at global level.

RESULTS

Magnitude of web-recommendations at global level was surprisingly scant both for coverage and consistency. Seven official medical societies provided updated web-recommendation for cancer cachexia to their patients/family members, and 15 for cancer pain. Scantiness was unrelated by continent, developmental index, oncology tradition, economic-geographic area and society type scrutinized.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients need expert advice when exposed to fake internet information largely dominated by paramedical market profits. In this era of "new media" the patients' net-education represents a new major educational challenge for medical societies.

Is Watson for Oncology per se Unreasonably Dangerous?: Making A Case for How to Prove Products Liability Based on a Flawed Artificial Intelligence Design

Artificial intelligence (AI) machines hold the world's curiosity captive. Futuristic television shows like West World are set in desert lands against pink sunsets where sleek, autonomous AI fulfill every human need, desire, and kink. But I, Robot, a movie where robots turn against the humans they serve, reminds us that AI is precarious. Academicians who study how AI interacts with tort law, such as Jessica Allain, David Vladeck, and Sjur Dyrkoltbotn, claim that the current legal regime is incapable of addressing the liability issues AI present. Both Allain and Vladeck focus their research on whether tort law can accommodate claims against fully autonomous AI machines, while Dyrkoltbotn explores how AI can be leveraged to help plaintiffs identify the genesis of their injuries. The solution this article presents is not exclusively tailored to fully autonomous AI and does not identify how technology can be used in tort claims. It instead demonstrates that the current tort law regime can provide relief to plaintiffs who are injured by AI machines. In particular, this article argues that the manner in which Watson for Oncology is designed presents a new context in which courts should adopt a per se rule of liability that favors plaintiffs who bring damage claims against AI machines by expanding the definition of what it means for a device to be unreasonably dangerous.

The Impact of Big Data Research on Practice, Policy, and Cancer Care

The concept of "big data" research-the aggregation and analysis of biologic, clinical, administrative, and other data sources to drive new advances in biomedical knowledge-has been embraced by the cancer research enterprise. Although much of the conversation has concentrated on the amalgamation of basic biologic data (e.g., genomics, metabolomics, tumor tissue), new opportunities to extend potential contributions of big data to clinical practice and policy abound. This article examines these opportunities through discussion of three major data sources: aggregated clinical trial data, administrative data (including insurance claims data), and data from electronic health records. We will discuss the benefits of data use to answer key oncology practice and policy research questions, along with limitations inherent in these complex data sources. Finally, the article will discuss overarching themes across data types and offer next steps for the research, practice, and policy communities. The use of multiple sources of big data has the promise of improving knowledge and providing more accurate data for clinicians and policy decision makers. In the future, optimization of machine learning may allow for current limitations of big data analyses to be attenuated, thereby resulting in improved patient care and outcomes.

"As Long as You Ask": A Qualitative Study of Biobanking Consent-Oncology Patients' and Health Care Professionals' Attitudes, Motivations, and Experiences-the B-PPAE Study

INTRODUCTION

Consent to biobanking remains controversial, with little empirical data to guide policy and practice. This study aimed to explore the attitudes, motivations, and concerns of both oncology patients and health care professionals (HCPs) regarding biobanking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with oncology patients and HCPs purposively selected from five Australian hospitals. Patients were invited to give biobanking consent as part of a clinical trial and/or for future research were eligible. HCPs were eligible if involved in consenting patients to biobanking or to donate specimens to clinical trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients participated, with head and neck (36%) and prostate (18%) the most common cancer diagnoses; all had consented to biobanking. Twenty-two HCPs participated, from across eight cancer streams and five disciplines. Themes identified were (a) biobanking is a "no brainer"; (b) altruism or scientific enquiry; (c) trust in clinicians, science, and institutions; (d) no consent-just do it; (e) respecting patient choice ("opt-out"); (f) respectful timing of the request; (g) need for emotional/family support; (h) context of the biobanking request matters; and (i) factors for biobanking success.

DISCUSSION

These findings reinforced previous findings regarding high public trust in, and support for, biobanking. An initial opt-in consent approach with the option of later opt-out was favored by patients to respect and recognize donor generosity, whereas HCPs preferred an upfront opt-out model. Factors impacting biobanking success included the context of the request for use in a trial or specific research question, pre-existing patient and HCP rapport, a local institution champion, and infrastructure.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patients and health care professionals (HCPs) who experienced cancer biobanking consent were overwhelmingly supportive of biobanking. The motivations and approaches to seeking consent were largely mirrored between the groups. The findings of this study support the opt-in model of biobanking favored by patients; however, HCPs preferred an opt-out model. Both groups recognize the importance of making the request for biobanking at an appropriate time, preferably with emotional or family support, and respecting the timing of the request and privacy of the patient. Biobanking success can be promoted by hospital departments with a research focus by identifying an institutional biobanking champion and ensuring local infrastructure is available.

Dense Breast Legislation in the United States: State of the States

Limitations of screening mammography in patients with dense breasts combined with the significant increased risk for breast cancer have made the issue of dense breasts a matter of great concern in recent years, leading to advocacy for policy change and legislation. Dense breast notification legislation requires direct patient notification of mammographic results indicating the presence of dense breast tissue. The aim of this study was to summarize the state of dense breast notification legislation across the country. The general intent of dense breast notification legislation is to increase awareness of dense breasts and encourage patients to discuss the clinical issues with their physicians. It was first enacted in Connecticut in 2009, and since then, 27 other states have passed, rejected, or considered dense breast notification legislation. At the federal level, a bill was introduced in October 2011, but it was not enacted. There are significant differences in the language of the laws from state to state that complicate implementation. Furthermore, legislated recommendations for possible additional testing are often unaccompanied by legal provisions for insurance coverage, which potentially results in unequal access.

Orphan Drug Regulation: A missed opportunity for children and adolescents with cancer

BACKGROUND

Oncology represents a major sector in the field of orphan drug development in Europe. The objective was to evaluate whether children and adolescents with cancer benefited from the Orphan Drug Regulation.

METHODS

Data on orphan drug designations (ODDs) and registered orphan drugs from 8th August 2000 to 10th September 2016 were collected from the Community Register of medicinal products for human use. Assessment history, product information and existence of paediatric investigation plans were searched and retrieved from the European Medicine Agency website.

RESULTS

Over 16 years, 272 of 657 oncology ODDs (41%) concerned a malignant condition occurring both in adults and children. The five most common were acute myeloid leukaemia, high-grade glioma, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, graft-versus-host disease and soft-tissue sarcomas. 74% of 31 marketing authorisations (MAs) for an indication both in adults and children (26 medicines) had no information for paediatric use in their Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) at the time of the first MA. Furthermore, 68% still have no paediatric information in their most recently updated SmPC, at a median of 7 years after. Only 15 ODDs (2%) pertained to a malignancy occurring specifically in children and only two drugs received an MA: Unituxin for high-risk neuroblastoma and Votubia for sub-ependymal giant-cell astrocytoma.

CONCLUSION

The Orphan Drug Regulation failed to promote the development of innovative therapies for malignancies occurring in children. Major delays and waivers occurred through the application of the Paediatric Medicines Regulation. The European regulatory environment needs to be improved to accelerate innovation for children and adolescents dying of cancer.

[Topical problems of occupational cancer in Russia.]

The authors present data on occupational oncologic morbidity in Russia by federal districts and regions. Over 2002- 2014, a total of 497 cases of occupational cancer was registered, that is less than 0,3% of minimal expected number of cases. Necessity is to urgent improvement of legislation and methodic basis, informational supply, providing qualitative account of occupational oncologic morbidity. Important role in solving this problem could be played by continued sanitary and hygienic certification of caricnogenically dangerous institutions in RF and creation of Federal register (governmental automated information system) of individuals who had (has) occupational exposure to carcinogenic factors.