1
|
Jacobson SI, Kacew AJ, Knoebel RW, Hsieh PH, Ratain MJ, Strohbehn GW. Alternative Trastuzumab Dosing Schedules Are Associated With Reductions in Health Care Greenhouse Gas Emissions. JCO Oncol Pract 2023; 19:799-807. [PMID: 37450776 PMCID: PMC10538895 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2023] [Revised: 05/24/2023] [Accepted: 06/15/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Cancer care-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions harm human health. Many cancer drugs are administered at greater-than-necessary doses, frequencies, and durations. Alternative dosing strategies may enable reductions in cancer care GHG emissions without compromising patient outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS We used streamlined life-cycle analysis in a case-control simulation to estimate the relative reductions in GHG emissions that would be expected to result from using each of three alternative dosing strategies of trastuzumab (6-month adjuvant treatment duration, once every 4-week dosing, and both) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)+ breast cancer. Using primary data and conversion factors from the environmental science literature, we estimated per-patient relative reduction in GHG emissions and, using SEER data, health impacts (in terms of disability-adjusted life-years [DALYs] and excess mortality per kg CO2) on bystanders for each alternative dosing strategy. RESULTS Compared with the trastuzumab dosing strategy commonly used at baseline (12-month duration of adjuvant therapy and once every 3-week dosing in all settings), adoption of both 6-month adjuvant trastuzumab and once every 4-week trastuzumab dosing would reduce GHG emissions by 4.5%, 18.7%, and 14.6% in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic settings, respectively. We estimate that US-based adoption of alternative trastuzumab dosing would reduce annual DALYs and excess lives lost due to environmental impact of US-based trastuzumab therapy for HER2+ breast cancer by 1.5 and 0.9, respectively. CONCLUSION Alternative dosing strategies may materially reduce the population health impacts of cancer care by reducing environmental impact. Regulatory decision making and health technology assessments should consider a treatment's environmental and population health impacts. Clinical trials of alternative dosing strategies are justified on the basis of environmental and population health impacts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alec J. Kacew
- University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | | | - Po-Hung Hsieh
- Committee on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
- United States Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD
| | - Mark J. Ratain
- Committee on Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
- Department of Medicine, Section of Hematology/Oncology, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
- Center for Personalized Therapeutics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL
| | - Garth W. Strohbehn
- University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI
- Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI
- Division of Medical Oncology, LTC Charles S Kettles VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, MI
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
- Center for Global Health Equity, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Overbeek JK, Ter Heine R, Verheul HMW, Chatelut E, Rudek MA, Gurney H, Plummer R, Gilbert DC, Buclin T, Burger DM, Bloemendal HJ, van Erp NP. Off-label, but on target: the evidence needed to implement alternative dosing regimens of anticancer drugs. ESMO Open 2023; 8:100749. [PMID: 36603522 PMCID: PMC9813708 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100749] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 11/23/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Affiliation(s)
- J K Overbeek
- Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - R Ter Heine
- Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - H M W Verheul
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus University MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - E Chatelut
- Institut Claudius-Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, and CRCT, Université de Toulouse, Inserm, 1, Toulouse, France; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
| | - M A Rudek
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA; Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
| | - H Gurney
- Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, Australia
| | - R Plummer
- Newcastle University and Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne
| | - D C Gilbert
- MRC Clinical Trials Unit, University College London (UCL), Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK; Optimal Cancer Care Alliance, Ann Arbor, USA
| | - T Buclin
- Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Lausanne University Hospital (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - D M Burger
- Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - H J Bloemendal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen
| | - N P van Erp
- Department of Pharmacy, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Graham SS, Karnes MS, Jensen JT, Sharma N, Barbour JB, Majdik ZP, Rousseau JF. Evidence for stratified conflicts of interest policies in research contexts: a methodological review. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e063501. [PMID: 36123074 PMCID: PMC9486359 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063501] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to conduct a methodological review of research on the effects of conflicts of interest (COIs) in research contexts. DESIGN Methodological review. DATA SOURCES Ovid. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Studies published between 1986 and 2021 conducting quantitative assessments of relationships between industry funding or COI and four target outcomes: positive study results, methodological biases, reporting quality and results-conclusions concordance. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS We assessed key facets of study design: our primary analysis identified whether studies stratified industry funding or COI variables by magnitude (ie, number of COI or disbursement amount), type (employment, travel fees, speaking fees) or if they assessed dichotomous variables (ie, conflict present or absent). Secondary analyses focused on target outcomes and available effects measures. RESULTS Of the 167 articles included in this study, a substantial majority (98.2%) evaluated the effects of industry sponsorship. None evaluated associations between funding magnitude and outcomes of interest. Seven studies (4.3%) stratified industry funding based on the mechanism of disbursement or funder relationship to product (manufacturer or competitor). A fifth of the articles (19.8%) assessed the effects of author COI on target outcomes. None evaluated COI magnitude, and three studies (9.1%) stratified COI by disbursement type and/or reporting practices. Participation of an industry-employed author showed the most consistent effect on favourability of results across studies. CONCLUSIONS Substantial evidence demonstrates that industry funding and COI can bias biomedical research. Evidence-based policies are essential for mitigating the risks associated with COI. Although most policies stratify guidelines for managing COI, differentiating COIs based on the type of relationship or monetary value, this review shows that the available research has generally not been designed to assess the differential risks of COI types or magnitudes. Targeted research is necessary to establish an evidence base that can effectively inform policy to manage COI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- S Scott Graham
- Department of Rhetoric & Writing, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
| | - Martha S Karnes
- Department of English, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
| | - Jared T Jensen
- Department of Communication Studies, The Unviersity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| | - Nandini Sharma
- Department of Communication Studies, The Unviersity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| | - Joshua B Barbour
- Department of Communication Studies, The Unviersity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
| | - Zoltan P Majdik
- Department of Communication, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA
| | - Justin F Rousseau
- Department of Population Health and Neurology, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, Texas, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Samuel JN, Booth CM, Eisenhauer E, Brundage M, Berry SR, Gyawali B. Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class. JAMA Oncol 2022; 8:879-886. [PMID: 35482347 PMCID: PMC9052107 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2022.0864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Importance Although quality of life (QOL) is an important clinical end point, cancer drugs are often approved based on overall survival (OS) or putative surrogate end points such as progression-free survival (PFS) without QOL data. Objective To ascertain whether cancer drug trials that show improvement in OS or PFS also improve global QOL of patients with cancer compared with the control treatment, as well as to assess how unchanged or detrimental QOL outcomes are reported in trial publications. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included all patients with cancer in the advanced setting who were enrolled into phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs reporting QOL data and published in English language in a PubMed-indexed journal in the calendar year 2019. The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in July 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures Association of QOL outcomes with OS and PFS, framing of unchanged QOL outcomes in trial publications, and the association of favorable framing with industry funding of the trials. Results A total of 45 phase 3 RCTs enrolling 24 806 participants (13 368 in the experimental arm and 11 438 in the control arm) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study analyses. Improvement in global QOL with the experimental agent was reported in 11 (24%) RCTs. The RCTs with improved QOL were more likely to also show improved OS vs trials with unimproved QOL (7 of 11 [64%] trials vs 10 of 34 [29%] trials; χ2 = 4.13; P = .04); there was no such association observed for PFS (6 of 11 [55%] trials vs 17 of 34 [50%] trials, χ2 = 0.03; P = .87). Six trials reported worsening QOL, of which 3 (50%) were trials of targeted drugs, and 11 trials reported improvement in QOL, of which 6 (55%) were trials of immunotherapy drugs. Of the 34 trials in which QOL was not improved compared with controls, 16 (47%) reported these results in a positive frame, an observation statistically significantly associated with industry funding (χ2 = 6.35; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, a small proportion of RCTs of cancer drugs showed benefit in global QOL with the experimental agent. These results showed an association between QOL benefit and OS benefit but no such association with PFS benefit. Trials that failed to show improved QOL often reported their QOL outcomes more favorably. Non-immunotherapy-targeted drugs led to worse QOL more often than did cytotoxic agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph N Samuel
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Christopher M Booth
- Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elizabeth Eisenhauer
- Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Michael Brundage
- Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Scott R Berry
- Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Bishal Gyawali
- Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Cancer Research Institute, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zhang Y, Guan X. Misleading Reporting in Statistically Not Significant Oncology Trials-Joining Efforts Toward Unbiased Results Interpretation. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2138695. [PMID: 34874408 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.38695] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Yichen Zhang
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaodong Guan
- Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China
- International Research Center for Medicinal Administration, Peking University, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Petrou P. Assessing the pricing and benefits of oncology products: an update. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2021; 21:335-342. [PMID: 33950772 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2021.1926987] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
Abstract
Introduction: Oncology expenditure is outperforming all other health care sectors. In particular, the cost of oncology pharmaceuticals is soaring as it is fueled both by incremental costs and the introduction rate of new products. Due to the particularities of cancer as a disease, a significant multilayer of pressure is exerted toward the reimbursement of new treatments. Nevertheless, if the expenditure increase is left unattended, it may hamper the viability of any health care system worldwide.Areas covered: A literature review of the expenditure on oncology pharmaceuticals and the exploration of the root causes for the increase in expenditure was performed.Expert commentary: The surging oncology expenditure demonstrates a multi-layer causality that encompasses prices, the uncertainty of clinical trials, the specificities of cancer as a disease, and the artificial monopoly of oncology modalities. Moreover, laxity in the regulatory approval of new products was noted. In addition, the study design should be adequately justified. Finally, new reimbursement schemes, that explicitly reward and promote clinically meaningful and measurable outcomes, are also imperative.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Panagiotis Petrou
- Pharmacoepidemiology-Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacy Programme, Department of Life and Health Sciences, School of Sciences and Engineering, University of Nicosia, Nicosia, Cyprus
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Gyawali B, de Vries EGE, Dafni U, Amaral T, Barriuso J, Bogaerts J, Calles A, Curigliano G, Gomez-Roca C, Kiesewetter B, Oosting S, Passaro A, Pentheroudakis G, Piccart M, Roitberg F, Tabernero J, Tarazona N, Trapani D, Wester R, Zarkavelis G, Zielinski C, Zygoura P, Cherny NI. Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring. ESMO Open 2021; 6:100117. [PMID: 33887690 PMCID: PMC8086024 DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/12/2021] [Revised: 03/16/2021] [Accepted: 03/22/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. Methods As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Results Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. Conclusion Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS. We reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results of trials. These issues could skew the results of ESMO-MCBS scores. Six design, two implementation, and two analysis issues were reviewed, and seven shortcomings were identified. These issues will be addressed in future versions of the MCBS scale. Interpretation of MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Gyawali
- Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
| | - E G E de Vries
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - U Dafni
- Laboratory of Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens; Frontier Science Foundation-Hellas, Athens, Greece
| | - T Amaral
- Skin Cancer Center, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard Karls University, Tuebingen, Germany
| | - J Barriuso
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust and Division of Cancer Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - J Bogaerts
- European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium
| | - A Calles
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon, Madrid, Spain
| | - G Curigliano
- Department of Oncology and Hemato-Oncology, University of Milan, Milan; European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - C Gomez-Roca
- Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse (IUCT), Toulouse, France
| | - B Kiesewetter
- Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - S Oosting
- Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - A Passaro
- Division of Thoracic Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | | | - M Piccart
- Jules Bordet Institute, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| | - F Roitberg
- WHO Cancer Management Consultant, Geneva, Switzerland; Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP HCFMUSP), São Paulo, Brazil
| | - J Tabernero
- Vall d'Hebron Hospital Campus and Institute of Oncology (VHIO), UVic-UCC, IO-Quiron, Barcelona, Spain
| | - N Tarazona
- Department of Medical Oncology, Biomedical Research Institute INCLIVA, CIBERONC, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
| | - D Trapani
- European Institute of Oncology, IRCCS, Milan, Italy
| | - R Wester
- Department of Hematology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - G Zarkavelis
- University of Ioannina-Department of Medical Oncology, Ioannina, Greece
| | - C Zielinski
- Central European Cooperative Oncology Group and Central European Cancer Center, Wiener Privatklinik, Vienna, Austria
| | - P Zygoura
- Frontier Science Foundation-Hellas, Athens, Greece
| | - N I Cherny
- Cancer Pain and Palliative Medicine Service, Department of Medical Oncology, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Tannock IF, Ratain MJ, Goldstein DA, Lichter AS, Rosner GL, Saltz LB. Near-Equivalence: Generating Evidence to Support Alternative Cost-Effective Treatments. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:950-955. [DOI: 10.1200/jco.20.02768] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
|
9
|
Hashim M, Vincken T, Kroi F, Gebregergish S, Spencer M, Wang J, Kampfenkel T, Lam A, He J. A systematic review of noninferiority margins in oncology clinical trials. J Comp Eff Res 2021; 10:443-455. [PMID: 33728935 DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and characterize noninferiority margins for relevant end points in oncology clinical trials. Materials & methods: Randomized, controlled, noninferiority trials of patients with cancer were identified in PubMed and Embase. Results: Of 2284 publications identified, 285 oncology noninferiority clinical trials were analyzed. The median noninferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1.29 (mean: 1.32; range: 1.05-2.05) for studies that reported time-to-event end points (n = 192). The median noninferiority margin was 13.0% (mean: 12.7%; range: 5.0-20.0%) for studies that reported response end points as absolute rate differences (n = 31). Conclusion: Although there was consistency in the noninferiority margins' scale, variability was evident in noninferiority margins across trials. Increased transparency may improve consistency in noninferiority margin application in oncology clinical trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Mike Spencer
- Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, NJ 08869, USA
| | - Jianping Wang
- Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, NJ 08869, USA
| | | | - Annette Lam
- Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, NJ 08869, USA
| | - Jianming He
- Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, NJ 08869, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Martín-Richard M, Tobeña M. First-Line Maintenance Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): Quality and Clinical Benefit Overview. J Clin Med 2021; 10:jcm10030470. [PMID: 33530547 PMCID: PMC7865515 DOI: 10.3390/jcm10030470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Revised: 12/22/2020] [Accepted: 01/21/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Different strategies of maintenance therapy (sequential CT, intermittent CT, intermittent CT and MAbs, or de-escalation MAbs monotherapy) after first-line treatment are undertaken. Many randomized clinical trials (RCT), which evaluated these approaches, suffer from incorrect design, heterogenous primary endpoints, inadequate size, and other methodology flaws. Drawing any conclusions becomes challenging and recommendations are mainly vague. We evaluated those studies from another perspective, focusing on the design quality and the clinical benefit measure with a more objective and accurate methodology. These data allowed a clearer and more exact overview of the statement in maintenance treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Martín-Richard
- Medical Oncology Department, Sant Pau Hospital, 08043 Barcelona, Spain
- Correspondence:
| | - Maria Tobeña
- Medical Oncology Department, Quironsalud Hospital, 50006 Zaragoza, Spain;
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Gupta A, Wang P, Ali SA, Rajkumar SV, Gyawali B, Overton HN, Makary MA. Use of Bone-Modifying Agents Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Multiple Myeloma. JAMA Oncol 2020; 6:296-298. [PMID: 31830210 DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Arjun Gupta
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Peiqi Wang
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Syed Abbas Ali
- The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baltimore, Maryland
| | | | - Bishal Gyawali
- Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.,Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Heidi N Overton
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.,Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Martin A Makary
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.,Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Kurlansky P. Commentary: How to overcome an inferiority complex. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2020; 161:2125-2129. [PMID: 32711987 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2020] [Revised: 04/28/2020] [Accepted: 04/29/2020] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Paul Kurlansky
- Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery, Columbia University, New York, NY.
| |
Collapse
|