Accepting risk in the acceleration of drug development for rare cancers

Strategies for improving access to clinical trials by teenagers and young adults with cancer: A qualitative study of health professionals' views

OBJECTIVE

Few teenagers and young adults (TYA) with cancer participate in clinical trials. Lack of opportunity has been identified as a major barrier. We canvassed health professionals' views on how TYA's access to trials might be improved.

METHODS

We interviewed 35 professionals with responsibility for delivering or facilitating cancer care and/or clinical trials. We analysed data using a qualitative descriptive approach.

RESULTS

Interviewees viewed improving TYA's access to trials as challenging, but possible. They reframed the problem as one of rare disease and surmised that modifying the organisation, administration and resourcing of research (and care) might expand opportunities for both TYA and other patients with low volume conditions. Proposals coalesced around four themes: consolidating the pool of patients; streamlining bureaucratic requirements; investing in the research workforce; and promoting pragmatism in trial design.

CONCLUSION

Accounts suggest there is scope to improve access to trials by TYA with cancer and other patients with rare diseases. Though re-configuring care, research and resource frameworks would present substantial challenges, doing nothing would also have costs. Change will require the support of a range of stakeholders, and agreement as to the best way forward. Further work, such as priority setting exercises, may be necessary to reach a consensus.

Adapting to a Pandemic - Conducting Oncology Trials during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has necessitated changes in cancer care delivery as resources are reallocated. Clinical trials and other research activities are inevitably impacted. Start-up activities for new trials may be deferred and recruitment suspended. For patients already enrolled however, there are challenges in continuing treatment on trial. Regulatory bodies have issued guidance on managing clinical trials during the pandemic, including contingency measures for remote study visits, delivery of investigational product, and site monitoring visits. New cancer clinical trial practices during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic include new risk assessment strategies, decentralized and remote trial coordination, data collection, and delegation of specific therapeutic activities. This experience could provide evidence of more feasible and cost-effective methods for future clinical trial conduct.

Personalised medicine in paediatric oncology: Ethical practice outside the clinical trial framework?

Modern paediatric oncology practice has rapidly evolved from a fatal condition at diagnosis in the 1940s to modern survival rates of over 80%. With the advent of the 'omics' era and modern diagnostics platforms, we can now determine many of the molecular driving mechanisms of malignancy. Current molecular diagnostics trials PRISM and AIM/MNP, open in Australia, allow accurate diagnosis and determination of the molecular drivers of many cancers leading to new targeted opportunities for treatment. Unfortunately, clinical trial support, development and drug access for children has lagged behind. This is leaving clinicians and their institutions with increasingly difficult medical and ethical decisions, further complicating an already demanding profession.

Applying Reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making on the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the Spanish Context

Introduction

Unresectable, well-differentiated nonfunctioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) can be monitored (watchful waiting, WW) or treated with systemic therapy such as somatostatin analogues (SSAs) to delay progression. We applied a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) shared-decision framework (previously developed for the USA) to explore what matters to Spanish patients and clinicians considering GEP-NET treatment options.

Methods

The EVIDEM-derived framework was updated and adapted to the Spanish context. During a Chatham House session, five patients and six physicians assigned criteria weights using hierarchical point allocation and direct rating scale (alternative analysis). Informed by synthesized evidence embedded in the framework, participants scored how each criterion favored SSA treatment (reference case lanreotide) or WW and shared insights and knowledge. Weights and scores were combined into value contributions (norm. weight × score/5), which were added across criteria to derive the relative benefit–risk balance (RBRB, scale − 1 to + 1). Exploratory comparisons to US study findings were performed.

Results

Focusing on intervention outcomes (effectiveness, patient-reported, and safety), the mean RBRB favored treatment over WW (+ 0.32 ± 0.24), with the largest contributions from progression-free survival (+ 0.11 ± SD 0.07), fatal adverse events (+ 0.06 ± SD 0.08), and impact on HRQoL (+ 0.04 ± SD 0.04). Consideration of modulating criteria (type of benefit, need, costs, evidence, and feasibility) increased the RBRB to + 0.50 ± 0.14, with type of therapeutic benefit (+ 0.10 ± SD 0.08) and quality of evidence (+ 0.08 ± SD 0.06) contributing most towards treatment. Alternative weighting yielded similar results. Results were broadly comparable to those derived from the US study.

Conclusion

The multicriteria framework helped Spanish patients and clinicians identify and express what matters to them. The approach is transferable across decision-making contexts.

Funding

IPSEN Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0745-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Working to improve the management of sarcoma patients across Europe: a policy checklist

Background

The Sarcoma Policy Checklist was created by a multidisciplinary expert group to provide policymakers with priority areas to improve care for sarcoma patients.

Main body

This paper draws on this research, by looking more closely at how France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom are addressing each of these priority areas. It aims to highlight key gaps in research, policy and practice, as well as ongoing initiatives that may impact the future care of sarcoma patients in different European countries. A pragmatic review of the published and web-based literature was undertaken. Telephone interviews were conducted in each country with clinical and patient experts to substantiate findings. Research findings were discussed within the expert group and developed into five core policy recommendations. The five identified priority areas were: the development of designated and accredited centres of reference; more professional training; multidisciplinary care; greater incentives for research and innovation; and more rapid access to effective treatments. Most of the countries studied have ongoing initiatives addressing many of these priorities; however, many are in early stages of development, or require additional funding and resources.

Conclusion

Gaps in access to quality care are particularly concerning in many of Europe’s lower-resourced countries. Equitable access to information, clinical trials, innovative treatments and quality specialist care should be available to all sarcoma patients. Achieving this across Europe will require close collaboration between all stakeholders at both the national and European level.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States

Introduction

Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making.

Methods

The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing.

Results

The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives.

Funding

Ipsen Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0653-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Are products with an orphan designation for oncology indications different from products for other rare indications? A retrospective analysis of European orphan designations granted between 2002-2012

Background

Orphan designated medicinal products benefit from regulatory and economic incentives for orphan drug development. Approximately 40% of orphan designations target rare neoplastic disorders, referring to rare cancers. In order to provide more insights in drugs for rare neoplastic disorders that are under development and to better understand the role of orphan designation in the development of oncology drugs, this study investigates the characteristics of the product, the indication and the applicants as well as the stage of development of products with an orphan designation for rare neoplastic disorders and compares them with products with an orphan designation for other rare indications. Therefore, orphan designation application files and annual reports submitted by the applicant were reviewed at the premises of the European Medicines Agency.

Results

At the time of application, 41.6% of products with orphan designation for rare neoplastic disorders were in pre-clinical phase; this was 65.1% for other rare conditions (p < 0.05). Thirty percent of orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders had reached phase 1; compared to 19.3% of orphan designations targeting other rare conditions (p < 0.05). The same trend was observed for the stage of development at the time of the latest annual report. Significant benefit was more often considered for orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders compared to orphan designations for other rare conditions.

Conclusion

Orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders involve products that are in a more advanced stages of development compared to orphan designations for other (non-oncology) rare conditions.