Clinical and Outcome Research in oncology The need for integration

Cancer is one of the main healthcare problems in Europe. Although significant progress has recently been made, long-term survival is still disappointing for most common solid tumours. The explosion of information has strengthened the need to create and sustain coordinated interaction between technology, biology, clinical research, clinical practice and health policy. A simple process based on automatic and passive translation from bench to clinical research and eventually to the bed side is usually assumed but cannot be taken for granted. A critical role might be played by Outcome Research (OR), defined as the discipline that describes, interprets, and predicts the impact of various influences, especially interventions, on final endpoints (from survival to satisfaction with care) that matter to decision makers (from patients to society at large), with special emphasis on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Recently, under pressure from several parts of society, the FDA, recognizing the need for faster drug approval, has modified existing regulations and created new rules to allow anti-cancer drugs to be approved more quickly and, in certain but quite common circumstances, single arm trials and surrogate endpoints to be used as measures of clinical benefit. In this context, the faster approval process may lead to drugs being marketed without there being a complete picture of how effective or safe they are. The FDA move to speed up drug approval, together with the use of not fully validated surrogate endpoints, give OR the unique opportunity to help understand the value of drugs that have received accelerated approval. Despite this opportunity, OR has yet to demonstrate its role in this specific setting and provide proof of the validity, reliability and added value of its primary endpoint measures when evaluated in a broader context. The implementation of lines of OR in the development and evaluation of anti-cancer drugs hinges upon the availability of specific knowledge, methods, instruments and resources and upon their appropriate integration in the mainstream of clinical research. In the USA specific interdisciplinary projects have been launched by the NCI. In Europe there is a lack of such initiatives. The correct placement of OR in the anti-cancer drug development process will guarantee the highest possible standard of validity and reliability of OR at European level and better integration of both translational and outcome research in the mainstream of clinical research into anti-cancer drugs, thus speeding up the introduction of the results of patient-oriented translational clinical research into clinical practice

Improving quality of care for cancer pain: an Italian five-year project

Background: cancer pain is still undertreated as for inappropriate use of opioids, as for reason related to other factors. To increase knowledge of cancer pain, the “Mario Negri” Institute promote a series of initiatives to improve the quality of care and patients’ outcomes. Methods: a series of activities were launched including literature review, clinical studies and training schemes. Results: literature reviews shown a prevalence of undertreatment ranged from 8% to 82% and a raw prevalence of BTcP (Breakthrough Cancer Pain) of 51%. In the outcome research study mean worst pain at baseline was 6.8, and 38.3% received a strong opioids. Prevalence of BTcP was 40.3%, and 33.9% of the patients were not receiving rescue therapy at the study inclusion. About analgesic effectiveness of oral and transdermal opioids (TD), treatments with TD were associated with a lower probability to switch (OR=0.83) and to drop out from the study (OR=0.68). Conclusions: the initiative, still ongoing, has allowed a) the creation of a unit for the study and evaluation of cancer pain, b) the production of clinical evidence about the epidemiology, quality and effects of cancer pain management in Italy, c) the design and promotion of a Randomized Controlled Trial to evaluate the effectiveness of four major opioids

Pain management and outcomes in cancer patients: comparison between oncological and palliative sets of care

Background: medical oncologists and palliative care physicians have different tasks even if they play a similar role when coping with pain of their patients. In spite of this converging goal, oncologists and palliative care therapists can not have the same approach and impact in managing pain. This study analyzes how pain is treated and which outcomes derive from in 1 461 cancer patients separately cared by oncologists or palliative care physicians. Methods: data derive from an observational, multicentre, prospective, longitudinal study carried out in 110 Italian hospitals. After inclusion, the data were recorded weekly for a 28 days period of follow-up. Results: 876 patients (60%) were cared by oncologists and 585 (40%) by palliative care physicians. The two professional categories tended to similarly manage the drugs of WHO analgesic ladder, while rescue and adjuvant therapies were more frequently used by palliative care physicians. Opioids daily dose increased from 68.3 to 92.5 mg/day (Effect size=0.282) among oncologists and from 70.8 to 107.8 mg/day (Effect size=0.402) among palliative care physicians. The switch of opioids was applied in 12.3% and in 19.1% (p=0.1634), respectively. Pain intensity decreased in both groups but more strongly in the palliative context. The full responders patients were 50% in oncology wards and 58.9% in palliative care (p=0.0588). Conclusions: this study indicates how much oncologists and palliative care physicians differ in managing cancer pain. The observational nature of this study reflects the natural and unaffected choice of the professionals. As intrinsic limit the study only describes their behaviors without a stringent comparative evaluation

Discussing study limitations in reports of biomedical studies- the need for more transparency

Unbiased and frank discussion of study limitations by authors represents a crucial part of the scientific discourse and progress. In today's culture of publishing many authors or scientific teams probably balance 'utter honesty' when discussing limitations of their research with the risk of being unable to publish their work. Currently, too few papers in the medical literature frankly discuss how limitations could have affected the study findings and interpretations. The goals of this commentary are to review how limitations are currently acknowledged in the medical literature, to discuss the implications of limitations in biomedical studies, and to make suggestions as to how to openly discuss limitations for scientists submitting their papers to journals. This commentary was developed through discussion and logical arguments by the authors who are doing research in the area of hedging (use of language to express uncertainty) and who have extensive experience as authors and editors of biomedical papers. We strongly encourage authors to report on all potentially important limitations that may have affected the quality and interpretation of the evidence being presented. This will not only benefit science but also offers incentives for authors: If not all important limitations are acknowledged readers and reviewers of scientific articles may perceive that the authors were unaware of them. Authors should take advantage of their content knowledge and familiarity with the study to prevent misinterpretations of the limitations by reviewers and readers. Articles discussing limitations help shape the future research agenda and are likely to be cited because they have informed the design and conduct of future studies. Instead of perceiving acknowledgment of limitations negatively, authors, reviewers and editors should recognize the potential of a frank and unbiased discussion of study limitations that should not jeopardize acceptance of manuscripts

Cancer Core Europe: A translational research infrastructure for a European mission on cancer

Alliance; Cancer research; InfrastructureAliança; Recerca oncològica; InfraestructuraAlianza; Investigación oncológica; InfraestructuraCancer Core Europe is a European legal alliance consisting of seven leading cancer centres - most of them Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) - with a single portal system to engage in various research projects with partners. Cancer Core Europe was established to create a sustainable, high-level, shared research infrastructure platform hosting research collaborations and task forces (data sharing, clinical trials, genomics, immunotherapy, imaging, education and training, and legal and ethical issues), with a controlled expansion agenda. Translational cancer research covers the cancer research continuum from basic to preclinical to early clinical, late clinical, and outcomes research. Basic-preclinical research serves as the 'engine' for early clinical research by bridging the early translational research gap and is the primary and current focus of the consortium as exemplified by the launching of the Basket of Baskets trial, Europe's largest precision cancer medicine trial. Inspired by the creation of Cancer Core Europe, the prevention community established Cancer Prevention Europe, a consortium of ten cancer prevention centres aimed at supporting the complete prevention research continuum. Presently, Cancer Core Europe and Cancer Prevention Europe are integrating therapeutics and prevention strategies to address in partnership the widening cancer problem. By providing innovative approaches for cancer research, links to healthcare systems, development of quality-assured multidisciplinary cancer care, and assessment of long-term outcomes, the virtual infrastructure will serve as a hub to connect and interact with other centres across Europe and beyond. Together, Cancer Core Europe and Cancer Prevention Europe are prepared to function as a central engine to tackle, in collaboration with various partners, a potential 'mission on cancer' addressing the cancer burden

Clinical and psychological correlates of health-related quality of life in obese patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Health-related quality of life (HRQL) is poor in obese subjects and is a relevant outcome in intervention studies. We aimed to determine factors associated with poor HRQL in obese patients seeking weight loss in medical units, outside specific research projects.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>HRQL, together with a number of demographic and clinical parameters, was studied with generic (SF-36, PGWB) and disease-specific (ORWELL-97) questionnaires in an unselected sample of 1,886 (1,494 women; 392 men) obese (BMI > 30 kg/m²) patients aged 20-65 years attending 25 medical units scattered throughout Italy. The clinics provide weight loss treatment using different programs. General psychopathology (SCL-90 questionnaire), the presence of binge eating (Binge Eating scale), previous weight cycling and somatic comorbidity (Charlson's index) were also determined. Scores on SF-36 and PGWB were compared with Italian population norms, and their association with putative determinants of HRQL after adjustment for confounders was assessed through logistic regression analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>HRQL scores were significantly lower in women than in men. A greater impairment of quality of life was observed in relation to increasing BMI class, concurrent psychopathology, associated somatic diseases, binge eating, and weight cycling. In multivariate analysis, psychopathology (presence of previously-diagnosed mental disorders and/or elevated scores on SCL-90) was associated with lower HRQL scores on both psychosocial and somatic domains; somatic diseases and higher BMI, after adjustment for confounders, were associated with impairment of physical domains, while binge eating and weight cycling appeared to affect psychosocial domains only.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Psychopathological disturbances are the most relevant factors associated with poor HRQL in obese patients, affecting not only psychosocial, but also physical domains, largely independent of the severity of obesity. Psychological/psychiatric interventions are essential for a comprehensive treatment of obesity, and to improve treatment outcome and to reduce the burden of disease.</p

The Metabolic Syndrome in Treatment-Seeking Obese Persons

Obesity is a major risk factor for several metabolic diseases, frequently clustering to form the metabolic syndrome, carrying a high risk of cardiovascular mortality. We aimed to assess the prevalence of the metabolic syndrome in treatment-seeking obese subjects and the potential protective effect of physical activity. A cross-sectional analysis of data from a large Italian database of treatment-seeking obese subjects was performed. The metabolic syndrome was defined according to the criteria provisionally set by the National Cholesterol Education Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults, based on waist circumference, fasting glucose, triglyceride (TG) and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, and arterial pressure. Data were available in 1,889 Caucasian subjects, 78% females, from 25 obesity centers. Minimum criteria for the metabolic syndrome were fulfilled in 53% of cases. The prevalence increased with age and obesity class and was negatively associated with participation in a structured program of physical activity (odds ratio, 0.76; 0.58 to 0.99; P .041), after correction for age, sex, and body mass. The prevalence of cardiovascular disease was higher in subjects with the metabolic syndrome. A subset of 12.8% of cases had no metabolic abnormalities. They had a lower prevalence of abdominal obesity and cardiovascular disease. Isolated obesity was significantly associated with physical activity (odds ratio, 1.86; 1.33 to 2.60; P .0003). Multiple metabolic disorders are present in most obese patients, and their prevalence is lower in physically active subjects. It is time to move towards a more integrated approach and to reconsider resource allocation to improve lifestyle changes for large-scale control of obesity

Early Access in Oncology: Why Is It Needed?

Timely access to cancer therapies with significant added value is an important expectation for patients and a primary responsibility for every public health service. Over time, collaboration between the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies has made it possible to agree to implement tools in order to accelerate the development and approval of potentially innovative drugs. In Italy, too, several early access tools have been introduced. In June 2018 a panel of experts agreed on the need to simplify and streamline early access assessment criteria and processes. The panel developed a proposal to categorize cancer drugs eligible for early access. In the curative setting, the evaluation of the medical need should take into account both the relapse rate, attributed on the basis of the disease free survival (DFS), and the strength of the recommendations of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) for any therapeutic alternatives already available. The panel then found it appropriate to use the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) criteria for the evaluation of the clinical benefit. The sum of the scores assigned to the three parameters should allow the clinical value of the drug to be defined and, consequently, the priorities for early access to be established. This multiparameter approach can also be adapted to the non-curative setting. The early access process should be reserved for first-in-class drugs and should provide for the recognition of a conditional reimbursement within 60 days, financed by a special fund. The proposal developed by the panel has the objective of starting a proactive discussion with the Italian health authority