Epidemiological and nonclinical studies investigating effects of iron in carcinogenesis-A critical review

The efficacy and tolerability of intravenous (i.v.) iron in managing cancer-related anemia and iron deficiency has been clinically evaluated and reviewed recently. However, long-term data in cancer patients are not available; yet, long-term i.v. iron treatment in hemodialysis patients is not associated with increased cancer risk. This review summarizes epidemiological and nonclinical data on the role of iron in carcinogenesis. In humans, epidemiological data suggest correlations between certain cancers and increased iron exposure or iron overload. Nonclinical models that investigated whether iron can enhance carcinogenesis provide only limited evidence relevant for cancer patients since they were typically based on high iron doses as well as injection routes and iron formulations which are not used in the clinical setting. Nevertheless, in the absence of long-term outcome data from prospectively defined trials in i.v. iron-treated cancer patients, iron supplementation should be limited to periods of concomitant anti-tumor treatment

Leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars in Europe - part 2:how payers can safeguard the future of a healthy biosimilar market environment

IntroductionBiosimilars have improved access to biologic medicines; however, historical thinking may jeopardize the viability of future markets.Areas coveredAn expert panel of eight diverse European stakeholders provided insights about rethinking biosimilars and cost-savings, reducing patient access inequalities, increasing inter-market equity, and improving education. The insights reported here (Part 2) follow a study that provides perspectives on leveraging the holistic benefits of biosimilars for market sustainability based on independent survey results and telephone interviews of stakeholders from diverse biosimilar markets (Part 1). Directional recommendations are provided for payers.Expert OpinionThe panel's market maturity framework for biosimilars has three stages: 'Invest,' 'Expand' and 'Harvest.' Across market stages, re-thinking the benefits of biosimilars beyond cost-savings, considering earlier or expanded access/new indications, product innovations, and re-investment of biosimilar-generated cost-savings should be communicated to stakeholders to promote further engagement. During 'Expand' and 'Harvest' stages, development of efficient, forward-looking procurement systems and mechanisms that drive uptake and stabilize competition between manufacturers are key. Future biosimilars will target various therapy areas beyond those targeted by existing biosimilars. To ensure a healthy, accessible future market, stakeholders must align their objectives, communicate, collaborate, and coordinate via education, incentivization, and procurement, to maximize the totality of benefits

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe–part 1:a historical perspective

Introduction: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. Methods: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. Results: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: ‘Invest,’ ‘Expand,’ and ‘Harvest.’ Findings were supported by published literature. Conclusions: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.</p

Capturing the holistic value of biosimilars in Europe–part 1:a historical perspective

Introduction: Approved biosimilars exhibit comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to reference products. This report provides perspectives on the societal value of biosimilars within Europe and potential factors that have influenced market dynamics. Methods: An independent, self-administered survey or one-on-one in-depth interview was used to collect viewpoints about the impact of biosimilar medicines within European markets. Key insights were also sought from an expert panel of European stakeholders. Results: Survey respondents were clinicians, pharmacists, and payers from Europe (N = 103). Perceived benefits of biosimilars included increased access to innovative medicines (73% of respondents) or biologic treatments (66%). Biosimilar competition was thought to expand access to biologics (~50% of respondents) or drug combinations (~36%) and reduce biologic access time (34%). Key drivers of biologic access after biosimilar competition included increased biologic awareness (51%) and changes to prescribing guidelines (37%) and/or treatment paradigms (28%). The expert panel developed a market maturity framework of biosimilar adoption/opportunities comprising three stages: ‘Invest,’ ‘Expand,’ and ‘Harvest.’ Findings were supported by published literature. Conclusions: In Europe, the perceptions of well-informed survey/interview respondents are that biosimilars have improved patient outcomes via increased access to biologics and innovative biologic products, contributing to earlier and longer treatment of a broader population.</p

Optimizing Clinical Benefits of Bisphosphonates in Cancer Patients with Bone Metastases

Malignant bone disease is common in patients with advanced solid tumors or multiple myeloma. Bisphosphonates have been found to be important treatments for bone metastases. A positive benefit-risk ratio for bisphosphonates has been established, and ongoing clinical trials will determine whether individualized therapy is possible

Clinical practice guidelines for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic testing

BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene pathogenic variants account for most hereditary breast cancer and are increasingly used to determine eligibility for PARP inhibitor (PARPi) therapy of BRCA-related cancer. Because issues of BRCA testing in clinical practice now overlap with both preventive and therapeutic management, updated and comprehensive practice guidelines for BRCA genotyping are needed. The integrative recommendations for BRCA testing presented here aim to (1) identify individuals who may benefit from genetic counselling and risk-reducing strategies; (2) update germline and tumour-testing indications for PARPi-approved therapies; (3) provide testing recommendations for personalised management of early and metastatic breast cancer; and (4) address the issues of rapid process and tumour analysis. An international group of experts, including geneticists, medical and surgical oncologists, pathologists, ethicists and patient representatives, was commissioned by the French Society of Predictive and Personalised Medicine (SFMPP). The group followed a methodology based on specific formal guidelines development, including (1) evaluating the likelihood of BRCAm from a combined systematic review of the literature, risk assessment models and expert quotations, and (2) therapeutic values of BRCAm status for PARPi therapy in BRCA-related cancer and for management of early and advanced breast cancer. These international guidelines may help clinicians comprehensively update and standardise BRCA testing practices

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia with granulocyte colony-stimulating factors: where are we now?

Updated international guidelines published in 2006 have broadened the scope for the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in supporting delivery of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. G-CSF prophylaxis is now recommended when the overall risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) due to regimen and individual patient factors is ≥20%, for supporting dose-dense and dose-intense chemotherapy and to help maintain dose density where dose reductions have been shown to compromise outcomes. Indeed, there is now a large body of evidence for the efficacy of G-CSFs in supporting dose-dense chemotherapy. Predictive tools that can help target those patients who are most at risk of FN are now becoming available. Recent analyses have shown that, by reducing the risk of FN and chemotherapy dose delays and reductions, G-CSF prophylaxis can potentially enhance survival benefits in patients receiving chemotherapy in curative settings. Accumulating data from ‘real-world’ clinical practice settings indicate that patients often receive abbreviated courses of daily G-CSF and consequently obtain a reduced level of FN protection. A single dose of PEGylated G-CSF (pegfilgrastim) may provide a more effective, as well as a more convenient, alternative to daily G-CSF. Prospective studies are needed to validate the importance of delivering the full dose intensity of standard chemotherapy regimens, with G-CSF support where appropriate, across a range of settings. These studies should also incorporate prospective evaluation of risk stratification for neutropenia and its complications

Integration of oncology and palliative care : a Lancet Oncology Commission

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care