Defining the Critical Hurdles in Cancer Immunotherapy

ABSTRACT: Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators, others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet be overcome to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Defining the critical hurdles in cancer immunotherapy

Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease

Background: Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. Methods: Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. Results: Models were developed and integrated into a web-app (https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59–0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64–0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54–0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. Conclusions: Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk–benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of “personalized medicine” necessitates more robust tools in this patient population

FUSE-ML: development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for mid-term outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease

Background: Indications and outcomes in lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease are notoriously heterogenous. Selected subsets of patients show remarkable benefit. However, their objective identification is often difficult. Decision-making may be improved with reliable prediction of long-term outcomes for each individual patient, improving patient selection and avoiding ineffective procedures. Methods: Clinical prediction models for long-term functional impairment [Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) or Core Outcome Measures Index (COMI)], back pain, and leg pain after lumbar fusion for degenerative disease were developed. Achievement of the minimum clinically important difference at 12 months postoperatively was defined as a reduction from baseline of at least 15 points for ODI, 2.2 points for COMI, or 2 points for pain severity. Results: Models were developed and integrated into a web-app (https://neurosurgery.shinyapps.io/fuseml/) based on a multinational cohort [N = 817; 42.7% male; mean (SD) age: 61.19 (12.36) years]. At external validation [N = 298; 35.6% male; mean (SD) age: 59.73 (12.64) years], areas under the curves for functional impairment [0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59–0.74], back pain (0.72, 95%CI: 0.64–0.79), and leg pain (0.64, 95%CI: 0.54–0.73) demonstrated moderate ability to identify patients who are likely to benefit from surgery. Models demonstrated fair calibration of the predicted probabilities. Conclusions: Outcomes after lumbar spinal fusion for degenerative disease remain difficult to predict. Although assistive clinical prediction models can help in quantifying potential benefits of surgery and the externally validated FUSE-ML tool may aid in individualized risk–benefit estimation, truly impacting clinical practice in the era of “personalized medicine” necessitates more robust tools in this patient population

Correction to: Major adverse cardiovascular events in non-valvular atrial fibrillation with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the ARAPACIS study (Internal and Emergency Medicine, (2018), 13, 5, (651-660), 10.1007/s11739-018-1835-9)

In the original publication, one of the ARAPACIS collaborators Dr. “Leonardo Di Gennaro” name has been erroneously mentioned as “Leonardo De Gennaro”

Survey of neonatal respiratory care and surfactant administration in very preterm infants in the Italian neonatal network

Introduction: Variation of respiratory care is described between centers around the world.The Italian Neonatal Network (INN), as a national group of the Vermont-Oxford Network (VON) allows to perform a wide analysis of respiratory care in very low birth weight infants. Methods:We analyzed the dataset of infants enrolled in the INN in 2009 and 2010 and, for surfactant administration only, from 2006 to 2010 from 83 participating centers. All definitions are those of the (VON). A questionnaire analysis was also performed with a questionnaire on centers practices. Results: We report data for 8297 infants. Data on ventilator practices and outcomes are outlined. Variation for both practices and outcome is found. Trend in surfactant administration is also analyzed. Conclusions. The great variation across hospitals in all the surveyed techniques points to the possibility of implementing potentially better practices with the aim of reducing unwanted variation. These data also show the power of large neonatal networks in identifying areas for potential improvement. \ua9 Mattioli 1885

Survey of neonatal respiratory care and surfactant administration in very preterm infants in the Italian neonatal network

Introduction: Variation of respiratory care is described between centers around the world.The Italian Neonatal Network (INN), as a national group of the Vermont-Oxford Network (VON) allows to perform a wide analysis of respiratory care in very low birth weight infants. Methods:We analyzed the dataset of infants enrolled in the INN in 2009 and 2010 and, for surfactant administration only, from 2006 to 2010 from 83 participating centers. All definitions are those of the (VON). A questionnaire analysis was also performed with a questionnaire on centers practices. Results: We report data for 8297 infants. Data on ventilator practices and outcomes are outlined. Variation for both practices and outcome is found. Trend in surfactant administration is also analyzed. Conclusions. The great variation across hospitals in all the surveyed techniques points to the possibility of implementing potentially better practices with the aim of reducing unwanted variation. These data also show the power of large neonatal networks in identifying areas for potential improvement. © Mattioli 1885