Assessing excellence in translational cancer research: a consensus based framework

Background: It takes several years on average to translate basic research findings into clinical research and eventually deliver patient benefits. An expert-based excellence assessment can help improve this process by: identifying high performing Comprehensive Cancer Centres; best practices in translational cancer research; improving the quality and efficiency of the translational cancer research process. This can help build networks of excellent Centres by aiding focused partnerships. In this paper we report on a consensus building exercise that was undertaken to construct an excellence assessment framework for translational cancer research in Europe. Methods: We used mixed methods to reach consensus: a systematic review of existing translational research models critically appraised for suitability in performance assessment of Cancer Centres; a survey among European stakeholders (researchers, clinicians, patient representatives and managers) to score a list of potential excellence criteria, a focus group with selected representatives of survey participants to review and rescore the excellence criteria; an expert group meeting to refine the list; an open validation round with stakeholders and a critical review of the emerging framework by an independent body: a committee formed by the European Academy of Cancer Sciences. Results: The resulting excellence assessment framework has 18 criteria categorized in 6 themes. Each criterion has a number of questions/sub-criteria. Stakeholders favoured using qualitative excellence criteria to evaluate the translational research “process” rather than quantitative criteria or judging only the outputs. Examples of criteria include checking if the Centre has mechanisms that can be rated as excellent for: involvement of basic researchers and clinicians in translational research (quality of supervision and incentives provided to clinicians to do a PhD in translational research) and well designed clinical trials based on ground-breaking concepts (innovative patient stratification, substantial fraction of phase I/II trials, investigator-initiated trials). Critically, the framework supports reduced bureaucracy by building on existing European evaluation systems. Conclusions: The excellence framework is the product of an intense stakeholder consensus building exercise. It will be piloted during an expert peer review/site visit of at least three European Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The findings regarding content, governance and implementation can have relevance for other clinical and research fields

Identifying potential indicators to measure the outcome of translational cancer research: a mixed methods approach

International audienceAbstractBackgroundIn a context where there is an increasing demand to evaluate the outcome of bio-medical research, our work aims to develop a set of indicators to measure the impact of translational cancer research. The objective of our study was to explore the scope and issues of translational research relevant to evaluation, explore the views of researchers on the evaluation of oncological translational research, and select indicators measuring the outcomes and outputs of translational research in oncology by consensus.MethodsSemi-structured interviews amongst 23 researchers involved in translational cancer research were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. A two-round modified Delphi survey of 35 participants with similar characteristics was then performed followed by a physical meeting. Participants rated the feasibility and validity of 60 indicators. The physical meeting was held to discuss the methodology of the new indicators.ResultsThe main themes emerging from the interviews included a common definition for translational research but disagreements about the exact scope and limits of this research, the importance of multidisciplinarity and collaboration for the success of translational research, the disadvantages that translational research faces in current evaluation systems, the relative lack of pertinence of existing indicators, and propositions to measure translational cancer research in terms of clinical applications and patient outcomes. A total of 35 participants took part in the first round survey and 12 in the second round. The two-round survey helped us select a set of 18 indicators, including four that seemed to be particularly adapted to measure translational cancer research impact on health service research (number of biomarkers identified, generation of clinical guidelines, citation of research in clinical guidelines, and citation of research in public health guidelines). The feedback from participants helped refine the methodology and definition of indicators not commonly used.ConclusionIndicators need to be accepted by stakeholders under evaluation. This study helped the selection and refinement of indicators considered as the most relevant by researchers in translational cancer research. The feasibility and validity of those indicators will be tested in a scientometric study

Staff perceptions of change resulting from participation in a European cancer accreditation programme:a snapshot from eight cancer centres

Background: Healthcare accreditation is considered to be an essential quality improvement tool. However, its effectiveness has been critiqued. Methods: Twenty-four interviews were conducted with clinicians (five), nurses (six), managers (eight), and basic/translational researchers (five) from eight European cancer centres on changes observed from participating in a European cancer accreditation programme. Data were thematically analysed and verified with participants and checked against auditor’s feedback. Results: Four change categories emerged: (i) the growing importance of the nursing and supportive care field (role change). Nurses gained more autonomy/clarity on their daily duties. Importance was given to the hiring and training of supportive care personnel (ii) critical thinking on data integration (strategic change). Managers gained insight on how to integrate institutional level data (iii) improved processes within multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings (procedural change). Clinical staff experienced improved communication between MDTs (iv) building trust (organisational change). Accreditation improved the centre’s credibility with its own staff and externally with funders and patients. No motivational changes were perceived. Researchers perceived no changes. The auditor’s feedback included changes in 13 areas: translational research, biobanks, clinical trials, patient privacy and satisfaction, cancer registries, clinical practice guidelines, patient education, screening, primary prevention, role of nurses, MDT, supportive care, and data integration. However, our study revealed that staff perceived changes only in the last four areas. Conclusion: Staff perceived changes in data integration, nursing and supportive care, and in certain clinical aspects. Accreditation programmes must pay attention to the needs of different stakeholder groups, track changes, and observe how/why change happens

Improvement of European translational cancer research. Collaboration between comprehensive cancer centers

Even though the increasing incidence of cancer is mainly a consequence of a population with a longer life span, part of this augmentation is related to the increasing prevalence of patients living with a chronic cancer disease. To fight the problem, improved preventive strategies are mandatory in combination with an innovative health care provision that is driven by research. To overcome the weakness of translational research the OECI is proposing a practical approach as part of a strategy foreseen by the EUROCAN+PLUS feasibility study, which was launched by the EC in order to identify mechanisms for the coordination of cancer research in Europe

Robust interlaboratory reproducibility of a gene expression signature measurement consistent with the needs of a new generation of diagnostic tools

The increasing use of DNA microarrays in biomedical research, toxicogenomics, pharmaceutical development, and diagnostics has focused attention on the reproducibility and reliability of microarray measurements. While the reproducibility of microarray gene expression measurements has been the subject of several recent reports, there is still a need for systematic investigation into what factors most contribute to variability of measured expression levels observed among different laboratories and different experimenters.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Pioneering Quality Assessment in European Cancer Centers: A Data Analysis of the Organization for European Cancer Institutes Accreditation and Designation Program

Purpose: In order to improve the quality of care in Cancer Centers (CC) and designate Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs), the Organization for European Cancer Institutes (OECI) launched an Accreditation and Designation (A&D) program. The program facilitates the collection of defined data and the assessment of cancer center quality. This study analyzes the results of the first 10 European centers that entered the program. \ud \ud Methods: The assessment included 927 items divided across qualitative and quantitative questionnaires. Data collected during self-assessment and peer-review from the 10 first participating centers were combined in a database for comparative analysis using simple statistics. Quantitative and qualitative results were validated by auditors during the peer review visits. \ud \ud Results: Volumes of various functions and activities dedicated to care, research, and education varied widely among centers. There were no significant differences in resources for radiology, radiotherapy, pathologic diagnostic, and surgery. Differences were observed in the use of clinical pathways but not for the practices of holding multidisciplinary team meetings and conforming to guidelines. Regarding human resources, main differences were in the composition and number of supportive care and research staff. All 10 centers applied as CCCs; five obtained the label, and five were designated as CCs. \ud \ud Discussion: The OECI A&D program allows comparisons between centers with regard to management, research, care, education, and designation as CCs or CCCs. Through the peer review system, recommendations for improvements are given. Assessing the added value of the program, as well as research and patient treatment outcomes, is the next ste

Validation and Clinical Utility of a 70-Gene Prognostic Signature for Women With Node-Negative Breast Cancer

Background: A 70-gene signature was previously shown to have prognostic value in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Our goal was to validate the signature in an independent group of patients. Methods: Patients (n = 307, with 137 events after a median follow-up of 13.6 years) from five European centers were divided into high- and low-risk groups based on the gene signature classification and on clinical risk classifications. Patients were assigned to the gene signature low-risk group if their 5-year distant metastasis-free survival probability as estimated by the gene signature was greater than 90%. Patients were assigned to the clinicopathologic low-risk group if their 10-year survival probability, as estimated by Adjuvant! software, was greater than 88% (for estrogen receptor [ER]-positive patients) or 92% (for ER-negative patients). Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated to compare time to distant metastases, disease-free survival, and overall survival in high- versus low-risk groups. Results: The 70-gene signature outperformed the clinicopathologic risk assessment in predicting all endpoints. For time to distant metastases, the gene signature yielded HR = 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35 to 4.00) without adjustment for clinical risk and hazard ratios ranging from 2.13 to 2.15 after adjustment for various estimates of clinical risk; clinicopathologic risk using Adjuvant! software yielded an unadjusted HR = 1.68 (95% CI = 0.92 to 3.07). For overall survival, the gene signature yielded an unadjusted HR = 2.79 (95% CI = 1.60 to 4.87) and adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 2.63 to 2.89; clinicopathologic risk yielded an unadjusted HR = 1.67 (95% CI = 0.93 to 2.98). For patients in the gene signature high-risk group, 10-year overall survival was 0.69 for patients in both the low- and high-clinical risk groups; for patients in the gene signature low-risk group, the 10-year survival rates were 0.88 and 0.89, respectively. Conclusions: The 70-gene signature adds independent prognostic information to clinicopathologic risk assessment for patients with early breast cance