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

70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer.

The 70-gene signature test (MammaPrint) has been shown to improve prediction of clinical outcome in women with early-stage breast cancer. We sought to provide prospective evidence of the clinical utility of the addition of the 70-gene signature to standard clinical-pathological criteria in selecting patients for adjuvant chemotherapy. In this randomized, phase 3 study, we enrolled 6693 women with early-stage breast cancer and determined their genomic risk (using the 70-gene signature) and their clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online). Women at low clinical and genomic risk did not receive chemotherapy, whereas those at high clinical and genomic risk did receive such therapy. In patients with discordant risk results, either the genomic risk or the clinical risk was used to determine the use of chemotherapy. The primary goal was to assess whether, among patients with high-risk clinical features and a low-risk gene-expression profile who did not receive chemotherapy, the lower boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the rate of 5-year survival without distant metastasis would be 92% (i.e., the noninferiority boundary) or higher. A total of 1550 patients (23.2%) were deemed to be at high clinical risk and low genomic risk. At 5 years, the rate of survival without distant metastasis in this group was 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 92.5 to 96.2) among those not receiving chemotherapy. The absolute difference in this survival rate between these patients and those who received chemotherapy was 1.5 percentage points, with the rate being lower without chemotherapy. Similar rates of survival without distant metastasis were reported in the subgroup of patients who had estrogen-receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, and either node-negative or node-positive disease. Among women with early-stage breast cancer who were at high clinical risk and low genomic risk for recurrence, the receipt of no chemotherapy on the basis of the 70-gene signature led to a 5-year rate of survival without distant metastasis that was 1.5 percentage points lower than the rate with chemotherapy. Given these findings, approximately 46% of women with breast cancer who are at high clinical risk might not require chemotherapy. (Funded by the European Commission Sixth Framework Program and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00433589; EudraCT number, 2005-002625-31.)

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals