Search

Lung cancer as progressive disease is often associated with a poor quality of life(QOL)which is related to a poor prognosis. We review the impact of patient-reported outcome(PRO)as an indicator of health-related QOL on the management of lung cancer patients. Cancer-specific PRO measures, which are primarily applied in scientific research for the past 30 years to compare the therapy outcomes and in drug development with adverse events. Among several PRO measures developed, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and its lung cancer-specific module QLQ-LC13 are the most frequently used instruments in clinical trials with lung cancer patients. Interestingly, cancer-specific PRO measures have been also increasingly used as daily practice, which may provide positive effects on the communication with the patient, mutual decision making and the monitoring and managing of the patient. Moreover, PRO measures have an independent prognostic value to predict survival in lung cancer patients. PRO measures have also the potential to improve the quality of care. Electronic platforms are expected to simplify the implementation of PRO measure in the daily clinic. Nevertheless, the PRO measures have not been properly implemented in Japan.

In Japan, investigator-initiated clinical phase IV trials must follow the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects, issued in December 2014. In addition, researchers must follow the Helsinki Declaration. In these clinical trials, academia-industry collaborations involving funding and technical support are required to develop better evidence- based medicine. Nevertheless, instances of publications reporting biases or misconduct in the research process occur frequently, which may lead to other problems due to lack of transparency. To address this issue, an institutional framework must be developed and maintained in which investigators maintain a high level of ethical adherence to protect the welfare of research subjects while carrying out research scientifically and appropriately under a conflict of interest (COI) disclosure. All authors must be seriously committed to greater responsibility, accountability, and transparency in collaborating with the industry.

Lung cancer is a leading cause of malignancy-related death worldwide. Recently, therapeutic strategies for lung cancer have dramatically progressed, and attempts have been made to standardize the therapy for lung cancer. Because the disease prevalence and the susceptibility to the drugs differ with the circumstances, such as lifestyle, and genetic background, and ethnicity, the standard therapeutic strategies for lung cancer may differ with the individual country or region. Actually, the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, gefitinib, is well known to be significantly effective for oriental people, including Japanese, female, adenocarcinoma and never-smoker, suggesting an inherited difference. Here we describe not only the standard therapeutic strategies but also the difference in therapeutic strategies for lung cancer between Europe/United States and Japan.

The 12 th Oncology Forum discussed the progress and future strategy of cancer prevention in Japan. The National Cancer Center has established a research center for screening focusing on the most common six cancer, stomach, lung, liver, colon, breast and uterus cancer. The program so far had a cumulative detection rate of 3.3%, which is high,and may reflect the selection of subjects. Screening and chemoprevention is also being investigated in prostate cancer, but the issues centre on how to make this widely available. High risk subjects can also be identified for breast cancer. Obesity and family history are especially important. In colorectal cancer studies are evaluating different diets, but general application is not yet possible and the infrastructure to implement any general screening and prevention does not exist. Development of pharmaceutical treatments for prevention is difficult because of the need for very safe treatments, and also because of the length of time needed to carry out studies. Overall, cancer prevention is still in evolution. New approaches are needed, and new infrastructure will be needed at a government level to implement this.

The purpose of cancer screening is to widen the difference between morbidity and mortality of the target cancer. Since 1983 cancer screening has been supported by the Japanese government. Initially it covered gastric and cervical cancer with lung, breast and endometrial cancers supported from 1987 and colorectal cancer in 1992. Since 1998 support for cancer screening has been transferred to local government. It is generally accepted that the uptake of screening services is too low. Estimates for Japan suggest that at best 30% of the eligible population accept the services. In other parts of the world screening is more widely accepted, for example, 67% for breast cancer and 79% for cervical screening in the USA. Barriers within Japan for increasing screening are complex and include, legal, ethical, financial, technical infrastructure, data related matters and the level of understanding and education of the general public. In 2000 the MHLW conducted an evaluation of cancer screening in terms of usefulness and effectiveness. It concluded that fair or better evidence for reduction in mortality existed for cervical cancer (cytology), breast cancer (mammography with clinical examination for women agedor = 50 years), colorectal cancer (faecal occult blood test), gastric cancer, lung cancer and liver cancer. As a step towards improving screening services and their uptake by the general public a new Research Centre for Cancer Prevention and Screening was established at the National Cancer Centre in October 2003. This and other initiatives will build on the progress of the past 20 years but it is generally agreed that there is still have a long way to go.

Cancer metastasis involves the complicated steps of tumor growth, angiogenesis, invasion and adhesion. At present new drugs targeting particular molecule (s) responsible for such cancer progression and metastasis have been developed in clinics. Major endpoints for cancer treatment should be prolongation of survival and maintenance of QOL. However, clinical development of such molecular-target based drugs is associated with difficulties in evaluating the efficacy in phase I/II studies prior to entering phase III study, because many of the targeted drugs seem cytostatic rather than cytocidal to tumors. New approaches incorporating technologies of genomics and proteomics may provide an expanding repertoire of molecular targeted therapeutics for clinical evaluation. In this review, the significance and problems of biomarkers available for clinical evaluation of molecular targeted drugs are discussed.

Based on presentations on the basic concepts and scientific rationale of anti-angiogenic approaches to cancer therapy and the possible applications in the area of prostate cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, lung cancer and breast cancer it is easy to conclude that development of anti-angiogenic approaches into clinical therapies is extremely challenging. It is now well established that cancer growth is increased by angiogenic factors and that inhibition of angiogenesis decreases growth and metastatic potential. Anti-angiogenic effect can be obtained through interference with multiple targets. Further development of new strategies involving such novel cancer therapies requires wide reaching development of translational research abilities. However, for moving new therapies into the clinic same rigorous criteria need to be applied as is done for traditional therapies. Angiogenesis appear to be a critical factor for development of prostate, gastric, lung and breast cancers. Development of new anti-angiogenic treatment modalities might become very important in these diseases. A critical requirement for the successful clinical development will be the development of imaging techniques that can help evaluate the effect on blood vessel functionality. Such surrogate markers of anti-angiogenic effect will be essential for optimising molecules and doses.

Based on reviews of the concept of diagnostics and in general and in specific tumour areas it was clear that development of diagnostic procedures involving genomics will allow for much better targeted and tailored treatments in the future. This will result in better efficacy and better tolerability of cancer treatments, but will also allow for progress in prediction, diagnosis and dose selection. Large collaborative projects studying the efficacy and safety of drugs on the genome level is promising to bring important benefits to both patients and the national economy by reducing useless drug therapy. In colorectal cancer there are several genetic defects identified that can act as the target for directed therapy in the future. Expressions of tumour specific antigens open the way for immunological targeted therapies. Developments in the understanding of the genomic basis for resistance to anti-tumour therapy is promising to help targeting patients likely to respond and not develop resistance. A Japanese model is being developed to determine the relative risk of breast cancer of Japanese women. Based on this prevention therapies can be instigated. The last four years have seen the introduction of four novel targeted therapies. If this model should become a standard in the future, much stronger collaboration between academic research and pharmaceutical industry need to develop.

Based on reviews of the Japanese clinical trial situation in lung cancer, gastric cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer, it was clear that much progress has been made in short time. There are considerable differences between Japan and the West and also differences between clinical areas in Japan. For regulatory purposes bridging studies have become increasingly important. Use of identical protocols are required for effective bridging. Participations in global phase III trials is the best way of achieving registration in Japan. For successful global trials in Japan it is important to include Japanese investigators in the preparation of the protocol and to recognise the challenges facing such a project. Clinical practice in diagnosis and treatment have many differences, thus it is recommended to have clear and detailed information in the protocol. Hard end points like survival are important since they are not biased by cultural differences. There are clear difficulties with HE or QOL outcomes. The emergence of focus on evidence based medicine is also happening in Japan and will help to harmonize documentation across the world. For large adjuvant or prevention cancer global trials are essential. To facilitate global studies further development of infrastructure is necessary in Japan. Use of electronic data capture web based communication etc. will help overcome communication difficulties. Other improvements that will make Japanese participation in global trials easier and better include establishment of clinical trial centre at each hospital, introduction of trial coordinators or study nurses and an improved collaboration with company staff. A critical issue that also need addressing is agreement of centre target recruitment. We need to introduce a new flexible system in Japan if participation in global trial is to be optimised. If we can address these issues Japanese investigators and collaborative groups should be able to initiate and lead global trials in the future.

Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) is a growing concept in Japan as it is elsewhere. Central to improving the use of EBM is generation of data through well conducted controlled clinical studies. There are many problems associated with conduct of clinical studies after launch in Japan, and many initiatives are ongoing to improve the situation. Development of Clinical Research Coordinators (CRO) and central Data Management centers are key to improving the quality of clinical research in Japan. Currently Japan has an undeveloped legal system with regard to post-launch trials and off-label use of registered drugs. There is no reimbursement for off-label and various restrictions imposed on the recipients of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare's (MHLW) funds. Maybe the biggest problem is the high cost of post-marketing studies sponsored by pharmaceutical manufacturers. A high quality system to support post launch clinical studies need a solid financial base. There is a need for a suitable review system for investigator initiated multi-centre studies, as the current IRB system is not sufficient. There are also challenges regarding the differences, perceived or real, in treatment practice and available registrations in Japan and in the West, causing problems in choosing suitable comparators and study designs. At the present time it is not clear whether investigator initiated trials will be acceptable for registration purposes in Japan. The agreed first priority is to build a suitable and strong infrastructure within the academic community to support researchers to investigate important questions with or without pharmaceutical company support. Despite all these issues, several groundbreaking projects are under way throughout Japan, in many different areas and by different collaborative groups, some with government support. In fact, researcher-initiated clinical trials achieved a rapid growth in Japan in the past year.

Based on short reviews of lung, gastric, colorectal, prostate, breast and ovarian cancer, there remain significant differences between Japan and the West in the therapeutic regimen for most cancers. Some of the differences are due to differences in stage of disease at diagnosis or historical factors affecting availability of products. In both Japan and the West, there are initiatives to prepare treatment guidelines based on published data. For Japan this initiative is limited by the lack of Japanese clinical trial data or even safety data. When guidelines are prepared from international data, many of the products have limited indications in Japan and therefore not reimbursed. Availability of the most appropriate therapies to Japanese patients will depend on a facilitation of clinical trials in both primary and additional indications. However, the experience in other countries is that, even where data and registration approval are available, guidelines are hard to agree and are not uniformly accepted by prescribers. The ICH E5 guideline on the use of bridging studies to interpolate Western data to Japanese regulatory dossiers provides an opportunity to accelerate availability of new medicines to Japanese prescribers and patients. The use of bridging studies has so far been limited for anti-cancer therapies. Where relevant pharmacodynamic endpoints can be measured, (e.g. aromatase inhibition) there can increase confidence in bridging. The newer types of agent which act to stabilise disease rather than tumour shrinkage present a special problem. In some cases surrogate markers can be valuable but in each case they need to be validated. As globalization continues, an alternative approach is to include a significant cohort of Japanese patients in Japanese patients but this depends on sufficient similarity in the patient population and background therapy. The most significant limitation to either large outcome studies in Japan or for Japanese centers to join international trials has been the environment for conduct of clinical trials. There have been some recent improvements and further progress is expected so that Japanese doctors can play a full role in the evaluation of new therapies.