Search

Background: A growing body of real-world evidence (RWE) aims to better reflect outcomes of cancer patients treated in real-world settings. We aimed to conduct a first comprehensive mapping review of the RWE produced over the past 3 years in terms of tumor type, treatment strategies, setting, and data sources, focusing on targeted therapies (TT) in solid tumors. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in PubMed of RWE studies published between 01/2020 and 12/2022. We identified non-interventional studies using observational data, focusing on solid tumors exposure to targeted therapies, excluding immunotherapies. Abstract and full-text screening were performed by 11 independent reviewers. Results: A total of 7,774 publications were retrieved with 1,251 considered eligible and extracted. The number of publications per year progressively increased during this period (328 in 2020; 421 in 2021; 502 in 2022). Most studies (50%) were performed in Asia, followed by Europe (25%) and North America (17%). Only 8% of studies had patients treated in more than one country. Treatment effectiveness and safety were assessed in 71% and 42% of studies respectively. Main data sources were medical records. Conclusions: RWE publications on TT for solid tumors are heterogeneous and mostly rely on retrospective data such as medical records. Population-based and international studies are rare. Collaborative efforts towards international representativeness and the use of routinely collected and/or standardized data sources must be encouraged to increase the relevance and future quality of publications and their potential impact on oncology practice.

Background: While Real-world Evidence (RWE) has documented value for safety monitoring and disease epidemiology, its objective contribution to safety and efficacy evaluations for regulatory purposes is still unclear. Here, we aim to describe the prevalence and type of RWE considered by European Medicines Agency (EMA) as contribution to efficacy and safety-related evidence generation among approved oncology targeted therapies... Methods: On March 10, 2023, we screened the medicines listing of EMA to identify all anti-cancer targeted therapies for solid malignancies with a decision date (initial marketing authorizations and extension of indications) between 2018-2022. We screened the European public assessment reports (EPARs) using a standardized approach to collect data on RWE. When generated pre-authorization, the RWE contribution to the final regulatory decision was classified as definitive, supportive, or non-supportive. For... Results: Out of a total of 1976 medicines, we identified 55 oncology targeted therapies, corresponding to 75 EPARs (indications), which are described in the table. The use of RWE in regulatory deliberations occurred in 24/75 (32%) EPARs, increasing from 30% in 2018-2020, to 34% in 2021-2022. Pre-authorization RWE was described in 20/24 (83%) EPARs, among which none were definitive, 8 RWE studies (in 7 EPARs) non-supportive, and 20 RWE studies (in 15 EPARs) were supportive of the decision. Published RWE... Conclusions: Over the past 5 years, RWE involvement in the approval of oncology targeted therapies in Europe tends to increase, with the majority being supportive for EMA regulatory decision making complementary to traditional clinical trials...

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) assays conducted on plasma are rapidly developing a strong evidence base for use in patients with cancer. The European Society for Medical Oncology convened an expert working group to review the analytical and clinical validity and utility of ctDNA assays. For patients with advanced cancer, validated and adequately sensitive ctDNA assays have utility in identifying actionable mutations to direct targeted therapy, and may be used in routine clinical practice, provided the limitations of the assays are taken into account. Tissue-based testing remains the preferred test for many cancer patients, due to limitations of ctDNA assays detecting fusion events and copy number changes, although ctDNA assays may be routinely used when faster results will be clinically important, or when tissue biopsies are not possible or inappropriate. Reflex tumour testing should be considered following a non-informative ctDNA result, due to false-negative results with ctDNA testing. In patients treated for early-stage cancers, detection of molecular residual disease or molecular relapse, has high evidence of clinical validity in anticipating future relapse in many cancers. Molecular residual disease/molecular relapse detection cannot be recommended in routine clinical practice, as currently there is no evidence for clinical utility in directing treatment. Additional potential applications of ctDNA assays, under research development and not recommended for routine practice, include identifying patients not responding to therapy with early dynamic changes in ctDNA levels, monitoring therapy for the development of resistance mutations before clinical progression, and in screening asymptomatic people for cancer. Recommendations for reporting of results, future development of ctDNA assays and future clinical research are made.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has created enormous challenges for the clinical management of patients with hematological malignancies (HMs), raising questions about the optimal care of this patient group. Methods: This consensus manuscript aims at discussing clinical evidence and providing expert advice on statements related to the management of HMs in the COVID-19 pandemic. For this purpose, an international consortium was established including a steering committee, which prepared six working packages addressing significant clinical questions from the COVID-19 diagnosis, treatment, and mitigation strategies to specific HMs management in the pandemic. During a virtual consensus meeting, including global experts and lead by the European Society for Medical Oncology and the European Hematology Association, statements were discussed and voted upon. When a consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements to develop consensual clinical guidance. Results and conclusion: The expert panel agreed on 33 statements, reflecting a consensus, which will guide clinical decision making for patients with hematological neoplasms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship. Design and methods: Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research. Results: We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care. Conclusions: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward (a

Background: The increased number of cancer survivors and the recognition of physical and psychosocial challenges, present from cancer diagnosis through active treatment and beyond, led to the discipline of cancer survivorship. Design and methods: Herein, we reflected on the different components of survivorship care, existing models and priorities, in order to facilitate the promotion of high-quality European survivorship care and research. Results: We identified five main components of survivorship care: (i) physical effects of cancer and chronic medical conditions; (ii) psychological effects of cancer; (iii) social, work and financial effects of cancer; (iv) surveillance for recurrences and second cancers; and (v) cancer prevention and overall health and well-being promotion. Survivorship care can be delivered by structured care models including but not limited to shared models integrating primary care and oncology services. The choice of the care model to be implemented has to be adapted to local realities. High-quality care should be expedited by the generation of: (i) focused and shared European recommendations, (ii) creation of tools to facilitate implementation of coordinated care and (iii) survivorship educational programs for health care teams and patients. The research agenda should be defined with the participation of health care providers, researchers, policy makers, patients and caregivers. The following patient-centered survivorship research areas were highlighted: (i) generation of a big data platform to collect long-term real-world data in survivors and healthy controls to (a) understand the resources, needs and preferences of patients with cancer, and (b) understand biological determinants of survivorship issues, and (ii) develop innovative effective interventions focused on the main components of survivorship care. Conclusions: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) can actively contribute in the efforts of the oncology community toward

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the oral cavity, larynx, oropharynx and hypopharynx was published in 2020. It was therefore decided by both the ESMO and the Korean Society of Medical Oncology (KSMO) to convene a special, virtual guidelines meeting in July 2021 to adapt the ESMO 2020 guidelines to consider the potential ethnic differences associated with the treatment of SCCs of the head and neck (SCCHN) in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with SCCHN (excluding nasopharyngeal carcinomas) representing the oncological societies of Korea (KSMO), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices and drug access restrictions in the different Asian countries. The latter was discussed when appropriate. This manuscript provides a series of expert recommendations (Clinical Practice Guidelines) which can be used to provide guidance to health care providers and clinicians for the optimisation of the diagnosis, treatment and management of patients with SCC of the oral cavity, larynx, oropharynx and hypopharynx across Asia.

BACKGROUND: CUPISCO is an ongoing randomized phase II trial (NCT03498521) comparing molecularly guided therapy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in patients newly diagnosed with "unfavorable" cancer of unknown primary (CUP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with an unfavorable CUP diagnosis, as defined by the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), and available cancer tissue for molecular sequencing are generally eligible. Potential patients with CUP entering screening undergo a review involving reference histopathology and clinical work-up by a central eligibility review team (ERT). Patients with "favorable" CUP, a strongly suspected primary site of origin, lack of tissue, or unmet inclusion criteria are excluded. RESULTS: As of April 30, 2020, 628 patients had entered screening and 346 (55.1%) were screen failed. Screen fails were due to technical reasons (n = 89), failure to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria not directly related to CUP diagnosis (n = 89), and other reasons (n = 33). A total of 124 (35.8%) patients were excluded because unfavorable adeno- or poorly differentiated CUP could not be confirmed by the ERT. These cases were classified into three groups ineligible because of (a) histologic subtype, such as squamous and neuroendocrine, or favorable CUP; (b) evidence of a possible primary tumor; or (c) noncarcinoma histology. CONCLUSION: Experience with CUPISCO has highlighted challenges with standardized screening in an international clinical trial and the difficulties in diagnosing unfavorable CUP. Reconfirmation of unfavorable CUP by an ERT in a clinical trial can result in many reasons for screen failures. By sharing this experience, we aim to foster understanding of diagnostic challenges and improve diagnostic pathology and clinical CUP algorithms. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A high unmet need exists for improved treatment of cancer of unknown primary (CUP); however, study in a trial setting is faced with the significant challenge of definiti

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Heterogeneity in aspects of development, structure and context of oncology guidelines was not evaluated. We analysed and critically examined its implications. Materials and methods: Nine cancer clinical practice guidelines were selected on the basis of popularity among oncologists. The relevant Web sites and publications on three tumours were examined and characteristics grouped in the data domains: producing organisation, methodology, guideline structure and content, implementation and evaluation and scientific agreement. Results: ASCO, ESMO, NICE, SIGN, START, NHMRC, NCI, NCCN and CCO guidelines were examined. Development was initiated by stakeholders or authorised bodies, run by task forces with varying degrees of multidisciplinarity, with rare endorsement of external guidelines. Recommendation formulation was on the basis of evidence, shaped via interactive processes of expert review and public consultation-based modifications. Guidelines varied in comprehensiveness per tumour type, number, size, format, grading of evidence, update and legal issues. Orientation for clinic use or as reference document, end-users and binding or elective nature also varied. Standard dissemination strategies were used, though evaluation of adoption and of impact on health outcomes was implemented with considerable heterogeneity. Conclusions: Heterogeneity in development, structure, user and end points of guidelines is evident, though necessary in order to meet divergent demands. Crucial for their effectiveness are adherence to methodological standards, a clear definition of what the guideline intends to do for whom and a systematic evaluation of their impact on health care

Contains fulltext : 165965.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

© 2016 Kotoula et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Background: Stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) density is an outcome predictor in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Herein we asked whether TILs are related to coding mutation load and to the chemical class of the resulting mutated amino acids, i.e., charged, polar, and hydrophobic mutations. Methods: We examined paraffin tumors from TNBC patients who had been treated with adjuvant chemotherapy mostly within clinical trials (training cohort, N = 133; validation, N = 190) for phenotype concordance; TILs density; mutation load and types. Results: Concordance of TNBC phenotypes was 42.1% upon local / central, and 72% upon central / central pathology assessment. TILs were not associated with mutation load, type and class of mutated amino acids. Polar and charged mutation patterns differed between TP53 and PIK3CA (p<0.001). Hydrophobic mutations predicted for early relapse in patients with high nodal burden and <50% TILs tumors (training: HR 3.03, 95%CI 1.11-8.29, p = 0.031; validation: HR 2.90, 95%CI 0.97-8.70, p = 0.057), especially if compared to patients with >50% TILs tumors (training p = 0.003; validation p = 0.015). Conclusions: TILs density is unrelated to mutation load in TNBC, which may be regarded as an unstable phenotype. If further validated, hydrophobic mutations along with TILs density may help identifying TNBC patients in higher risk for relapse.

Contains fulltext : 165965.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Contains fulltext : 165965.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to stepwisely test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I dev

While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to stepwisely test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I development stage, should be encouraged. Also the compassionate and the off-label settings should be exploited to generate new evidence, and flexible regulatory innovations such as adaptive licensing could convey new agents early to rare cancer patients, while generating evidence. Though validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones. Disease-based communities, involving clinicians and patients, should be regularly consulted by regulatory bodies when setting their policies on drug approval and reimbursement in specific rare cancers .

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

info:eu-repo/semantics/published

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in aspects of development, structure and context of oncology guidelines was not evaluated. We analysed and critically examined its implications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine cancer clinical practice guidelines were selected on the basis of popularity among oncologists. The relevant Web sites and publications on three tumours were examined and characteristics grouped in the data domains: producing organisation, methodology, guideline structure and content, implementation and evaluation and scientific agreement. RESULTS: ASCO, ESMO, NICE, SIGN, START, NHMRC, NCI, NCCN and CCO guidelines were examined. Development was initiated by stakeholders or authorised bodies, run by task forces with varying degrees of multidisciplinarity, with rare endorsement of external guidelines. Recommendation formulation was on the basis of evidence, shaped via interactive processes of expert review and public consultation-based modifications. Guidelines varied in comprehensiveness per tumour type, number, size, format, grading of evidence, update and legal issues. Orientation for clinic use or as reference document, end-users and binding or elective nature also varied. Standard dissemination strategies were used, though evaluation of adoption and of impact on health outcomes was implemented with considerable heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity in development, structure, user and end points of guidelines is evident, though necessary in order to meet divergent demands. Crucial for their effectiveness are adherence to methodological standards, a clear definition of what the guideline intends to do for whom and a systematic evaluation of their impact on health care.

PURPOSE: Diflomotecan (BN80915) is an E-ring modified camptothecin analogue that possesses greater lactone stability in plasma compared with other topoisomerase I inhibitors, a potential advantage for antitumor activity. As with other camptothecins, oral administration has pharmacological and clinical advantages. This Phase I study was performed to assess the feasibility of the administration of oral diflomotecan, to determine the maximum-tolerated, dose its bioavailability, and to explore the pharmacokinetics. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: An initial i.v. bolus was administered to assess the bioavailability of diflomotecan. Fourteen days later, diflomotecan was administered p.o. once daily for 5 days to adult patients with solid malignant tumors and repeated every 3 weeks. BN80915 and its open lactone form BN80942 were measured. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients entered the study and received a total of 57 cycles of oral diflomotecan at flat dose levels of 0.10, 0.20, 0.27, and 0.35 mg. The main toxicity was hematological, but some patients experienced alopecia, mild gastrointestinal toxicity, and fatigue. At the 0.35-mg dose level, 2 of 4 patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity comprising grade 3 thrombocytopenia with epistaxis and febrile neutropenia in 1 patient and uncomplicated grade 4 neutropenia lasting for >7 days in another. Toxicity was acceptable at the 0.27-mg dose level at which dose-limiting toxicities were observed in 3 of 12 patients (grade 4 neutropenia > 7 days, complicated by fever in 1 patient but without other signs of infection). After two cycles of diflomotecan, 6 patients had disease stabilization, which was maintained in 2 patients for 9 months and >1 year, respectively. Diflomotecan pharmacokinetics were linear over the dose range studied. Systemic exposure correlated with the fall in WBC counts. The mean oral bioavailability (+/-SD) was 72.24 +/- 59.2% across all dose levels. Urinary excretion of BN80915 was very low. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended o

Background: Heterogeneity in aspects of development, structure and context of oncology guidelines was not evaluated. We analysed and critically examined its implications. Materials and methods: Nine cancer clinical practice guidelines were selected on the basis of popularity among oncologists. The relevant Web sites and publications on three tumours were examined and characteristics grouped in the data domains: producing organisation, methodology, guideline structure and content, implementation and evaluation and scientific agreement. Results: ASCO, ESMO, NICE, SIGN, START, NHMRC, NCI, NCCN and CCO guidelines were examined. Development was initiated by stakeholders or authorised bodies, run by task forces with varying degrees of multidisciplinarity, with rare endorsement of external guidelines. Recommendation formulation was on the basis of evidence, shaped via interactive processes of expert review and public consultation-based modifications. Guidelines varied in comprehensiveness per tumour type, number, size, format, grading of evidence, update and legal issues. Orientation for clinic use or as reference document, end-users and binding or elective nature also varied. Standard dissemination strategies were used, though evaluation of adoption and of impact on health outcomes was implemented with considerable heterogeneity. Conclusions: Heterogeneity in development, structure, user and end points of guidelines is evident, though necessary in order to meet divergent demands. Crucial for their effectiveness are adherence to methodological standards, a clear definition of what the guideline intends to do for whom and a systematic evaluation of their impact on health care