Search

NAM at 50: Progress in Cancer Research, Prevention, and Care Cancer-related mortality has been declining steadily. Treatment advances have reduced death rates for some cancers, but most of the redu...

We thank the speakers and participants for their contributions to the workshop. The activities of the National Cancer Policy Forum are supported by its sponsoring members, which currently include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, the American Association for Cancer Research, the American Cancer Society, the American College of Radiology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Association of American Cancer Institutes, the Association of Community Cancer Centers, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Cancer Support Community, the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, Flatiron Health, Helsinn Therapeutics (U.S.) Inc., the LIVESTRONG Foundation, Merck, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Novartis Oncology, the Oncology Nursing Society, and Pfizer Inc. The responsibility for the content of this article rests with the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, its committees, its sponsors, or its convening activities.

Purpose To retrospectively analyze the nature and extent of oncology-related errors accounting for malpractice allegations in diagnostic radiology. Methods The Comparative Benchmarking System of the Controlled Risk Insurance Company, a database containing roughly 30% of medical malpractice claims in the United States, was searched retrospectively for the period 2008 to 2017. Claims naming radiology as a primary service were identified and were stratified and compared by oncologic versus nononcologic status, allegation type (diagnostic versus nondiagnostic), and imaging modality. Results Over the 10-year period, radiology was the primary responsible service for 3.9% of all malpractice claims (2,582 of 66,061) and 12.8% of claims with diagnostic allegations (1,756 of 13,695). Oncology (neoplasms) accounted for 44.0% of radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, a larger share than any other category of medical condition. Among radiology cases with diagnostic allegations, high-severity harm occurred in 79% of oncologic but just 42% of nononcologic cases. Of all oncologic radiology cases, 97.4% had diagnostic allegations, and just 55.0% of nononcologic radiology cases had diagnostic allegations. Imaging misinterpretation was a contributing factor for a large majority (80.7% [623 of 772]) of oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations. The modalities most commonly used in oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations involving misinterpretation were mammography and CT. Conclusion Oncology represents the largest source of radiology malpractice cases with diagnostic allegations. Oncologic radiology malpractice cases are more likely than nononcologic radiology cases to be due to diagnostic errors. Furthermore, compared with those that are nononcologic, oncologic radiology cases with diagnostic allegations are more likely to be associated with high-severity harm. Efforts are warranted to reduce misinterpretations of oncologic imaging.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held the workshop Applying Big Data to Address the Social Determinants of Health in Oncology on October 28–29, 2019, in Washington, DC. This workshop examined social determinants of health (SDOH) in the context of cancer, and considered opportunities to effectively leverage big data to improve health equity and reduce disparities. The workshop featured presentations and discussion by experts in technology, oncology, and SDOH, as well as representatives from government, industry, academia, and health care systems. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

To characterize national trends in oncologic imaging (OI) utilization.This retrospective cross-sectional study used 2004 and 2016 CMS 5% Carrier Claims Research Identifiable Files. Radiologist-performed, primary noninvasive diagnostic imaging examinations were identified from billed Current Procedural Terminology codes; CT, MRI, and PET/CT examinations were categorized as "advanced" imaging. OI examinations were identified from imaging claims' primary International Classification of Diseases-9 and International Classification of Diseases-10 codes. Imaging services were stratified by academic practice status and place of service. State-level correlations of oncologic advanced imaging utilization (examinations per 1,000 beneficiaries) with cancer prevalence and radiologist supply were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficient.The national Medicare sample included 5,051,095 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,220,224 of them advanced) in 2004 and 5,023,115 diagnostic imaging examinations (1,504,608 of them advanced) in 2016. In 2004 and 2016, OI represented 4.3% and 3.9%, respectively, of all imaging versus 10.8% and 9.5%, respectively, of advanced imaging. The percentage of advanced OI done in academic practices rose from 18.8% in 2004 to 34.1% in 2016, leaving 65.9% outside academia. In 2016, 58.0% of advanced OI was performed in the hospital outpatient setting and 23.9% in the physician office setting. In 2016, state-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with state-level radiologist supply (r = +0.489, P.001) but not with state-level cancer prevalence (r = -0.139, P = .329).OI usage varied between practice settings. Although the percentage of advanced OI done in academic settings nearly doubled from 2004 to 2016, the majority remained in nonacademic practices. State-level oncologic advanced imaging utilization correlated with radiologist supply but not cancer prevalence.

Importance There is an enormous and growing amount of data available from individual cancer cases, which makes the work of clinical oncologists more demanding. This data challenge has attracted engineers to create software that aims to improve cancer diagnosis or treatment. However, the move to use computers in the oncology clinic for diagnosis or treatment has led to instances of premature or inappropriate use of computational predictive systems. Objective To evaluate best practices for developing and assessing the clinical utility of predictive computational methods in oncology. Evidence Review The National Cancer Policy Forum and the Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine hosted a workshop to examine the use of multidimensional data derived from patients with cancer and the computational methods used to analyze these data. The workshop convened diverse stakeholders and experts, including computer scientists, oncology clinicians, statisticians, patient advocates, industry leaders, ethicists, leaders of health systems (academic and community based), private and public health insurance carriers, federal agencies, and regulatory authorities. Key characteristics for successful computational oncology were considered in 3 thematic areas: (1) data quality, completeness, sharing, and privacy; (2) computational methods for analysis, interpretation, and use of oncology data; and (3) clinical infrastructure and expertise for best use of computational precision oncology. Findings Quality control was found to be essential across all stages, from data collection to data processing, management, and use. Collecting a standardized parsimonious data set at every cancer diagnosis and restaging could enhance reliability and completeness of clinical data for precision oncology. Data completeness refers to key data elements such as information about cancer diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, while data quality depends on whether appropriate variables have been measured in valid and reliable ways. Collecting data from diverse populations can reduce the risk of creating invalid and biased algorithms. Computational systems that aid clinicians should be classified as software as a medical device and thus regulated according to the potential risk posed. To facilitate appropriate use of computational methods that interpret high-dimensional data in oncology, treating physicians need access to multidisciplinary teams with broad expertise and deep training among a subset of clinical oncology fellows in clinical informatics. Conclusions and Relevance Workshop discussions suggested best practices in demonstrating the clinical utility of predictive computational methods for diagnosing or treating cancer.

Health literacy is a critical skill for engaging in healthy behaviors to reduce disease risk and improve health outcomes across the continuum of cancer care. However, estimates suggest that more than one-third of the U.S. adult population has low health literacy, and nearly half of all patients with cancer have difficulty understanding information about their disease or treatment. Low health literacy among patients with cancer is associated with poor health and treatment outcomes, including lower adherence to treatment, higher rates of missed appointments, and an increased risk of hospitalization. Low health literacy can also impede informed decision making, especially as cancer care becomes increasingly complex and as patients and their families take more active roles in treatment decisions. To examine opportunities to improve communication across the cancer care continuum, the National Cancer Policy Forum collaborated with the Roundtable on Health Literacy to host a workshop, Health Literacy and Communication Strategies in Oncology, July 15-16, 2019, in Washington, DC. Patients, patient advocates, clinicians, and researchers, representatives of health care organizations, academic medical centers, insurers, and federal agencies explored the challenges of achieving effective communication in cancer care. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions of the workshop.

The traditional approach to drug development in oncology, with discrete phases of clinical testing, is becoming untenable owing to expansion of the precision medicine paradigm, whereby patients are stratified into multiple subgroups according to the underlying cancer biology. Seamless approaches to drug development in oncology hold great promise of accelerating the accessibility of novel therapeutic agents to the public but are also accompanied by important trade-offs, including the limited availability of information on the clinical benefit and safety of novel agents at the time of market entry. In this Perspectives article, we describe several opportunities, in the form of novel trial designs or modelling strategies, to improve the efficiency of drug development in oncology, as well as new mechanisms to obtain information about anticancer therapies throughout their life cycle, such as innovative functional imaging techniques or the use of real-world clinical data.

Mounting evidence suggests that weight management and physical activity (PA) improve overall health and well being, and reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. Although many opportunities exist to include weight management and PA in routine cancer care, several barriers remain. This review summarizes key topics addressed in a recent National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine workshop entitled, "Incorporating Weight Management and Physical Activity Throughout the Cancer Care Continuum." Discussions related to body weight and PA among cancer survivors included: 1) current knowledge and gaps related to health outcomes; 2) effective intervention approaches; 3) addressing the needs of diverse populations of cancer survivors; 4) opportunities and challenges of workforce, care coordination, and technologies for program implementation; 5) models of care; and 6) program coverage. While more discoveries are still needed for the provision of optimal weight-management and PA programs for cancer survivors, obesity and inactivity currently jeopardize their overall health and quality of life. Actionable future directions are presented for research; practice and policy changes required to assure the availability of effective, affordable, and feasible weight management; and PA services for all cancer survivors as a part of their routine cancer care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:64-89. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer—many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens—have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice., The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for long‐standing oncology drugs. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates.

In recent years, significant progress has been made in the clinical development and use of various types of cancer immunotherapy, all of which rely on the immune system to fight cancer. The majority of new cancer drug applications submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are for immunotherapies or combinations involving immunotherapies. One type of immunotherapy is an immune checkpoint inhibitor. Cells in the human body have proteins that regulate the immune system response to foreign invaders (e.g., cancer cells, microorganisms). However, cancer cells can coopt these “checkpoint” proteins and thwart the immune system's ability to recognize and attack cancer cells. To help promote an immune response to cancer, researchers have developed immune checkpoint inhibitors that enable T-cells to recognize cancer cells as foreign and to prevent deactivation of an immune system response. To examine the challenges and opportunities to develop combination cancer therapies that include immune checkpoint inhibitors, the National Cancer Policy Forum held a workshop on July 16–17, 2018, in Washington, DC. This workshop convened stakeholders with a broad range of expertise, including cancer researchers, clinicians, patient advocates, and representatives from industry, academia, and government. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Throughout history, perhaps no other disease has generated the level of social, scientific, and political discourse or has had the degree of cultural significance as cancer. A collective in the truest sense of the word, “cancer” is a clustering of different diseases that afflict individuals in different ways. Its burdens are equally broad and diverse, from the physical, financial, and psychological tolls it imposes on individuals to the costs it inflicts upon the nation's clinical care and public health systems, and despite decades of concerted efforts often referred to as the “war on cancer”, those costs have only continued to grow over time. The causes and effects of cancer are complex–in part preventable and treatable, but also in part unknown, and perhaps even unknowable. Guiding Cancer Control defines the key principles, attributes, methods, and tools needed to achieve the goal of implementing an effective national cancer control plan. This report describes the current structure of cancer control from a local to global scale, identifies necessary goals for the system, and formulates the path towards integrated disease control systems and a cancer-free future. This framework is a crucial step in establishing an effective, efficient, and accountable system for controlling cancer and other diseases.

A hallmark of high-quality cancer care is the delivery of the right treatment to the right patient at the right time. Precision oncology therapies, which target specific genetic changes in a patient’s cancer, are changing the nature of cancer treatment by allowing clinicians to select therapies that are most likely to benefit individual patients. In current clinical practice, oncologists are increasingly formulating cancer treatment plans using results from complex laboratory and imaging tests that characterize the molecular underpinnings of an individual patient’s cancer. These molecular fingerprints can be quite complex and heterogeneous, even within a single patient. To enable these molecular tumor characterizations to effectively and safely inform cancer care, the cancer community is working to develop and validate multiparameter omics tests and imaging tests as well as software and computational methods for interpretation of the resulting datasets. To examine opportunities to improve cancer diagnosis and care in the new precision oncology era, the National Cancer Policy Forum developed a two-workshop series. The first workshop focused on patient access to expertise and technologies in oncologic imaging and pathology and was held in February 2018. The second workshop, conducted in collaboration with the Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics, was held in October 2018 to examine the use of multidimensional data derived from patients with cancer, and the computational methods that analyze these data to inform cancer treatment decisions. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the second workshop.

Thanks to remarkable advances in modern health care attributable to science, engineering, and medicine, it is now possible to cure or manage illnesses that were long deemed untreatable. At the same time, however, the United States is facing the vexing challenge of a seemingly uncontrolled rise in the cost of health care. Total medical expenditures are rapidly approaching 20 percent of the gross domestic product and are crowding out other priorities of national importance. The use of increasingly expensive prescription drugs is a significant part of this problem, making the cost of biopharmaceuticals a serious national concern with broad political implications. Especially with the highly visible and very large price increases for prescription drugs that have occurred in recent years, finding a way to make prescription medicines—and health care at large—more affordable for everyone has become a socioeconomic imperative.Affordability is a complex function of factors, including not just the prices of the drugs themselves, but also the details of an individual's insurance coverage and the number of medical conditions that an individual or family confronts. Therefore, any solution to the affordability issue will require considering all of these factors together. The current high and increasing costs of prescription drugs—coupled with the broader trends in overall health care costs—is unsustainable to society as a whole.Making Medicines Affordable examines patient access to affordable and effective therapies, with emphasis on drug pricing, inflation in the cost of drugs, and insurance design. This report explores structural and policy factors influencing drug pricing, drug access programs, the emerging role of comparative effectiveness assessments in payment policies, changing finances of medical practice with regard to drug costs and reimbursement, and measures to prevent drug shortages and foster continued innovation in drug development. It makes recommendations for policy actions that could address drug price trends, improve patient access to affordable and effective treatments, and encourage innovations that address significant needs in health care.

The increasing rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) led the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) to issue an evidence-based consensus statement on CPM, as well as a discussion guide that health care providers can use to facilitate shared decision making with patients considering CPM for unilateral breast cancer. This article suggests several ways to improve the discussion guide by eliciting patient values and preferences and by providing more current, detailed, and balanced information about the potential risks and benefits of CPM.

Tobacco use remains a serious and persistent national problem. Recognizing that progress in combating cancer will never be fully achieved without addressing the tobacco problem, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine convened a public workshop exploring current issues in tobacco control, tobacco cessation, and implications for cancer patients. Workshop participants discussed potential policy, outreach, and treatment strategies to reduce tobacco-related cancer incidence and mortality, and highlighted a number of potential high-value action items to improve tobacco control policy, research, and advocacy.

The authors summarize presentations and discussion from the Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in the 21st Century workshop and focus on proposed strategies to improve the affordability of cancer care while maintaining or improving the quality of care.

Cancer cells contain multiple genetic changes in cell signaling pathways that drive abnormal cell survival, proliferation, invasion, and metastasis. Unfortunately, patients treated with single agents inhibiting only one of these pathways—even if showing an initial response—often develop resistance with subsequent relapse or progression of their cancer, typically via the activation of an alternative uninhibited pathway. Combination therapies offer the potential for inhibiting multiple targets and pathways simultaneously to more effectively kill cancer cells and prevent or delay the emergence of drug resistance. However, there are many unique challenges to developing combination therapies, including devising and applying appropriate preclinical tests and clinical trial designs, prioritizing which combination therapies to test, avoiding overlapping toxicity of multiple agents, and overcoming legal, cultural, and regulatory barriers that impede collaboration among multiple companies, organizations, and/or institutions. More effective strategies to efficiently develop combination cancer therapies are urgently needed. Thus, the Institute of Medicine's National Cancer Policy Forum recently convened a workshop with the goal of identifying barriers that may be impeding the development of combination investigational cancer therapies, as well as potential solutions to overcome those barriers, improve collaboration, and ultimately accelerate the development of promising combinations of investigational cancer therapies. Clin Cancer Res; 18(22); 6101–9. ©2012 AACR.

The Institute of Medicine's National Cancer Policy Forum recently convened a workshop on patient-centered cancer treatment planning, with the aim of raising awareness about this important but often overlooked aspect of cancer treatment. A primary goal of patient-centered treatment planning is to engage patients and their families in meaningful, thorough interactions with their health care providers to develop an accurate, well-conceived treatment plan, using all available medical information appropriately while also considering the medical, social, and cultural needs and desires of the patient and family. A cancer treatment plan can be shared among the patient, family, and care team in order to facilitate care coordination and provide a roadmap to help patients navigate the path of cancer treatment. There are numerous obstacles to achieving patient-centered cancer treatment planning in practice. Some of these challenges stem from the patient and include patients' lack of assertiveness, health literacy, and numeracy, and their emotional state and concurrent illnesses. Others are a result of physician limitations, such as a lack of time to explain complex information and a lack of tools to facilitate treatment planning, as well as insensitivity to patients' informational, cultural, and emotional needs. Potential solutions to address these obstacles include better training of health care providers and patients in optimal communication and shared decision making, and greater use of support services and tools such as patient navigation and electronic health records. Other options include greater use of quality metrics and reimbursement for the time it takes to develop, discuss, and document a treatment plan.

Oncology has become one of the most active areas of drug discovery, with more than 800 cancer therapeutics in development. This presents an unprecedented opportunity to improve the outcome for patients with cancer, but also requires an effective and efficient clinical trials network to generate the evidence necessary for regulatory approval and optimal integration of new treatments into clinical care. The Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program supported by the National Cancer Institute has been instrumental in establishing standards of care in oncology over the last 50 years, but it currently faces numerous challenges that threaten its ability to undertake the large-scale, multi-institutional trials that advance patient care. The Institute of Medicine recently appointed a consensus study committee to assess the organization and operation of the Cooperative Group Program and recommend ways to improve the quality of cancer clinical trials conducted by the Groups and others. The committee developed a set of recommendations, summarized here, that aim to improve the speed and efficiency of trials; incorporate innovative science and trial design; improve prioritization, selection, and support of trials; and increase participation by patients and physicians.

Cancer is the leading disease-related cause of death in adolescents and young adults (AYAs). This population faces many short- and long-term health and psychosocial consequences of cancer diagnosis and treatment, but many programs for cancer treatment, survivorship care, and psychosocial support do not focus on the specific needs of AYA cancer patients. Recognizing this health care disparity, the National Cancer Policy Forum of the Institute of Medicine convened a public workshop to examine the needs of AYA patients with cancer. Workshop participants identified many gaps and challenges in the care of AYA cancer patients and discussed potential strategies to address these needs. Suggestions included ways to improve access to care for AYAs, to deliver cancer care that better meets the medical and psychosocial needs of AYAs, to develop educational programs for providers who care for AYA cancer survivors, and to enhance the evidence base for AYAs with cancer by facilitating participation in research.

This article focuses on the major hormones and growth factors for which a critical role in normal mammary growth has been clearly defined. Certainly other hormonal systems and growth factors could also affect breast cancer initiation and progression, but their exact contribution to normal and/or malignant breast cell growth is poorly delineated. Examples of such factors include somatostatin, mammostatin, mammary-derived growth inhibitor (MDGI), mammary-derived growth factor-1 (MDGF-1), inhibins, activins, androgens, glucocorticoids, vitamin D, thyroid hormones, ecosinoids, and oxytocin. Clearly, the hormonal regulation of breast cancer cell growth and survival is multifaceted and very complex. In particular, the effects of estrogens and anti-estrogens on breast cells may depend on their interaction with a wide variety of other pathways. In addition, these interactions may vary among individual breast tumors depending on other genetic changes in the tumor cells that have not been discussed here, such as oncogene activation and loss of tumor suppressors. A more detailed understanding of how cells circumvent a dependency on these pathways is greatly needed in order to identify new biological targets and to design novel therapies for breast cancers that are resistant to anti-estrogen therapy. Such agents could be used alone or in combination with anti-estrogens to improve response to a second course of hormonal therapy.

Tumorigenesis is often characterized by a combination of aberrant proliferation and the inappropriate suppression of apoptosis. In breast cancer, a variety of growth factors and hormones, as well as attachment to extracellular matrix, can regulate both cell growth and cell death via apoptosis, suggesting that the two processes may be closely linked. A better understanding of the mechanism by which those factors regulate the cell cycle and the apoptotic pathways could therefore be very useful in designing novel therapies for breast cancer.

In order to enhance biomedical research and development efficiency and innovation, nontraditional research collaborations have emerged that feature the sharing of information, resources, and capabilities. Although many of these so-called precompetitive collaborations are in the field of oncology, the lessons they offer are broadly applicable to other subfields of translational medicine.

The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program has played a key role in developing new and improved cancer therapies. However, the program is falling short of its potential, and the IOM recommends changes that aim to transform the Cooperative Group Program into a dynamic system that efficiently responds to emerging scientific knowledge; involves broad cooperation of stakeholders; and leverages evolving technologies to provide high-quality, practice-changing research.

Research has long sought to identify biomarkers that could detect cancer at an early stage, or predict the optimal cancer therapy for specific patients. Fueling interest in this research are recent technological advances in genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics that can enable researchers to capture the molecular fingerprints of specific cancers and fine-tune their classification according to the molecular defects they harbor. The discovery and development of new markers of cancer could potentially improve cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Given the potential impact cancer biomarkers could have on the cost effectiveness of cancer detection and treatment, they could profoundly alter the economic burden of cancer as well. Despite the promise of cancer biomarkers, few biomarker-based cancer tests have entered the market, and the translation of research findings on cancer biomarkers into clinically useful tests seems to be lagging. This is perhaps not surprising given the technical, financial, regulatory, and social challenges linked to the discovery, development, validation, and incorporation of biomarker tests into clinical practice. To explore those challenges and ways to overcome them, the National Cancer Policy Forum held the conference "Developing Biomarker-Based Tools for Cancer Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment: The State of the Science, Evaluation, Implementation, and Economics" in Washington, D.C., from March 20 to 22, 2006. At this conference, experts gave presentations in one of six sessions. In addition, seven small group discussions explored the policy implications surrounding biomarker development and adoption into clinical practice. Developing Biomarker-based Tools for Developing Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment: The State of the Science, Evaluation, Implementation, and Economics-Workshop Summary presents the conference proceedings and will be used by an Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee to develop consensus-based recommendations for moving the field of cancer biomarkers forward.

Mammography is an important tool for detecting breast cancer at an early stage. When coupled with appropriate treatment, early detection can reduce breast cancer mortality. At the request of Congress, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioned a study to examine the current practice of mammography and breast cancer detection, with a focus on the FDAa (TM)s oversight via the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), to identify areas in need of improvement. Enacted in 1993, MQSA provides a general framework for ensuring national quality standards in facilities performing screening mammography, requires that each mammography facility be accredited and certified, and mandates that facilities will undergo annual inspections. This book recommends strategies for achieving continued progress in assuring mammography quality, including changes to MQSA regulation, as well as approaches that do not fall within the purview of MQSA. Specifically, this book provides recommendations aimed at improving mammography interpretation; revising MQSA regulations, inspections, and enforcement; ensuring an adequate workforce for breast cancer screening and diagnosis; and improving breast imaging quality beyond mammography.

More than a quarter of pregnancies worldwide are unintended. Between 1995 and 2000, nearly 700,000 women died and many more experienced illness, injury, and disability as a result of unintended pregnancy. Children born from unplanned conception are at greater risk of low birth weight, of being abused, and of not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development. A wider range of contraceptive options is needed to address the changing needs of the populations of the world across the reproductive life cycle, but this unmet need has not been a major priority of the research community and pharmaceutical industry. New Frontiers in Contraceptive Research: A Blueprint for Action, a new report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, identifies priority areas for research to develop new contraceptives. The report highlights new technologies and approaches to biomedical research, including genomics and proteomics, which hold particular promise for developing new products. It also identifies impediments to drug development that must be addressed. Research sponsors, both public and private, will find topics of interest among the recommendations, which are diverse but interconnected and important for improving the range of contraceptive products, their efficacy, and their acceptability.

New clinical reports demonstrate that targeting the biological pathways of hormone and peptide growth factor receptors holds promise for the prevention and treatment of breast cancer.