Search

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hormone responsiveness is a critical determinant of breast cancer progression and management, and the response to endocrine therapy is highly correlated with the estrogen receptor (ER)3 and progesterone receptor (PR) status of tumor cells. Thus, key areas of study in breast cancer are those mechanisms that regulate ER and PR expression in normal and malignant breast tissues. One-third of all breast cancers lack ER and PR; these conditions are associated with less differentiated tumors and poorer clinical outcome. In addition, approximately one-half of ER-positive tumors lack PR protein and patients with this phenotype are less likely to respond to hormonal therapies than those whose tumors express both receptors. Since PR is induced by ER; its presence is a marker of a functional ER. In this review, we will discuss possible mechanisms for loss of ER and PR gene expression, especially structural changes within each gene including deletions, polymorphisms or methylation. Improved understanding of the pathways that lead to loss of ER and/or PR proteins should allow the development of better predictive indicators as well as novel therapeutic approaches to target these hormone-independent cancers.

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.