Search

In 1999, a cooperative tripartite cancer research and training agreement was signed between Ireland (IE), Northern Ireland (NI) and the United States (US) National Cancer Institute, giving rise to the All-Ireland Cancer Consortium (AICC). We wished to consider if AICC increased the amount/impact of cancer research on the island of Ireland and what effect this enhanced research activity had on cancer services and cancer outcomes. As comparator, we chose the city regions of Copenhagen and Lund & Malmö, whose physical connection was greatly improved following construction of bridges between Denmark and Sweden around the time AICC was established. We analysed cancer research outputs from all four geographical regions in the Web of Science (1988–2017), with a particular focus on citations and journal impact factors. We evaluated disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as an indicator of change in health status. Research outputs increased in all four regions, but more in IE/NI than in the Scandinavian cities, while collaboration between IE and NI and both the US and the Rest of Europe increased even more substantially. Citation scores also showed a greater improvement for IE and NI. Journal citation impact factors indicated that IE/NI papers were increasingly being published in more highly cited journals. Research-enabled cancer service provision improved on the island of Ireland, with concomitant increases in cancer survival. The AICC collaborative agreement delivered significant additionality on the island of Ireland, promoting transnational cooperation, enhancing cancer research activity, and underpinning improved cancer services and better cancer outcomes. • The All-Ireland Cancer Consortium led to: ○ Increased research outputs on the island of Ireland. ○ Enhanced collaboration. ○ Improved citations and enhanced impact. ○ Improved cancer services and increased cancer survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces a new and easy-to-determine indicator for research evaluation, namely the percentage of reviews (PR) within a group of papers (articles, notes and reviews). Because reviews are commissioned from, or submitted by, relatively senior researchers, their frequency plausibly provides a measure of the esteem in which a country's (or institution's) top researchers are held. We show that, just as with citation indicators, PR has increased with time, and that it varies substantially with major scientific field and by country, but rather less with sub-field and research level within medical research. It correlates quite well with national citation measures although manifesting an Anglophone bias, and also with the propensity of smaller European countries to co-author papers with US researchers. Two worked examples are given to show potential applications of the new indicator. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increase in the number of identified therapeutic cancer targets achieved through recent biomedical research has resulted in the generation of a large number of molecules that need to be tested further. Current development of (anticancer) drugs is a rather inefficient process that for an average new molecule takes around 10–15 years. It is also a challenging process as it is associated with high costs and a low rate of approval. It is known that less than 10% of new molecular entities entering clinical Phase I testing progress beyond the investigational programme and reach the market; this probability is even lower for anticancer agents. In 2003, the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) declared the urgent need for new toolkits to improve the critical development path that leads from scientific discovery to the patient. In this scenario, Phase 0 (zero) trials should allow an early evaluation in humans of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of test compounds through administration of sub-pharmacological doses and for a short time period to a low number of humans. Typically, Phase 0 studies have no therapeutic or diagnostic intent. Owing to the low doses administered and the low risk of toxicity, shorter preclinical packages to support these studies are required. Phase 0 trials have been proposed to help in making an early selection of promising candidates for further evaluation in Phase I–III trials, providing a potentially useful instrument for drug discovery, particularly in the field of oncology. Phase 0 studies are expected to reduce costs of drug development, and to limit the preclinical in vitro and in vivo testing and the time period of drug development. However, there are also concerns about the utility and feasibility of Phase 0 studies. In January 2006, guidelines on exploratory investigational new drug studies in humans have been published by the US FDA, and currently a Phase 0 programme is ongoing at the National Cancer Institute to evaluate the impact (feasibility and utility) of Phase 0 studies on drug development. In Europe, a Position Paper produced by the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) in 2004 raised the possibility of a reduced preclinical safety package to support early microdose clinical studies, and, as announced by a recent Concept Paper on medicinal products published by the committee for medicinal products for human use of the EMEA, EMEA's guidelines on Phase 0 studies are expected shortly. The true impact of Phase 0 studies on the drug development process as well as on the safety needs to be carefully explored.British Journal of Cancer (2007) 97, 577–581. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6603925 www.bjcancer.com Published online 28 August 2007 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Discusses the emergence of nanomedicine. Estimate by the U.S. National Science Foundation that the nanotechnology markets will be worth $1 trillion dollars by 2015; Allotment of funds for nanoresearch from the European Commission; List of various nanoinstruments and their applications; Reaction of consumer organisations to the risks of nanotechnology; Study which has been commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology to investigate the potential risks and benefits.