Search

BACKGROUND: In respect of the principle of autonomy and the right of self-determination, obtaining an informed consent of potential participants before their inclusion in a study is a fundamental ethical obligation. The variations in national laws, regulations, and cultures contribute to complex informed consent documents for patients participating in clinical trials. Currently, only few ethics committees seem willing to address the complexity and the length of these documents and to request investigators and sponsors to revise them in a way to make them understandable for potential participants. The purpose of this work is to focus on the written information in the informed consent documentation for drug development clinical trials and suggests (i) to distinguish between necessary and not essential information, (ii) to define the optimal format allowing the best legibility of those documents. METHODS: The Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Group, an international scientific committee involving oncologists from all over the world, addressed these issues and developed and uniformly accepted a simplified informed consent documentation for future clinical research. RESULTS: A simplified form of informed consent with the leading part of 1200-1800 words containing all of the key information necessary to meet ethical and regulatory requirements and 'relevant supportive information appendix' of 2000-3000 words is provided. CONCLUSIONS: This position paper, on the basis of the ARCAD Group experts discussions, proposes our informed consent model and the rationale for its content.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in colorectal cancer mortality in 34 European countries between 1970 and 2011. DESIGN: Retrospective trend analysis. DATA SOURCE: World Health Organization mortality database. POPULATION: Deaths from colorectal cancer between 1970 and 2011. Profound changes in screening and treatment efficiency took place after 1988; therefore, particular attention was paid to the evolution of colorectal cancer mortality in the subsequent period. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Time trends in rates of colorectal cancer mortality, using joinpoint regression analysis. Rates were age adjusted using the standard European population. RESULTS: From 1989 to 2011, colorectal cancer mortality increased by a median of 6.0% for men and decreased by a median of 14.7% for women in the 34 European countries. Reductions in colorectal cancer mortality of more than 25% in men and 30% in women occurred in Austria, Switzerland, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Ireland. By contrast, mortality rates fell by less than 17% in the Netherlands and Sweden for both sexes. Over the same period, smaller or no declines occurred in most central European countries. Substantial mortality increases occurred in Croatia, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, and Romania for both sexes and in most eastern European countries for men. In countries with decreasing mortality, reductions were more important for women of all ages and men younger than 65 years. In the 27 European Union member states, colorectal cancer mortality fell by 13.0% in men and 27.0% in women, compared with corresponding reductions of 39.8% and 38.8% in the United States. CONCLUSION: Over the past 40 years, there has been considerable disparity in the level of colorectal cancer mortality between European countries, as well as between men and women and age categories. Countries with the largest reductions in colorectal cancer mortality are characterised by better accessibility to scree

This analysis compared the cost-effectiveness in Belgium of cetuximab plus irinotecan with current current care in the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) that has failed irinotecan-containing therapy. Treatment outcomes and medical resource use data for patients receiving cetuximab plus irinotecan from the BOND study were compared with those from a matched group of patients (current care) (n = 66). Two scenarios were considered in which cetuximab was discontinued either at 6 weeks or at 12 weeks if there was no tumour response at those time points. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in Euros as the additional cost per additional life year gained (LYG) (referred to as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)). For the 6-week rule, the ICERs were is an element of 17000 compared with current care. For the 12-week rule, the ICER was:is an element of 40000 /LYG. Sensitivity analyses revealed that, in the worst case, considering all assumptions against the cetuximab combination, the maximum ICER is:is an element of 30000 or is an element of 59000. In conclusion, cetuximab plus irinotecan for patients with metastatic CRC, after failure on irinotecan-containing chemotherapy, is rather cost-effective compared with current care in both scenarios tested.

Background: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which participates in signaling pathways that are deregulated in cancer cells, commonly appears on colorectal-cancer cells. Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody that specifically blocks the EGFR. We compared the efficacy of cetuximab in combination with irinotecan with that of cetuximab alone in metastatic colorectal cancer that was refractory to treatment with irinotecan. Methods: We randomly assigned 329 patients whose disease had progressed during or within three months after treatment with an irinotecan-based regimen to receive either cetuximab and irinotecan (at the same dose and schedule as in a prestudy regimen [218 patients]) or cetuximab monotherapy (111 patients). In cases of disease progression, the addition of irinotecan to cetuximab monotherapy was permitted. The patients were evaluated radiologically for tumor response and were also evaluated for the time to tumor progression, survival, and side effects of treatment. Results: The rate of response in the combination-therapy group was significantly higher than that in the monotherapy group (22.9 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 17.5 to 29.1 percent] vs. 10.8 percent [95 percent confidence interval, 5.7 to 18.1 percent], P=0.007). The median time to progression was significantly greater in the combination-therapy group (4.1 vs. 1.5 months, P<0.001 by the log-rank test). The median survival time was 8.6 months in the combination-therapy group and 6.9 months in the monotherapy group (P=0.48). Toxic effects were more frequent in the combination-therapy group, but their severity and incidence were similar to those that would be expected with irinotecan alone. Conclusions: Cetuximab has clinically significant activity when given alone or in combination with irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer.