Articles

Each year, oncologists return to their respective practices after attending the annual American Society of Clinical Oncology or American Society of Hematology meetings armed with knowledge of new drug/biologic combinations, modified regimen dosing, and other novel approaches that may provide incrementally better outcomes for cancer patients.

US and Canadian medical oncologists share similar attitudes on the costs, cost-effectiveness, and health policies concerning new cancer drugs, despite fundamental differences between the 2 countries regarding how these drugs are covered and paid for under their respective healthcare systems.

Concerns about the future of cancer research exist among the spectrum of researchers and regulators, and in remarks prepared for the President’s Cancer Panel: The Future of Cancer Research—Accelerating Scientific Innovation (held September 22, 2010, in Boston), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) President George W. Sledge, Jr, MD, outlined some of the organization’s concerns regarding new biological therapies and the future of cancer research.

Clinical cancer research is hampered by an overly complex and cautious regulatory system, which slows the development of lifesaving drugs, increases costs, and may be unethical, according to David J. Stewart,MD, of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and colleagues (Stewart DJ, et al. Equipoise lost: ethics, costs, and the regulation of cancer clinical research. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2925-2935).

Some molecularly targeted agents are proving to be less effective, not more so, when administered earlier in the disease course. Researchers say this is counterintuitive, because advanced disease is associated with treatment refractoriness, and cancer agents will typically perform better in the adjuvant treatment setting than in the metastatic treatment setting.

The floodgate has opened for molecularly targeted antitumor agents, and with each novel compound the cost of treating cancer soars ever higher.

Bethesda, MD—Implementing and effectively using comparative effectiveness research (CER) and personalized medicine (PM) will require time and better communication among the research community conducting these types of studies and with the public that will be impacted by them, according to participants in a panel discussion on the societal implications of CER and PM held during the ECRI Institute’s Comparative Ef fectiveness and Personalized Medicine: An Essential Interface conference.

Bethesda, MD—Greater adoption of personalized medicine and comparative effectiveness research (CER) in healthcare will depend on coverage of these approaches by public and private payers. But payer evaluation of these approaches is hampered by legislative roadblocks and a lack of research in CER and slowness in adopting CER into clinical practice, according to speakers at a session of the ECRI Institute’s Comparative Effectiveness and Personalized Medicine: An Essential Interface conference.

Milan—Continuing first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer until disease progression significantly improves overall (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), according to a meta-analysis reported at the 35th ESMO Congress.

Milan—Because the toxicity profiles for the 3 monoclonal antibodies used in treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) differ, there are substantial differences in the cost of treating side effects, according to research presented at the 35th ESMO Congress.