Safeguarding the future of independent, academic clinical cancer research in Europe for the benefit of patients

Drug Cost Avoidance Resulting from Participation in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis of Cancer Patients with Solid Tumors

The objective of this single-center retrospective study was to describe the clinical characteristics of adult patients with solid tumors enrolled in cancer clinical trials over a 10-year period (2010-2019) and to assess drug cost avoidance (DCA) associated with sponsors' contributions. The sponsors' contribution to pharmaceutical expenditure was calculated according to the actual price (for each year) of pharmaceutical specialties that the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (HUVH) would have had to bear in the absence of sponsorship. A total of 2930 clinical trials were conducted with 10,488 participants. There were 140 trials in 2010 and 459 in 2019 (228% increase). Clinical trials of high complexity phase I and basket trials accounted for 34.3% of all trials. There has been a large variation in the pattern of clinical research over the study period, whereas, in 2010, targeted therapy accounted for 79.4% of expenditure and cytotoxic drugs for 20.6%; in 2019, immunotherapy accounted for 68.4%, targeted therapy for 24.4%, and cytotoxic drugs for only 7.1%. A total of four hundred twenty-one different antineoplastic agents were used, the variability of which increased from forty-seven agents in 2010, with only seven of them accounting for 92.8% of the overall pharmaceutical expenditure) to three hundred seventeen different antineoplastic agents in 2019, with thirty-three of them accounting for 90.6% of the overall expenditure. The overall expenditure on antineoplastic drugs in clinical care patients not included in clinical trials was EUR 120,396,096. The total cost of antineoplastic drugs supplied by sponsors in a clinical trial setting was EUR 107,306,084, with a potential DCA of EUR 92,662,609. Overall, clinical trials provide not only the best context for the progress of clinical research and healthcare but also create opportunities for reducing cancer care costs.

Clinical researchers' lived experiences with data quality monitoring in clinical trials: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Fundamental to the success of clinical research that involves human participants is the quality of the data that is generated. To ensure data quality, clinical trials must comply with the Good Clinical Practice guideline which recommends data monitoring. To date, the guideline is broad, requires technology for enforcement, follows strict industry standards, mostly designed for drug-registration trials and based on informal consensus. It is also unknown what challenges clinical trials and researchers face in implementing data monitoring procedures. Thus, this study aimed to describe researcher experiences with data quality monitoring in clinical trials.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews following a guided-phenomenological approach. Participants were recruited from the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and were researchers affiliated with a listed clinical study. Each transcript was analysed with inductive thematic analysis before thematic categorisation of themes from all transcripts. Primary, secondary and subthemes were categorised according to the emerging relationships.

RESULTS

Data saturation were reached after interviewing seven participants. Five primary themes, two secondary themes and 21 subthemes in relation to data quality monitoring emerged from the data. The five primary themes included: education and training, ways of working, working with technology, working with data, and working within regulatory requirements. The primary theme 'education and training' influenced the other four primary themes. While 'working with technology' influenced the 'way of working'. All other themes had reciprocal relationships. There was no relationship reported between 'working within regulatory requirements' and 'working with technology'. The researchers experienced challenges in meeting regulatory requirements, using technology and fostering working relationships for data quality monitoring.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials implemented a variety of data quality monitoring procedures tailored to their situation and study context. Standardised frameworks that are accessible to all types of clinical trials are needed with an emphasis on education and training.

Design, organisation and impact of treatment optimisation studies in breast, lung and colorectal cancer: The experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment optimisation studies (TOSs) are clinical trials which aim to tackle research questions that are often left unaddressed within the current drug development paradigm due to a lack of financial and regulatory incentives to undertake them. Examples include comparative effectiveness, therapeutic sequencing and dose de-escalation studies. Trials of this nature have historically been primarily carried out by academic institutions and not-for-profit organisations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the breast, lung and colorectal cancer TOSs that have been performed by the EORTC in the past four decades.

METHODS

We searched the EORTC clinical trials database for relevant studies and subsequently analysed them based on a number of predefined criteria relating to their design, organisation and scientific impact.

RESULTS

The 113 EORTC TOSs examined in this analysis were mainly standard-sized, international, multicentre phase III trials using a relatively simple, randomised, open-label design and comparing pharmacological combination regimens against standard-of-care treatments in terms of their potential to improve overall survival of patients with cancer. Although they were typically financially and/or materially supported by the industry, their legal sponsor was nearly always an independent party that did not benefit monetarily from their outcomes. If meaningful findings were obtained, their results, regardless of whether positive or negative, were published in high-impact journals, and the corresponding articles usually received a considerable number of citations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis provides an empirical framework for setting up future TOSs based on the EORTC experience in oncology.

Climbing the steps of the evidence-based medicine pyramid: highlights from Annals of Nuclear Medicine 2019

We aimed to provide an overview on research path in nuclear medicine climbing the steps of the Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) pyramid using review of 14 subjectively selected papers out of 111 published in the Annals of Nuclear Medicine during January-December 2019. Following the structure of the EBM hierarchy, we chose at least one study for each step of the pyramid from the basis (pre-clinical research, expert opinion, case report and case series), to the middle (case-control and cohort studies, randomised controlled trials), towards the top (meta-analyses and systematic reviews). Additionally, we collected information on the promoter of each included study: investigator-initiated trials (IITs) vs industry-sponsored trials (ISTs). We found that pre-clinical studies are primarily focused on the development of novel molecular targets in cancer, with promising results. At the same time, clinical investigations deal with cardiological, neurological, infectious and oncological applications using both SPECT and PET modalities. Additionally, radionuclide therapy gained interest and is experiencing comprehensive clinical implementation. Our overview confirms the current central role of IITs as compared with ISTs. Challenges and future directions in Nuclear Medicine research are discussed.

Past, Current, and Future Cancer Clinical Research Collaborations: The Case of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Although collaborations between academic institutions and industry have led to important scientific breakthroughs in the discovery stage of the pharmaceutical research and development process, the role of multistakeholder partnerships in the clinical development of anticancer medicines necessitates further clarification. The benefits associated with such cooperation could be undercut by the conflicting goals and motivations of the actors included. The aim of this review was to identify and characterize past, present, and future stakeholder partnership models in cancer clinical research through the lens of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Based on the analysis of several landmark EORTC trials performed across the span of three decades, four existing models of stakeholder cooperation were delineated and characterized. Additionally, a hypothetical fifth model representing a potential future collaborative framework for cancer clinical research was formulated. These models mainly differ in terms of the nature and responsibilities of the partners included and show that clinical research partnerships in oncology have evolved over time from small‐scale academia‐industry collaborations to complex interdisciplinary cooperation involving many different stakeholders.

Central statistical monitoring of investigator-led clinical trials in oncology

Investigator-led clinical trials are pragmatic trials that aim to investigate the benefits and harms of treatments in routine clinical practice. These much-needed trials represent the majority of all trials currently conducted. They are however threatened by the rising costs of clinical research, which are in part due to extensive trial monitoring processes that focus on unimportant details. Risk-based quality management focuses, instead, on “things that really matter”. We discuss the role of central statistical monitoring as part of risk-based quality management. We describe the principles of central statistical monitoring, provide examples of its use, and argue that it could help drive down the cost of randomized clinical trials, especially investigator-led trials, whilst improving their quality.

The requirements of a specialist breast centre

This article is an update of the requirements of a specialist breast centre, produced by EUSOMA and endorsed by ECCO as part of Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) programme, and ESMO. To meet aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this article, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

ESMO Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO): improving the efficiency of clinical research through rationalisation of bureaucracy

During the last years, there has been a dramatic increase in the administrative and bureaucratic burden associated with clinical research, which has clearly had an impact on its overall efficiency and on the activity of clinical investigators and research teams. Indeed, the supervision of the adherence of clinical research to Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines and legal regulations is of the utmost importance. Yet, while such regulations have remained largely unchanged during recent years, the number of administrative tasks and their complexity have grown markedly, as supported by the results of a survey performed among 940 clinical investigators that we report in this manuscript. Therefore, many investigators believe that it has become necessary to undertake a rigorous analysis of the causes and consequences of this issue, and to create a conduit to channel the advice from experienced investigators regarding clinical research procedures, in order to improve them. Based on these premises, ESMO has launched the ESMO Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO), a task force that will analyse different aspects of clinical research. ECRO will aim to provide the views of ESMO on clinical research procedures based on the feedback from clinical investigators, under complete adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki, the GCP guidelines and any other applicable legal regulations, while at the same time showing profound respect for all the stakeholders involved in clinical research. This manuscript provides the background and rationale for the creation of ECRO, its planned activity and an analysis of the current administrative burden in clinical research with recommendations to rationalise it. Indeed, we expect that this effort shall lead to a relevant improvement in the care of patients and in the development of clinical research.

Current models, challenges and best practices for work conducted between European academic cooperative groups and industry

BACKGROUND

The academia-industry interface is important, and, despite challenges that inevitably occur, bears the potential for positive synergies to emerge. Perceived barriers to wider collaboration in academia-industry oncology research in Europe need to be addressed, current academic cooperative group and industry models for collaboration need to be discussed, and a common terminology to facilitate understanding of both sectors' concerns needs to be established with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for the benefit of patients with cancer.

METHODOLOGY

CAREFOR (Clinical Academic Cancer Research Forum), a multi-stakeholder platform formed to improve the direction for academic clinical trials in the field of oncology in Europe, formed the CAREFOR-Industry Working Group comprised of experienced professionals from European academic cooperative groups joined by industry representatives selected based on their activities in the area of medical oncology. They jointly discussed academic cooperative groups, clinical trials conducted between academic cooperative groups and industry, examples of successful collaborative models, common legal negotiation points in clinical trial contracts, data access, and principles of interaction.

RESULTS

Four principles of interaction between the academia and industry are proposed: (1) clarify the roles and responsibilities of all partners involved in the study, (2) involve legal teams from an early stage; (3) acknowledge that data is an important output of the study, (4) agree on the intent of the trial prior to its start.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAREFOR-Industry Working Group describes current models, challenges, and effective strategies for academia-industry research in Europe with an eye towards improving academia-industry partnerships on clinical trials for patients with cancer. Current perceived challenges are explained, and future opportunities/recommendations for improvement are described for the areas of most significant impact. Challenges are addressed from both the academic and industry perspectives, and principles of interaction for the optimal alignment between academia and industry in selected areas are proposed.

Global Breast Cancer Research: Moving Forward

Breast cancer is a major global health problem and major cause of mortality. Although mortality trends are declining in high-income countries, trends are increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Addressing global breast cancer research is a challenging endeavor, as notable disparities and extremely heterogeneous realities exist in different regions across the world. Basic global cancer health care needs have been addressed by the World Health Organization's (WHO) proposed list of essential medicines and by resource-stratified guidelines for screening and treatment. However, specific strategies are needed to address disparities in access to health care, particularly access to new therapies. Discussions about global research in breast cancer should take into account the ongoing globalization of clinical trials. Collaboration fostered by well-established research organizations in North America and Europe is essential for the development of infrastructure and human resources in LMICs so that researchers in these countries can begin to address regional questions. Specific challenges that impact the future of global breast cancer research include increasing the availability of trials in LMICs, developing strategies to increase patient participation in clinical trials, and creation of clear guidelines for the development of real-world evidence-based research. The main objective of this review is to encourage the discussion of challenges in global breast cancer research with the hope that collectively we will be able to generate workable proposals to advance the field.

Conducting non-commercial international clinical trials: the ICR-CTSU experience

BACKGROUND

Academic clinical trials play a fundamental role in the development of new treatments, the repurposing of existing treatments and in addressing areas of unmet clinical need. With cancer treatments increasingly targeted at molecular subtypes, and with priority placed on developing new treatments for rare tumour types, the need for international trial participation to access sufficient patient numbers for successful trial conduct is growing. However, lack of harmonisation of international legal, ethical and financial systems can make this challenging and the cost and effort of conducting trials internationally can be considered prohibitive, particularly where the sample size is comparatively small.

METHODS

The Institute of Cancer Research - Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU) is a UK-based academic clinical trials unit that specialises in the design, conduct and analysis of clinical trials of cancer treatments with an expanding portfolio of trials in molecular subtypes of breast and urological cancers and in other rare cancer types. Implementing appropriate mechanisms to enable international participation has therefore been imperative. In this article, we explain how we have approached the challenges involved and describe examples of successful international trial conduct, achieved through robust collaborations with academic and industry partners.

CONCLUSION

Conducting academic trials internationally is challenging but can and should be achieved through appropriate governance mechanisms and strong collaborations.