Improving cancer outcomes through international collaboration in academic cancer treatment trials

Revolutionizing Oncology: A Comprehensive Review of Digital Health Applications

Digital health is poised to revolutionize the field of oncology, offering innovative solutions that enhance diagnostics, treatment, and patient care. This comprehensive review delves into the multifaceted landscape of digital health in oncology, encompassing its definition, significance, applications, benefits, challenges, ethical considerations, and future trends. Key findings highlight the potential for early detection, personalized treatment, enhanced care coordination, patient empowerment, accelerated research, and cost efficiency. Ethical concerns surrounding privacy, equitable access, and responsible data use are discussed. Looking ahead, the future of digital health in oncology is bright, driven by advancements in artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, predictive analytics, global collaboration, and evolving regulations. This review underscores the need for collaboration among stakeholders and a patient-centered approach to harness the transformative power of digital health, promising a future where the burden of cancer is lessened through innovation and compassionate care.

Enhancing International Cancer Organization Collaborations: King Hussein Cancer Center and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Model for Collaboration

Collaborative partnerships, which link two health organizations with shared characteristics to achieve common goals and to improve healthcare quality, are becoming increasingly common in oncology. The purpose of this study is to review the collaboration between King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC) and Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM). The context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model, a quasi-experimental form of program evaluation, has been applied to the KHCC-PM collaboration. This model is well suited to evaluate complex collaborations as it does not assume linear relationships. Data sources include stakeholders' judgements of the collaboration, assessment of achievements, and informal interviews with key participants involved in the program. KHCC and PM are recognized as high-caliber comprehensive cancer centers, with a common goal of delivering high-quality care to patients. Through personal relationships among faculty in the centers and the perceived opportunities for mutual benefit, KHCC and PM signed a memorandum of understanding in 2013 to enter into a formal partnership. This partnership has been an evolving process that started with collaboration on education and grew to include clinical care. Research is an area for potential future collaboration. Enabling factors in the collaboration include dedication of individuals involved, trusting relationships amongst faculty, and the reciprocal nature of the relationship. Challenges have been financial, competing interests, and the absence of a successful collaborative model to follow. The KHCC and PM collaboration has been successful. A strategic plan is being developed and followed to guide areas of expansion.

Non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcomas diagnosed in patients at a young age. An overview of clinical, pathological, and molecular findings

OBJECTIVE

Disease spectrum in pediatric sarcoma differs substantially from adults. We report a cohort of very young children with non-rhabdomyosarcoma soft tissue sarcoma (NRSTS) detailing their molecular features, treatment, and outcome.

METHODS

We report features of consecutive children (age <2 years) with NRSTS (2000-2017). Archival pathological material was re-reviewed, with additional molecular techniques applied where indicated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients (16 females, 55%) were identified (median age 6 months; range 0-23). Most common diagnoses included infantile fibrosarcoma (IFS, n = 14, 48%), malignant rhabdoid tumor (MRT, n = 4, 14%), and undifferentiated sarcoma (n = 4, 14%). Twenty-seven of 29 (93%) had tumor molecular characterization to confirm diagnosis. Clinical presentation included a swelling/mass (n = 23, 79%). Disease extent was localized (n = 20, 69%), locoregional (n = 6, 21%), or metastatic (n = 3, 10%). Seventeen of 29 (59%) who underwent surgery achieved complete resection (R0). Other treatments included conventional chemotherapy (n = 26, 90%), molecularly targeted therapies (n = 3, 10%), and radiation (n = 5, 17%). At last follow-up (median 3 years; range 0.3-16.4), 23 (79%) were alive, disease-free and six (21%) had died of disease. All patients with IFS were alive and all those with MRT died. A cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) was confirmed in three of 10 (30%) genetically tested patients.

CONCLUSION

We recommend tumor molecular characterization in all young patients including evaluation for CPS to optimize treatment options and prognostication.

Mapping breast cancer journal publications in conflict settings in the MENA region: a scoping review

Background

Breast cancer is a major cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality among women in the the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Conflict and political instability in the region may affect medical research output, including that on breast cancer. This scoping review aims to systematically identify and map breast cancer publications across different stages of the cancer care pathway and across conflict-affected countries within the MENA region. The findings of this work will highlight the impact of conflict on cancer research that could be mitigated with the proper contextualised capacity strengthening intervention.

Methods

We followed the PRISMA-Scr methodology. We searched for peer-reviewed publications on topics related to breast cancer in 11 databases: Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, PROQUEST, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, Arab World Searches Complete, Popline, Scopus and Google Scholar using both controlled vocabulary and keywords. Publication abstracts and full-text versions were screened for duplicates and included in our study based on pre-specified eligibility criteria: focused on breast cancer, related to the specific country of analysis and human or health system studies. We used a structured data extraction form to extract information related to the article, its methodology and the cancer care pathway being studied.

Results

A total of 19,215 citations were retrieved from our search. After removing duplicates, a total of 8,622 articles remained. Title and abstract screening retained 1,613 articles. Publications with first author affiliations to Turkey were consistently the highest across all categories of the cancer care pathway. Trends show an increase in articles from Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine after 2015. Early exploratory and epidemiological studies represented the majority of breast cancer research, followed by policy and implementation research and lastly experimental research. Most research conducted followed an observational study design. Important gaps were identified in the research output related to advanced breast cancer and palliative care (Libya, Syria and Yemen), mental health (Libya), and knowledge and education of breast cancer (Libya and Syria).

Conclusion

This scoping review has identified key areas in breast cancer research that lack significant research activity in conflict MENA settings. These areas, including but are not limited to palliative care, mental health, and education, can be prioritised and developed through regional collaboration and contextualised capacity strengthening initiatives.

Statistical Considerations for Trials in Adjuvant Treatment of Colorectal Cancer

The design of the best possible clinical trials of adjuvant interventions in colorectal cancer will entail the use of both time-tested and novel methods that allow efficient, reliable and patient-relevant therapeutic development. The ultimate goal of this endeavor is to safely and expeditiously bring to clinical practice novel interventions that impact patient lives. In this paper, we discuss statistical aspects and provide suggestions to optimize trial design, data collection, study implementation, and the use of predictive biomarkers and endpoints in phase 3 trials of systemic adjuvant therapy. We also discuss the issues of collaboration and patient centricity, expecting that several novel agents with activity in the (neo)adjuvant therapy of colon and rectal cancers will become available in the near future.

Review of precision cancer medicine: Evolution of the treatment paradigm

In recent years, biotechnological breakthroughs have led to identification of complex and unique biologic features associated with carcinogenesis. Tumor and cell-free DNA profiling, immune markers, and proteomic and RNA analyses are used to identify these characteristics for optimization of anticancer therapy in individual patients. Consequently, clinical trials have evolved, shifting from tumor type-centered to gene-directed, histology-agnostic, with innovative adaptive design tailored to biomarker profiling with the goal to improve treatment outcomes. A plethora of precision medicine trials have been conducted. The majority of these trials demonstrated that matched therapy is associated with superior outcomes compared to non-matched therapy across tumor types and in specific cancers. To improve the implementation of precision medicine, this approach should be used early in the course of the disease, and patients should have complete tumor profiling and access to effective matched therapy. To overcome the complexity of tumor biology, clinical trials with combinations of gene-targeted therapy with immune-targeted approaches (e.g., checkpoint blockade, personalized vaccines and/or chimeric antigen receptor T-cells), hormonal therapy, chemotherapy and/or novel agents should be considered. These studies should target dynamic changes in tumor biologic abnormalities, eliminating minimal residual disease, and eradicating significant subclones that confer resistance to treatment. Mining and expansion of real-world data, facilitated by the use of advanced computer data processing capabilities, may contribute to validation of information to predict new applications for medicines. In this review, we summarize the clinical trials and discuss challenges and opportunities to accelerate the implementation of precision oncology.

Challenges of international oncology trial collaboration-a call to action

International collaboration in oncology trials has the potential to enhance clinical trial activity by expediting the recruitment of large patient populations, testing treatments in diverse populations and facilitating the study of rare tumours or specific molecular subtypes. However, a number of challenges continue to hinder the efficient and productive conduct of both commercial and non-commercial international clinical trials. These challenges include complex and burdensome regulatory requirements, the high cost of conducting trials, and logistical challenges associated with ethics review, drug supply and biospecimen collection and management. We propose solutions to promote oncology trial collaboration, such as regulatory reform, harmonisation of trial initiation and management processes and greater recognition and funding of academic (non-commercial) clinical trials. It is only through coordinated effort and leadership from researchers, regulators and those responsible for health systems that the full potential of international trial collaboration can be realised.

Effects of Radiotherapy in Early-Stage, Low-Recurrence Risk, Hormone-Sensitive Breast Cancer

Background

Radiotherapy after breast conservation has become the standard of care. Prior meta-analyses on effects of radiotherapy predated availability of gene expression profiling (GEP) to assess recurrence risk and/or did not include all relevant outcomes. This analysis used GEP information with pooled individual-level data to evaluate the impact of omitting radiotherapy on recurrence and mortality.

Methods

We considered trials that evaluated or administered radiotherapy after lumpectomy in women with low-risk breast cancer. Women included had undergone lumpectomy and were treated with hormonal therapy for stage I, ER+ and/or PR+, HER2- breast cancer with Oncotype scores no greater than 18. Recurrence-free interval (RFI), type of RFI (locoregional or distant), and breast cancer-specific and overall survival were compared between no radiotherapy and radiotherapy using adjusted Cox models. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

The final sample included 1778 women from seven trials. Omission of radiotherapy was associated with an overall adjusted hazard ratio of 2.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38 to 4.89, P = .003) for RFI. There was a statistically significant increase in any first locoregional recurrence (P = .001), but not distant recurrence events (P = .90), or breast cancer-specific (P = .85) or overall survival (P = .61). Five-year RFI rate was high (93.5% for no radiotherapy vs 97.9% for radiotherapy; absolute reduction = 4.4%, 95% CI = 0.7% to 8.1%, P = .03). The effects of radiotherapy varied across subgroups, with lower RFI rates for those with Oncotype scores of less than 11 (vs 11-18), older (vs younger), and ER+/PR+ status (vs other).

Conclusions

Omission of radiotherapy in hormone-sensitive patients with low recurrence risk may lead to a modest increase in locoregional recurrence event rates, but does not appear to increase the rate of distant recurrence or death.

Simulation Modeling of Cancer Clinical Trials: Application to Omitting Radiotherapy in Low-risk Breast Cancer

Background

We used two models to simulate a proposed noninferiority trial of radiotherapy (RT) omission in low-risk invasive breast cancer to illustrate how modeling could be used to predict the trial's outcomes, inform trial design, and contribute to practice debates.

Methods

The proposed trial was a prospective randomized trial of no-RT vs RT in women age 40 to 74 years undergoing lumpectomy and endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, stage I breast cancer with an Oncotype DX score of 18 or lower. The primary endpoint was recurrence-free interval (RFI), including locoregional recurrence, distant recurrence, and breast cancer death. Noninferiority required the two-sided 90% confidence interval of the RFI hazard ratio (HR) for no-RT vs RT to be entirely below 1.7. Model inputs included published data. The trial was simulated 1000 times, and results were summarized as percent concluding noninferiority and mean (standard deviation) of hazard ratios for Model GE and Model M, respectively.

Results

Noninferiority was demonstrated in 18.0% and 3.7% for the two models. The respective means (SD) of the RFI hazard ratios were 1.8 (0.7) and 2.4 (0.9); most were locoregional recurrences. The mean five-year RFI rates for no-RT vs RT (SD) were 92.7% (2.9%) vs 95.5% (2.2%) and 88.4% (2.0%) vs 94.5% (1.6%). Both models showed little or no difference in breast cancer-specific or overall survival. Alternative definitions of low risk based on combinations of age and grade produced similar results.

Conclusions

The proposed trial was unlikely to show noninferiority of omitting radiotherapy even using alternative definitions of low-risk, as the endpoint included local recurrence. Future trials regarding radiotherapy should address absolute reduction in recurrence and impact of type of recurrence on the patient.

Association of Lymph Node Density With Survival of Patients With Papillary Thyroid Cancer

Importance

Lymph node metastases are common in papillary thyroid cancer (PTC), yet the impact of nodal metastases on survival remains unclear. Lymph node density (LND) is the ratio between the number of positive lymph nodes excised and the total number of excised lymph nodes. Lymph node density has been suggested as a prognostic factor in many types of cancer.

Objective

To evaluate the prognostic role of LND in PTC.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study reviewed medical records of patients with PTC who were treated at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2015. Survival and recurrence outcomes were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Significant variables on univariate analysis were subjected to a Cox proportional hazards regression multivariate model.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary study outcome was disease-specific survival (DSS); other measurements included overall survival (OS).

Results

The study cohort included data for 2542 patients (1801 [71%] male; median age, 48 years [range, 18-97 years]) with a median follow-up of 55 months (range, 4-192 months). The 10-year disease-specific survival rate was 98% for patients with LND of 0.19 or less, compared with 90% for those with LND greater than 0.19 (effect size, 8%; 95% CI, 4%-15%). The 10-year overall survival was 87% for patients with LND of 0.19 or less, compared with 79% for patients with LND greater than 0.19 (effect size, 8%; 95% CI, 3%-15%). Multivariable analysis revealed that LND greater than 0.19 was independently associated with an adverse DSS (hazard ratio [HR], 4.11; 95% CI, 2.11-8.97) and OS (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.24-4.11). Subgroup analysis of patients with 18 or more lymph nodes analyzed revealed that LND greater than 0.19 remained a significant marker for DSS (HR, 2.94; 95% CI, 1.36-9.81) and OS (HR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.12-5.34). Incorporating LND into the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system successfully stratified risk groups compared with the traditional TNM staging system.

Conclusions and Relevance

This single-institute study demonstrates the reproducibility of LND as a predictor of outcomes in PTC. Lymph node density can potentially assist in identifying patients with poorer survival who may benefit from more aggressive adjuvant therapy.

Responding to the challenges of international collaborations between the east and the west - report of the first JCOG-EORTC symposium and a perspective from young JCOG and EORTC investigators

International/intercontinental collaboration is necessary to set up new innovative clinical trials for cancer treatment. However, the infrastructure, especially Asia-Europe academic partnerships, to enable such collaboration has not been fully structured and differences and similarities between the research groups have not been well studied. In 2015, collaboration started between the biggest cancer research organizations in Asia and EU, Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Following the first pilot collaboration study, the first scientific symposium took place in December 2017 in Tokyo. Before the symposium, a working visit for EORTC investigators from the Early Career Investigator initiative (ECI), willing to develop projects within the JCOG-EORTC partnership, was held. In addition to the digest of the working visit and symposium, we aimed to describe the differences and similarities between the two groups and to identify key factors for collaboration from the perspective of the young investigators of the networks. These findings are described in this article.

Collaboration between EORTC and JCOG-how to accelerate global clinical research partnership

The demand for international collaboration in cancer clinical trials has grown stronger to maximize efficiency, avoid duplication of effort and to achieve effective implementation of research results into medical practice. Infrastructures that could facilitate intercontinental collaboration not only between Europe and United States but also between Europe and Asia are urgently needed. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, one of the major cancer clinical research infrastructure in Europe, initiated collaboration with the Japan Clinical Oncology Group, the largest cancer research cooperative group in Japan. Their first pilot trial on unresectable colorectal liver metastasis will commence on fourth quarter of 2016. With similar goals and strategies as well as with similar structures, the two research organizations have a great potential for efficient collaboration that could deliver faster and global therapeutic improvement to cancer patients. However, international collaboration requires careful and structured approach to harmonize activities to ensure success. This article focuses on specific intercontinental differences and the necessary requirements to ensure a successful partnership between European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Japan Clinical Oncology Group. This could serve as a model to build more global international academic trials between the East and the West.

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.

Formation of an international intergroup to coordinate clinical trials in head and neck cancers: HNCIG

Clinical trials in head and neck cancer (HNC) face multiple challenges including low global incidence, excessive patient comorbidity rate, high treatment-related toxicity and more recently a changing tumor biology landscape. As clinical trials evolve to address new knowledge about HNC biology, the overall pool of eligible patients for each trial becomes smaller, leading to more accrual challenges. These challenges have led to the formation of the Head and Neck Cancer Intergroup (HNCIG) comprised of large HNC international and national cooperative groups and sites with the goal of facilitating the conduct of high quality clinical trials in a timely manner to improve outcomes in HNC. This article describes the objectives, structure, and activities of the HNCIG.

Update on recent preclinical and clinical studies of T790M mutant-specific irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors

The first- and second-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (1/2G EGFR-TKIs) gefitinib, erlotinib, and afatinib have all been approved as standard first-line treatments for advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer. The third-generation (3G) EGFR-TKIs have been developed to overcome the EGFR T790M mutation, which is the most common mechanism of acquired resistance to 1/2G EGFR-TKI treatment. This resistance mutation develops in half of the patients who respond to 1/2G EGFR-TKI therapy. The structures of the novel 3G EGFR-TKIs are different from those of 1/2G EGFR-TKIs. Particularly, 3G EGFR-TKIs have lower affinity to wild-type EGFR, and are therefore associated with lower rates of skin and gastrointestinal toxicities. However, many of the adverse events (AEs) that are observed in patients receiving 3G EGFR-TKIs have not been observed in patients receiving 1/2G EGFR-TKIs. Although preclinical studies have revealed many possible mechanisms for these AEs, the causes of some AEs remain unknown. Many mechanisms of resistance to 3G EGFR-TKI therapy have also been reported. Here, we have reviewed the recent clinical and preclinical developments related to novel 3G EGFR-TKIs, including osimertinib, rociletinib, olmutinib, EGF816, and ASP8273.

Quality assessments for cancer centers in the European Union

BACKGROUND

Cancer centers are pressured to deliver high-quality services that can be measured and improved, which has led to an increase of assessments in many countries. A critical area of quality improvement is to improve patient outcome. An overview of existing assessments can help stakeholders (e.g., healthcare professionals, managers and policy makers) improve the quality of cancer research and care and lead to patient benefits. This paper presents key aspects of assessments undertaken by European cancer centers, such as: are assessments mandatory or voluntary? Do they focus on evaluating research, care or both? And are they international or national?

METHODS

A survey was sent to 33 cancer centers in 28 European Union member states. Participants were asked to score the specifics for each assessment that they listed.

RESULTS

Based on the responses from 19 cancer centers from 18 member states, we found 109 assessments. The numbers have steadily increased from 1990's till 2015. Although, a majority of assessments are on patient-care aspects (n = 45), it is unclear how many of those include assessing patient benefits. Only few assessments cover basic research. There is an increasing trend towards mixed assessments (i.e., combining research and patient-care aspects)

CONCLUSIONS

The need for assessments in cancer centers is increasing. To improve efforts in the quality of research and patient care and to prevent new assessments that "reinvent the wheel", it is advised to start comparative research into the assessments that are likely to bring patient benefits and improve patient outcome. Do assessments provide consistent and reliable information that create added value for all key stakeholders?

Differential Globalization of Industry- and Non-Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Mapping the international landscape of clinical trials may inform global health research governance, but no large-scale data are available. Industry or non-industry sponsorship may have a major influence in this mapping. We aimed to map the global landscape of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical trials and its evolution over time.

METHODS

We analyzed clinical trials initiated between 2006 and 2013 and registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We mapped single-country and international trials by World Bank's income groups and by sponsorship (industry- vs. non- industry), including its evolution over time from 2006 to 2012. We identified clusters of countries that collaborated significantly more than expected in industry- and non-industry-sponsored international trials.

RESULTS

119,679 clinical trials conducted in 177 countries were analysed. The median number of trials per million inhabitants in high-income countries was 100 times that in low-income countries (116.0 vs. 1.1). Industry sponsors were involved in three times more trials per million inhabitants than non-industry sponsors in high-income countries (75.0 vs. 24.5) and in ten times fewer trials in low- income countries (0.08 vs. 1.08). Among industry- and non-industry-sponsored trials, 30.3% and 3.2% were international, respectively. In the industry-sponsored network of collaboration, Eastern European and South American countries collaborated more than expected; in the non-industry-sponsored network, collaboration among Scandinavian countries was overrepresented. Industry-sponsored international trials became more inter-continental with time between 2006 and 2012 (from 54.8% to 67.3%) as compared with non-industry-sponsored trials (from 42.4% to 37.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on trials registered in the WHO ICTRP we documented a substantial gap between the globalization of industry- and non-industry-sponsored clinical research. Only 3% of academic trials but 30% of industry trials are international. The latter appeared to be conducted in preferentially selected countries.

Prognostic Performance of Current Stage III Oral Cancer Patients After Curative Intent Resection: Evidence to Support a Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging System

BACKGROUND

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage III classification of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OCSCC) represents a heterogeneous group of patients with early local disease with regional metastases (T1N1 and T2N1) and advanced local disease with or without regional metastasis (T3N0 and T3N1).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate prognostic heterogeneity in the stage III category.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

An international retrospective multicenter study of 1815 patients who were treated for OCSCC from 2003 to 2011.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariate models of stage III patients revealed better overall survival (OS; HR 2.12, 95 % CI 1.03-4.15; p = 0.01) and disease-specific survival (DSS; HR 1.7, 95 % CI 1.16-4.12; p = 0.04) rates for patients with T1-2N1/T3N0 disease than for patients with T3N1 disease. The outcomes of patients with T3N1 and stage IVa disease were similar (p = 0.89 and p = 0.78 for OS and DSS, respectively). Modifying stage classification by transferring the T3N1 category to the stage VIa group resulted in a better prognostic performance [Harrell's concordance index, C index 0.76; Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) 4131.6] compared with the AJCC 7th edition staging system (C index 0.65; AIC 4144.9) for OS. When DSS was assessed, the suggested staging system remained the best performing model (C index 0.71; AIC 1061.3) compared with the current AJCC 7th edition staging (C index 0.64; AIC 1066.2).

CONCLUSIONS

The prognosis of T3N1 and stage IVa disease are similar in OCSCC, suggesting that these categories could be combined in future revisions of the nodal staging system to enhance prognostic accuracy.

The Globalization of Cooperative Groups

The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported adult cooperative oncology research groups (now officially Network groups) have a longstanding history of participating in international collaborations throughout the world. Most frequently, the US-based cooperative groups work reciprocally with the Canadian national adult cancer clinical trial group, NCIC CTG (previously the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group). Thus, Canada is the largest contributor to cooperative groups based in the United States, and vice versa. Although international collaborations have many benefits, they are most frequently utilized to enhance patient accrual to large phase III trials originating in the United States or Canada. Within the cooperative group setting, adequate attention has not been given to the study of cancers that are unique to countries outside the United States and Canada, such as those frequently associated with infections in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Global collaborations are limited by a number of barriers, some of which are unique to the countries involved, while others are related to financial support and to US policies that restrict drug distribution outside the United States. This article serves to detail the cooperative group experience in international research and describe how international collaboration in cancer clinical trials is a promising and important area that requires greater consideration in the future.

Global cancer consortiums: moving from consensus to practice

PURPOSE AND DESIGN

The failure to translate cancer knowledge into action contributes to regional, national, and international health inequities. Disparities in cancer care are the most severe in low-resource settings, where delivery obstacles are compounded by health infrastructure deficits and inadequate basic services. Global cancer consortiums (GCCs) have developed to strengthen cancer care expertise, advance knowledge on best practices, and bridge the cancer gap worldwide. Within the complex matrix of public health priorities, consensus is emerging on cost-effective cancer care interventions in low- and medium-resource countries, which include the critical role of surgical services. Distinct from traditional health partnerships that collaborate to provide care at the local level, GCCs collaborate more broadly to establish consensus on best practice models for service delivery. To realize the benefit of programmatic interventions and achieve tangible improvements in patient outcomes, GCCs must construct and share evidence-based implementation strategies to be tested in real world settings.

REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS

Implementation research should inform consensus formation, program delivery, and outcome monitoring to achieve the goals articulated by GCCs. Fundamental steps to successful implementation are: (1) to adopt an integrated, multisectoral plan with local involvement; (2) to define shared implementation priorities by establishing care pathways that avoid prescriptive but suboptimal health care delivery; (3) to build capacity through education, technology transfer, and surveillance of outcomes; and (4) to promote equity and balanced collaboration. GCCs can bridge the gap between what is known and what is done, translating normative sharing of clinical expertise into tangible improvements in patient care.

Challenges to effective cancer control in China, India, and Russia

Cancer is one of the major non-communicable diseases posing a threat to world health. Unfortunately, improvements in socioeconomic conditions are usually associated with increased cancer incidence. In this Commission, we focus on China, India, and Russia, which share rapidly rising cancer incidence and have cancer mortality rates that are nearly twice as high as in the UK or the USA, vast geographies, growing economies, ageing populations, increasingly westernised lifestyles, relatively disenfranchised subpopulations, serious contamination of the environment, and uncontrolled cancer-causing communicable infections. We describe the overall state of health and cancer control in each country and additional specific issues for consideration: for China, access to care, contamination of the environment, and cancer fatalism and traditional medicine; for India, affordability of care, provision of adequate health personnel, and sociocultural barriers to cancer control; and for Russia, monitoring of the burden of cancer, societal attitudes towards cancer prevention, effects of inequitable treatment and access to medicine, and a need for improved international engagement.

Barriers and challenges to global clinical cancer research

BACKGROUND

There are concerns about growing barriers to cancer research. We explored the characteristics of and barriers to global clinical cancer research.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology International Affairs Committee invited 300 selected oncologists with research experience from 25 countries to complete a Web-based survey. Fisher's exact test was used to compare answers between participants from high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Barriers to clinical cancer research were ranked from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important). Mann-Whitney's nonparametric test was used to compare the ranks describing the importance of investigated obstacles.

RESULTS

Eighty oncologists responded, 41 from HICs and 39 from LMICs. Most responders were medical oncologists (62%) at academic hospitals (90%). Researchers from HICs were more involved with academic and industry-driven research than were researchers from LMICs. Significantly higher proportions of those who considered their ability to conduct academic research and industry-driven research over the past 5 years more difficult were from HICs (73% vs. 27% and 70% vs. 30%, respectively). Concerning academic clinical cancer research, a lack of funding was ranked the most important (score: 3.16) barrier, without significant differences observed between HICs and LMICs. Lack of time or competing priorities and procedures from competent authorities were the second most important barriers to conducting academic clinical research in HICs and LMICs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Lack of funding, lack of time and competing priorities, and procedures from competent authorities might be the main global barriers to academic clinical cancer research.

Lymph node density in oral cavity cancer: results of the International Consortium for Outcomes Research

Background:

Lymph node density (LND) has previously been reported to reliably predict recurrence risk and survival in oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). This multicenter international study was designed to validate the concept of LND in OSCC.

Methods:

The study included 4254 patients diagnosed as having OSCC. The median follow-up was 41 months. Five-year overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS), locoregional control and distant metastasis rates were calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Lymph node density (number of positive lymph nodes/total number of excised lymph nodes) was subjected to multivariate analysis.

Results:

The OS was 49% for patients with LND⩽0.07 compared with 35% for patients with LND>0.07 (P<0.001). Similarly, the DSS was 60% for patients with LND⩽0.07 compared with 41% for those with LND>0.07 (P<0.001). Lymph node density reliably stratified patients according to their risk of failure within the individual N subgroups (P=0.03). A modified TNM staging system based on LND ratio was consistently superior to the traditional system in estimating survival measures.

Conclusion:

This multi-institutional study validates the reliability and applicability of LND as a predictor of outcomes in OSCC. Lymph node density can potentially assist in identifying patients with poor outcomes and therefore for whom more aggressive adjuvant treatment is needed.

Credentialing for participation in clinical trials

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical cooperative groups have been instrumental over the past 50 years in developing clinical trials and evidence-based clinical trial processes for improvements in patient care. The cooperative groups are undergoing a transformation process to launch, conduct, and publish clinical trials more rapidly. Institutional participation in clinical trials can be made more efficient and include the expansion of relationships with international partners. This paper reviews the current processes that are in use in radiation therapy trials and the importance of maintaining effective credentialing strategies to assure the quality of the outcomes of clinical trials. The paper offers strategies to streamline and harmonize credentialing tools and processes moving forward as the NCI undergoes transformative change in the conduct of clinical trials.

International models of investigator-initiated trials: implications for Japan

BACKGROUND

Academic/institutional investigator-initiated clinical trials benefit individuals and society by supplementing gaps in industry-sponsored clinical trials.

MATERIALS

In May 2010, experts from Japan, the Republic of Korea, the UK, and the United States, met at a symposium in Tokyo, Japan, to discuss how policies related to the conduct of clinical trials, which have been shown to be effective, may be applied to other regions of the world.

RESULTS

In order to increase the availability of anticancer drugs world-wide, nations including Japan should examine the benefits of increasing the number of investigator-initiated clinical trials. These trials represent one of the most effective ways to translate basic scientific knowledge into clinical practice. These trials should be conducted under GCP guidelines and include Investigational New Drug application submissions with the ultimate goal of future drug approval.

CONCLUSIONS

To maximize the effectiveness of these trials, a policy to educate health care professionals, cancer patients and their families, and the public in general on the benefits of clinical trials should be strengthened. Finally, policies that expedite the clinical development of novel cancer drugs which have already been shown to be effective in other countries are needed in many nations including Japan to accelerate drug approval.

The clinical evaluation of novel imaging methods for cancer management

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has a long-standing interest in evaluating and using the known advantages of molecular and functional imaging, as well as assessing the potential of novel imaging agents and modalities, to improve clinical cancer research and cancer care. In this Perspectives article, I discuss the strategies and resources being used by the NCI to foster and enhance these evaluations. Although resource and logistical challenges abound in successfully mounting these trials, many examples exist of real and potential solutions to improve the clinical evaluation process for imaging agents and modalities in the USA and in international collaborations.

What we have learned: the impact of quality from a clinical trials perspective

In this review article, we address the radiation oncology process improvements in clinical trials and review how these changes improve the quality for the next generation of trials. In recent years, we have progressed from a time of limited data acquisition to the present in which we have real-time influence of clinical trials quality. This enables immediate availability of the important elements, including staging, eligibility, response, and outcome for all trial investigators. Modern informatics platforms are well designed for future adaptive clinical trials. We review what will be needed in the informatics architecture of current and future clinical trials.

[Possibilities and limitations of stratified medicine based on biomarkers and targeted therapies in oncology]

Research over the past two decades has untangled the molecular heterogeneity of cancer at the cellular level. The molecular techniques that have been developed in the past 5 to 10 years are dramatically improving our understanding of the genomic aberrations that underlie the malignant transformation of normal cells. At the same time, however, advances in our understanding of the genetic basis of solid tumours and hematologic malignancies have revealed how complex cancer is, and consequently how much more challenging it is in many of the more common cancers to identify the right drug for the right patient in the adequate dose at the right time. Given the slow pace of translation from genome science to individualised medicine in oncology, this expert review, mainly taking into account recently published perspective articles and reviews, describes the molecular heterogeneity of cancer, the difficulties in developing novel molecularly targeted agents, and the need for developing biomarkers to optimise drug development and clinical use. Distinct types of biomarkers, breakthroughs as well as disappointments in the clinical implementation of biomarkers and targeted therapeutics into clinical practice are discussed by focusing on four targeted anti-cancer drugs. Finally, as clinical biomarker tests that predict response to particular therapies will play an important role in achieving stratified medicine in the near future, this article will conclude by giving some recommendations for effective biomarker evaluation and clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation.

Investigator-initiated trials of targeted oncology agents: why independent research is at risk?

BACKGROUND

Drug development traditionally has relied upon the complementary contributions of clinicians and scientists at academic institutions and at pharmaceutical companies. Greater regulatory burdens, increased bureaucratic requirements, restricted reimbursement, and spiralling research and development costs are exerting pressure on the drug development pipeline. The result is a de-emphasis of exploratory research, particularly independent academic research, despite its proven value in identifying new drug targets and developing innovative cancer therapies.

DESIGN

An expert panel assembled by the Biotherapy Development Association-a nonprofit international forum for academic and industry researchers, patients, and government regulatory and postregulatory agencies-examined the growing schism between academia and industry and identified several causes of declining academic research.

RESULTS

The authors propose solutions to sustain investigator-initiated research and provide a new model whereby expert organisations provide a forum for academia and industry to plan studies within a regulatory framework to support licensure/authorisation and reimbursement for new molecularly targeted agents and biomarkers.

CONCLUSIONS

Investigator-initiated trials have led to the discovery and development of innovative, safe, and effective cancer treatments. To ensure that such research continues, action will be required on the parts of legislative and regulatory bodies, industry, universities, patient advocacy organisations, and preclinical and clinical academic scientists.