Establishing the Evidence Bar for Molecular Diagnostics in Personalised Cancer Care

While personalised cancer medicine holds great promise, targeting therapies to the biological characteristics of patients is limited by the number of validated biomarkers currently available. The implementation of biomarkers has undergone many challenges with few biomarkers reaching cancer patients in the clinic. There have been many biomarkers that have been published and claimed to be therapeutically useful, but few become part of the clinical decision-making process due to technical, validation and market access issues. To reduce this attrition rate, there is a significant need for policy makers and reimbursement agencies to define specific evidence requirements for the introduction of biomarkers into clinical practice. Once these requirements are more clearly defined, in an analogous manner to pharmaceuticals, researchers and diagnostic companies can better focus their biomarker research and development on meeting these specific requirements, which should lead to the more rapid introduction of new molecular oncology tests for patient benefit.

Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.

Shooting for the Moon or Flying Too Near the Sun? Crossing the Value Rubicon in Precision Cancer Care

In his last two State of the Union addresses, President Barack Obama has focused on the need to deliver innovative solutions to improve human health, through the Precision Medicine Initiative in 2015 and the recently announced Cancer Moonshot in 2016. Precision cancer care has delivered clear patient benefit, but even for high-impact medicines such as imatinib mesylate (Glivec) in chronic myeloid leukaemia, the excitement at the success of this practice-changing clinical intervention has been somewhat tempered by the escalating price of this 'poster child' for precision cancer medicine (PCM). Recent studies on the costs of cancer drugs have revealed significant price differentials, which are a major causative factor behind disparities in the access to new generations of immunological and molecularly targeted agents. In this perspective, we will discuss the benefits of PCM to modern cancer control, but also emphasise how increasing costs are rendering the current approaches to integrating the paradigm of PCM unsustainable. Despite the ever increasing pressure on cancer and health care budgets, innovation will and must continue. Value-based frameworks offer one of the most rational approaches for policymakers committed to improving cancer outcomes through a public health approach.