Analysis of an inter-centre, web-based radiation oncology peer-review case conference

Purpose Peer-review programmes in radiation oncology are used to facilitate the process and evaluation of clinical decision-making. However, web-based peer-review methods are still uncommon. This study analysed an inter-centre, web-based peer-review case conference as a method of facilitating the decision-making process in radiation oncology. Methodology A benchmark form was designed based on the American Society for Radiation Oncology targets for radiation oncology peer review. This was used for evaluating the contents of the peer-review case presentations on 40 cases, selected from three participating radiation oncology centres. A scoring system was used for comparison of data, and a survey was conducted to analyse the experiences of radiation oncology professionals who attended the web-based peer-review meetings in order to identify priorities for improvement. Results The mean scores for the evaluations were 82·7, 84·5, 86·3 and 87·3% for cervical, prostate, breast and head and neck presentations, respectively. The survey showed that radiation oncology professionals were confident about the role of web-based peer-reviews in facilitating sharing of good practice, stimulating professionalism and promoting professional growth. The participants were satisfied with the quality of the audio and visual aspects of the web-based meeting. Conclusion The results of this study suggest that simple inter-centre web-based peer-review case conferences are a feasible technique for peer review in radiation oncology. Limitations such as data security and confidentiality can be overcome by the use of appropriate structure and technology. To drive the issues of quality and safety a step further, small radiotherapy departments may need to consider web-based peer-review case conference as part of their routine quality assurance practices.

Models of care in geriatric oncology nursing

Objectives To review models of care for older adults with cancer, with a focus on the role of the oncology nurse in geriatric oncology care. International exemplars of geriatric oncology nursing care are discussed. Data source Published peer reviewed literature, web-based resources, professional society materials, and the authors' experience. Conclusion Nursing care for older patients with cancer is complex and requires integrating knowledge from multiple disciplines that blends the sciences of geriatrics, oncology, and nursing. and which recognizes the dimensions of quality of life. Implications for Nursing Practice: Oncology nurses can benefit from learning key skills of comprehensive geriatric screening and assessment to improve the care they provide for older adults with cancer.

Economics of new oncology drug development.

PURPOSE: Review existing studies and provide new results on the development, regulatory, and market aspects of new oncology drug development. METHODS: We utilized data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company surveys, and publicly available commercial business intelligence databases on new oncology drugs approved in the United States and on investigational oncology drugs to estimate average development and regulatory approval times, clinical approval success rates, first-in-class status, and global market diffusion. RESULTS: We found that approved new oncology drugs to have a disproportionately high share of FDA priority review ratings, of orphan drug designations at approval, and of drugs that were granted inclusion in at least one of the FDA's expedited access programs. US regulatory approval times were shorter, on average, for oncology drugs (0.5 years), but US clinical development times were longer on average (1.5 years). Clinical approval success rates were similar for oncology and other drugs, but proportionately more of the oncology failures reached expensive late-stage clinical testing before being abandoned. In relation to other drugs, new oncology drug approvals were more often first-in-class and diffused more widely across important international markets. CONCLUSION: The market success of oncology drugs has induced a substantial amount of investment in oncology drug development in the last decade or so. However, given the great need for further progress, the extent to which efforts to develop new oncology drugs will grow depends on future public-sector investment in basic research, developments in translational medicine, and regulatory reforms that advance drug-development science.

Clinical effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis in hematology-oncology patients: a retrospective cohort study.

In preventing invasive fungal disease (IFD) in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), clinical trials demonstrated efficacy of posaconazole over fluconazole and itraconazole. However, effectiveness of posaconazole has not been investigated in the United States in real-world setting outside the environment of controlled clinical trial. We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 130 evaluable patients ≥18 years of age admitted to Duke University Hospital between 2004 and 2010 who received either posaconazole or fluconazole as prophylaxis during first induction or first reinduction chemotherapy for AML or MDS. The primary endpoint was possible, probable, or definite breakthrough IFD. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups, except that posaconazole recipients received reinduction chemotherapy and cytarabine more frequently. IFD occurred in 17/65 (27.0%) in the fluconazole group and in 6/65 (9.2%) in the posaconazole group (P = 0.012). Definite/probable IFDs occurred in 7 (10.8%) and 0 patients (0%), respectively (P = 0.0013). In multivariate analysis, fluconazole prophylaxis and duration of neutropenia were predictors of IFD. Mortality was similar between groups. This study demonstrates superior effectiveness of posaconazole over fluconazole as prophylaxis of IFD in AML and MDS patients. Such superiority did not translate to reductions in 100-day all-cause mortality.

Prevalence and incidence of liver enzyme elevations in a pooled oncology clinical trial cohort.

Few epidemiologic studies describe longitudinal liver chemistry (LC) elevations in cancer patients. A population-based retrospective cohort was identified from 31 Phase 2-3 oncology trials (excluding targeted therapies) conducted from 1985 to 2005 to evaluate background rates of LC elevations in patients (n = 3998) with or without liver metastases. Patients with baseline liver metastases (29% of patients) presented with a 3% prevalence of alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3x upper limits normal (ULN) and 0.2% prevalence of bilirubin ≥ 3xULN. During follow-up, the incidence (per 1000 person-months) of new onset ALT elevations ≥3xULN was 6.1 (95% CI: 4.5, 8.0) and 2.2 (95% CI: 0.9, 4.5) in patients without and with liver metastases, respectively. No new incident cases of ALT and bilirubin elevations suggestive of severe liver injury occurred among those with liver metastases; a single case occurred among those without metastasis. Regardless of the presence of liver metastases, LC elevations were rare in cancer patients during oncology trials, which may be due to enrollment criteria. Our study validates uniform thresholds for detection of LC elevations in oncology studies and serves as an empirical referent point for comparing liver enzyme abnormalities in oncology trials of novel targeted therapies. These data support uniform LC stopping criteria in oncology trials.

Molecular biology: the key to personalised treatment in radiation oncology?

We know considerably more about what makes cells and tissues resistant or sensitive to radiation than we did 20 years ago. Novel techniques in molecular biology have made a major contribution to our understanding at the level of signalling pathways. Before the “New Biology” era, radioresponsiveness was defined in terms of physiological parameters designated as the five Rs. These are: repair, repopulation, reassortment, reoxygenation and radiosensitivity. Of these, only the role of hypoxia proved to be a robust predictive and prognostic marker, but radiotherapy regimens were nonetheless modified in terms of dose per fraction, fraction size and overall time, in ways that persist in clinical practice today. The first molecular techniques were applied to radiobiology about two decades ago and soon revealed the existence of genes/proteins that respond to and influence the cellular outcome of irradiation. The subsequent development of screening techniques using microarray technology has since revealed that a very large number of genes fall into this category. We can now obtain an adequately robust molecular signature, predicting for a radioresponsive phenotype using gene expression and proteomic approaches. In parallel with these developments, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) can now detect specific biological molecules such as haemoglobin and glucose, so revealing a 3D map of tumour blood flow and metabolism. The key to personalised radiotherapy will be to extend this capability to the proteins of the molecular signature that determine radiosensitivity.

Patient selection for oncology phase I trials: a multi-institutional study of prognostic factors.

PURPOSE The appropriate selection of patients for early clinical trials presents a major challenge. Previous analyses focusing on this problem were limited by small size and by interpractice heterogeneity. This study aims to define prognostic factors to guide risk-benefit assessments by using a large patient database from multiple phase I trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data were collected from 2,182 eligible patients treated in phase I trials between 2005 and 2007 in 14 European institutions. We derived and validated independent prognostic factors for 90-day mortality by using multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results The 90-day mortality was 16.5% with a drug-related death rate of 0.4%. Trial discontinuation within 3 weeks occurred in 14% of patients primarily because of disease progression. Eight different prognostic variables for 90-day mortality were validated: performance status (PS), albumin, lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, number of metastatic sites, clinical tumor growth rate, lymphocytes, and WBC. Two different models of prognostic scores for 90-day mortality were generated by using these factors, including or excluding PS; both achieved specificities of more than 85% and sensitivities of approximately 50% when using a score cutoff of 5 or higher. These models were not superior to the previously published Royal Marsden Hospital score in their ability to predict 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION Patient selection using any of these prognostic scores will reduce non-drug-related 90-day mortality among patients enrolled in phase I trials by 50%. However, this can be achieved only by an overall reduction in recruitment to phase I studies of 20%, more than half of whom would in fact have survived beyond 90 days.