DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.03.025
Cancer treatment is at a crucial juncture as the medical community seeks to reconcile the promise of personalized therapy with the imperative of maintaining equitable and effective healthcare systems globally. This was the central focus of a pivotal meeting held in Brussels in November 2018 called Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development. Top academic and industry leaders, regulatory authorities, and patient advocates convened to address the profound split between the pursuit of personalized oncology tailored to individual molecular profiles and the collective decision-making required for resource allocation and regulatory approval within diverse health-care delivery systems. This article explores the ideas and insights exchanged during the event, delving into the key issues raised by this dichotomy that is shaping the future of cancer care.
The Evolving Landscape of Personalized Medicine
Personalized medicine, also referred to as precision medicine, is changing the face of oncology. It’s a model of care that uses the genetic makeup of both the patient and the tumor to drive decisions about prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Molecular and immunological profiling technologies have the potential to identify unique biomarkers in individual patients, leading to tailored therapy that is more effective and possibly with fewer side effects than standard treatments.
However, as the field advances, a dichotomy emerges. While there is a burgeoning demand for these individualized approaches, the broader health-care system requires standardization for assessing benefit, safety, and cost-effectiveness. This tension necessitates a balanced approach to cancer care that takes into account both the individual’s needs and societal considerations.
Novel Clinical Trial Designs
Traditional randomized clinical trials are the backbone of evidence generation in medicine. They remain the definitive method for establishing clinical utility of both local and systemic therapeutic interventions. But as precision medicine expands, the suitability of these trials has come into question. They can be costly, time-consuming, and may not be flexible enough to accommodate the rapidly evolving nature of cancer treatments that are targeted to individual molecular profiles.
Novel clinical trial designs, including basket trials, umbrella trials, and adaptive designs, are being introduced to address these challenges. These innovative approaches enable the medical community to test the efficacy of drugs in a more patient-specific manner while ensuring robust evidence is generated for regulatory and health technology assessment purposes.
The Role of Real-World Evidence
Complementing clinical trials is the use of real-world evidence (RWE), which encompasses data obtained outside the context of randomized controlled trials such as electronic health records, claims databases, and patient registries. RWE can provide insights into the efficacy and safety of interventions in more general and diverse patient populations. Its utilization in oncology has sparked debate about the balance between thorough, controlled environments and the practical realities of clinical practice.
During the Brussels meeting, discussions centered on the potential of RWE to inform clinical decision-making and health policy. However, concerns were raised regarding the quality and reliability of RWE, the interpretability of findings, and the need for standardized methodologies for its collection and analysis.
Health Technology Assessment and Societal Benefit
Personalized medicine also has implications for health technology assessment (HTA), a multidisciplinary process that examines the value of new health technologies. Within oncology, HTA is crucial in determining which treatments should be funded or reimbursed by health-care systems.
A key part of this dialogue at the meeting was the acknowledgment that decisions based on HTA must transcend individual benefits and consider overall societal value, including cost-effectiveness and accessibility. The integration of comprehensive molecular profiling data within HTA frameworks will require careful consideration to ensure that new cancer therapies deliver on their promise of improved outcomes and are also sustainable for health-care systems.
The Future of Personalized Oncology
The future of personalized oncology lies in the delicate balance between individualized care and societal health-care needs. The discussions in Brussels highlighted the importance of collaboration between all stakeholders in cancer care—from bench scientists to bedside clinicians, from patients to policymakers—to navigate this complex terrain.
Moreover, emerging technologies such as liquid biopsies, which detect tumor-derived DNA in plasma, offer exciting possibilities for non-invasive cancer diagnostics and monitoring. These advances could significantly streamline the personalized approach to oncology, while also raising additional questions about how to integrate these technologies within existing frameworks for clinical validation and regulatory approval.
Conclusion
The Brussels meeting was an important step towards addressing the dichotomy that exists within personalized medicine in oncology. The discussions reasserted the significance of balancing the need for individualized treatment with broader societal considerations. It is evident that patient and physician autonomy must be matched with assessments of safety and societal benefit. As personalized oncology continues to evolve, collaborative efforts to refine clinical trial designs, assess the utility of RWE, and adapt HTA processes will be pivotal in ensuring the best outcomes for patients and society alike.
References
1. Salgado, R., Solit, D. B., Rimm, D. L., Bogaerts, J., Canetta, R., Lively, T., … & Makady, A. (2019). Addressing the dichotomy between individual and societal approaches to personalised medicine in oncology. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 114, 128-136.
2. Phillips, K. A., & Van Bebber, S. L. (2008). A systematic review of cost-utility analyses in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26(35), 5688-5696.
3. Hamburg, M. A., & Collins, F. S. (2010). The path to personalized medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(4), 301-304.
4. Redig, A. J., & Jänne, P. A. (2015). Basket trials and the evolution of clinical trial design in an era of genomic medicine. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 33(9), 975-977.
5. Garrison, L. P., Neumann, P. J., Erickson, P., Marshall, D., & Mullins, C. D. (2007). Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value in Health, 10(5), 326-335.
Keywords
1. Personalized Medicine Oncology
2. Clinical Trial Innovation
3. Real-World Evidence Cancer
4. Health Technology Assessment
5. Molecular Profiling Therapy