Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana

Ljubljana, Slovenia

Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana

Ljubljana, Slovenia
SEARCH FILTERS
Time filter
Source Type

Seruga B.,Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana | Templeton A.J.,Kantonsspital St Gallen | Badillo F.E.V.,Queen's University | Ocana A.,Albacete University Hospital | And 2 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2016

Appropriate safety evaluations of anticancer drugs are crucial to assess their benefit-risk ratio. Substantial evidence shows that clinicians under-report harm in clinical trials, and at least three factors contribute to this problem: assessment of harm by clinicians might not represent the experience of patients; harm might be detected within trials, but is not reported appropriately by investigators or reporting is influenced by sponsors; and short-term follow-up might not detect long-term and potentially serious toxicities. Additionally, because of the selection of patients with good functional status in clinical trials, study results might not apply to patients treated in everyday clinical practice. New approaches for the conduct, oversight, and reporting of clinical trials should include patient-reported assessment of side-effects. Effective pharmacovigilance programmes and large-scale observational studies are needed to improve understanding of the tolerability of anticancer drugs in a real world setting. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd.


Seruga B.,Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana | Ocana A.,AlbaceteUniversity Hospital | Amir E.,University of Toronto | Tannock I.F.,University of Toronto
Clinical Cancer Research | Year: 2015

Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in oncology fail to lead to registration of new therapies more often than RCTs in other medical disciplines. Most RCTs are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, which reflects industry's increasing responsibility in cancer drug development. Many preclinical models are unreliable for evaluation of new anticancer agents, and stronger evidence of biologic effect should be required before a new agent enters the clinical development pathway. Whenever possible, early-phase clinical trials should include pharmacodynamic studies to demonstrate that new agents inhibit their molecular targets and demonstrate substantial antitumor activity at tolerated doses in an enriched population of patients. Here, we review recent RCTs and found that these conditions were not met for most of the targeted anticancer agents, which failed in recent RCTs. Many recent phase III RCTs were initiated without sufficient evidence of activity from earlyphase clinical trials. Because patients treated within such trials can be harmed, they should not be undertaken. The bar should also be raised when making decisions to proceed from phase II to III and from phase III to marketing approval. Many approved agents showed only better progression-free survival than standard treatment in phase III trials and were not shown to improve survival or its quality. Introduction of value-based pricing of new anticancer agents would dissuade the continued development of agents with borderline activity in early-phase clinical trials. When collaborating with industry, oncologists should be more critical and better advocates for cancer patients. © 2015 American Association for Cancer Research.


PubMed | Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana, University of Toronto, Albacete University Hospital, Kantonsspital St Gallen and Queen's University
Type: Journal Article | Journal: The Lancet. Oncology | Year: 2016

Appropriate safety evaluations of anticancer drugs are crucial to assess their benefit-risk ratio. Substantial evidence shows that clinicians under-report harm in clinical trials, and at least three factors contribute to this problem: assessment of harm by clinicians might not represent the experience of patients; harm might be detected within trials, but is not reported appropriately by investigators or reporting is influenced by sponsors; and short-term follow-up might not detect long-term and potentially serious toxicities. Additionally, because of the selection of patients with good functional status in clinical trials, study results might not apply to patients treated in everyday clinical practice. New approaches for the conduct, oversight, and reporting of clinical trials should include patient-reported assessment of side-effects. Effective pharmacovigilance programmes and large-scale observational studies are needed to improve understanding of the tolerability of anticancer drugs in a real world setting.


PubMed | Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana, University of Toronto and Albacete University Hospital
Type: Editorial | Journal: Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research | Year: 2015

Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in oncology fail to lead to registration of new therapies more often than RCTs in other medical disciplines. Most RCTs are sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, which reflects industrys increasing responsibility in cancer drug development. Many preclinical models are unreliable for evaluation of new anticancer agents, and stronger evidence of biologic effect should be required before a new agent enters the clinical development pathway. Whenever possible, early-phase clinical trials should include pharmacodynamic studies to demonstrate that new agents inhibit their molecular targets and demonstrate substantial antitumor activity at tolerated doses in an enriched population of patients. Here, we review recent RCTs and found that these conditions were not met for most of the targeted anticancer agents, which failed in recent RCTs. Many recent phase III RCTs were initiated without sufficient evidence of activity from early-phase clinical trials. Because patients treated within such trials can be harmed, they should not be undertaken. The bar should also be raised when making decisions to proceed from phase II to III and from phase III to marketing approval. Many approved agents showed only better progression-free survival than standard treatment in phase III trials and were not shown to improve survival or its quality. Introduction of value-based pricing of new anticancer agents would dissuade the continued development of agents with borderline activity in early-phase clinical trials. When collaborating with industry, oncologists should be more critical and better advocates for cancer patients.

Loading Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana collaborators
Loading Institute of Oncology LjubljanA&M of Ljubljana collaborators