Suchergebnisse

From ASCO, we report on metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer and locally advanced/metastatic renal cell carcinoma. From IHS, we report on complementary and alternative medicine use by patients and practitioners, the effects of biological hemp-derived cannabidiol on PTSD in military veterans, and more.

The recent rapid acceleration of basic science is reshaping both our clinical research system and our health care delivery system. The pace and growing volume of medical discoveries are yielding exciting new opportunities, yet we continue to face old challenges to maintain research progress and effectively translate research into practice. The National Institutes of Health and individual government programs are increasingly emphasizing research agendas involving evidence development, comparative effectiveness research among heterogeneous populations, translational research, and accelerating the translation of research into evidence-based practice, as well as building successful research networks to support these efforts. For over 25 years, the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program has successfully extended research into the community and facilitated the translation of research into evidence-based practice. By describing its keys to success, this article provides practical guidance to cancer-focused provider-based research networks as well as those in other disciplines.

Genomic discoveries have transformed the practice of oncology and cancer prevention. Diagnostic and therapeutic advances based on cancer genomics developed during a time when it was possible to patent genes. A case before the Supreme Court, Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc seeks to overturn patents on isolated genes. Although the outcomes are uncertain, it is suggested here that the Supreme Court decision will have few immediate effects on oncology practice or research but may have more significant long-term impact. The Federal Circuit court has already rejected Myriad's broad diagnostic methods claims, and this is not affected by the Supreme Court decision. Isolated DNA patents were already becoming obsolete on scientific grounds, in an era when human DNA sequence is public knowledge and because modern methods of next-generation sequencing need not involve isolated DNA. The Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Supreme Court decision will have limited impact on new drug development, as new drug patents usually involve cellular methods. A nuanced Supreme Court decision acknowledging the scientific distinction between synthetic cDNA and genomic DNA will further mitigate any adverse impact. A Supreme Court decision to include or exclude all types of DNA from patent eligibility could impact future incentives for genomic discovery as well as the future delivery of medical care. Whatever the outcome of this important case, it is important that judicial and legislative actions in this area maximize genomic discovery while also ensuring patients' access to personalized cancer care.

FrontMatter -- Contents -- Abstract -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Plenary Session -- 3 Morning Breakout Sessions with Invited Speakers -- 4 Luncheon Address -- 5 Afternoon Breakout Sessions with Invited Speakers -- 6 Reports from Breakout Session -- References -- Appendixes -- Appendix A Symposium Agenda -- Appendix B American Society of Clinical Oncology Press Release.

Development of novel therapies for CNS tumors requires reliable assessment of response and progression. This requirement has been particularly challenging in neuro-oncology for which contrast enhancement serves as an imperfect surrogate for tumor volume and is influenced by agents that affect vascular permeability, such as antiangiogenic therapies. In addition, most tumors have a nonenhancing component that can be difficult to accurately quantify. To improve the response assessment in neuro-oncology and to standardize the criteria that are used for different CNS tumors, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) working group was established. This multidisciplinary international working group consists of neuro-oncologists, medical oncologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, neuropsychologists, and experts in clinical outcomes assessments, working in collaboration with government and industry to enhance the interpretation of clinical trials. The RANO working group was originally created to update response criteria for high- and low-grade gliomas and to address such issues as pseudoresponse and nonenhancing tumor progression from antiangiogenic therapies, and pseudoprogression from radiochemotherapy. RANO has expanded to include working groups that are focused on other tumors, including brain metastases, leptomeningeal metastases, spine tumors, pediatric brain tumors, and meningiomas, as well as other clinical trial end points, such as clinical outcomes assessments, seizures, corticosteroid use, and positron emission tomography imaging. In an effort to standardize the measurement of neurologic function for clinical assessment, the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology scale was drafted. Born out of a workshop conducted by the Jumpstarting Brain Tumor Drug Development Coalition and the US Food and Drug Administration, a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol now exists to reduce variability and improve reliability. Efforts by RANO have been widely accepted and are increasingly ...

Clinical trial challenges for new technology in radiation oncology
Stephen Kry, Professor from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, explores clinical trial challenges for new technology in radiation oncology, including the radiotherapy treatment technique, proton therapy. While novel drugs must show efficacy before they are approved for clinical use, there is no such requirement for the new technologies that drive development in radiation oncology. As long as the technology is shown to be safe, it can be implemented. One advantage of this is that it allows new treatments to be implemented very quickly into clinical practice as there are relatively few scientific and regulatory requirements. On the other hand, there is little data to demonstrate which patients stand to benefit or the degree of benefit received by the patient. Expensive new therapies are, therefore, often implemented with little more than a theoretical justification. Despite not being required, clinical trials comparing novel treatments to traditional ones are the most clear and robust method for establishing the value and efficacy of these advancements.