26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence-Based Medicine in Oncology: Commercial Versus Patient Benefit

      other

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          At times of personalized and individualized medicine the concept of randomized- controlled clinical trials (RCTs) is being questioned. This review article explains principles of evidence-based medicine in oncology and shows an example of how evidence can be generated independently from RCTs. Personalized medicine involves molecular analysis of tumor properties and targeted therapy with small molecule inhibitors. Individualized medicine involves the whole patient (tumor and host) in the context of immunotherapy. The example is called Individualized Multimodal Immunotherapy (IMI). It is based on the individuality of immunological tumor–host interactions and on the concept of immunogenic tumor cell death (ICD) induced by an oncolytic virus. The evidence is generated by systematic data collection and analysis. The outcome is then shared with the scientific and medical community. The priority of big pharma studies is commercial benefit. Methods used to achieve this are described and have damaged the image of RCT studies in general. A critical discussion is recommended between all partners of the medical health system with regard to the conduct of RCTs by big pharma companies. Several clinics and institutions in Europe try to become more independent from pharma industry and to develop their own modern cancer therapeutics. Medical associations should include references to such studies from personalized and individualized medicine in their guidelines.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          T cell antigen receptor recognition of antigen-presenting molecules.

          The Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) locus encodes classical MHC class I and MHC class II molecules and nonclassical MHC-I molecules. The architecture of these molecules is ideally suited to capture and present an array of peptide antigens (Ags). In addition, the CD1 family members and MR1 are MHC class I-like molecules that bind lipid-based Ags and vitamin B precursors, respectively. These Ag-bound molecules are subsequently recognized by T cell antigen receptors (TCRs) expressed on the surface of T lymphocytes. Structural and associated functional studies have been highly informative in providing insight into these interactions, which are crucial to immunity, and how they can lead to aberrant T cell reactivity. Investigators have determined over thirty unique TCR-peptide-MHC-I complex structures and twenty unique TCR-peptide-MHC-II complex structures. These investigations have shown a broad consensus in docking geometry and provided insight into MHC restriction. Structural studies on TCR-mediated recognition of lipid and metabolite Ags have been mostly confined to TCRs from innate-like natural killer T cells and mucosal-associated invariant T cells, respectively. These studies revealed clear differences between TCR-lipid-CD1, TCR-metabolite-MR1, and TCR-peptide-MHC recognition. Accordingly, TCRs show remarkable structural and biological versatility in engaging different classes of Ag that are presented by polymorphic and monomorphic Ag-presenting molecules of the immune system.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Tumor neoantigens: building a framework for personalized cancer immunotherapy.

            It is now well established that the immune system can recognize developing cancers and that therapeutic manipulation of immunity can induce tumor regression. The capacity to manifest remarkably durable responses in some patients has been ascribed in part to T cells that can (a) kill tumor cells directly, (b) orchestrate diverse antitumor immune responses, (c) manifest long-lasting memory, and (d) display remarkable specificity for tumor-derived proteins. This specificity stems from fundamental differences between cancer cells and their normal counterparts in that the former develop protein-altering mutations and undergo epigenetic and genetic alterations, resulting in aberrant protein expression. These events can result in formation of tumor antigens. The identification of mutated and aberrantly expressed self-tumor antigens has historically been time consuming and laborious. While mutant antigens are usually expressed in a tumor-specific manner, aberrantly expressed antigens are often shared between cancers and, therefore, in the past, have been the major focus of therapeutic cancer vaccines. However, advances in next-generation sequencing and epitope prediction now permit the rapid identification of mutant tumor neoantigens. This review focuses on a discussion of mutant tumor neoantigens and their use in personalizing cancer immunotherapies.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13

              Objective To determine the availability of data on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved in Europe. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Publicly accessible regulatory and scientific reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013. Main outcome measures Pivotal and postmarketing trials of cancer drugs according to their design features (randomisation, crossover, blinding), comparators, and endpoints. Availability and magnitude of benefit on overall survival or quality of life determined at time of approval and after market entry. Validated European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) used to assess the clinical value of the reported gains in published studies of cancer drugs. Results From 2009 to 2013, the EMA approved the use of 48 cancer drugs for 68 indications. Of these, eight indications (12%) were approved on the basis of a single arm study. At the time of market approval, there was significant prolongation of survival in 24 of the 68 (35%). The magnitude of the benefit on overall survival ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 months (median 2.7 months). At the time of market approval, there was an improvement in quality of life in seven of 68 indications (10%). Out of 44 indications for which there was no evidence of a survival gain at the time of market authorisation, in the subsequent postmarketing period there was evidence for extension of life in three (7%) and reported benefit on quality of life in five (11%). Of the 68 cancer indications with EMA approval, and with a median of 5.4 years’ follow-up (minimum 3.3 years, maximum 8.1 years), only 35 (51%) had shown a significant improvement in survival or quality of life, while 33 (49%) remained uncertain. Of 23 indications associated with a survival benefit that could be scored with the ESMO-MCBS tool, the benefit was judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%). Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Biomedicines
                Biomedicines
                biomedicines
                Biomedicines
                MDPI
                2227-9059
                23 July 2020
                August 2020
                : 8
                : 8
                : 237
                Affiliations
                Immune-Oncological Center Cologne (IOZK), D-50674 Cologne, Germany; Sprenger@ 123456iozk.de (T.S.); stuecker@ 123456iozk.de (W.S.); vangoolstefaan@ 123456gmail.com (S.W.V.G.)
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: V.Schirrmacher@ 123456web.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1253-9145
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8102-5968
                Article
                biomedicines-08-00237
                10.3390/biomedicines8080237
                7460025
                32717895
                3887bf66-c83d-4118-a57f-c7ce6e2b796b
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 10 June 2020
                : 15 July 2020
                Categories
                Viewpoint

                randomized-controlled trial,evidence-based medicine,conflict of interest,adverse events,cancer immunology,immunotherapy,dendritic cell,oncolytic virus

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log