Challenges and opportunities in cancer immunotherapy: a Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) strategic vision.

Cancer immunotherapy has flourished over the last 10-15 years, transforming the practice of oncology and providing long-term clinical benefit to some patients. During this time, three distinct classes of immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor-T cell therapies specific for two targets, and two distinct classes of bispecific T cell engagers, a vaccine, and an oncolytic virus have joined cytokines as a standard of cancer care. At the same time, scientific progress has delivered vast amounts of new knowledge. For example, advances in technologies such as single-cell sequencing and spatial transcriptomics have provided deep insights into the immunobiology of the tumor microenvironment. With this rapid clinical and scientific progress, the field of cancer immunotherapy is currently at a critical inflection point, with potential for exponential growth over the next decade. Recognizing this, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a diverse group of experts in cancer immunotherapy representing academia, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, patient advocacy, and the regulatory community to identify current opportunities and challenges with the goal of prioritizing areas with the highest potential for clinical impact. The consensus group identified seven high-priority areas of current opportunity for the field: mechanisms of antitumor activity and toxicity; mechanisms of drug resistance; biomarkers and biospecimens; unique aspects of novel therapeutics; host and environmental interactions; premalignant immunity, immune interception, and immunoprevention; and clinical trial design, endpoints, and conduct. Additionally, potential roadblocks to progress were discussed, and several topics were identified as cross-cutting tools for optimization, each with potential to impact multiple scientific priority areas. These cross-cutting tools include preclinical models, data curation and sharing, biopsies and biospecimens, diversification of funding sources, definitions and standards, and patient engagement. Finally, three key guiding principles were identified that will both optimize and maximize progress in the field. These include engaging the patient community; cultivating diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and leveraging the power of artificial intelligence to accelerate progress. Here, we present the outcomes of these discussions as a strategic vision to galvanize the field for the next decade of exponential progress in cancer immunotherapy.

Exploration of a Potential DOOR Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia Using Six Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an innovative approach to clinical trial design and analysis that uses an ordinal ranking system to incorporate the overall risks and benefits of a therapeutic intervention into a single measurement. Here, we derived and evaluated a disease-specific DOOR endpoint for registrational trials for hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: Through comprehensive examination of data from nearly 4,000 participants enrolled in six registrational trials for HABP/VABP submitted to the FDA between 2005-2022, we derived and applied a HABP/VABP specific endpoint. We estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment arm would have a more favorable overall DOOR or component outcome than a participant assigned to comparator. RESULTS: DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 48.3% to 52.9% and were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between treatment arms in the component analyses. Though infectious complications and serious adverse events occurred more frequently in ventilated participants compared to non-ventilated participants, the types of events were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Through a data-driven approach, we constructed and applied a potential DOOR endpoint for HABP/VABP trials. The inclusion of syndrome-specific events may help to better delineate and evaluate participant experiences and outcomes in future HABP/VABP trials and could help inform data collection and trial design.

Moving Beyond Mortality: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking (DOOR) Endpoint for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) are frequently caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Patient-centered endpoints in clinical trials are needed to develop new antibiotics for HABP/VABP. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a paradigm for the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials based on a patient-centered, benefit-risk evaluation. METHODS: A multidisciplinary committee created an infectious diseases DOOR endpoint customized for HABP/VABP, incorporating infectious complications, serious adverse events, and mortality. We applied this to 2 previously completed, large randomized controlled trials for HABP/VABP. ZEPHyR compared vancomycin to linezolid and VITAL compared linezolid to tedizolid. For each trial, we evaluated the DOOR distribution and probability, including DOOR component and partial credit analyses. We also applied DOOR in subgroup analyses. RESULTS: In both trials, the HABP/VABP DOOR demonstrated similar overall clinical outcomes between treatment groups. In ZEPHyR, the probability that a participant treated with linezolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with vancomycin was 50.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45.1%--55.3%). In VITAL, the probability that a participant treated with tedizolid would have a more desirable outcome than a participant treated with linezolid was 48.7% (95% CI, 44.8%-52.6%). The DOOR component analysis revealed that participants treated with tedizolid had a less desirable outcome than those treated with linezolid when considering clinical response alone. However, participants with decreased renal function had improved overall outcomes with tedizolid. CONCLUSIONS: The HABP/VABP DOOR provided more granular information about clinical outcomes than is typically presented in clinical trials. HABP/VABP trials would benefit from prospectively using DOOR.

Association of DCIS size and margin status with risk of developing breast cancer post-treatment: multinational, pooled cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between size and margin status of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and risk of developing ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS after treatment, and stage and subtype of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Multinational, pooled cohort study. SETTING: Four large international cohorts. PARTICIPANTS: Patient level data on 47 695 women with a diagnosis of pure, primary DCIS between 1999 and 2017 in the Netherlands, UK, and US who underwent surgery, either breast conserving or mastectomy, often followed by radiotherapy or endocrine treatment, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS estimated in relation to DCIS size and margin status, and adjusted hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals, estimated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses with multiple imputed data RESULTS: The 10 year cumulative incidence of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer was 3.2%. In women who underwent breast conserving surgery with or without radiotherapy, only adjusted risks for ipsilateral DCIS were significantly increased for larger DCIS (20-49 mm) compared with DCIS <20 mm (hazard ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.72). Risks for both ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS were significantly higher with involved compared with clear margins (invasive breast cancer 1.40, 1.07 to 1.83; DCIS 1.39, 1.04 to 1.87). Use of adjuvant endocrine treatment was not significantly associated with a lower risk of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to treatment with breast conserving surgery only (0.86, 0.62 to 1.21). In women who received breast conserving treatment with or without radiotherapy, higher DCIS grade was not significantly associated with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer, only with a higher risk of ipsilateral DCIS (grade 1: 1.42, 1.08 to 1.87; grade 3: 2.17, 1.66 to 2.83). Higher age at diagnosis was associated with lower risk (per year) of ipsilateral DCIS (0.98, 0.97 to 0.99) but not ipsilateral invasive breast cancer (1.00, 0.99 to 1.00). Women with large DCIS (≥50 mm) more often developed stage III and IV ipsilateral invasive breast cancer compared to women with DCIS <20 mm. No such association was found between involved margins and higher stage of ipsilateral invasive breast cancer. Associations between larger DCIS and hormone receptor negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and involved margins and hormone receptor negative ipsilateral invasive breast cancer were found. CONCLUSIONS: The association of DCIS size and margin status with ipsilateral invasive breast cancer and ipsilateral DCIS was small. When these two factors were added to other known risk factors in multivariable models, clinicopathological risk factors alone were found to be limited in discriminating between low and high risk DCIS.

The Future Ain't What It Used to Be Out With the Old In With the Better: Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group Innovations.

Clinical research networks conduct important studies that would not otherwise be performed by other entities. In the case of the Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG), such studies include diagnostic studies using master protocols, controlled phage intervention trials, and studies that evaluate treatment strategies or dynamic interventions, such as sequences of empiric and definitive therapies. However, the value of a clinical research network lies not only in the results from these important studies but in the creation of new approaches derived from collaborative thinking, carefully examining and defining the most important research questions for clinical practice, recognizing and addressing common but suboptimal approaches, and anticipating that the standard approaches of today may be insufficient for tomorrow. This results in the development and implementation of new methodologies and tools for the design, conduct, analyses, and reporting of research studies. These new methodologies directly impact the studies conducted within the network and have a broad and long-lasting impact on the field, enhancing the scientific value and efficiency of generations of research studies. This article describes innovations from the ARLG in diagnostic studies, observational studies, and clinical trials evaluating interventions for the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement.

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

Concerted epithelial and stromal changes during progression of Barrett's Esophagus to invasive adenocarcinoma exposed by multi-scale, multi-omics analysis.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma arises from Barrett's esophagus, a precancerous metaplastic replacement of squamous by columnar epithelium in response to chronic inflammation. Multi-omics profiling, integrating single-cell transcriptomics, extracellular matrix proteomics, tissue-mechanics and spatial proteomics of 64 samples from 12 patients' paths of progression from squamous epithelium through metaplasia, dysplasia to adenocarcinoma, revealed shared and patient-specific progression characteristics. The classic metaplastic replacement of epithelial cells was paralleled by metaplastic changes in stromal cells, ECM and tissue stiffness. Strikingly, this change in tissue state at metaplasia was already accompanied by appearance of fibroblasts with characteristics of carcinoma-associated fibroblasts and of an NK cell-associated immunosuppressive microenvironment. Thus, Barrett's esophagus progresses as a coordinated multi-component system, supporting treatment paradigms that go beyond targeting cancerous cells to incorporating stromal reprogramming.

Exploration of a Potential Desirability of Outcome Ranking Endpoint for Complicated Intra-Abdominal Infections Using 9 Registrational Trials for Antibacterial Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is a novel approach to clinical trial design that incorporates safety and efficacy assessments into an ordinal ranking system to evaluate overall outcomes of clinical trial participants. Here, we derived and applied a disease-specific DOOR endpoint to registrational trials for complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI). METHODS: Initially, we applied an a priori DOOR prototype to electronic patient-level data from 9 phase 3 noninferiority trials for cIAI submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2005 and 2019. We derived a cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint based on clinically meaningful events that trial participants experienced. Next, we applied the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint to the same datasets and, for each trial, estimated the probability that a participant assigned to the study treatment would have a more desirable DOOR or component outcome than if assigned to the comparator. RESULTS: Three key findings informed the cIAI-specific DOOR endpoint: (1) a significant proportion of participants underwent additional surgical procedures related to their baseline infection; (2) infectious complications of cIAI were diverse; and (3) participants with worse outcomes experienced more infectious complications, more serious adverse events, and underwent more procedures. DOOR distributions between treatment arms were similar in all trials. DOOR probability estimates ranged from 47.4% to 50.3% and were not significantly different. Component analyses depicted risk-benefit assessments of study treatment versus comparator. CONCLUSIONS: We designed and evaluated a potential DOOR endpoint for cIAI trials to further characterize overall clinical experiences of participants. Similar data-driven approaches can be utilized to create other infectious disease-specific DOOR endpoints.

Improving Traditional Registrational Trial End Points: Development and Application of a Desirability of Outcome Ranking End Point for Complicated Urinary Tract Infection Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Traditional end points used in registrational randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) often do not allow for complete interpretation of the full range of potential clinical outcomes. Desirability of outcome ranking (DOOR) is an approach to the design and analysis of clinical trials that incorporates benefits and risks of novel treatment strategies and provides a global assessment of patient experience. METHODS: Through a multidisciplinary committee of experts in infectious diseases, clinical trial design, drug regulation, and patient experience, we developed a DOOR end point for infectious disease syndromes and demonstrated how this could be applied to 3 registrational drug trials (ZEUS, APEKS-cUTI, and DORI-05) for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs). ZEUS compared fosfomycin to piperacillin/tazobactam, APEKS-cUTI compared cefiderocol to imipenem, and DORI-05 compared doripenem to levofloxacin. Using DOOR, we estimated the probability of a more desirable outcome with each investigational antibacterial drug. RESULTS: In each RCT, the DOOR distribution was similar and the probability that a patient in the investigational arm would have a more desirable outcome than a patient in the control arm had a 95% confidence interval containing 50%, indicating no significant difference between treatment arms. DOOR facilitated improved understanding of potential trade-offs between clinical efficacy and safety. Partial credit and subgroup analyses also highlight unique attributes of DOOR. CONCLUSIONS: DOOR can effectively be used in registrational cUTI trials. The DOOR end point presented here can be adapted for other infectious disease syndromes and prospectively incorporated into future clinical trials.

Patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current status and future directions.

Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within- and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better inform prescribers and consequently their patients in the process of shared medical decisions.

Learning to distinguish progressive and non-progressive ductal carcinoma in situ.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive breast neoplasia that accounts for 25% of all screen-detected breast cancers diagnosed annually. Neoplastic cells in DCIS are confined to the ductal system of the breast, although they can escape and progress to invasive breast cancer in a subset of patients. A key concern of DCIS is overtreatment, as most patients screened for DCIS and in whom DCIS is diagnosed will not go on to exhibit symptoms or die of breast cancer, even if left untreated. However, differentiating low-risk, indolent DCIS from potentially progressive DCIS remains challenging. In this Review, we summarize our current knowledge of DCIS and explore open questions about the basic biology of DCIS, including those regarding how genomic events in neoplastic cells and the surrounding microenvironment contribute to the progression of DCIS to invasive breast cancer. Further, we discuss what information will be needed to prevent overtreatment of indolent DCIS lesions without compromising adequate treatment for high-risk patients.

Genomic analysis defines clonal relationships of ductal carcinoma in situ and recurrent invasive breast cancer.

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the most common form of preinvasive breast cancer and, despite treatment, a small fraction (5-10%) of DCIS patients develop subsequent invasive disease. A fundamental biologic question is whether the invasive disease arises from tumor cells in the initial DCIS or represents new unrelated disease. To address this question, we performed genomic analyses on the initial DCIS lesion and paired invasive recurrent tumors in 95 patients together with single-cell DNA sequencing in a subset of cases. Our data show that in 75% of cases the invasive recurrence was clonally related to the initial DCIS, suggesting that tumor cells were not eliminated during the initial treatment. Surprisingly, however, 18% were clonally unrelated to the DCIS, representing new independent lineages and 7% of cases were ambiguous. This knowledge is essential for accurate risk evaluation of DCIS, treatment de-escalation strategies and the identification of predictive biomarkers.

Biomarkers for Adjuvant Endocrine and Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: To update recommendations on appropriate use of breast cancer biomarker assay results to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy decisions in early-stage breast cancer. METHODS: An updated literature search identified randomized clinical trials and prospective-retrospective studies published from January 2016 to October 2021. Outcomes of interest included overall survival and disease-free or recurrence-free survival. Expert Panel members used informal consensus to develop evidence-based recommendations. RESULTS: The search identified 24 studies informing the evidence base. RECOMMENDATIONS: Clinicians may use Oncotype DX, MammaPrint, Breast Cancer Index (BCI), and EndoPredict to guide adjuvant endocrine and chemotherapy in patients who are postmenopausal or age > 50 years with early-stage estrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+ and HER2-) breast cancer that is node-negative or with 1-3 positive nodes. Prosigna and BCI may be used in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. In premenopausal patients, clinicians may use Oncotype in patients with node-negative ER+ and HER2- breast cancer. Current data suggest that premenopausal patients with 1-3 positive nodes benefit from chemotherapy regardless of genomic assay result. There are no data on use of genomic tests to guide adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with ≥ 4 positive nodes. Ki67 combined with other parameters or immunohistochemistry 4 score may be used in postmenopausal patients without access to genomic tests to guide adjuvant therapy decisions. BCI may be offered to patients with 0-3 positive nodes who received 5 years of endocrine therapy without evidence of recurrence to guide decisions about extended endocrine therapy. None of the assays are recommended for treatment guidance in individuals with HER2-positive or triple-negative breast cancer. Treatment decisions should also consider disease stage, comorbidities, and patient preferences.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

"Is it cancer or not?" A qualitative exploration of survivor concerns surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Of the nearly 50,000 women in the United States who undergo treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) annually, many may not benefit from treatment. To better understand the impact of a DCIS diagnosis, patients self-identified as having had DCIS were engaged regarding their experience. METHODS: In July 2014, a web-based survey was administered through the Susan Love Army of Women breast cancer listserv. The survey included open-ended questions designed to assess patients' perspectives about DCIS diagnosis and treatment. Deductive and inductive codes were applied to the responses; common themes were summarized. RESULTS: Among the 1832 women included in the analytic sample, the median age at diagnosis was 60 years. Four primary themes were identified: 1) uncertainty surrounding a DCIS diagnosis, 2) uncertainty about DCIS treatment, 3) concern about treatment side effects, and 4) concern about recurrence and/or developing invasive breast cancer. When diagnosed, participants were often uncertain about whether they had cancer or not and whether they should be considered a "survivor." Uncertainty about treatment manifested as questioning the appropriateness of the amount of treatment received. Participants expressed concern about the "cancer spreading" or becoming invasive and that they were not necessarily "doing enough" to prevent recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, national sample, participants with a history of DCIS reported confusion and concern about the diagnosis and treatment, which caused worry and significant uncertainty. Developing strategies to improve patient and provider communications regarding the nature of DCIS and acknowledging gaps in the current knowledge of management options should be a priority.

CALGB 40603 (Alliance): Long-Term Outcomes and Genomic Correlates of Response and Survival After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy With or Without Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: CALGB 40603 (NCT00861705), a 2 × 2 randomized phase II trial, demonstrated that adding carboplatin or bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel (wP) followed by doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide significantly increased the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in stage II-III triple-negative breast cancer. We now report long-term outcomes (LTOs) and correlative science end points. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate LTOs in 443 patients who initiated study treatment. Log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the impact of clinical characteristics, pathologic response, calculated residual cancer burden (RCB) in patients with residual disease (RD), treatment assignment, and dose delivery during wP on LTOs, including event-free survival (EFS). Genomic predictors of treatment response and outcomes were assessed on pretreatment tumor samples by mRNA sequencing. RESULTS: Among baseline characteristics, only the clinical stage was associated with LTOs. At a median follow-up of 7.9 years, LTOs were not significantly improved with either carboplatin or bevacizumab, overall or in patients with basal-like subtype cancers by genomic analysis. Patients with pCR (n = 205, 46.3%) had significantly higher 5-year EFS (85.5% v 56.6%, log-rank P < .0001) and overall survival (87.9% v 63.4%, P < .0001) rates compared with patients with RD, even those with RCB class I. Among clinical and genomic features, evidence of immune activation, including tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and low B-cell receptor evenness, was associated with pCR and improved EFS. CONCLUSION: Despite higher pCR rates, neither carboplatin nor bevacizumab appeared to improve LTOs although the study was not powered to assess these secondary end points. pCR was associated with superior LTOs even when compared with minimal RD. Markers of immune activation in pretreatment tumor biopsies were independently associated with higher pCR rates and improved survival.

Do you mind if I record?: Perceptions and practice regarding patient requests to record clinic visits in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Audio recordings of oncology clinic discussions can help patients retain and understand information about their disease and treatment decisions. Access to this tool relies on acceptance of recordings by oncologists. This is the first study to evaluate experience and attitudes of oncologists toward patients recording clinic visits. METHODS: Medical, radiation, and surgical oncologists from 5 US cancer centers and community affiliates were surveyed to evaluate clinicians' experience, beliefs, and practices regarding patient-initiated recordings. RESULTS: Among 360 oncologists (69% response rate), virtually all (93%) have experienced patients seeking to record visits. Although 75% are comfortable with recording, 25% are uncomfortable and 56% report concerns ranging from less thorough discussions to legal liability. Most (85%) always agree when patients ask to record, but 15% never or selectively allow recording. Although 51% believe recording is positive for the patient-physician relationship, a sizable minority report that it can lead to less detailed conversations (28%) or avoidance of difficult topics, including prognosis (33%). Views did not vary based on subspecialty, practice setting, or geographic region, but older age and years in practice were associated with more positive views of recording. The majority of clinicians (72%) desire institutional policies to govern guidelines about recordings. CONCLUSIONS: Most oncologists are comfortable with patient requests to record visits, but a sizable minority remain uncomfortable, and access to recording varies solely on physician preference. This difference in care delivery may benefit from institutional policies that promote access while addressing legitimate physician concerns over privacy and appropriate use of recordings.

Can We Afford to Exclude Patients Throughout Health Technology Assessment?

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities.

The Cancer Journal Article for Theme Issue: The Problem of Cancer Drug Costs.

Modern medical costs fall beyond most peoples' ability to pay and cause severe adverse effects that impact patients and families. It is time to team up with all stakeholders to provide solutions to systemic issues that thwart oncology's true goal to help patients survive their care and their cancer. Patients need realistic approaches that include (1) access to affordable treatments, (2) accountability and oversight toward patient costs and results in research, and (3) cost-effective drug supply once commercialized. Physicians play a critical role helping patients develop a plan that fits each person's medical, financial, and life situation.