An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology.

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

Pharmaceutical company funding of cancer patient advocacy organizations in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) of medical professionals and associated organizations with pharmaceutical companies (pharma) might contribute to the use of low value oncological treatments. Value criteria for oncological drug approvals in the Netherlands have recently become more stringent leading to objections by cancer patient advocacy organizations (cPAOs). Considering the importance of cPAOs input in cancer patient care we analyzed whether pharma funding of cPAOs occurs in the Netherlands. METHODS: The cPAO websites and available annual reports were evaluated for disclosure of pharma funding for the years 2021 and 2022. Also, data from the Dutch Healthcare Transparency Registry (DHTR) were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 34 (61.8 %) cPAOs received pharma funding (with 20 registered in the DHTR), and for 13 (29.4 %) cPAOs no reporting of pharma funding could be found. Three of the cPAOs disclosed pharma funding directly on their main website. Online educational material was available from 22 cPAOs on their websites with pharma funding disclosed on the educational material in 5. The total registered amount of pharmaceutical funding was €667,232.00 in 2021 and €536,098.00 in 2022. The median (and interquartile ranges) DHTR registered amount of support per cPAO that received funding in the studied period was €23,799.50 (14,823.75-84,663.30). The most common funding category as defined in the DHTR was project sponsorship. CONCLUSIONS: Financial support by the pharmaceutical industry is common for Dutch cPAOs. Given the importance of cPAOs and their objective input in the societal debate on the availability of cancer drugs, the potential influence of pharma sponsoring should be critically evaluated.

Untoward global effects of current guideline formulation of stereotactic radiotherapy for symptomatic brain metastases by international medical societies.

The quality of evidence leading to new oncological treatments suffers shortcomings, as has recently been addressed for drug approvals. In this 'Personal view', we evaluate the unintended effects of adopting stereotactic radiosurgery as the standard of care for patients with limited number of symptomatic brain metastases and favourable prognostic factors in international guidelines in view of the limitations in the evidence of efficacy and effectiveness, with special focus on countries with relatively limited resources.

[Financial conflict of interest and anti-cancer drugs: Why the NTVG's stance to exclude pharma-advertisement is of importance.] / Financiële belangen en oncologische geneesmiddelen.

The number of new oncological treatments is increasing rapidly, even though many offer limited benefit to patients. In these cases, the scientific research leading to approvals is marred by shortcomings. Nonetheless, many drugs of limited value are approved by regulatory agencies. One of the factors contributing thereto is financial conflict of interest (FCI) with the pharmaceutical industry (Pharma). This occurs at different levels, including researchers, opinion leaders and editors of medical journals. FCI contributes to patient exposure to treatments that offer limited or no benefit and to unjust spending of valuable resources while providing large revenues for Pharma. The important step of the 'NederlandsTijdschriftvoorGeneeskunde' (NTVG) to omit all pharmaceutical advertisement as well as advertisement for pharmaceutical industry sponsored medical education sends an important signal and is a first step to revalue the important relationship with the pharmaceutical industry.

Can elective nodal irradiation be omitted in stage III non-small-cell lung cancer? Analysis of recurrences in a phase II study of induction chemotherapy and involved-field radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To establish the recurrence patterns when elective mediastinal irradiation was omitted, patients with Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer were treated with sequential chemotherapy (CHT) and involved-field radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Fifty patients were treated with either two or four cycles of induction CHT, followed by once-daily involved-field RT to 70 Gy, delivered using three-dimensional treatment planning. The contoured gross tumor volume consisted of the pre-CHT tumor volume and nodes with a short-axis diameter of > or = 1 cm. Patients were reevaluated at 3 and 6 months after RT using bronchoscopy and chest CT. Elective nodal failure was defined as recurrence in the regional nodes outside the clinical target volume, in the absence of in-field failure. RESULTS: Of 43 patients who received doses > or = 50 Gy, 35% were disease free at last follow-up; in-field recurrences developed in 27% (of whom 16% had exclusively in-field recurrences); 18% had distant metastases exclusively. No elective nodal failure was observed. The median actuarial overall survival was 18 months (95% confidence interval 14-22) and the median progression-free survival was 12 months (95% confidence interval 6-18). CONCLUSION: Omitting elective mediastinal irradiation did not result in isolated nodal failure. Future studies of concurrent CHT and RT for Stage III non-small-cell lung cancer should use involved-field RT to limit toxicity.