End points in clinical trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: time for more dialogue?

We observed lack of clarity and consistency in end point definitions of large randomized clinical trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. These inconsistencies are such that trials might, in fact, address different clinical questions. They complicate interpretation of results, including comparisons across studies. Problems arise from different ways to account for events occurring after randomization including absence of improvement in disease status, treatment discontinuation or the initiation of new therapy. We call for more dialogue between stakeholders to define with clarity the questions of interest and corresponding end points. We illustrate that assessing different end point rules across a range of plausible patient journeys can be a powerful tool to facilitate such a discussion and contribute to better understanding of patient-relevant end points.

What is this article about? This article talks about the lack of clarity and consistency in the definitions of outcomes used in clinical trials that investigate new treatments for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. This is mainly due to how these different outcome definitions handle events such as absence of improvement in disease status, treatment discontinuation or initiation of new treatment. The authors discuss how these inconsistencies make it hard to interpret the results of individual clinical trials and to compare results across clinical trials.Why is it important? Defining the above events and consequently defining outcomes affects what we can learn from the trials and can lead to different results. Some approaches may not reflect good and bad outcomes for patients appropriately. This makes it challenging for patients, physicians, health authorities and payors to understand the true benefit of treatments under investigation and which one is better.What are the key take-aways? This article serves as a call-to-action for more dialogue among all stakeholders involved in drug development and the decision-making process related to drug evaluations. There is an urgent need for clinical trials to be designed with more clarity and consistency on what is being measured so that relevant questions for patients and prescribing physicians are addressed. Understanding patient journeys will be key to successfully understand what truly matters to patients and how to measure the benefit of new treatments. Such discussions will contribute toward more clarity and consistency in the evaluation of new treatments.

The effect of nutrition and diet on dental structure integrity.

Nutritional intake and dietary habits affect the structural integrity of the primary and permanent dentition. This happens through the indirect effect of nutrition on tooth development, as well as through the direct effect associated with the erosive characteristics of the diet. Evaluation of a patient's dietary history, coupled with the ability to implement targeted educational strategies relevant to the individual's ethnicity, will ensure success of normal tooth development and dental structure integrity free of erosive effects.

Patient resources available to bladder cancer patients: a pilot study of healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE: To survey thought leaders attending an annual bladder cancer conference about resources available to survivors at, primarily, large academic centers treating a high volume of patients. Bladder cancer is a disease with high treatment burden. Support groups and survivorship programs are effective at managing physical and psychosocial impairments experienced by patients. The Institute of Medicine recommends increased resources for cancer survivorship, but no description of current resources exists for bladder cancer patients. METHODS: Preceding the 4th annual Bladder Cancer Think Tank meeting in August 2009, we carried out an Internet-based survey of registrants that queried respondents about institutional resources and support systems devoted to bladder cancer survivors. Data were collected using SurveyMonkey.com, and descriptive statistics were computed. RESULTS: A total of 43 eligible respondents included urologists (77%), medical oncologists (16%), and other physicians or health professionals (7%). Physician respondents represented 22 academic centers and 2 private groups. Although 63% of respondent institutions had a National Cancer Institute designation, only 33% had an active bladder cancer support group. Survivorship clinics were available in 29% of institutions, and peer support networks, community resources for education, and patient navigation were available in 58%, 13%, and 25% of respondent institutions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Resources for bladder cancer survivors vary widely and are lacking at several academic centers with high-volume bladder cancer populations. Bladder cancer providers are often unaware of available institutional resources for patients. Urologists need to advocate for additional survivor resources and partner with other disciplines to provide appropriate care.