RESUMO
The personalised oncology paradigm remains challenging to deliver despite technological advances in genomics-based identification of actionable variants combined with the increasing focus of drug development on these specific targets. To ensure we continue to build concerted momentum to improve outcomes across all cancer types, financial, technological and operational barriers need to be addressed. For example, complete integration and certification of the 'molecular tumour board' into 'standard of care' ensures a unified clinical decision pathway that both counteracts fragmentation and is the cornerstone of evidence-based delivery inside and outside of a research setting. Generally, integrated delivery has been restricted to specific (common) cancer types either within major cancer centres or small regional networks. Here, we focus on solutions in real-world integration of genomics, pathology, surgery, oncological treatments, data from clinical source systems and analysis of whole-body imaging as digital data that can facilitate cost-effectiveness analysis, clinical trial recruitment, and outcome assessment. This urgent imperative for cancer also extends across the early diagnosis and adjuvant treatment interventions, individualised cancer vaccines, immune cell therapies, personalised synthetic lethal therapeutics and cancer screening and prevention. Oncology care systems worldwide require proactive step-changes in solutions that include inter-operative digital working that can solve patient centred challenges to ensure inclusive, quality, sustainable, fair and cost-effective adoption and efficient delivery. Here we highlight workforce, technical, clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that prevent the implementation of precision oncology at scale, and offer a systematic roadmap of integrated solutions for standard of care based on minimal essential digital tools. These include unified decision support tools, quality control, data flows within an ethical and legal data framework, training and certification, monitoring and feedback. Bridging the technical, operational, regulatory and economic gaps demands the joint actions from public and industry stakeholders across national and global boundaries.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Current clinical guidelines recommend treating chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in a minority of cases, but there are relatively scarce data on evolution or progression of liver inflammation and fibrosis in cases of chronic HBV (CHB) that do not meet treatment criteria. We aimed to assess the impact of TDF on liver disease, and the risk of renal impairment in treated CHB patients in comparison to untreated patients. METHODS: We studied a longitudinal ethnically diverse CHB cohort in the UK attending out-patient clinics between 2005 and 2018. We examined TDF treatment (vs. untreated) as the main exposure, with HBV DNA viral load (VL), ALT, elastography scores and eGFR as the main outcomes, using paired tests and mixed effects model for longitudinal measurements. Additionally, decline of eGFR during follow-up was quantified within individuals by thresholds based on clinical guidelines. Baseline was defined as treatment initiation for TDF group and the beginning of clinical follow-up for untreated group respectively. RESULTS: We included 206 adults (60 on TDF, 146 untreated), with a median ± IQR follow-up duration of 3.3 ± 2.8 years. The TDF group was significantly older (median age 39 vs. 35 years, p = 0.004) and more likely to be male (63% vs. 47%, p = 0.04) compared to the untreated group. Baseline difference between TDF and untreated groups reflected treatment eligibility criteria. As expected, VL and ALT declined significantly over time in TDF-treated patients. Elastography scores normalised during treatment in the TDF group reflecting regression of inflammation and/or fibrosis. However, 6/81 (7.4%) of untreated patients had a progression of fibrosis stage from F0-F1 to F2 or F3. There was no evidence of difference in rates or incidence of renal impairment during follow-up in the TDF vs. untreated group. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of liver inflammation and fibrosis may be raised in untreated patients compared to those receiving TDF, and TDF may benefit a larger percentage of the CHB population.