Cancer Biomarkers in the era of precision oncology: Addressing the needs of patients and health systems.

Cancer Biomarkers are the key to unlocking the promise of precision oncology, selecting which patients will respond to a more personalised treatment while sparing non-responders the therapy-related toxicity. In this paper, we highlight the primacy of cancer biomarkers, but focus on their importance to patients and to health systems. We also highlight how cancer biomarkers represent value for money. We emphasise the need for cancer biomarkers infrastructure to be embedded into European health systems. We also highlight the need to deploy multiple biomarker testing to deliver the optimal benefit for patients and health systems and consider cancer biomarkers from the perspective of cost, value and regulation. Cancer biomarkers must also be situated in the context of the upcoming In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation, which may pose certain challenges (e.g. non-compliance of laboratory developed tests, leading to cancer biomarker shortages and increased costs) that need to be overcome. Cancer biomarkers must be embedded in the real world of oncology delivery and testing must be implemented across Europe, with the intended aim of narrowing, not widening the inequity gap for patients. Cancer patients must be placed firmly at the centre of a cancer biomarker informed precision oncology care agenda.

Propelling Health Care into the Twenties.

The scope and potential of personalised health care are underappreciated and underrealised, often because of resistance to change. The consequence is that many inadequacies of health care in Europe persist unnecessarily, and many opportunities for improvement are neglected. This article identifies the principal challenges, outlines possible approaches to resolving them, and highlights the benefits that could result from greater adoption of personalised health care. It locates the discussion in the context of European policy, focusing particularly on the most recent and authoritative reviews of health care in the EU Member States, and on the newly acquired spirit of readiness and pragmatism among European officials to embrace change and innovative technologies in a new decade. It highlights the attention now being given by policymakers to incentives, innovation, and investment as levers to improve European citizens' prospects in a rapidly evolving world, and how these distinct and disruptive themes contribute to a renaissance in thinking about delivering optimal health care in Europe. It explores the chances offered to patients by specific initiatives in health domains such as cancer and antimicrobial resistance, and by innovative science, novel therapies, earlier diagnosis tools, and deeper understanding of health promotion and prevention. And it reflects on how health care providers could benefit from a shift towards better primary care and towards deploying health data more effectively, including the use of artificial intelligence, coupled with a move to a smoother organisational/regulatory structure and realigned professional responsibilities. The conclusion is that preparing Europe's health care systems for the inevitable strains of the coming years is both possible and necessary. A more courageous approach to embracing personalised health care could guarantee the sustainability of Europe's health care systems before rising demands and exponential costs overwhelm them - an exercise in future-proofing, in ensuring that they are equipped to withstand whatever lies ahead. A focus on the potential and implementation of personalised care would permit more efficient use of resources and deliver better quality health-preserving care.

Propelling Healthcare with Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products: A Policy Discussion.

Recent advances in biomedicine are opening the door to new approaches, and treatment and prevention are being transformed by novel medicines based on genetic engineering, innovative cell-based therapies and tissue-engineered products, and combinations of a medical device with embedded cell or tissue components. These advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) hold one of the keys to making a reality of genuinely personalised medicine. There are an estimated 450 companies across the globe working on the development of gene therapies and more than 1,000 clinical trials underway worldwide, and some 20-30 new ATMPs filings are expected in Europe annually over the next 5 years. But challenges confront the sector, complicating the translation from research into patient access. Scientific, clinical development and regulatory issues are compounded by limited experience with clinical and commercial use, limited manufacturing know-how, high costs, and difficulties in accessing development funding and investment. Pricing and reimbursement and market access issues are an additional challenge, particularly in Europe, where unfamiliarity with the technology and uncertainty over the use of real-world evidence induce caution among clinicians, health technology assessment bodies and payers. There is a need for a review of the suitability of the regulatory and market access framework for these products, focused development of data, public/private partnerships, and fuller collaboration governments, doctors, insurers, patients, and pharmaceutical companies. This paper makes specific recommendations for all stakeholders, ranging from early dialogue on potential products, linking of clinical data and patient registries or standardisation of control frameworks, to a comprehensive approach to evidence generation, assessment, pricing, and payment for ATMPs.

Cooperating on Data: The Missing Element in Bringing Real Innovation to Europe's Healthcare Systems.

Europe's growing awareness of gaps in its healthcare provision is not being matched by an increase in remedial action - despite the rich transformative potential of new approaches to data. The new availability of data offers policymakers tools that would allow Europe's huge investments in health to be far better spent, by being properly targeted. The result would be far better health for far more Europeans. But that requires a step that most European policymakers have not been ready to take. They need to cooperate so that the data can be shared and its full value realised. This paper explores the potential and the challenges that stand in the way of mobilising health data for wider health benefits. This paper goes on to summarise the results of a survey on how different components of the healthcare sector perceive the opportunities from mobilising data effectively, and the barriers to doing so. The responses demonstrated a widespread genuine will to promote research and innovation, and its take-up, for the betterment of healthcare. There was strong appreciation of the merits of data sharing and readiness - under the right circumstances - to share personal health data for research purposes and to undergo genetic sequencing. This paper also suggests the strategic direction that should influence policy formation. The solution can be found without changing the EU treaties, which already provide an adequate base for cooperation. Properly handled, the problems facing European healthcare can be turned into major assets for Europe and make it easier for citizens to have equal access to high-quality care through the meaningful use of digital innovations.

Optimising SME Potential in Modern Healthcare Systems: Challenges, Opportunities and Policy Recommendations.

The expansion of European small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) into the healthcare innovation arena suggests that this should be an important EU policy priority that can significantly benefit the economy, society and citizens, including patients. Deepening and widening of Europe's SMEs' growth and activities is part of the EU objectives as set out by the European Commission in its Communications "Small Business Act" for Europe [1] and "Small Business, Big World" [2]. However, innovative healthcare SMEs have struggled to get traction despite the sector being worth more than EUR 250 billion. The 1991 Maastricht Treaty gave the Union new competences in public health and more scope for cross-border cooperation in this area [3]. Nevertheless, health initiatives here have tripped over each other, due to the fact that the delivery of healthcare is a national competence [4]. As such, EU healthcare-driven policy has never truly found its footing as a singular policy area despite the fact that a tenth of the EU's GDP is spent on healthcare and more than 17 million people are employed in Europe in this sector [5]. Taking into account the necessity of bringing innovation into healthcare, and the willingness of SMEs to undertake the risk to be at the forefront of it, there is a need for a renewed effort to support SMEs so as to provide solutions for citizens and patients throughout the bloc in different healthcare settings [6]. This policy paper brings together two separate strands of analysis: firstly, a policy review of the main challenges and opportunities; secondly, a proposal for policy recommendations.

Making the Most of Innovation in Personalised Medicine: An EU Strategy for a Faster Bench to Bedside and Beyond Process.

Personalised medicine promises to revolutionise healthcare, with its key goal of providing the right treatment to the right patient at the right time, and thus the potential of improving quality of life and helping to bring down healthcare costs. However, a major problem with broader implementation of personalised medicine is patient access to new drugs, devices and treatments. The fact that a new medicine or innovative product can sometimes take as long as 20 years to get from bench to bedside is not only clearly undesirable but is arguably unacceptable in the 21st century. This paper looks in detail at the issues surrounding development, continued investment, risk factors, testing and approval from both the industry perspective as well as that of the assessor and the decision maker/payer. It becomes clear that there is a lack of working in tandem that results in a double time frame (two times 10 years). This is simply because the key stakeholders, surprisingly, do not synergise their assessments of a new product. As well as causing delays in patient access, this can also affect investment confidence as industry waits too long for approval for its product to reach the market and its subsequent implementation into healthcare. Such a slow process undermines continued investment and contributes to a risk-averse environment, which in turn can have an impact on innovation. The solution appears to be uncomplicated, involving better coordination and collaboration between the different stakeholders working at various stages within the bench-to-bedside timeframe. We take the example of the network of the European Alliance for Personalised Medicine (EAPM) to demonstrate possible solutions using an innovative approach.

The Three-Way Pendulum of Healthcare Innovation.

We are, understandably, forever hearing about the high cost of bringing innovative new drugs and treatments to the healthcare market, especially medicines for smaller subgroups, and the fact that member state health systems often baulk at the prices. This article will argue that such a bypassing and blocking of innovative medicines and treatments is not only counterproductive when it comes to the health of Europe's patients, but actually fails to take into account the economic arguments. The article seeks to show that the long-term benefit to patients and the economy (health means wealth) will outweigh initial costs down the line. Couple this with a smarter use of information technologies and other resources and it will be possible to get much closer to building sustainable healthcare systems in a Europe struggling under the burden of an ageing population.

Making Change Happen in Health.

Integrating personalised medicine into Europe's healthcare systems will undoubtedly need to draw upon diverse talents via a multi-stakeholder approach taking expertise from academia, industry, healthcare organisations, government, policymakers and, of course, patient groups. It will also need a long-term budget commitment geared towards stimulating research and innovation in order to succeed. The role of HTA also needs to be boosted, while EU engagement in health needs to increase, not decrease, and requires a long-term strategy to provide a structure, a framework, and a consensus. Health equals wealth and the authors argue here that investment in research and innovation, alongside laws and rules that are fit-for-purpose and reflect the swiftly changing world of medicine, are vital. Europe needs to grasp these points at every level for the benefit of the millions of potential patients spread across the soon-to-be 27 Member States.

EU Health Policy, Coherence, Stakeholder Diversity and Their Impact on the EMA.

Innovation is a major pillar in bringing new, targeted medicines to patients. In the health arena, this means the translation of knowledge into what we can call "value." The latter covers the value to patients but must also take into account value to healthcare systems, society and, of course, manufacturers. The EU has recognised that innovations in healthcare can contribute to the health and well-being of citizens and patients through access to new products, services and treatments with added value. It is also aware that in order to stimulate development, there is a need to facilitate the translation of scientific advances into innovative medicinal products that meet regulatory standards, accelerate patients' access to new therapies and are affordable to Member States' health systems. Early dialogue between technology developers, regulators, health technology assessment and, where relevant, pricing bodies will promote innovation and quicker access to medicines at affordable prices, for the benefit of patients. But while uncertainties in healthcare policy still exist, a request by the European Ombudsman to the European Medicines Agency to provide more information about its early dialogue procedures questions the above "early dialogue" principal. It raises the issue of what the EU aims to do with its health regulation in bringing innovation to the patient. Is this added uncertainty about the hereto trusted role of the EMA a welcome development? Not necessarily.

Treatment Is Worth a Lot - But Just How Much.

More than at any other time in history, science offers enormous potential to transform the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. However, patients are urgently awaiting new therapies - and too often not getting them. And researchers and companies also face significant development obstacles as only one in ten drugs entering clinical trials ever makes it over the finish line. This article looks at the issues involved in bringing innovation into healthcare systems from a political and policy level. It takes a close look at Health Technology Assessment (HTA) across Member States, how it is working and, more to the point, how it isn't, and how it often serves to stymie the introduction of new medicines by undermining the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The article argues that the EU could strengthen HTA cooperation via a common framework, and promote higher quality and fairer assessments; while joint work could reduce duplication of efforts, and promote better synergies as well as better use of Member States' resources. The author also takes an in-depth look into criticism of private-sector pricing of innovative medicines in the light of discussions about what constitutes "value" in the context of new treatments - a discussion that shows no signs of abating - while advocating enhanced contact and the need for compromise between all stakeholders in the great value debate.

Accelerating the Development and Validation of New Value-Based Diagnostics by Leveraging Biobanks.

The challenges faced in developing value-based diagnostics has resulted in few of these tests reaching the clinic, leaving many treatment modalities without matching diagnostics to select patients for particular therapies. Many patients receive therapies from which they are unlikely to benefit, resulting in worse outcomes and wasted health care resources. The paucity of value-based diagnostics is a result of the scientific challenges in developing predictive markers, specifically: (1) complex biology, (2) a limited research infrastructure supporting diagnostic development, and (3) the lack of incentives for diagnostic developers to invest the necessary resources. Better access to biospecimens can address some of these challenges. Methodologies developed to evaluate biomarkers from biospecimens archived from patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials offer the greatest opportunity to develop and validate high-value molecular diagnostics. An alternative opportunity is to access high-quality biospecimens collected from large public and private longitudinal observational cohorts such as the UK Biobank, the US Million Veteran Program, the UK 100,000 Genomes Project, or the French E3N cohort. Value-based diagnostics can be developed to work in a range of samples including blood, serum, plasma, urine, and tumour tissue, and better access to these high-quality biospecimens with clinical data can facilitate biomarker research.

Enabling Equal Access to Molecular Diagnostics: What Are the Implications for Policy and Health Technology Assessment?

Molecular diagnostics can offer important benefits to patients and are a key enabler of the integration of personalised medicine into health care systems. However, despite their promise, few molecular diagnostics are embedded into clinical practice (especially in Europe) and access to these technologies remains unequal across countries and sometimes even within individual countries. If research translation and the regulatory environments have proven to be more challenging than expected, reimbursement and value assessment remain the main barriers to providing patients with equal access to molecular diagnostics. Unclear or non-existent reimbursement pathways, together with the lack of clear evidence requirements, have led to significant delays in the assessment of molecular diagnostics technologies in certain countries. Additionally, the lack of dedicated diagnostics budgets and the siloed nature of resource allocation within certain health care systems have significantly delayed diagnostics commissioning. This article will consider the perspectives of different stakeholders (patients, health care payers, health care professionals, and manufacturers) on the provision of a research-enabled, patient-focused molecular diagnostics platform that supports optimal patient care. Through the discussion of specific case studies, and building on the experience from countries that have successfully integrated molecular diagnostics into clinical practice, this article will discuss the necessary evolutions in policy and health technology assessment to ensure that patients can have equal access to appropriate molecular diagnostics.

Establishing the Evidence Bar for Molecular Diagnostics in Personalised Cancer Care.

While personalised cancer medicine holds great promise, targeting therapies to the biological characteristics of patients is limited by the number of validated biomarkers currently available. The implementation of biomarkers has undergone many challenges with few biomarkers reaching cancer patients in the clinic. There have been many biomarkers that have been published and claimed to be therapeutically useful, but few become part of the clinical decision-making process due to technical, validation and market access issues. To reduce this attrition rate, there is a significant need for policy makers and reimbursement agencies to define specific evidence requirements for the introduction of biomarkers into clinical practice. Once these requirements are more clearly defined, in an analogous manner to pharmaceuticals, researchers and diagnostic companies can better focus their biomarker research and development on meeting these specific requirements, which should lead to the more rapid introduction of new molecular oncology tests for patient benefit.

An index of barriers for the implementation of personalised medicine and pharmacogenomics in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Personalised medicine (PM) is an innovative way to produce better patient outcomes by using an individualised or stratified approach to disease and treatment rather than a collective treatment approach for patients. Despite its tangible advantages, the complex process to translate PM into the member states and European healthcare systems has delayed its uptake. The aim of this study is to identify relevant barriers represented by an index to summarise challenging areas for the implementation of PM in Europe. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, and a gaps-and-needs assessment together with a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-and-threats analysis were applied to review strategic reports and conduct interviews with key stakeholders. Furthermore, surveys were sent out to representatives of stakeholder groups. The index was constructed based on the priorisation of relevant factors by stakeholders. RESULTS: A need for stakeholder-agreed standards at all levels of implementation of PM exists, from validating biomarkers to definitions of 'informed consent'. The barriers to implement PM are identified in 7 areas, namely, stakeholder involvement, standardisation, interoperable infrastructure, European-level policy making, funding, data and research, and healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges in the above-mentioned areas can and must be successfully tackled if we are to create a healthier Europe through PM. In order to create an environment in which PM can thrive for the patients' best outcomes, there is an urgent need for systematic actions to remove as many barriers as possible.

Health care policy and cancer survivorship.

The United States and the European Union (EU) vary widely in approaches to ensuring affordable health care coverage for our respective populations. Such variations stem from differences in the political systems and beliefs regarding social welfare. These variations are also reflected in past and future initiatives to provide high quality cancer survivorship care. The United States spends considerably more on health care compared to most European countries, often with no proven benefit. In the United States, individuals with chronic illnesses, such as cancer survivors, often experience difficulties affording insurance and maintaining coverage, a problem unknown to EU countries with national health insurance. This article reviews health policy development over time for the United States and EU and the impact for cancer survivors. For the United States, the impact of the Affordable Care Act on improving access to affordable care for cancer survivors is highlighted. For the EU, the importance of multiple-morbidity disease management, cancer plan development, and pan-European data collection for monitoring cancer outcomes is addressed. Given predicted workforce shortages and ever-increasing numbers of aging cancer survivors on both sides of the Atlantic, sharing lessons learned will be critical.