Biases in study design, implementation, and data analysis that distort the appraisal of clinical benefit and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scoring.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) is a validated, widely used tool developed to score the clinical benefit from cancer medicines reported in clinical trials. ESMO-MCBS scores assume valid research methodologies and quality trial implementation. Studies incorporating flawed design, implementation, or data analysis may generate outcomes that exaggerate true benefit and are not generalisable. Failure to either indicate or penalise studies with bias undermines the intention and diminishes the integrity of ESMO-MCBS scores. This review aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the ESMO-MCBS to address bias generated by flawed design, implementation, or data analysis and identify shortcomings in need of amendment. METHODS: As part of a refinement of the ESMO-MCBS, we reviewed trial design, implementation, and data analysis issues that could bias the results. For each issue of concern, we reviewed the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 approach against standards derived from Helsinki guidelines for ethical human research and guidelines from the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, the Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Agency, and European Network for Health Technology Assessment. RESULTS: Six design, two implementation, and two data analysis and interpretation issues were evaluated and in three, the ESMO-MCBS provided adequate protections. Seven shortcomings in the ability of the ESMO-MCBS to identify and address bias were identified. These related to (i) evaluation of the control arm, (ii) crossover issues, (iii) criteria for non-inferiority, (iv) substandard post-progression treatment, (v) post hoc subgroup findings based on biomarkers, (vi) informative censoring, and (vii) publication bias against quality-of-life data. CONCLUSION: Interpretation of the ESMO-MCBS scores requires critical appraisal of trials to understand caveats in trial design, implementation, and data analysis that may have biased results and conclusions. These will be addressed in future iterations of the ESMO-MCBS.

Implementation and assessment of a fast-track programme to improve communication between primary and specialized care in patients with suspected cancer: how to shorten time between initial symptoms of cancer, diagnosis and initiation of treatment.

PURPOSE: This study aims to asses a cancer fast-track programme (CFP) to shorten the time since a patient with suspicion of cancer is referred by the primary care (PC) physician to the specialized medical team. METHODS: Guidelines for main suspected tumours were designed to help PC physicians to detect and rapidly refer cases to the CFP oncology coordinator, who sent them to the appropriate department to accelerate diagnosis, staging and therapy. All patients analysed in this report were referred from June 2009 to July 2012. RESULTS: A total of 897 suspected cancer cases were submitted and finally 705 were studied. In 205 (29 %) a cancer diagnosis was confirmed within 23 days (median). Therapy was initiated within 46 days after referral (median). Early diagnoses with a potential curative approach were made in 166 (82 %). CONCLUSIONS: This CFP decreased the waiting time for cancer diagnosis, by improving communication between PC physician and specialized care teams. Most patients included in this program could get therapy with curative intent.