Clinical Trial Participants With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Differ From Patients Treated in Real-World Practice.

PURPOSE: Although narrow eligibility criteria improve the internal validity of clinical trials, they may result in differences between study populations and real-world patients, threatening generalizability. Therefore, we evaluated whether patients treated for metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) in routine clinical practice are similar to those enrolled onto clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this cohort study, we compared baseline characteristics of patients with mRCC in phase III clinical trials of new targeted therapies and those in a retrospective registry composed of academic (Duke) and community (ACORN Network) practices. RESULTS: A total of 438 registry patients received sunitinib, sorafenib, temsirolimus, or pazopanib (most commonly used agents) in first-line treatment. Registry patients receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib, sorafenib, or pazopanib) were more likely to have poor-risk disease by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center criteria (poor, 7.4% v 2.9%; P < .001; favorable, 30.1% v 43.8%; P < .001) and to have impaired performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group > 1, 11.1% v 0.6%; P < .001). However, registry patients receiving temsirolimus were less likely to have poor-risk disease (poor, 10.2% v 69.4%; P < .001; favorable, 16.9% v 0%; P < .001). Thus, 39.0% of registry patients would have been excluded from the phase III clinical trial testing the drug they received. CONCLUSION: Patients with mRCC treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in real-world clinical practice are sicker than those enrolled onto pivotal clinical trials, and more than one third are trial ineligible. Application of clinical trial findings to dissimilar populations may result in patient harm. Clinical research with more inclusive eligibility criteria is needed to appropriately guide real-world practice.

Initial Trends in the Use of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay for Patients With Breast Cancer in the Medicare Population, 2005-2009.

IMPORTANCE: In 2006, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services approved coverage for the use of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay in women with early-stage, estrogen receptor-positive, node-negative breast cancers to help guide recommendations for adjuvant chemotherapy. Use of the assay in community settings has not been previously examined in a nationally representative sample of patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the use of the RS assay in routine clinical practice in a nationally representative sample of women with breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective observational study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with incident breast cancer between 2005 and 2009, as recorded in a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data set with linked Medicare claims through 2010. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Demographic and clinical variables associated with the use of the assay. RESULTS: A total of 70,802 patients met the study criteria. Use of the RS assay increased from 1.1% in 2005 to 10.1% in 2009 (P < .001). The majority of tests (60.9%) occurred in patients with National Comprehensive Cancer Network-defined intermediate-risk disease (ie, estrogen receptor-positive, node-negative tumors >1 cm). Most patients with other than intermediate-risk disease had borderline indications for testing, including T1b (47.5%) or N1 (26.8%) disease. Testing was associated with younger age, fewer comorbid conditions, higher-grade disease, and being married. Among patients younger than 70 years with intermediate-risk disease, testing rates increased from 7.7% in 2005 to 38.8% in 2009 (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, testing was modestly higher in Northeast than in Western registries (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.49-2.26) but was otherwise not associated with region, local census tract demographic characteristics, black race, location in an urban area, or tumor histologic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The RS assay was adopted quickly in clinical practice after the Medicare coverage decision in 2006, and use appears to be consistent with guidelines and equitable across geographic and racial groups. Factors influencing adoption of the assay and its impact on adjuvant chemotherapy use in clinical practice remain important areas of study.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries.

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US$895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.