Tumor Size Is Not Everything: Advancing Radiomics as a Precision Medicine Biomarker in Oncology Drug Development and Clinical Care. A Report of a Multidisciplinary Workshop Coordinated by the RECIST Working Group.

Radiomics, the science of extracting quantifiable data from routine medical images, is a powerful tool that has many potential applications in oncology. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Working Group (RWG) held a workshop in May 2022, which brought together various stakeholders to discuss the potential role of radiomics in oncology drug development and clinical trials, particularly with respect to response assessment. This article summarizes the results of that workshop, reviewing radiomics for the practicing oncologist and highlighting the work that needs to be done to move forward the incorporation of radiomics into clinical trials.

Attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival as endpoint in the advanced cancer setting.

PURPOSE: To describe the attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival (PFS) as efficacy endpoint in clinical trials with patients with advanced cancer and to explore to what extent these attitudes influence the willingness to trade between PFS and toxicity. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey with regulators from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and healthcare professionals (HCP) from the "Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland" (HOVON) collaborative group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Attitudes towards PFS were elicited using 5-point Likert items. The respondents' willingness to trade between PFS and grade 3 or 4 (G34) toxicity was assessed using the threshold technique and quantified in terms of their maximum acceptable risk (MAR). RESULTS: Responses were collected from 287 HCPs and 64 regulators with mainly clinical expertise. Attitudes towards PFS were often spread out in both groups and related to beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate for clinical benefit, being an intrinsic benefit to be distinguished from OS, or on the importance given to OS. Being a regulator or holding stronger beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate or an intrinsic benefit were associated with a higher MAR. Presence of a supportive trend in OS was stated as important but was not associated with MAR. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and the need for improving communication to patients about meaning, strengths, and limitations of improvements in PFS. CONCLUSION: Attitudes towards PFS were spread out and were associated with individual differences in the willingness to trade between toxicity and PFS. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and improving communication to patients.

Agreement on risk assessment and chemotherapy recommendations among breast cancer specialists: A survey within the MINDACT cohort.

PURPOSE: Tailored recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients is of great importance. This survey assessed agreement among oncologists on risk assessment and chemotherapy recommendation, the impact of adding the 70-gene signature to clinical-pathological characteristics, and changes over time. METHODS: A survey consisting of 37 discordant patient cases from the MINDACT trial (T1-3N0-1M0) was sent to European breast cancer specialists for assessment of risk (high or low) and chemotherapy administration (yes or no). In 2015 the survey was sent twice (survey 1 and 2), several weeks apart, and in 2021 a third time (survey 3). Only the second and third surveys included the 70-gene signature result. RESULTS: 41 breast cancer specialists participated in all three surveys. Overall agreement between respondents decreased slightly between survey 1 and 2, but increased again in survey 3. Over time there was an increase in agreement with the 70-gene signature result on risk assessment, 23% in survey 2 versus 1 and 11% in survey 3 versus 2. With information available indicating a low risk 70-gene signature (n = 25 cases), 20% of risk assessments changed from high to low and 19% of recommendations changed from yes to no chemotherapy in survey 2 versus 1, further increasing with 18% and 21%, respectively, in survey 3 versus 2. CONCLUSION: There is a variability in risk assessment of early breast cancer patients among breast cancer specialists. The 70-gene signature provided valuable information, resulting in fewer patients being assessed as high risk and fewer recommendations for chemotherapy, increasing over time.

Defining the role of real-world data in cancer clinical research: The position of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients.

Meta-Analysis of the Test-Retest Repeatability of [18F]-Fluorodeoxyglucose Standardized Uptake Values: Implications for Assessment of Tumor Response.

PURPOSE: Currently, guidelines for PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) interpretation for assessment of therapy response in oncology primarily involve visual evaluation of FDG-PET/CT scans. However, quantitative measurements of the metabolic activity in tumors may be even more useful in evaluating response to treatment. Guidelines based on such measurements, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Criteria and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors, have been proposed. However, more rigorous analysis of response criteria based on FDG-PET measurements is needed to adopt regular use in practice. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Well-defined boundaries of repeatability and reproducibility of quantitative measurements to discriminate noise from true signal changes are a needed initial step. An extension of the meta-analysis from de Langen and colleagues (2012) of the test-retest repeatability of quantitative FDG-PET measurements, including mean, maximum, and peak standardized uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, and SUVpeak, respectively), was performed. Data from 11 studies in the literature were used to estimate the relationship between the variance in test-retest measurements with uptake level and various study-level, patient-level, and lesion-level characteristics. RESULTS: Test-retest repeatability of percentage fluctuations for all three types of SUV measurement (max, mean, and peak) improved with higher FDG uptake levels. Repeatability in all three SUV measurements varied for different lesion locations. Worse repeatability in SUVmean was also associated with higher tumor volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these results, recommendations regarding SUV measurements for assessing minimal detectable changes based on repeatability and reproducibility are proposed. These should be applied to differentiate between response categories for a future set of FDG-PET-based criteria that assess clinically significant changes in tumor response.

Imaging endpoints for clinical trial use: a RECIST perspective.

Twenty years after its initial introduction, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) remains today a unique standardized tool allowing uniform objective evaluation of response in solid tumors in clinical trials across different treatment indications. Several attempts have been made to update or replace RECIST, but none have realized the general traction or uptake seen with RECIST. This communication provides an overview of some challenges faced by RECIST in the rapidly changing oncology landscape, including the incorporation of PET with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose tracer as a tool for response assessment and the validation of criteria for use in trials involving immunotherapeutics. The latter has mainly been slow due to lack of data sharing. Work is ongoing to try to address this.We also aim to share our view as statistician representatives on the RECIST Working Group on what would be needed to validate new imaging endpoints for clinical trial use, with a specific focus on RECIST. Whether this could lead to an update of RECIST or replace RECIST altogether, depends on the changes being proposed. The ultimate goal remains to have a well defined, repeatable, confirmable and objective standard as provided by RECIST today.

70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age.

BACKGROUND: The MINDACT trial showed excellent 5-year distant metastasis-free survival of 94·7% (95% CI 92·5-96·2) in patients with breast cancer of high clinical and low genomic risk who did not receive chemotherapy. We present long-term follow-up results together with an exploratory analysis by age. METHODS: MINDACT was a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 112 academic and community hospitals in nine European countries. Patients aged 18-70 years, with histologically confirmed primary invasive breast cancer (stage T1, T2, or operable T3) with up to three positive lymph nodes, no distant metastases, and a WHO performance status of 0-1 were enrolled and their genomic risk (using the MammaPrint 70-gene signature) and clinical risk (using a modified version of Adjuvant! Online) were determined. Patients with low clinical and low genomic risk results did not receive chemotherapy, and patients with high clinical and high genomic risk did receive chemotherapy (mostly anthracycline-based or taxane-based, or a combination thereof). Patients with discordant risk results (ie, patients with high clinical risk but low genomic risk, and those with low clinical risk but high genomic risk) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy or not based on either the clinical risk or the genomic risk. Randomisation was done centrally and used a minimisation technique that was stratified by institution, risk group, and clinical-pathological characteristics. Treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was to test whether the distant metastasis-free survival rate at 5 years in patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk not receiving chemotherapy had a lower boundary of the 95% CI above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%. In the primary test population of patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk who adhered to the treatment allocation of no chemotherapy and had no change in risk post-enrolment. Here, we present updated follow-up as well as an exploratory analysis of a potential age effect (≤50 years vs >50 years) and an analysis by nodal status for patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative disease. These analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433589, and the European Clinical Trials database, EudraCT2005-002625-31. Recruitment is complete and further long-term follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2007, and July 11, 2011, 6693 patients were enrolled. On Feb 26, 2020, median follow-up was 8·7 years (IQR 7·8-9·7). The updated 5-year distant metastasis-free survival rate for patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk receiving no chemotherapy (primary test population, n=644) was 95·1% (95% CI 93·1-96·6), which is above the predefined non-inferiority boundary of 92%, supporting the previous analysis and proving MINDACT as a positive de-escalation trial. Patients with high clinical risk and low genomic risk were randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy (n=749) or not (n=748); this was the intention-to-treat population. The 8-year estimates for distant metastasis-free survival in the intention-to-treat population were 92·0% (95% CI 89·6-93·8) for chemotherapy versus 89·4% (86·8-91·5) for no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·48-0·92). An exploratory analysis confined to the subset of patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative disease (1358 [90.7%] of 1497 randomly assigned patients, of whom 676 received chemotherapy and 682 did not) shows different effects of chemotherapy administration on 8-year distant metastasis-free survival according to age: 93·6% (95% CI 89·3-96·3) with chemotherapy versus 88·6% (83·5-92·3) without chemotherapy in 464 women aged 50 years or younger (absolute difference 5·0 percentage points [SE 2·8, 95% CI -0·5 to 10·4]) and 90·2% (86·8-92·7) versus 90·0% (86·6-92·6) in 894 women older than 50 years (absolute difference 0·2 percentage points [2·1, -4·0 to 4·4]). The 8-year distant metastasis-free survival in the exploratory analysis by nodal status in these patients was 91·7% (95% CI 88·1-94·3) with chemotherapy and 89·2% (85·2-92·2) without chemotherapy in 699 node-negative patients (absolute difference 2·5 percentage points [SE 2·3, 95% CI -2·1 to 7·2]) and 91·2% (87·2-94·0) versus 89·9% (85·8-92·8) for 658 patients with one to three positive nodes (absolute difference 1·3 percentage points [2·4, -3·5 to 6·1]). INTERPRETATION: With a more mature follow-up approaching 9 years, the 70-gene signature shows an intact ability of identifying among women with high clinical risk, a subgroup, namely patients with a low genomic risk, with an excellent distant metastasis-free survival when treated with endocrine therapy alone. For these women the magnitude of the benefit from adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy remains small (2·6 percentage points) and is not enhanced by nodal positivity. However, in an underpowered exploratory analysis this benefit appears to be age-dependent, as it is only seen in women younger than 50 years where it reaches a clinically relevant threshold of 5 percentage points. Although, possibly due to chemotherapy-induced ovarian function suppression, it should be part of informed, shared decision making. Further study is needed in younger women, who might need reinforced endocrine therapy to forego chemotherapy. FUNDING: European Commission Sixth Framework Programme.

Controlling technical variation amongst 6693 patient microarrays of the randomized MINDACT trial.

Gene expression data obtained in large studies hold great promises for discovering disease signatures or subtypes through data analysis. It is also prone to technical variation, whose removal is essential to avoid spurious discoveries. Because this variation is not always known and can be confounded with biological signals, its removal is a challenging task. Here we provide a step-wise procedure and comprehensive analysis of the MINDACT microarray dataset. The MINDACT trial enrolled 6693 breast cancer patients and prospectively validated the gene expression signature MammaPrint for outcome prediction. The study also yielded a full-transcriptome microarray for each tumor. We show for the first time in such a large dataset how technical variation can be removed while retaining expected biological signals. Because of its unprecedented size, we hope the resulting adjusted dataset will be an invaluable tool to discover or test gene expression signatures and to advance our understanding of breast cancer.

Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: MINDACT demonstrated that 46% of patients with early breast cancer at high clinical but low genomic risk on the basis of MammaPrint may safely avoid adjuvant chemotherapy. A second random assignment (R-C) compared docetaxel-capecitabine with an anthracycline-based regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: R-C randomly assigned patients 1:1 between standard anthracycline-based regimens, with or without taxanes (control) and experimental docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 two times per day for 14 days (DC) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: Of 2,832 patients, 1,301 (45%) were randomly assigned, and 97% complied with R-C assignment. In the control arm, 29.6% only received taxanes (0.5% of N0 patients). DFS events (n = 148) were much less than required (n = 422) as a result of a lower-than-expected accrual and event rate. At 5 years of median follow-up, DFS was not different between DC (n = 652) and control (n = 649; 90.7% [95% CI, 88% to 92.8%] v 88.8% [95% CI, 85.9% to 91.1%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15]; P = .26). Overall survival (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.53]) and DFS in the clinical high and genomic high-risk subgroup (86.1% v 88.1%; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.21]) were similar in both arms. DC led to more grade 1 neuropathy (27.1% v 11.2%) and more grade 2 hand/foot syndrome (28.5% v 3.3%) and diarrhea (13.7% v 5.8%). Serious cardiac events occurred in 9 patients (control, n = 4; DC, n = 5). Fifty-three patients developed second cancers (control, n = 32; DC, n = 21; leukemia: 2 v 1). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (control, 2 [0.3%]; DC, 3 [0.5%]). CONCLUSION: Although underpowered, this second randomization in MINDACT did not show any improvement in outcome or safety with the use of DC compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Addressing the dichotomy between individual and societal approaches to personalised medicine in oncology.

Academic, industry, regulatory leaders and patient advocates in cancer clinical research met in November 2018 at the Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development meeting in Brussels to address the existing dichotomy between increasing calls for personalised oncology approaches based on individual molecular profiles and the need to make resource and regulatory decisions at the societal level in differing health-care delivery systems around the globe. Novel clinical trial designs, the utility and limitations of real-world evidence (RWE) and emerging technologies for profiling patient tumours and tumour-derived DNA in plasma were discussed. While randomised clinical trials remain the gold standard approach to defining clinical utility of local and systemic therapeutic interventions, the broader adoption of comprehensive tumour profiling and novel trial designs coupled with RWE may allow patient and physician autonomy to be appropriately balanced with broader assessments of safety and overall societal benefit.

RECIST 1.1 for Response Evaluation Apply Not Only to Chemotherapy-Treated Patients But Also to Targeted Cancer Agents: A Pooled Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: The mode of action of targeted cancer agents (TCAs) differs from classic chemotherapy, which leads to concerns about the role of RECIST in evaluating tumor response in trials with TCAs. We investigated the performance of RECIST using a pooled database from 50 clinical trials with at least one TCA. METHODS: We examined the impact of the number of target lesions (TLs) on within-patient variability of tumor response. The prognostic effect of TL response (at 12 weeks or on study on the basis of a maximum five TLs) on survival was studied through landmark and time-dependent Cox models adjusted for baseline tumor load, occurrence of new lesions, or unequivocal progression of nontarget disease. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 23,259 patients with cancer (36% lung, 28% colorectal, 11% breast, and 25% other); 15,620 received TCAs, predominantly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, as a single agent (37%), combined with other TCAs (7%), or as chemotherapy (56%); 28% received chemotherapy only; and 5% received best supportive care or placebo. A total of 17,222 patients contributed to the analyses. Within-patient variability decreased with increasing number of TLs, similarly for TCAs (with/without chemotherapy) and chemotherapy only. Mixed responses occurred proportionally in all treatment classes. Landmark analyses showed an ordinal relationship between percentage change from baseline to 12 weeks and overall survival, and demonstrated a clear distinction between tumor shrinkage and progressive disease according to RECIST. Time-dependent analysis showed no marked improvement in the ability to predict survival on the basis of TL tumor growth compared with nontarget progression or new lesion occurrence, regardless of treatment. Similar results were seen for major tumor types and different classes of TCAs. CONCLUSION: This work reinforces that RECIST version 1.1 perform well for response assessment of TCAs.

Comparative Assessment of Clinical Benefit Using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Version 1.1 and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score.

PURPOSE: To better understand the European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) and the ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2), ESMO and ASCO collaborated to evaluate the concordance between the frameworks when used to assess clinical benefit attributable to new therapies. METHODS: The 102 randomized controlled trials in the noncurative setting already evaluated in the field testing of ESMO-MCBS v1.1 were scored using ASCO-NHB v2 by its developers. Measures of agreement between the frameworks were calculated and receiver operating characteristic curves used to define thresholds for the ASCO-NHB v2 corresponding to ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. Studies with discordant scoring were identified and evaluated to understand the reasons for discordance. RESULTS: The correlation of the 102 pairs of scores for studies in the noncurative setting is estimated to be 0.68 (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient; overall survival, 0.71; progression-free survival, 0.67). Receiver operating characteristic curves identified thresholds for ASCO-NHB v2 for facilitating comparisons with ESMO-MCBS v1.1 categories. After applying pragmatic threshold scores of 40 or less (ASCO-NHB v2) and 2 or less (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for low benefit and 45 or greater (ASCO-NHB v2) and 4 to 5 (ESMO-MCBS v1.1) for substantial benefit, 37 discordant studies were identified. Major factors that contributed to discordance were different approaches to evaluation of relative and absolute gain for overall survival and progression-free survival, crediting tail of the curve gains, and assessing toxicity. CONCLUSION: The agreement between the frameworks was higher than observed in other studies that sought to compare them. The factors that contributed to discordant scores suggest potential approaches to improve convergence between the scales.

Late translational research: putting forward a new model for developing new anti-cancer treatments that addresses the needs of patients and society.

Bringing therapeutic innovation and the latest science to routine patient care, while safeguarding principles of affordability and equality, is a challenging mission in the current complex multi-stakeholder environment. Precision oncology and new approaches to clinical trials (methods and clinical setting) have dramatically changed clinical research and the clinical development of new treatments. Improved understanding of molecular biology and immunology paves the way for innovative pharmacological approaches. However, we argue that the evidence generated during the clinical development of these new products for the purpose of obtaining marketing authorisations often does not address fundamental questions concerning the impact of these new interventions on the most relevant clinical outcomes: namely, quality of life and patient survival. Similarly, patient populations (for example defined by biomarkers), treatment duration, and sequence and combination of treatments within current treatment pathways are often poorly defined by clinical developments for regulatory purposes. Finally, the lack of integrated translational research within the pathway of development is a major limiting factor to delivering cost-effective and affordable, evidence-based care to clinical practice. This leaves many gaps in the knowledge on the efficacy and therapeutic use of medicines, which can impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems, possibly to the detriment of more cost-effective interventions. We argue that policy changes are required to integrate clinical research and healthcare to inform clinical practice. New routes toward optimising the integration of drug development and care are being proposed to achieve this ultimate goal.

Surrogate marker analysis in cancer clinical trials through time-to-event mediation techniques.

The meta-analytic approach is the gold standard for validation of surrogate markers, but has the drawback of requiring data from several trials. We refine modern mediation analysis techniques for time-to-event endpoints and apply them to investigate whether pathological complete response can be used as a surrogate marker for disease-free survival in the EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 randomised phase 3 trial in which locally advanced breast cancer patients were randomised to either taxane or anthracycline based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the mediation analysis, the treatment effect is decomposed into an indirect effect via pathological complete response and the remaining direct effect. It shows that only 4.2% of the treatment effect on disease-free survival after five years is mediated by the treatment effect on pathological complete response. There is thus no evidence from our analysis that pathological complete response is a valuable surrogate marker to evaluate the effect of taxane versus anthracycline based chemotherapies on progression free survival of locally advanced breast cancer patients. The proposed analysis strategy is broadly applicable to mediation analyses of time-to-event endpoints, is easy to apply and outperforms existing strategies in terms of precision as well as robustness against model misspecification.

Detailed statistical assessment of the characteristics of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) threshold rules.

BACKGROUND: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) has developed the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS), a tool to assess the magnitude of clinical benefit from new cancer therapies. Grading is guided by a dual rule comparing the relative benefit (RB) and the absolute benefit (AB) achieved by the therapy to prespecified threshold values. The ESMO-MCBS v1.0 dual rule evaluates the RB of an experimental treatment based on the lower limit of the 95%CI (LL95%CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) along with an AB threshold. This dual rule addresses two goals: inclusiveness: not unfairly penalising experimental treatments from trials designed with adequate power targeting clinically meaningful relative benefit; and discernment: penalising trials designed to detect a small inconsequential benefit. METHODS: Based on 50 000 simulations of plausible trial scenarios, the sensitivity and specificity of the LL95%CI rule and the ESMO-MCBS dual rule, the robustness of their characteristics for reasonable power and range of targeted and true HRs, are examined. The per cent acceptance of maximal preliminary grade is compared with other dual rules based on point estimate (PE) thresholds for RB. RESULTS: For particularly small or particularly large studies, the observed benefit needs to be relatively big for the ESMO-MCBS dual rule to be satisfied and the maximal grade awarded. Compared with approaches that evaluate RB using the PE thresholds, simulations demonstrate that the MCBS approach better exhibits the desired behaviour achieving the goals of both inclusiveness and discernment. CONCLUSIONS: RB assessment using the LL95%CI for HR rather than a PE threshold has two advantages: it diminishes the probability of excluding big benefit positive studies from achieving due credit and, when combined with the AB assessment, it increases the probability of downgrading a trial with a statistically significant but clinically insignificant observed benefit.

'Mind the gap' between the development of therapeutic innovations and the clinical practice in oncology: A proposal of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to optimise cancer clinical research.

In Europe, most of the cancer clinical research dedicated to therapeutic innovations aims primarily at regulatory approval. Once an anticancer drug enters the common market, each member state determines its real-world use based on its own criteria: pricing, reimbursement and clinical indications. Such an innovation-centred clinical research landscape might neglect patient-relevant issues in real-world setting, such as comparative effectiveness of distinct treatment options or long-term safety monitoring. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) advocates reforming the current 'innovation-centred' system to a truly 'patient-centred' paradigm with systematically coordinated applied clinical research in conjunction with drug development, featuring the following strategy.

A population-based approach to compare patient-reported outcomes of long-term Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors according to trial participation: a joint study from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship registry and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Survival discrepancy between patients treated in a clinical trial and routine practice is well recognized. No study has assessed the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of long-term Hodgkin's lymphoma survivors (HLS) according to trial participation. We applied a population-based approach to examine the differences in HRQL, healthcare utilization, and satisfaction with healthcare among long-term HLS who had participated in a trial (tHLS) and those treated in routine care (rHLS). All HLS diagnosed during the period 1989-1998 and living in southern Netherlands were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry in 2004 to participate in the Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long-term Evaluation of Survivorship registry study. Data linkage with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer was performed in 2015 to identify trial participation. The 65 tHLS and 67 rHLS had comparable demographic and clinical characteristics. Unadjusted and adjusted models indicated no association between trial participation and HRQL. There was no evidence of differences in healthcare satisfaction. Trial participation was associated with 48% more visits to specialists in the past year (adjusted 95% confidence interval: 10-99). No association of trial participation with cancer-related contacts was observed. tHLS and rHLS had comparable long-term HRQL. Although trial participation was associated with more specialist visits, there was no evidence of an association with healthcare satisfaction and the number of cancer-related visits. Identification of trial participation in population-based cancer registry through data linkage with clinical trials enables a population-based approach to examine patient-reported outcomes differences between tHLS and rHLS.

iRECIST: guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics.

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden-a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies.

RECIST - learning from the past to build the future.

Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) remain an integral part of the assessment of tumour burden in many clinical trials in oncology; these criteria are used to evaluate the activity and efficacy of new cancer therapeutics in solid tumours. We aim to define the purpose of RECIST, and reflect on the level of documentation needed to enable changes for these criteria to develop a new RECIST. Maintaining the applicability of RECIST as a standard evaluation approach is associated with many challenges, in particular with maintaining a balance between the specificity and generalizability, continued validation and innovation, and use of RECIST in early phase versus late-phase drug development, as well as its relevance in clinical trials versus clinical practice. Key questions relate to different modes of actions of new classes of treatments and new imaging modalities; thus, the RECIST Working Group remains committed to maintain RECIST as a standard for the oncology community.