Cardiac Adverse Events and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Post Hoc Safety Analysis of the Randomized DisCoVeRy Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the cardiac adverse events (AEs) in hospitalized patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving remdesivir plus standard of care (SoC) compared to SoC alone (control), as an association was noted in some cohort studies and disproportionality analyses of safety databases. METHODS: This post-hoc safety analysis is based on data from the multicenter, randomized, open-label, controlled DisCoVeRy trial in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (NCT04315948). Any first AE occurring between randomization and day 29 in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population randomized to either remdesivir or control group was considered. Analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for event rates. RESULTS: Cardiac AEs were reported in 46 (11.2%) of 410 and 48 (11.3%) of 423 patients in the mITT population (n = 833) enrolled in the remdesivir and control groups, respectively. The difference between both groups was not significant (HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.5, p = 0.98), even when evaluating serious and non-serious cardiac AEs separately. The majority of reports in both groups were of arrhythmic nature (remdesivir, 84.8%; control, 83.3%) and were associated with a favorable outcome. There was no significant difference between remdesivir and control groups in the occurrence of different cardiac AE subclasses, including arrhythmic events (HR 1.1, 95% CI: 0.7-1.7, p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir treatment was not associated with an increased risk of cardiac AEs, whether serious or not, and regardless of AE severity, compared to control, in patients hospitalized with moderate or severe COVID-19. This is consistent with the results of other randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses.

Management of pharmacovigilance during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis by the safety department of an academic sponsor: Lessons learnt and challenges from the EU DisCoVeRy clinical trial.

The current COVID-19 pandemic was an exceptional health situation, including for drug use. As there was no known effective drug for COVID-19 at the beginning of the pandemic, different drug candidates were proposed. In this article, we present the challenges for an academic Safety Department to manage the global safety of a European trial during the pandemic. The National Institute for Health and Medical Research (Inserm) conducted a European multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial involving three repurposed and one-in development drugs (lopinavir/ritonavir, IFN-ß1a, hydroxychloroquine, and remdesivir) in adults hospitalized with COVID-19. From 25 March 2020 to 29 May 2020, the Inserm Safety Department had to manage 585 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) initial notification and 396 follow-up reports. The Inserm Safety Department's staff was mobilized to manage these SAEs and to report Expedited safety reports to the competent authorities within the legal timeframes. More than 500 queries were sent to the investigators due to a lack of or incoherent information on SAE forms. At the same time, the investigators were overwhelmed by the management of patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. These particular conditions of missing data and lack of accurate description of adverse events made evaluation of the SAEs very difficult, particularly the assessment of the causal role of each investigational medicinal product. In parallel, working difficulties were accentuated by the national lockdown, frequent IT tool dysfunctions, delayed implementation of monitoring and the absence of automatic alerts for SAE form modification. Although COVID-19 is a confounding factor per se, the delay in and quality of SAE form completion and the real-time medical analysis by the Inserm Safety Department were major issues in the quick identification of potential safety signals. To conduct a high-quality clinical trial and ensure patient safety, all stakeholders must take their roles and responsibilities.

Ensuring quality control in a COVID-19 clinical trial during the pandemic: The experience of the Inserm C20-15 DisCoVeRy study.

SETTING: Health measures taken during the pandemic deeply modified the clinical research practices. At the same time, the demand for the results of the COVID-19 trials was urgent. Thus, the objective of this article is to share Inserm's experience in ensuring quality control in clinical trials in this challenging context. OBJECTIVES: DisCoVeRy is a phase III randomized study that aimed at evaluating the safety and efficacy of 4 therapeutic strategies in hospitalized COVID-19 adult patients. Between March, 22nd 2020 and January, 20th 2021, 1309 patients were included. In order to guarantee the best quality of data, the Sponsor had to adapt to the current sanitary measures and to their impact on clinical research activity, notably by adapting Monitoring Plan objectives, involving the research departments of the participating hospitals and a network of clinical research assistants (CRAs). RESULTS: Overall, 97 CRAs were involved and performed 909 monitoring visits. The monitoring of 100% of critical data for all patients included in the analysis was achieved, and despite of the pandemic context, a conform consent was recovered for more than 99% of patients. Results of the study were published in May and September 2021. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: The main monitoring objective was met thanks to the mobilization of considerable personnel resources, within a very tight time frame and external hurdles. There is a need for further reflection to adapt the lessons learned from this experience to the context of routine practice and to improve the response of French academic research during a future epidemic.

Implementation of a centralized pharmacovigilance system in academic pan-European clinical trials: Experience from EU-Response and conect4children consortia.

Setting-up a high quality, compliant and efficient pharmacovigilance (PV) system in multi-country clinical trials can be more challenging for academic sponsors than for companies. To ensure the safety of all participants in academic studies and that the PV system fulfils all regulations, we set up a centralized PV system that allows sponsors to delegate work on PV. This initiative was put in practice by our Inserm-ANRS MIE PV department in two distinct multinational European consortia with 19 participating countries: conect4children (c4c) for paediatrics research and EU-Response for Covid-19 platform trials. The centralized PV system consists of some key procedures to harmonize the complex safety processes, creation of a local safety officer (LSO) network and centralization of all safety activities. The key procedures described the safety management plan for each trial and how tasks were shared and delegated between all stakeholders. Processing of serious adverse events (SAEs) in a unique database guaranteed the full control of the safety data and continuous evaluation of the risk-benefit ratio. The LSO network participated in efficient regulatory compliance across multiple countries. In total, there were 1312 SAEs in EU-Response and 83 SAEs in c4c in the four trials. We present here the lessons learnt from our experience in four clinical trials. We managed heterogeneous European local requirements and implemented efficient communication with all trial teams. Our approach builds capacity for PV that can be used by multiple academic sponsors.

Platform trials.

For the past few years, platform trials have experienced a significant increase, recently amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. The implementation of a platform trial is particularly useful in certain pathologies, particularly when there is a significant number of drug candidates to be assessed, a rapid evolution of the standard of care or in situations of urgent need for evaluation, during which the pooling of protocols and infrastructure optimizes the number of patients to be enrolled, the costs, and the deadlines for carrying out the investigation. However, the specificity of platform trials raises methodological, ethical, and regulatory issues, which have been the subject of the round table and which are presented in this article. The round table was also an opportunity to discuss the complexity of sponsorship and data management related to the multiplicity of partners, funding, and governance of these trials, and the level of acceptability of their findings by the competent authorities.

Randomized Trial of Vaccines for Zaire Ebola Virus Disease.

BACKGROUND: Questions remain concerning the rapidity of immune responses and the durability and safety of vaccines used to prevent Zaire Ebola virus disease. METHODS: We conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled trials - one involving adults and one involving children - to evaluate the safety and immune responses of three vaccine regimens against Zaire Ebola virus disease: Ad26.ZEBOV followed by MVA-BN-Filo 56 days later (the Ad26-MVA group), rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by placebo 56 days later (the rVSV group), and rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP followed by rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP 56 days later (the rVSV-booster group). The primary end point was antibody response at 12 months, defined as having both a 12-month antibody concentration of at least 200 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU) per milliliter and an increase from baseline in the antibody concentration by at least a factor of 4. RESULTS: A total of 1400 adults and 1401 children underwent randomization. Among both adults and children, the incidence of injection-site reactions and symptoms (e.g., feverishness and headache) was higher in the week after receipt of the primary and second or booster vaccinations than after receipt of placebo but not at later time points. These events were largely low-grade. At month 12, a total of 41% of adults (titer, 401 EU per milliliter) and 78% of children (titer, 828 EU per milliliter) had a response in the Ad26-MVA group; 76% (titer, 992 EU per milliliter) and 87% (titer, 1415 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV group; 81% (titer, 1037 EU per milliliter) and 93% (titer, 1745 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the rVSV-booster group; and 3% (titer, 93 EU per milliliter) and 4% (titer, 67 EU per milliliter), respectively, had a response in the placebo group (P<0.001 for all comparisons of vaccine with placebo). In both adults and children, antibody responses with vaccine differed from those with placebo beginning on day 14. CONCLUSIONS: No safety concerns were identified in this trial. With all three vaccine regimens, immune responses were seen from day 14 through month 12. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; PREVAC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02876328; EudraCT numbers, 2017-001798-18 and 2017-001798-18/3rd; and Pan African Clinical Trials Registry number, PACTR201712002760250.).

The Economic, Medical and Psychosocial Consequences of Whole Genome Sequencing for the Genetic Diagnosis of Patients With Intellectual Disability: The DEFIDIAG Study Protocol.

Introduction: Like other countries, France has invested in a national medical genomics program. Among the four pilot research studies, the DEFIDIAG project focuses on the use of whole genome sequencing (WGS) for patients with intellectual disability (ID), a neurodevelopmental condition affecting 1-3% of the general population but due to a plethora of genes. However, the access to genomic analyses has many potential individual and societal issues in addition to the technical challenges. In order to help decision-makers optimally introduce genomic testing in France, there is a need to identify the socio-economic obstacles and leverages associated with the implementation of WGS. Methods and Analysis: This humanities and social sciences analysis is part of the DEFIDIAG study. The main goal of DEFIDIAG is to compare the percentage of causal genetic diagnoses obtained by trio WGS (including the patient and both parents) (WGST) to the percentage obtained using the minimal reference strategy currently used in France (Fragile-X testing, chromosomal microarray analysis, and gene panel strategy including 44 ID genes) for patients with ID having their first clinical genetics consultation. Additionally, four complementary studies will be conducted. First, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be undertaken in a subsample of 196 patients consulting for the first time for a genetic evaluation; in a blinded fashion, WGST and solo (index case, only) genomic analysis (WGSS) will be compared to the reference strategy. In addition, quantitative studies will be conducted: the first will estimate the cost of the diagnostic odyssey that could potentially be avoidable with first-line WGST in all patients previously investigated in the DEFIDIAG study; the second will estimate changes in follow-up of the patients in the year after the return of the WGST analysis compared to the period before inclusion. Finally, through semi-directive interviews, we will explore the expectations of 60 parents regarding genomic analyses. Discussion: Humanities and social sciences studies can be used to demonstrate the efficiency of WGS and assess the value that families associate with sequencing. These studies are thus expected to clarify trade-offs and to help optimize the implementation of genomic sequencing in France. Ethics Statement: The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee Sud Méditerranée I (June 2019)-identification number: 2018-A00680-55 and the French data privacy commission (CNIL, authorization 919361). Clinical Trial Registration: (ClinicalTrials.gov), identifier (NCT04154891).

Health crisis: What opportunities for clinical drug research?

The COVID-19 pandemic led to the deployment of an unprecedented academic and industrial research effort, the sometimes redundant nature of which is regrettable, as is the lack of both national and international management. However, it must be noted that during this crisis, regulatory procedures were adapted and certain obstacles in the organisation of clinical research were partly removed to contribute to the deployment of trials as close as possible to patients and to facilitate monitoring and control procedures. The digitisation of certain processes and the decentralisation of certain activities were implemented under the cover of a mobilisation of the authorities and all institutional, academic and industrial players. While in the UK, the optimisation of resources through a single platform trial has made it possible to demonstrate or invalidate the efficacy of many treatments, in France the health crisis has highlighted the fragility of the organisation of clinical research, in particular a lack of coordination and funding, difficulties in implementing studies and a certain reluctance to share data. However, the crisis has also revealed the adaptability of the various stakeholders and has led to the improvement of several processes useful for the deployment of therapeutic innovation. Let us hope that the lessons learned during this crisis will allow for greater efficiency in the event of a new pandemic and, above all, that the progress made will continue to apply to all future clinical research activities.

Molecular profiling of advanced soft-tissue sarcomas: the MULTISARC randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) represent a heterogeneous group of rare tumors including more than 70 different histological subtypes. High throughput molecular analysis (next generation sequencing exome [NGS]) is a unique opportunity to identify driver mutations that can change the usual one-size-fits-all treatment paradigm to a patient-driven therapeutic strategy. The primary objective of the MULTISARC trial is to assess whether NGS can be conducted for a large proportion of metastatic STS participants within a reasonable time, and, secondarily to determine whether a NGS-guided therapeutic strategy improves participant's outcome. METHODS: This is a randomized, multicentre, phase II/III trial inspired by the design of umbrella and biomarker-driven trials. The setting plans up to 17 investigational centres across France and the recruitment of 960 participants. Participants aged at least 18 years, with unresectable locally advanced and/or metastatic STS confirmed by the French sarcoma pathological reference network, are randomized according to 1:1 allocation ratio between the experimental arm "NGS" and the standard "No NGS". NGS will be considered feasible if (i) NGS results are available and interpretable, and (ii) a report of exome sequencing including a clinical recommendation from a multidisciplinary tumor board is provided to investigators within 7 weeks from reception of the samples on the biopathological platform. A feasibility rate of more than 70% is expected (null hypothesis: 70% versus alternative hypothesis: 80%). In terms of care, participants randomized in "No NGS" arm and who fail treatment will be able to switch to the NGS arm at the request of the investigator. DISCUSSION: The MULTISARC trial is a prospective study designed to provide high-level evidence to support the implementation of NGS in routine clinical practice for advanced STS participants, on a large scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrial.gov NCT03784014 .

Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC): protocol of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial evaluating three vaccine strategies against Ebola in healthy volunteers in four West African countries.

INTRODUCTION: The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014-2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. RESULTS: From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12-17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. DISCUSSION: The PREVAC trial is evaluating-placebo-controlled-two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328 . Registered on 23 August 2016.

Genome Sequencing for Genetics Diagnosis of Patients With Intellectual Disability: The DEFIDIAG Study.

Introduction: Intellectual Disability (ID) is the most common cause of referral to pediatric genetic centers, as it affects around 1-3% of the general population and is characterized by a wide genetic heterogeneity. The Genome Sequencing (GS) approach is expected to achieve a higher diagnostic yield than exome sequencing given its wider and more homogenous coverage, and, since theoretically, it can more accurately detect variations in regions traditionally not well captured and identify structural variants, or intergenic/deep intronic putatively pathological events. The decreasing cost of sequencing, the progress in data-management and bioinformatics, prompted us to assess GS efficiency as the first line procedure to identify the molecular diagnosis in patients without obvious ID etiology. This work is being carried out in the framework of the national French initiative for genomic medicine (Plan France Médecine Génomique 2025). Methods and Analysis: This multidisciplinary, prospective diagnostic study will compare the diagnostic yield of GS trio analysis (index case, father, mother) with the French core minimal reference strategy (Fragile-X testing, chromosomal microarray analysis and Gene Panel Strategy of 44 selected ID genes). Both strategies are applied in a blinded fashion, in parallel, in the same population of 1275 ID index cases with no obvious diagnosis (50% not previously investigated). Among them, a subgroup of 196 patients are randomized to undergo GS proband analysis in addition to GS trio analysis plus the French core minimal reference strategy, in order to compare their efficiency. The study also aims to identify the most appropriate strategy according to the clinical presentation of the patients, to evaluate the impact of deployment of GS on the families' diagnostic odyssey and the modification of their care, and to identify the advantages/difficulties for the patients and their families. Ethics Statement: The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee Sud Méditerranée I and the French data privacy commission (CNIL, authorization 919361). Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04154891 (07/11/2019).

Feasibility of high-throughput sequencing in clinical routine cancer care: lessons from the cancer pilot project of the France Genomic Medicine 2025 plan.

BACKGROUND: Whole exome sequencing and RNA sequencing (WES/RNASeq) should now be implemented in the clinical practice in order to increase access to optimal care for cancer patients. Providing results to Tumour Boards in a relevant time frame-that is, compatible with the clinical pathway-is crucial. Assessing the feasibility of this implementation in the French care system is the primary objective of the Multipli study, as one of the four pilot projects of the national France Genomic Medicine 2025 (FGM 2025) plan. The Multipli study encompasses two innovative trials which will be driven in around 2400 patients suffering from a soft-tissue sarcoma (Multisarc) or a metastatic colorectal carcinoma (Acompli). METHODS: Prior to launching the FGM 2025 cancer pilot study itself, the performance of the Multipli genomic workflow has been evaluated through each step, from the samples collection to the Molecular Tumour Board (MTB) report. Two Multipli-assigned INCa-labelled molecular genetics centres, the CEA-CNRGH sequencing platform and the Institut Bergonié's Bioinformatics Platform were involved in a multicentric study. The duration of each step of the genomic workflow was monitored and bottlenecks were identified. RESULTS: Thirty barriers which could affect the quality of the samples, sequencing results and the duration of each step of the genomic pathway were identified and mastered. The global turnaround time from the sample reception to the MTB report was of 44 calendar days. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate the feasibility of tumour genomic analysis by WES/RNASeq within a time frame compatible with the current cancer patient care. Lessons learnt from the Multipli WES/RNASeq Platforms Workflow Study will constitute guidelines for the forthcoming Multipli study and more broadly for the future clinical routine practice in the first two France Genomic Medicine 2025 platforms.

PRIMVAC vaccine adjuvanted with Alhydrogel or GLA-SE to prevent placental malaria: a first-in-human, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: PRIMVAC is a VAR2CSA-derived placental malaria vaccine candidate aiming to prevent serious clinical outcomes of Plasmodium falciparum infection during pregnancy. We assessed the safety and immunogenicity of PRIMVAC adjuvanted with Alhydrogel or glucopyranosyl lipid adjuvant in stable emulsion (GLA-SE) in French and Burkinabe women who were not pregnant. METHODS: This first-in-human, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose escalation trial was done in two staggered phases, a phase 1A trial in 18-35-year-old women who were malaria naive in a hospital in France and a subsequent phase 1B trial in women who were naturally exposed to P falciparum and nulligravid in the clinical site of a research centre in Burkina Faso. Volunteers were recruited into four sequential cohorts receiving PRIMVAC intramuscularly at day 0, 28, and 56: two cohorts in France receiving 20 µg or 50 µg of PRIMVAC and then two in Burkina Faso receiving 50 µg or 100 µg of PRIMVAC. Volunteers were randomly assigned (1:1) to two groups (PRIMVAC adjuvanted with either Alhydrogel or GLA-SE) in France and randomly assigned (2:2:1) to three groups (PRIMVAC adjuvanted with either Alhydrogel, GLA-SE, or placebo) in Burkina Faso. Randomisation was centralised, using stratification by cohort and blocks of variable size, and syringes were masked by opaque labels. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with any grade 3 or higher adverse reaction to vaccination up until day 35. Safety at later time points as well as humoral and cellular immunogenicity were assessed in secondary endpoints. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02658253. FINDINGS: Between April 19, 2016, and July 13, 2017, 68 women (18 in France, 50 in Burkina Faso) of 101 assessed for eligibility were included. No serious adverse event related to the vaccine occurred. PRIMVAC antibody titres increased with each dose and seroconversion was observed in all women vaccinated with PRIMVAC (n=57). PRIMVAC antibody titres reached a peak (geometric mean 11 843·0, optical density [OD] 1·0, 95% CI 7559·8-18 552·9 with 100 µg dose and GLA-SE) 1 week after the third vaccination (day 63). Compared with Alhydrogel, GLA-SE tended to improve the PRIMVAC antibody response (geometric mean 2163·5, OD 1·0, 95% CI 1315·7-3557·7 with 100 µg dose and Alhydrogel at day 63). 1 year after the last vaccination, 20 (71%) of 28 women who were vaccinated with PRIMVAC/Alhydrogel and 26 (93%) of 28 women who were vaccinated with PRIMVAC/GLA-SE still had anti-PRIMVAC antibodies, although antibody magnitude was markedly lower (452·4, OD 1·0, 95% CI 321·8-636·1 with 100 µg dose and GLA-SE). These antibodies reacted with native homologous VAR2CSA expressed by NF54-CSA infected erythrocytes (fold change from baseline at day 63 with 100 µg dose and GLA-SE: 10·74, 95% CI 8·36-13·79). Limited cross-recognition, restricted to sera collected from women that received the 100 µg PRIMVAC dose, was observed against heterologous VAR2CSA variants expressed by FCR3-CSA (fold change from baseline at day 63: 1·49, 95% CI 1·19-1·88) and 7G8-CSA infected erythrocytes (1·2, 1·08-1·34). INTERPRETATION: PRIMVAC adjuvanted with Alhydrogel or GLA-SE had an acceptable safety profile, was immunogenic, and induced functional antibodies reacting with the homologous VAR2CSA variant expressed by NF54-CSA infected erythrocytes. Cross-reactivity against heterologous VAR2CSA variants was limited and only observed in the higher dose group. An alternate schedule of immunisation, antigen dose, and combinations with other VAR2CSA-based vaccines are envisaged to improve the cross-reactivity against heterologous VAR2CSA variants. FUNDING: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, through Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, Germany; Inserm, and Institut National de Transfusion Sanguine, France; Irish Aid, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ireland.

[UNICANCER patient expectations observatory: a new role for patients in health care institutions]. / L'observatoire des attentes des patients UNICANCER: une nouvelle place des usagers dans les établissements de santé.

UNICANCER, recognizing the role played by patients in their own management, set up a unique initiative in France in November 2011: the patient expectations observatory, which is designed to reorient and improve the quality of care provided by comprehensive cancer centers of the UNICANCER group based on a better knowledge and understanding of patient perceptions and preferences. An innovative internet-based participative consultation recorded and prioritized patient expectations. Patient management improvement actions in cancer centres were then generalized to equitably satisfy the identified patient expectations. By using patient expectations concerning organization of health care, cancer cancers therefore provide an example of the new modalities of patient participation in health care institutions, in line with the changes proposed by public authorities.

The UNICANCER Patient Expectations Observatory: A new role for patients in health care institutions.

Recognizing the role played by patients in their own management, UNICANCER set up in November 2011 a unique initiative in France: the Patient Expectations Observatory. This was designed to reorient and improve the quality of care provided by comprehensive cancer centres in the UNICANCER group based on a better knowledge and understanding of patient perceptions and preferences. An innovative internet-based consultation process enabled us to record and prioritize patient expectations. Patient management improvement actions for cancer centres were then used to equitably satisfy the identified patient expectations. By using patients' own expectations of their health care, cancer centres can therefore provide an example of the new modalities of patient participation in health care institutions, in line with the changes proposed by public authorities.

Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is undergoing an important paradigm shift from a disease-focused management to a patient-centred approach, in which increasingly more attention is paid to psychosocial aspects, quality of life, patients' rights and empowerment and survivorship. In this context, multidisciplinary teams emerge as a practical necessity for optimal coordination among health professionals and clear communication with patients. The European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), an initiative launched by the European Commission in 2009, addressed the multidisciplinary care from a policy perspective in order to define the core elements that all tumour-based multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) should include. To that effect, a working group conference was held in January 2013 within the EPAAC Work Package 7 (on Healthcare) framework. METHODS: The consensus group consisted of high-level representatives from the following European scientific societies, patient associations and stakeholders: European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European SocieTy for Radiology & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG), European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS), International Psycho-Oncology Society (IPOS),European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), EuropaColon, Europa Donna - The European Breast Cancer Coalition, Association of European Cancer Leagues (ECL), Organisation of European Cancer Institutes (OECI), EUSOMA - European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists, European Hospital and Healthcare Federation (HOPE) and EPAAC Work Packages 5 (Health promotion and prevention), 7, 8 (Research), 9 (Information systems) and 10 (Cancer plans). A background document with a list of 26 core issues drawn from a systematic review of the literature was used to guide the discussion. Five areas related to MDTs were covered: care objectives, organisation, clinical assessment, patients' rights and empowerment and policy support. Preliminary drafts of the document were widely circulated for consultation and amendments by the working group before final approval. RESULTS: The working group unanimously formulated a Policy Statement on Multidisciplinary Cancer Care to define the core elements that should be implemented by all tumour-based MDTs. This document identifies MDTs as the core component in cancer care organisation and sets down the key elements to guide changes across all European health systems. CONCLUSION: MDTs are an essential instrument of effective cancer care policy, and their continued development crucial to providing patients the care they need and deserve. While implementation must remain in local hands, European health systems can still benefit from having a basis for an effective multidisciplinary model of cooperation. This policy statement is intended to serve as a reference for policymakers and healthcare providers who wish to improve the services currently provided to the cancer patients whose lives and well-being depend on their action.