搜索结果：Oncology research and treatment

BACKGROUND: In 1986, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) initiated a research program to develop an integrated, modular approach for evaluating the quality of life of patients participating in international clinical trials. PURPOSE: We report here the results of an international field study of the practicality, reliability, and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30, the current core questionnaire. The QLQ-C30 incorporates nine multi-item scales: five functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social); three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea and vomiting); and a global health and quality-of-life scale. Several single-item symptom measures are also included. METHODS: The questionnaire was administered before treatment and once during treatment to 305 patients with nonresectable lung cancer from centers in 13 countries. Clinical variables assessed included disease stage, weight loss, performance status, and treatment toxicity. RESULTS: The average time required to complete the questionnaire was approximately 11 minutes, and most patients required no assistance. The data supported the hypothesized scale structure of the questionnaire with the exception of role functioning (work and household activities), which was also the only multi-item scale that failed to meet the minimal standards for reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient > or = .70) either before or during treatment. Validity was shown by three findings. First, while all interscale correlations were statistically significant, the correlation was moderate, indicating that the scales were assessing distinct components of the quality-of-life construct. Second, most of the functional and symptom measures discriminated clearly between patients differing in clinical status as defined by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scale, weight loss, and treatment toxicity. Third, there were statistically significant changes, in the expected direction, in physical and role functioning, global quality of life, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting, for patients whose performance status had improved or worsened during treatment. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were highly consistent across the three language-cultural groups studied: patients from English-speaking countries, Northern Europe, and Southern Europe. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the EORTC QLQ-C30 as a reliable and valid measure of the quality of life of cancer patients in multicultural clinical research settings. Work is ongoing to examine the performance of the questionnaire among more heterogenous patient samples and in phase II and phase III clinical trials.

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO'S PRESIDENT As this report demonstrates—and as history shows—investment in clinical cancer research pays off. Since 1990, cancer mortality rates have declined by 15%. Today, two thirds of patients survive at least 5 years after diagnosis, compared with just half of patients 40 years ago. Patient quality of life has improved dramatically. In addition, thanks to basic research advances, we are entering an era of personalized cancer medicine, in which treatment is tailored to the unique genetics of the individual. Clinical cancer research is finally receiving an urgently needed boost in investment. For the first time in 5 years, federal funding for research has increased. The economic stimulus package infused billions into short-term biomedical research projects, and President Obama has pledged to invest in “a cure for cancer in our time.” However, despite this progress, cancer remains the number-two killer of Americans. Incidence is projected to nearly double by 2020 as the population grows and ages. Scientifically, cancer is highly complex; it is not one disease, but many, and is increasingly defined by thousands of genetic variations, epigenetic changes, post-transcriptional modifications, and combinations of these mechanisms, rather than by site of origin. Unraveling these complexities begins to explain why some cancers are especially resistant to treatment, a fact we have known for some time. Other cancers are fatal because they are typically diagnosed late in the course of disease, when treatment is less effective. To achieve new breakthroughs, the scale of the national response must match the scale of the problem. Years of flat federal research funding have resulted in abandoned or stalled clinical research projects, a deteriorating research infrastructure, and the loss of talented physicians to other fields. In this report, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) commends the recent increases in funding and calls on Congress to make a multiyear commitment to sustained increases in clinical cancer research at the National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute. Major advances in cancer treatment cannot be expected to emerge without consistent and predictable investment at the federal level. Although a robust clinical research enterprise is essential to improving patient care, advances mean little if they do not reach people in need. For people with cancer, lack of health insurance can be the difference between life and death. It is estimated that 32% of patients with cancer in the United States are uninsured at some point during their treatment, and more than a quarter opt not to seek treatment as a result. We must end the inequality in health care access. ASCO believes that health care reform must ensure that everyone diagnosed with cancer has the coverage necessary to receive high-quality treatment. To that end, we have made access to cancer care a top priority in our advocacy agenda. I believe the advances described in this report should give all of us cause for hope. Although there is a long road ahead, by investing in a robust national clinical research program and by improving access to high-quality care, we can give every patient the best chance of survival. Douglas Blayney, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology

A MESSAGE FROM ASCO's PRESIDENT For the second consecutive year, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is publishing Clinical Cancer Advances: Major Research Advances in Cancer Treatment, Prevention, and Screening, an annual review of the most significant cancer research presented or published over the past year. ASCO developed this report to demonstrate the enormous progress being made on the front lines of cancer research today. The report is intended to give all those with an interest in cancer care-the general public, cancer patients and physicians, policymakers, oncologists, and other medical professionals-an accessible summary of the year's most important cancer research advances. These pages report on new targeted therapies that are improving survival and response rates in hard-to-treat cancers such as kidney cancer, HER-2-positive breast cancer, head and neck cancer, and chronic myelogenous leukemia; the FDA's approval of the world's first preventive vaccine for human papillomavirus (HPV), which has the potential to dramatically reduce the global burden of cervical cancer; and advances in the fast-growing field of personalized medicine, including a new lung cancer test that could help physicians better target treatments and predict prognosis. These advances are only part of the landscape. Survival rates are on the rise, the number of cancer deaths in the United States began declining for the first time since 1930, and new research is showing that the rates of certain common cancers, such as those of the breast and colon, have stabilized, and may have even begun to decline. However, cancer research still faces a number of major obstacles. At a time of extraordinary scientific potential, declining federal funding of cancer research threatens to stall or even reverse recent progress. Such funding cuts have already led to fewer clinical trials, fewer talented young physicians entering the field, and a growing bottleneck of basic science discoveries waiting to be "translated" into useful therapies and diagnostics. In addition to highlighting the major research advances over the past year, this report also identifies key barriers to accelerating the pace of cancer research and outlines ASCO's recommendations for overcoming them. Despite these and other challenges, there is much good news on the front lines of cancer research. This report demonstrates the essential role of clinical cancer research in finding new and better ways to treat, diagnose, and prevent a group of diseases that strike half of men and one-third of women in the United States.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) represents more than 35,000 oncologists and other health care professionals who care for people with cancer and conduct research to improve cancer treatment. ASCO approved a policy statement on the importance of phase I trials in cancer treatment in 1996 and published it in 1997.1 ASCO and its member clinicians have repeatedly used this statement as evidence that phase I trials have therapeutic intent (ie, potential to provide patients with clinical benefit) and to argue for insurance coverage of routine patient costs in these trials. Since the 1997 statement was published, there have been significant developments in cancer care and research. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 20102 has led to enormous changes in the health care delivery system by increasing the number of individuals with health insurance and improving patients' access to many high-quality and preventive care services. The number of people diagnosed with cancer3 and surviving cancer4 is also rapidly increasing. Thus, there is an increase in the number of patients in need of cancer care, and these patients are more likely than in the past to have health insurance that covers the cost of their treatment. The ACA requires payers to cover routine patient costs in phase I to IV trials. Simultaneously, the biopharmaceutical industry has been investing in molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapies for cancer, leading to an increase in the number of promising new agents that need testing in phase I trials.5 Researchers are also exploring innovative trial designs, which may decrease patient risk, expose fewer patients to less-than-optimal drug doses, increase patients' potential for clinical benefit from trial participation, better identify subpopulations of patients likely to benefit from an agent, and reduce the chance of ineffective agents continuing through the development process.6–14 The result is that phase I trials in cancer have greater potential as a treatment option for many patients with cancer than they did in 1997. To address this changing landscape in cancer, ASCO convened a working group of the Cancer Research Committee to review and update the ASCO policy statement on phase I trials. This update reaffirms the critical importance of phase I trials in cancer research and treatment and emphasizes their therapeutic intent. The first section of the statement defines phase I trials in cancer and underscores the importance of trial design in the drug development process. Subsequent sections review the evidence that phase I trials provide patients with clinical benefit and make a series of recommendations on how to increase participation in these trials. The statement concludes with a section on special issues in pediatric phase I trials.

A message from ASCO'S president: Nearly 40 years ago, President Richard Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, mobilizing the country's resources to make the "conquest of cancer a national crusade." That declaration led to a major investment in cancer research that has significantly improved cancer prevention, treatment, and survival. As a result, two thirds of people diagnosed with cancer today will live at least 5 years after diagnosis, compared with just half in the 1970s. In addition, there are now more than 12 million cancer survivors in the United States--up from 3 million in 1971. Scientifically, we have never been in a better position to advance cancer treatment. Basic scientific research, fueled in recent years by the tools of molecular biology, has generated unprecedented knowledge of cancer development. We now understand many of the cellular pathways that can lead to cancer. We have learned how to develop drugs that block those pathways; increasingly, we know how to personalize therapy to the unique genetics of the tumor and the patient. Yet in 2008, 1.4 million people in the United States will still be diagnosed with cancer, and more than half a million will die as a result of the disease. Some cancers remain stubbornly resistant to treatment, whereas others cannot be detected until they are in their advanced, less curable stages. Biologically, the cancer cell is notoriously wily; each time we throw an obstacle in its path, it finds an alternate route that must then be blocked. To translate our growing basic science knowledge into better treatments for patients, a new national commitment to cancer research is urgently needed. However, funding for cancer research has stagnated. The budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute have failed to keep pace with inflation, declining up to 13% in real terms since 2004. Tighter budgets reduce incentives to support high-risk research that could have the largest payoffs. The most significant clinical research is conducted increasingly overseas. In addition, talented young physicians in the United States, seeing less opportunity in the field of oncology, are choosing other specialties instead. Although greater investment in research is critical, the need for new therapies is only part of the challenge. Far too many people in the United States lack access to the treatments that already exist, leading to unnecessary suffering and death. Uninsured cancer patients are significantly more likely to die than those with insurance, racial disparities in cancer incidence and mortality remain stark, and even insured patients struggle to keep up with the rapidly rising cost of cancer therapies. As this annual American Society of Clinical Oncology report of the major cancer research advances during the last year demonstrates, we are making important progress against cancer. But sound public policies are essential to accelerate that progress. In 2009, we have an opportunity to reinvest in cancer research, and to support policies that will help ensure that every individual in the United States receives potentially life-saving cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment. Sincerely, Richard L. Schilsky, MD President American Society of Clinical Oncology.

This year, for the first time, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is publishing Clinical Cancer Advances 2005: Major Research Advances in Cancer Treatment, Prevention, and Screening, an annual review of the most significant clinical research presented or published over the past year across all cancer types. ASCO embarked on this project to provide the public, patients, policymakers, and physicians with an accessible summary of the year's most important research advances. While not intended to serve as a comprehensive review, this report provides a year-end snapshot of research that will have the greatest impact on patient care. As you will read, there is much good news from the front lines of cancer research. These pages report on new chemotherapy regimens that sharply reduce the risk of recurrence for very common cancers; the "coming of age" of targeted cancer therapies; promising studies of drugs to prevent cancer; and improvements in quality of life for people living with the disease, among many other advances. Survival rates for cancer are on the rise, increasing from 50% to 64% over the last 30 years. Cancer still exacts an enormous toll, however. Nearly 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed this year, and some 570,000 will die of the disease. Clearly, more research is needed to find effective therapies for the most stubborn cancer types and stages. We need to know more about the long-term effects of newer, more targeted cancer therapies, some of which need to be taken over long periods of time. And we need to devote far greater attention to tracking and improving the care of the nearly 10 million cancer survivors in the United States today. Despite these and other challenges, the message of this report is one of hope. Through the dedicated, persistent pursuit of clinical research and participation in clinical trials by people with cancer, we steadily uncover new and better ways of treating, diagnosing, and preventing a disease that touches the lives of so many. I want to thank the Editorial Board members, the Specialty Editors, and the ASCO Cancer Communications Committee for their dedicated work to develop this report, and I hope you find it useful.

Selecting the most appropriate end points for clinical trials is important to assess the value of new treatment strategies. Well-established end points for clinical research exist in oncology but may not be as relevant to the older cancer population because of competing risks of death and potentially increased impact of therapy on global functioning and quality of life. This article discusses specific clinical end points and their advantages and disadvantages for older individuals. Randomized or single-arm phase II trials can provide insight into the range of efficacy and toxicity in older populations but ideally need to be confirmed in phase III trials, which are unfortunately often hindered by the severe heterogeneity of the older cancer population, difficulties with selection bias depending on inclusion criteria, physician perception, and barriers in willingness to participate. All clinical trials in oncology should be without an upper age limit to allow entry of eligible older adults. In settings where so-called standard therapy is not feasible, specific trials for older patients with cancer might be required, integrating meaningful measures of outcome. Not all questions can be answered in randomized clinical trials, and large observational cohort studies or registries within the community setting should be established (preferably in parallel to randomized trials) so that treatment patterns across different settings can be compared with impact on outcome. Obligatory integration of a comparable form of geriatric assessment is recommended in future studies, and regulatory organizations such as the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration should require adequate collection of data on efficacy and toxicity of new drugs in fit and frail elderly subpopulations.

PURPOSE: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22921 compared adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy (CT) to no adjuvant treatment in a 2 x 2 factorial trial with randomization for preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy in patients with resectable T3-4 rectal cancer. The results showed no significant impact of adjuvant CT on progression-free or overall survival, although a difference seemed to emerge at approximately, respectively, 2 and 5 years after the start of preoperative treatment. We further explored the data with the aim of refining our understanding of the long-term results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 785 of the 1,011 randomly assigned patients who whose disease was M0 at curative surgery were used. Using meta-analytic methods, we investigated the homogeneity of the effect of adjuvant CT on the time to relapse or death after surgery (disease-free survival [DFS]) and survival in patient subgroups. RESULTS: Although there was no statistically significant impact of adjuvant CT on DFS for the whole group (P > .5), the treatment effect differed significantly between the ypT0-2 and the ypT3-4 patients (heterogeneity P = .009): only the ypT0-2 patients seemed to benefit from adjuvant CT (P = .011). The same pattern was observed for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Exploratory analyses suggest that only good-prognosis patients (ypT0-2) benefit from adjuvant CT. This could explain why, in the whole group, the progression-free and overall survival diverged only after the poor-prognosis patients (ypT3-4) had experienced treatment failure. Patients in whom no downstaging was achieved did not benefit. This also suggests that the same prognostic factors may drive both tumor sensitivity for the primary treatment and long-term clinical benefit from further adjuvant CT.

The number of individuals living with a history of cancer is estimated at 13.7 million in the United States and is expected to rise with the aging of the population. With expanding attention to the psychosocial and physical consequences of surviving illness, psychological science and evidence-based practice are making important contributions to addressing the pressing needs of cancer survivors. Research is demonstrating that adults diagnosed with cancer evidence generally positive psychosocial adjustment over time; however, a subset is at risk for compromised psychological and physical health stemming from long-term or late effects of cancer and its treatment. In this article, we characterize survivorship after medical treatment completion during the periods of reentry, early survivorship, and long-term survivorship. We describe the major psychosocial and physical sequelae facing adults during those periods, highlight promising posttreatment psychosocial and behavioral interventions, and offer recommendations for future research and evidence-based practice.

To compare the efficacy and toxicity of oxaliplatin (L-OHP) in combination with irinotecan (CPT-11), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) (FOLFOXIRI) vs irinotecan and 5-FU/LV (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). A total of 283 chemotherapy-naïve patients with MCC were enrolled (FOLFIRI arm: n=146; FOLFOXIRI arm: n=137). In the FOLFOXIRI arm, CPT-11 (150 mg m(-2)) was given on d1, L-OHP (65 mg m(-2)) on d2, LV (200 mg m(-2)) on days 2 and 3 and 5-FU (400 mg m(-2) as i.v. bolus and 600 mg m(-2) as 22 h i.v. continuous infusion) on days 2 and 3. In the FOLFIRI arm, CPT-11 (180 mg m(-2)) was given on d1 whereas LV and 5-FU were administered in the same way as in the FOLFOXIRI regimen. Both regimens were administered every 2 weeks. There was no difference in terms of overall survival (median OS: 19.5 and 21.5 months, for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively; P=0.337), median time to disease progression (FOLFIRI: 6.9 and FOLFOXIRI: 8.4 months; P=0.17), response rates (33.6 and 43% for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively; P=0.168). Patients treated with FOLFOXIRI had a significantly higher incidence of alopecia (P=0.0001), diarrhoea (P=0.0001) and neurosensory toxicity (P=0.001) compared with patients treated with FOLFIRI. The present study failed to demonstrate any superiority of the FOLFOXIRI combination compared with the FOLFIRI regimen, although the observed median OS is one of the best ever reported in the literature.