The oncologist
-
Cancer-related neuropathic pain syndromes are common and serious complications of a patient's primary malignancy or its treatment, whether by surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy. They may compromise the patient's quality of life as well as their ability to receive effective treatment. In many patients, there may be more than one coexistent neuropathic pain syndrome, posing a diagnostic dilemma that, if unresolved, may result in the institution of therapies that are of limited scope or not targeted at the primary underlying pathophysiology. ⋯ Clinical assessment of cancer-related neuropathic pain poses some important challenges diagnostically as well as in defining a clear and reliable endpoint assessment in controlled clinical trials. Many different approaches have been applied to the development of assessment or diagnostic tools. Careful review of these methods has been helpful in developing a clearer vision for the future design and refinement of more reliable tools, and more importantly, validation of the clinical utility as well as the reliability of such tools when employed as endpoints in clinical trials focused on prevention, mitigation, or treatment of cancer neuropathic pain.
-
Patients, clinicians, payers, and policymakers face an environment of significant evidentiary uncertainty as they attempt to achieve maximum value, or the greatest level of benefit possible at a given level of cost in their respective health care decisions. This is particularly true in the area of oncology, for which published evidence from clinical trials is often incongruent with real-world patient care, and a substantial portion of clinical use is for off-label indications that have not been systematically evaluated. It is this uncertainty in the knowledge of the clinical harms and benefits associated with oncology treatments that prevents postregulatory decision makers from making accurate assessments of the value of these treatments. ⋯ Food and Drug Administration, this situation is exacerbated in the area of oncology. This paper investigates the convergence of incentives and circumstances that lead to widespread uncertainty in oncology and proposes new paradigms for clinical research, including pragmatic clinical trials, methodological guidance, and coverage with evidence development. Each of these initiatives would support the design of clinical research that is more informative for postregulatory decision makers, and would therefore reduce uncertainty and provide greater confidence in conclusions about the value of these treatments.
-
On July 31, 2009, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration granted approval for the use of bevacizumab (Avastin(R); Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA) in combination with interferon (IFN)-alpha2a for the treatment of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. ⋯ There was no survival advantage. In the reviewed trial, serious adverse events and National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade >/=3 adverse events were reported more frequently in bevacizumab-treated patients (31% versus 19% and 63% versus 47%, respectively). The most common bevacizumab-related toxicities were bleeding/hemorrhage, hypertension, proteinuria, and venous or arterial thromboembolic events.
-
Many new cancer drugs provide only limited benefits, but at very great cost, for example, $200,000-$300,000 per quality-adjusted life year produced. By most standards of value or cost-effectiveness, this does not represent good value. ⋯ I examine several equity considerations-priority to the worse off, aggregation and special priority to life extension, and the rule of rescue-and argue that none justifies greater priority for cancer treatment on the grounds of equity. Finally, I conclude by noting two recent policy changes that are in the wrong direction for achieving value in cancer care, and suggesting some small steps that could take us in the right direction.