ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Cancer research faces changes with health care reform

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



cancer research health care reform stimulus informationWASHINGTON—Many doctors and medical researchers applauded a new federal focus on comparative effectiveness research that was boosted through the 2009 stimulus package and codified with the signing of the health care reform bill in March. This shift will support—and in many cases require—work to establish which treatments work best.

The changing policies, however, present "a conundrum" for cancer work, Amy Abernethy, an oncologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C., said here Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. Actually, they present at least a couple.

The first challenge is that comparative effectiveness research, by necessity, focuses on broad populations of patients. But as Abernethy pointed out, "in oncology, we take care of individuals." Newly prioritized research might turn out new results about treatments that are best for most breast cancer patients with a defective HER2 protein, for example, but many other individuals with different genetic factors might still need trial-and-error treatment until research finds what works best for them.

Another big quandary is that though zeroing in on the most medically effective and cost-effective treatment for individual patients is a respectable goal, the current literature on treatments leaves many researchers and clinicians wanting. Few studies (less than a third) published recently in major medical journals have added to the overall comparative effectiveness literature, according to a March 2010 paper in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

And the problem is even worse for assessing off-label uses of cancer drugs (uses for approved drugs that have not been specifically okayed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), Abernethy pointed out. Some 50 to 70 percent of all cancer drug prescriptions are for off-label uses, she noted, and although the FDA allows such uses in the oncology world—and even permits reimbursement—it requires backup from the literature to justify these decisions. However, off-label studies are often poorly conducted and frequently completed without a control population, Abernethy said, leaving doctors, patients, insurers and the government in the dark about the actual efficacy of a lot of very frequently prescribed meds.

"How can we, as a society, be confident we are paying for effective treatment?" Abernethy asked. And as more people with preexisting conditions, including cancer, will be eligible for coverage under health care reform, the overall treatment bills could escalate without firm evidence that the expensive drugs are really making them better.

With finite resources for expensive, well-run clinical trials, many researchers and clinical oncologists are hoping that better data gathering and sharing will soon fill in some of the blanks. The federal government’s support for improved health care information technology (through health care reform and stimulus funds) should help providers and patients alike quickly access the latest data about particular treatments and patient subtypes. And to truly boost knowledge in the field, the data networks should allow doctors and patients to contribute their own findings and experiences, Kenneth Buetow, of the National Cancer Institute’s Center for Bioinformatics in Rockville, Md., said at the meeting. These resources would help "share information in a partnership with our patients," Buetow said.

The growing web of data available through linked research centers and through patient electronic medical records will also help power better clinical trials when they are feasible. To eventually find the best treatments for particular patients, testing specific patient populations—down to genetic variants—is considered a must. And electronic medical records will help researchers find patients who might be best suited to specific trails. "We need to find the right patient with the right target for what we’re testing," John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute, said in an address here on Monday. And because much of the data can be gathered and input remotely, "the trial will go to the patient," allowing patients to be enrolled as soon as they are diagnosed and increasing the likelihood they will stick with a trial for the long haul. With real-time subject monitoring, or close to it, Niederhuber noted that the current practices of infrequent checkups and screenings will seem clumsy and crude. And as the information gap between treatment and research continues to shrink, keeping data lodged in hard-copy records or images is "just not going to get us anywhere," he said.

This sort of connected cancer research and treatment world would resemble what Buetow described as the "e-ecosystem" being created through caBIG (the cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid—an information network), through which scientists, practitioners and patients will be able to access and share data. For researchers and even clinicians, "the days of holding all of your information and insight close to your vest are numbered," Buetow said.

With the field of cancer research poised for what Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, described here Tuesday as "a true revolution," the pressure is on to have the information infrastructure to support it. Buetow was cautiously optimistic about the government’s ability to boost research. "We never seem to have enough time and money to do it right, but we always seem to have time and money to do it over," he said of other federally funded projects. "This time, I hope we do it right."

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons, National Naval Medical Center/Seth Rossman





Rights & Permissions

Comments 3 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. poptime 11:27 pm 04/21/2010

    This reminds me of the way the space program is done. "We are going." "But not today." "But soon we will go." "Just not right now." "But someday."

    Link to this
  2. 2. gpawelski 11:54 am 04/22/2010

    The FDA has been wanting medical reviewers to focus only on new treatment’s effectiveness relative to existing drugs (comparative drug testing). It wants cancer companies to spend more time on trials and generate more data about the ultimate effectiveness of their new drugs. It is trying to save patients from the harmful effects of new medicines that have not fully proved their mettle. It is unfortunate that in their studies they use cancer cell-lines. Studies from established cell-lines are more misleading than helpful. An established cell-line is not reflective of the behavior of the "fresh" tumor cells in primary culture in the lab, much less in the patient. Established cell-lines have been a huge disappointment over the decades, with respect to their ability to correctly model the disease-specific activity of new drugs for any cancers.

    When clinically relevant and accepted drugs may have the same efficicay, and a tumor is resistant to one of them, it is within the standard of care to give the drug with the least resistance and/or the drug with the most sensitivity. My personal belief is in having additional support of drug patient-specific activity as determined by extensive cell-based laboratory pre-tests to bolster the clinical justification of the drug(s) chosen, with no economic ties to outside healthcare organizations; recommendations made without financial or scientific prejudice.

    Link to this
  3. 3. dtesting 11:04 am 10/4/2010

    I am glad that this is ongoing, Even I wont see the fruit of their labor in my lifetime, I am glad that future generation would benefit from this project. This could be written in history that it start in our generation.

    <a href="http://www.testcountry.com/drug-testing-center-facilities/illinois.htm">Illinois Drug Testing</a>

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X