User login
Lessons learned from using CDK 4/6 inhibitors to treat metastatic breast cancer
45 new cancer drugs – a significant jump from the average 26 approvals annually from 2006 to 2014. This major shift in the number of approvals is due to many factors, including the intensified efforts by scientists and clinicians to develop new drugs, especially novel immunotherapies, and changes in the FDA’s drug approval process under the leadership of Dr Richard Pazdur.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
45 new cancer drugs – a significant jump from the average 26 approvals annually from 2006 to 2014. This major shift in the number of approvals is due to many factors, including the intensified efforts by scientists and clinicians to develop new drugs, especially novel immunotherapies, and changes in the FDA’s drug approval process under the leadership of Dr Richard Pazdur.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
45 new cancer drugs – a significant jump from the average 26 approvals annually from 2006 to 2014. This major shift in the number of approvals is due to many factors, including the intensified efforts by scientists and clinicians to develop new drugs, especially novel immunotherapies, and changes in the FDA’s drug approval process under the leadership of Dr Richard Pazdur.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Making immunotherapy part of routine breast cancer treatment
Cancer treatment is evolving rapidly, and 2015 was no exception. It was the year of immunotherapy. Following the approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 of pembrolizumab for melanoma, 2015 saw approvals of nivolumab for melanoma, lung cancer, and kidney cancer; pembrolizumab for lung cancer; and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolimab for melanoma. That’s an impressive list of immunotherapy approvals for a single year.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Cancer treatment is evolving rapidly, and 2015 was no exception. It was the year of immunotherapy. Following the approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 of pembrolizumab for melanoma, 2015 saw approvals of nivolumab for melanoma, lung cancer, and kidney cancer; pembrolizumab for lung cancer; and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolimab for melanoma. That’s an impressive list of immunotherapy approvals for a single year.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Cancer treatment is evolving rapidly, and 2015 was no exception. It was the year of immunotherapy. Following the approval by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2014 of pembrolizumab for melanoma, 2015 saw approvals of nivolumab for melanoma, lung cancer, and kidney cancer; pembrolizumab for lung cancer; and the combination of ipilimumab and nivolimab for melanoma. That’s an impressive list of immunotherapy approvals for a single year.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
How to fix clinical trial accrual
Editor Jame Abraham argues that once there is appropriate clinical trial infrastructure, there is only one person who can increase the clinical trial accrual: the treating oncologist.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Editor Jame Abraham argues that once there is appropriate clinical trial infrastructure, there is only one person who can increase the clinical trial accrual: the treating oncologist.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Editor Jame Abraham argues that once there is appropriate clinical trial infrastructure, there is only one person who can increase the clinical trial accrual: the treating oncologist.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Turning back the clock: the increase in bilateral mastectomies
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Click on the PDF icon at the top of this introduction to read the full article.
Sequestration ‘trickle-down’ closes in on community practices
The effects of sequestration-related cuts on oncology practices have kicked in. In early April, Sarah Kliff, a blogger at The Washington Post, reported that cancer clinics had already started turning away Medicare patients because the funding cuts would make it impossible for them to continue treating their chemotherapy patients and avoid financial ruin.1 In early May, a month after the April 1 cuts took effect, we already had 2 separate survey reports, one from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the other from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), that showed that the 2% cut in Medicare reimbursement had caused oncology practices “to make signifi- cant shifts in how they do business and care for patients.”2 ASCO surveyed 500 of its members (41% in suburban settings; 41%, in urban; 16%, in rural). In all, 80% of respondents said sequestration was affecting their practices, and about 75% said they were having trouble paying for chemotherapy drugs. Half of the respondents said they could care only for patients who had other sources of income independent of Medicare, 14% had stopped seeing Medicare patients, and half said they were sending their Medicare patients to outpatient infusion centers for their chemotherapy. ASCO president Sandra Swain expressed concern that some patients’ care was being disrupted and compromised, which could be detrimental to the clinical outcomes and emotional well-being of these fragile individuals, and she warned in a statement that the society’s initial findings “may just be the tip of the iceberg.”3 The fact that a quarter of respondents reported that they were planning to close satellite clinics should also raise concerns about the impact such closures might have on research and participation in clinical trials.
The effects of sequestration-related cuts on oncology practices have kicked in. In early April, Sarah Kliff, a blogger at The Washington Post, reported that cancer clinics had already started turning away Medicare patients because the funding cuts would make it impossible for them to continue treating their chemotherapy patients and avoid financial ruin.1 In early May, a month after the April 1 cuts took effect, we already had 2 separate survey reports, one from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the other from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), that showed that the 2% cut in Medicare reimbursement had caused oncology practices “to make signifi- cant shifts in how they do business and care for patients.”2 ASCO surveyed 500 of its members (41% in suburban settings; 41%, in urban; 16%, in rural). In all, 80% of respondents said sequestration was affecting their practices, and about 75% said they were having trouble paying for chemotherapy drugs. Half of the respondents said they could care only for patients who had other sources of income independent of Medicare, 14% had stopped seeing Medicare patients, and half said they were sending their Medicare patients to outpatient infusion centers for their chemotherapy. ASCO president Sandra Swain expressed concern that some patients’ care was being disrupted and compromised, which could be detrimental to the clinical outcomes and emotional well-being of these fragile individuals, and she warned in a statement that the society’s initial findings “may just be the tip of the iceberg.”3 The fact that a quarter of respondents reported that they were planning to close satellite clinics should also raise concerns about the impact such closures might have on research and participation in clinical trials.
The effects of sequestration-related cuts on oncology practices have kicked in. In early April, Sarah Kliff, a blogger at The Washington Post, reported that cancer clinics had already started turning away Medicare patients because the funding cuts would make it impossible for them to continue treating their chemotherapy patients and avoid financial ruin.1 In early May, a month after the April 1 cuts took effect, we already had 2 separate survey reports, one from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the other from the Community Oncology Alliance (COA), that showed that the 2% cut in Medicare reimbursement had caused oncology practices “to make signifi- cant shifts in how they do business and care for patients.”2 ASCO surveyed 500 of its members (41% in suburban settings; 41%, in urban; 16%, in rural). In all, 80% of respondents said sequestration was affecting their practices, and about 75% said they were having trouble paying for chemotherapy drugs. Half of the respondents said they could care only for patients who had other sources of income independent of Medicare, 14% had stopped seeing Medicare patients, and half said they were sending their Medicare patients to outpatient infusion centers for their chemotherapy. ASCO president Sandra Swain expressed concern that some patients’ care was being disrupted and compromised, which could be detrimental to the clinical outcomes and emotional well-being of these fragile individuals, and she warned in a statement that the society’s initial findings “may just be the tip of the iceberg.”3 The fact that a quarter of respondents reported that they were planning to close satellite clinics should also raise concerns about the impact such closures might have on research and participation in clinical trials.