BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of innovative treatments for metastatic melanoma, their high costs has led to disparities in cancer care among different European countries. We analysed the availability of these innovative therapies in Europe and estimated the number of patients without access to first-line recommended treatment per current guidelines of professional entities such as the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), and European Dermatology Forum (EDF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Web-based online survey was conducted in 30 European countries with questions about the treatment schedules from 1st May 2015 to 1st May 2016: number of metastatic melanoma patients, registration and reimbursement of innovative medicines (updated data, as of 1st October 2016), percentage of patients treated and availability of clinical studies and compassionate-use programmes. RESULTS: The recommended BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) + MEK inhibitor (MEKi) combination was both registered and fully reimbursed in 9/30 (30%) countries, and in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. First-line immunotherapy with anti-PD1 antibodies was registered and fully reimbursed in 14/30 (47%) countries, while in 13/30 (43%) (all from Eastern Europe) not reimbursed. It was estimated that in Europe 19,600 patients with metastatic melanoma are treated, and 5238 (27%) do not have access to recommended first-line therapy. Significant correlation was found between human development index (HDI, UNDP report 2015), (r = 0.662; p < 0.001), health expenditure per capita (r = 0.695; p < 0.001) and the Mackenbach score of health policy performance (r = 0.765; p < 0.001) with the percentage of patients treated with innovative medicines and a number of reimbursed medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Great discrepancy exists in metastatic melanoma treatment across Europe. It is crucial to increase the awareness of national and European policymakers, oncological societies, melanoma patients' associations and pharma industry.
- MeSH
- akrylonitril analogy a deriváty ekonomika zásobování a distribuce MeSH
- aniliny ekonomika zásobování a distribuce MeSH
- antigeny CD279 antagonisté a inhibitory MeSH
- dávkové mechanismy statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- disparity zdravotní péče ekonomika statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- dostupnost zdravotnických služeb ekonomika statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- experimentální terapie ekonomika statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- humanizované monoklonální protilátky ekonomika terapeutické užití MeSH
- imunoterapie ekonomika statistika a číselné údaje MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- melanom ekonomika epidemiologie terapie MeSH
- nádory kůže ekonomika epidemiologie terapie MeSH
- protoonkogenní proteiny B-raf antagonisté a inhibitory MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa epidemiologie MeSH
BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, the use of intermediate time-to-event end points (TEEs) is increasingly common, yet their choice and definitions are not standardized. This limits the usefulness for comparing treatment effects between studies. The aim of the DATECAN Kidney project is to clarify and recommend definitions of TEE in renal cell cancer (RCC) through a formal consensus method for end point definitions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A formal modified Delphi method was used for establishing consensus. From a 2006-2009 literature review, the Steering Committee (SC) selected 9 TEE and 15 events in the nonmetastatic (NM) and metastatic/advanced (MA) RCC disease settings. Events were scored on the range of 1 (totally disagree to include) to 9 (totally agree to include) in the definition of each end point. Rating Committee (RC) experts were contacted for the scoring rounds. From these results, final recommendations were established for selecting pertinent end points and the associated events. RESULTS: Thirty-four experts scored 121 events for 9 end points. Consensus was reached for 31%, 43% and 85% events during the first, second and third rounds, respectively. The expert recommend the use of three and two endpoints in NM and MA setting, respectively. In the NM setting: disease-free survival (contralateral RCC, appearance of metastases, local or regional recurrence, death from RCC or protocol treatment), metastasis-free survival (appearance of metastases, regional recurrence, death from RCC); and local-regional-free survival (local or regional recurrence, death from RCC). In the MA setting: kidney cancer-specific survival (death from RCC or protocol treatment) and progression-free survival (death from RCC, local, regional, or metastatic progression). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus method revealed that intermediate end points have not been well defined, because all of the selected end points had at least one event definition for which no consensus was obtained. These clarified definitions of TEE should become standard practice in all RCC clinical trials, thus facilitating reporting and increasing precision in between trial comparisons.
- MeSH
- delfská metoda MeSH
- dodržování směrnic normy MeSH
- karcinom z renálních buněk mortalita terapie MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- lokální recidiva nádoru mortalita terapie MeSH
- nádory ledvin mortalita terapie MeSH
- přežití po terapii bez příznaků nemoci MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma metody normy MeSH
- stanovení cílového parametru metody normy MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- přehledy MeSH
