Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session 3

6062 - Unmet Needs in Oncology Research related to radiological response evaluation: a multi-center survey in three European countries

Date

30 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 3

Presenters

Sophie Nisse Durgeat

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v816-v821. 10.1093/annonc/mdz272

Authors

S. Nisse Durgeat1, H. Paynes2, L. Saba3, E. Calvo4, I. Spoletini5, A.L. Gomes4, F. Bergaz4, A. Balestrieri3, M. Porcu3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Wehealth Digital Medecine, Servier-France, 92284 - Suresnes/FR
  • 2 Oncology Department, University College London Hospitals, NW1 2BU - london/GB
  • 3 Department Of Radiology, AOU of Cagliari, Monserrato/IT
  • 4 Department Of Early Clinical Drug Development, Hospital Madrid Norte San Chinarro - Centro Integral Oncologico Clara Campal, 28050 - Madrid/ES
  • 5 Department Of Medical Sciences, IRCCS San Raffaele, rome/IT
More

Resources

Abstract 6062

Background

A standardized evaluation approach in oncology is essential to optimize treatment and management of patients. In particular, a medical software designed to provide standard metrics and reports may help the communication among health care professionals, facilitating the decision process. To this aim, a large survey study was conducted across the United Kingdom (UK), Spain (ES) and Italy (IT) exploring existing unmet needs and questioning the way oncological data is tracked in daily routine practice with the aim of offering some ideas for improvement.

Methods

Physicians were enrolled by an independent Market Research Company according to diiferent inclusion criteria: a) 2-35 years in practice; b) ≥50% of practice time in direct patient care; c) involvement in making treatment decisions ; d) involvement in ordering and reviewing tumour assessment reports; e) to be an investigator or author of an oncology clinical trial in the past 5 years.The study was conducted in November-December, 2018.

Results

A total number of 270 physicians (medical oncologists: n = 180, radio-oncologists: n = 90) participated (UK/100, ES/95, IT/75). The vast majority of physicians use Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria in their daily practice (86%). Guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics (iRECIST) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) are also used by between third and a quarter of physicians. Of note, almost half of the physicians indicated that there is a low level of data management in oncology and 2 out of 3 agree that this negatively impacts therapeutic decisions. Over a third of ES physicians believe that there is a low level of data management in oncology and a similar proportion in IT and ES report that it is impacting therapeutic decision making.

Conclusions

Only a third of physicians view their current reporting systems as adequate. All participants agree that any reporting system is in need of a common shared template for radiologists and oncologists. Thus, physicians identify a lack of consistency in diagnostic assessments and delays in receiving the reports as key unmet needs in tumor reporting systems –indicating the need for a streamlined system.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Wehealth Digital Medicine.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings