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.
Resources from the same session
2507 - KEYLYNK-010: Phase 3 Study of Pembrolizumab (pembro) Plus Olaparib (OLA) vs Enzalutamide (ENZA) or Abiraterone (ABI) in ENZA- or ABI-Pretreated Patients (pts) With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Who Had Progression on Chemotherapy (CTx)
Presenter: Evan Yu
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2944 - PROSTRATEGY: A Spanish Genitourinary Oncology Group (SOGUG) multi-arm multistage (MAMS) phase III trial of immunotherapy strategies in high-volume metastasic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.
Presenter: Jose Arranz Arija
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3535 - A phase 1 study of AMG 160, a half-life extended bispecific T cell engager (HLE BiTE) immuno-oncology therapy targeting PSMA, in patients (pts) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)
Presenter: Ben Tran
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4951 - ProBio: An outcome-adaptive, multi-arm, open-label, multiple assignment randomised controlled biomarker-driven trial in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (EudraCT: 2018-002350-78, NCT03903835)
Presenter: Johan Lindberg
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2892 - A phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of niraparib plus abiraterone acetate and prednisone versus abiraterone acetate and prednisone in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (NCT03748641)
Presenter: Kim Chi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2427 - The Extended/Phase II Study of Safety And Tolerability Of Proxalutamide (GT0918) In Subjects With Metastatic Castrate Resistant Prostate Cancer (mCRPC) Who Failed Either Abiraterone (Abi) Or Enzalutamide (Enza)
Presenter: Nicholas Vogelzang
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3224 - Addition of an oral docetaxel treatment (ModraDoc006/r) to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in patients with high risk N+M0 prostate cancer
Presenter: Marit Vermunt
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3312 - A phase II randomized, open-label study comparing salvage radiotherapy in combination with 6 months of androgen-deprivation therapy with LHRH agonist or antagonist versus anti-androgen therapy with apalutamide in patients with biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy.
Presenter: Piet Dirix
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2829 - Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Updated Follow-Up From KEYNOTE-057: Phase 2 Study of Pembrolizumab (pembro) for Patients (pts) With High-Risk (HR) Non–Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer (NMIBC) Unresponsive to Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)
Presenter: Ronald de Wit
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2673 - Clinical activity of vofatamab (V), an FGFR3 selective antibody in combination with pembrolizumab (P) in metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC), updated interim analysis of FIERCE-22
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract