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
2600 - Atezolizumab (atezo) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): a long-term overall survival (OS) and safety update from the Phase III IMvigor211 study
Presenter: Michiel Van der Heijden
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3598 - Three-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 Trial: Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Versus Investigator’s Choice (Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, or Vinflunine) in Recurrent, Advanced Urothelial Cancer (UC)
Presenter: Andrea Necchi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2382 - First Report of Efficacy and Safety From a Phase 2 Trial of Tislelizumab, an Anti-PD-1 Antibody, for the Treatment of PD-L1+ Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (UC) in Asian Patients
Presenter: Dingwei Ye
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2388 - Quality of Life of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer (mUC) Patients Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) Following Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy and a Checkpoint Inhibitor (CPI): Data from EV-201 Cohort 1
Presenter: Bradley McGregor
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3748 - Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (atezo) in patients (pts) with autoimmune disease (AID): subgroup analysis of the SAUL study in locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma
Presenter: Yohann Loriot
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1126 - Validation of the VIO prognostic index in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors
Presenter: Rafael Morales Barrera
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3693 - Pathologic outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk muscle invasive bladder cancer
Presenter: Justin Matulay
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4840 - Analysis of response to prior therapies and therapies after treatment with erdafitinib in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-positive patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1221 - Clinical outcomes by sex with atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy in patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Jean Hoffman-censits
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1715 - National Small Cell Bladder Cancer Audit: Results from 26 UK institutions
Presenter: Caroline Chau
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract