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
4370 - Continental differences in pathologic response with neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) plus nivolumab (NIVO) in patients with macroscopic stage III melanoma in the phase 2 OpACIN-neo trial.
Presenter: Irene Reijers
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3230 - Comparable responses of melanoma at primary site and synchronous lymph node metastases upon neoadjuvant ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO)
Presenter: Judith Versluis
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3171 - Adjuvant Therapies for Stage III Melanoma: Benchmarks for Bringing Clinical Trials to Clinical Practice
Presenter: Tina HIEKEN
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3493 - Mixture-cure modeling for resected stage III/IV melanoma in the phase 3 CheckMate 238 trial
Presenter: Jeffrey Weber
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3036 - An open-label, non-randomized, phase IIIb study of trametinib in combination with dabrafenib for patients with unresectable advanced BRAFV600-mutant melanoma: a subgroup analysis of patients with brain metastasis
Presenter: Caroline Dutriaux
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2233 - Adverse event (AE) kinetics in patients (pts) treated with dabrafenib + trametinib (D + T) in the metastatic and adjuvant setting
Presenter: Jean Jacques Grob
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2435 - A Single Arm, Open Label, Phase II, Multicenter Study to Assess the Detection of the BRAF V600 Mutation on cfDNA from Plasma in Patients with Advanced Melanoma
Presenter: Piotr Rutkowski
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1766 - Efficacy and Safety of Dabrafenib and Trametinib in Patients with Metastatic BRAFV600 Mutation-positive Melanoma in the Real-World Setting – Interim results of the non-interventional COMBI-r study
Presenter: Carola Berking
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2131 - Trial update: A randomized Phase Ib/II study of the selective small molecule Axl inhibitor Bemcentinib (BGB324) in combination with either dabrafenib/trametinib (D/T) or pembrolizumab in patients with metastatic melanoma
Presenter: Oddbjørn Straume
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4074 - Analysis of pyrexia in patients (pts) treated with dabrafenib (D) and/or trametinib (T) across clinical trials
Presenter: Caroline Robert
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract