Published On: April 23rd, 2010
A Duke oncologist is warning that the emphasis on comparative effectiveness studies may present obstacles for the field of cancer research, Scientific American’s Observations blog reports.
At the recent American Association for Cancer Research confab, Duke’s Amy Abernethy outlined several stumbling blocks, starting with the obvious notion that while oncology is increasingly moving towards personalized treatment, comparative effectiveness research is based on large populations. So patients whose tumors’ molecular abnormalities aren’t as common might fall through the research cracks.
There’s also a dearth of evidence to actually direct physicians to the most “medically effective and cost-effective treatment for individual patients.” And drugs being used off-label present their own dilemma, Observations notes, quoting Abernethy as saying between 50% and 70% of cancer drug prescriptions fall into that category. There’s very little quality research focusing on those uses.
Suggestions for tackling the problem, in addition to randomized clinical trials: better data gathering from physicians and patients on the ground, and an “e-ecosystem” to encourage the electronic flow of information between all the parties involved in cancer research and treatment.
Image: iStockphoto

Original post:
Cancer Field ‘Conundrum’: Comparative Effectiveness Research




Did you know:





