Addressing the dichotomy between individual and societal approaches to personalised medicine in oncology Journal Article


Authors: Salgado, R.; Solit, D. B.; Rimm, D. L.; Bogaerts, J.; Canetta, R.; Lively, T.; Lyerly, K.; Span, P. N.; Bateman-House, A.; Makady, A.; Bergmann, L.; Nagai, S.; Smith, C.; Robson, M.; Savage, M.; Voest, E.; Sweeney, C.; Lambin, P.; Thomas, M.; Harris, L.; Lacombe, D.; Massard, C.; on behalf of the IBCD-Faculty
Article Title: Addressing the dichotomy between individual and societal approaches to personalised medicine in oncology
Abstract: Academic, industry, regulatory leaders and patient advocates in cancer clinical research met in November 2018 at the Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development meeting in Brussels to address the existing dichotomy between increasing calls for personalised oncology approaches based on individual molecular profiles and the need to make resource and regulatory decisions at the societal level in differing health-care delivery systems around the globe. Novel clinical trial designs, the utility and limitations of real-world evidence (RWE)and emerging technologies for profiling patient tumours and tumour-derived DNA in plasma were discussed. While randomised clinical trials remain the gold standard approach to defining clinical utility of local and systemic therapeutic interventions, the broader adoption of comprehensive tumour profiling and novel trial designs coupled with RWE may allow patient and physician autonomy to be appropriately balanced with broader assessments of safety and overall societal benefit. © 2019
Keywords: biomarkers; clinical trials; health technology assessment; evidence-driven optimal health-care delivery; molecular and immunologic profiling
Journal Title: European Journal of Cancer
Volume: 114
ISSN: 0959-8049
Publisher: Elsevier Inc.  
Date Published: 2019-06-01
Start Page: 128
End Page: 136
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.03.025
PUBMED: 31060925
PROVIDER: scopus
DOI/URL:
Notes: Source: Scopus
Altmetric Score
MSK Authors
  1. Mark E Robson
    408 Robson
  2. David Solit
    471 Solit