Cancer chemoprevention and cancer preventive vaccines - A call to action: Leaders of diverse stakeholder groups present strategies for overcoming multiple barriers to meet an urgent need

University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Cancer Research (Impact Factor: 9.28). 01/2007; 66(24):11540-9. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-06-4122
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The emerging field of cancer prevention through chemoprevention agents and cancer vaccines offers significant promise for reducing suffering and death from cancer. However, that promise may not be kept unless major barriers to progress are lowered or eliminated. Among the most significant barriers are the relatively small investment from government and industry in research and development of cancer preventive agents; a predominant emphasis of translational cancer research on therapeutic interventions for metastatic or advanced cancer; complexities of prevention trial design; a relatively uncharted Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process for preventive agents; insufficient public and patient understanding of the importance and potential for cancer preventive measures, with consequent unpredictable public and patient willingness to take preventive agents; an uncertain reimbursement from payors; and limitations in patent law, liability protection, and data package exclusivity that undermine the opportunity for recouping investment. Viewed individually or collectively, each of these barriers serves as a substantial deterrent to intellectual and financial investment by all sectors of the cancer community. In an effort to ultimately overcome these barriers, a Cancer Prevention Research Summit was assembled June 12-13, 2006 in Bethesda, Maryland, organized by C-Change with support from the AACR. The Summit brought together some 120 leaders from private, public, and not-for-profit entities, including cancer researchers and clinicians; federal health officials; regulatory agency representatives; pharmaceutical, biotech, and food industry leaders; patent attorneys; economists; public and private provider group executives; and advocates. Participants engaged in a detailed process to more carefully define the major barriers, identify potential solutions, and formulate initial priorities and recommendations for action. At the conclusion of this dialogue among experts, the following recommended actions were outlined: define policy solutions to patent, intellectual property, and liability law barriers; create an advisory document about the approval process for cancer chemopreventive agents and vaccines for the FDA; develop new design models for cancer chemopreventive clinical trials; outline the business case for chemopreventive agents and vaccines for federal research agencies, payors and investors; and implement a communications strategy to increase public awareness about the importance of chemoprevention and cancer preventive vaccines.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Information comparing attitudes towards taking cancer chemopreventive agents and assessing drug characteristics that would make chemopreventive agents more acceptable to participants is essential for future trial design and to ultimately promote compliance. We therefore undertook a cross-sectional questionnaire study, the aim of which was to assess current attitudes towards chemopreventive agents and to determine which characteristics make chemopreventive agents more acceptable to potential target populations. Questionnaires were distributed to four groups of participants: university students, cancer patients, partners/spouses of patients with cancer and individuals at a high familial risk for cancer. The survey's overall response rate was 35.5% (350 participants). The majority of participants (92.9%) considered taking cancer chemopreventive agents. Factors that positively influenced participants towards chemoprevention were a family history of cancer and having children. Diet-derived chemopreventive agents were preferred by 74.6%, who associated these agents with being 'healthier' and having a better side-effect profile. Most participants preferred either two medium-sized capsules or four small capsules daily. Overall, participants were keen to consider chemoprevention, particularly in cases in which cancer risk was high, and preferred diet-derived agents, believing them to have minimal side-effects.
    European Journal of Cancer Prevention 11/2014; 23(6). DOI:10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000061 · 2.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Drug discovery and development has become a risky, expensive, and protracted process, with the cost of introducing a new drug to the market going as high as US$2 billion and the entire process taking at least 10–15 years. Great advances in biomedical research in recent years have not resulted in translation into medical product development, and there has been substantial decline in both new drug applications and biological license applications. To address this so-called "pipeline problem," both the US Food and Drug Administration and its European counterpart, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (now European Medicines Agency) endorsed the concept of Phase 0 studies (also known as exploratory investigational new drug studies), aimed towards identifying, early in the process of drug development, viable candidates and eliminating those lacking promise. Primary study endpoints of trials conducted under an exploratory investigational new drug can include evaluation of analogs for lead selection, modulation of a molecular target in vivo, whole-body imaging for tissue distribution/target binding affinity, and agent pharmacokinetics. Phase 0 trials bridge the gap between traditional preclinical testing and clinical studies and are intended to provide a better understanding of a new compound's pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and target localization before initiation of Phase I trials. When such information can be obtained earlier, decisions regarding drug development can also be made at an earlier point in time, potentially reducing costs of initial preclinical studies and time-to-first-in-human testing. This review provides an overview of the various conditions that have to be met in order for a Phase 0 trial to be successful, citing examples of two candidate drugs that have been further developed after Phase 0 trials in oncology. Challenges and opportunities with Phase 0 trials are discussed, including ethical issues associated with trials that have no therapeutic or diagnostic intent.
    Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials 10/2013; 5:119-126. DOI:10.2147/OAJCT.S32978
  • Source

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014