Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Medical Education Firm Launches Online Tool to Help Docs Guide Personalized Rx Decisions in NSCLC
The online decision-support tool provides oncologists with expert recommendations on first-line and maintenance treatment options for non-small cell lung cancer patients based on their patients’ medical information and tumor features, including oncogenic markers.
Clinical Care Options developed the online tool based on the treatment choices made by five US experts who were presented 96 cases with specific variables regarding patients’ medical history, such as tumor histology, genomic mutations, age, and smoking history.
In order to use the tool, oncologists select their patients’ medical information and desires and select their treatment of choice. The tool then displays how the five experts would treat this patient. The program then surveys users about how the expert recommendations impacted their treatment decisions.
The firm presented the results of this survey in a poster at the Chicago Multidisciplinary Symposium in Thoracic Oncology this week. The tool has been used by approximately 1,000 physicians around the world, according to Jim Mortimer, senior director of oncology programs and partnership development at Clinical Care Options. Overall, approximately 23 percent of clinicians who used the tool have said it helped change their decisions, while 50 percent indicated the tool helped confirm their initial treatment strategy.
Specifically, with regard to genomically guided personalized NSCLC treatments, all five of the experts selected Pfizer’s Xalkori (crizotinib) whenever a patient case involved the ALK fusion gene. However, out of 80 cases entered by oncologists involving this marker, only around 40 percent selected Xalkori. And although in NSCLC cases with mutated EGFR the experts selected Genentech’s Tarceva (erlotinib), only 60 percent of the 100 such cases entered by clinicians into the tool chose the drug.
The data collected by Clinical Care Options suggest that its decision-support tool may be a useful resource when oncologists want to assess how their peers would prescribe a genomically targeted personalized treatment. These drugs, compared to standard treatments, are relatively new to the market and expensive. Pfizer’s Xalkori was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration last year while Genentech is in the process of getting approval for Tarceva in the US as a first-line treatment for NSCLC patients who have EGFR mutations. Last year, the European Commission approved the use of Tarceva as a first-line treatment for NSCLC in patients with EGFR mutations (PGx Reporter 9/7/2011).
Clinical Care Options said launched the online tool because it noticed that physicians often look for advice beyond broad treatment guidelines when it comes to making decisions for specific patients.
“The tool recommendations align very well with the treatment guidelines but the advantage of the tool is the granularity of the case specifics. Users of the tool can quickly enter in details of a case and see the results for what five experts would recommend,” Mortimer told PGx Reporter. “This contrasts with guidelines that apply to broad groups and provide lists of suitable treatments.”
Mortimer noted that some of the experts’ recommendations included in the tool are outside of the exact indication of a particular drug. However, because the experts’ treatment decisions were evidence based, they “did not indicate any issues with reimbursement.”
Clinical Care Options has developed a continuing medical education-certified program that includes the tool with educational grants from Genentech and Pfizer.
Related Stories
- NCI Taps GNS Healthcare to Build In Silico Models of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
July 15, 2011 / BioInform
- Diaceutics, London Genetics to Develop Informatics Solution for Biomarker Research
September 17, 2010 / BioInform
- Diaceutics, London Genetics to Co-Develop Software to Support Biomarker Research Collaborations
September 15, 2010 / Pharmacogenomics Reporter
- As USPTO Rules in Favor of Intel, Health Discovery Seeks Decision on Rightful Owner of Patent
September 17, 2012 / GenomeWeb Daily News
- Case Study Suggests FISH Test May Miss Some Patients Who Could Benefit from Crizotinib
September 12, 2012 / Pharmacogenomics Reporter
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
I actually consider this amazing blog , âSAME SCIENTIFIC IMPACT: Scientific Publishing –
Open Journals vs. Subscription-based « Pharmaceutical Intelligenceâ, very compelling plus the blog post ended up being a good read.
Many thanks,Annette
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.