L Bergmann1, B Berns2, A G Dalgleish3, M von Euler4, T T Hecht5, G L Lappin6, N Reed7, S Palmeri8, J Smyth9, S Embacher-Aichorn10, H Zwierzina11. 1. Cancer Center Rhein-Main, Medical Clinic II, J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany. 2. Research and Development, Ortho Biotech Oncology, High Wycombe. 3. Division of Oncology, St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London, London. 4. Oncology Clinical Development, Roche, Welwyn Garden City, UK. 5. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda. 6. Science and Technology, Xceleron, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA. 7. Clinical Oncology, Beatson Oncology Centre, Glasgow, UK. 8. Medical Oncology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 9. Medical Oncology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 10. Department of Internal Medicine/Medical Oncology, Medizinische Universität, Innsbruck, Austria. 11. Department of Internal Medicine/Medical Oncology, Medizinische Universität, Innsbruck, Austria. Electronic address: Heinz.Zwierzina@i-med.ac.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug development traditionally has relied upon the complementary contributions of clinicians and scientists at academic institutions and at pharmaceutical companies. Greater regulatory burdens, increased bureaucratic requirements, restricted reimbursement, and spiralling research and development costs are exerting pressure on the drug development pipeline. The result is a de-emphasis of exploratory research, particularly independent academic research, despite its proven value in identifying new drug targets and developing innovative cancer therapies. DESIGN: An expert panel assembled by the Biotherapy Development Association-a nonprofit international forum for academic and industry researchers, patients, and government regulatory and postregulatory agencies-examined the growing schism between academia and industry and identified several causes of declining academic research. RESULTS: The authors propose solutions to sustain investigator-initiated research and provide a new model whereby expert organisations provide a forum for academia and industry to plan studies within a regulatory framework to support licensure/authorisation and reimbursement for new molecularly targeted agents and biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Investigator-initiated trials have led to the discovery and development of innovative, safe, and effective cancer treatments. To ensure that such research continues, action will be required on the parts of legislative and regulatory bodies, industry, universities, patient advocacy organisations, and preclinical and clinical academic scientists.
BACKGROUND: Drug development traditionally has relied upon the complementary contributions of clinicians and scientists at academic institutions and at pharmaceutical companies. Greater regulatory burdens, increased bureaucratic requirements, restricted reimbursement, and spiralling research and development costs are exerting pressure on the drug development pipeline. The result is a de-emphasis of exploratory research, particularly independent academic research, despite its proven value in identifying new drug targets and developing innovative cancer therapies. DESIGN: An expert panel assembled by the Biotherapy Development Association-a nonprofit international forum for academic and industry researchers, patients, and government regulatory and postregulatory agencies-examined the growing schism between academia and industry and identified several causes of declining academic research. RESULTS: The authors propose solutions to sustain investigator-initiated research and provide a new model whereby expert organisations provide a forum for academia and industry to plan studies within a regulatory framework to support licensure/authorisation and reimbursement for new molecularly targeted agents and biomarkers. CONCLUSIONS: Investigator-initiated trials have led to the discovery and development of innovative, safe, and effective cancer treatments. To ensure that such research continues, action will be required on the parts of legislative and regulatory bodies, industry, universities, patient advocacy organisations, and preclinical and clinical academic scientists.
Authors: Edward L Trimble; Jeffrey S Abrams; Ralph M Meyer; Fabien Calvo; Eduardo Cazap; James Deye; Elizabeth Eisenhauer; Thomas J Fitzgerald; Denis Lacombe; Max Parmar; Nita Seibel; Lalitha Shankar; Ann Marie Swart; Patrick Therasse; Bhadrasain Vikram; Remy von Frenckell; Michael Friedlander; Keiichi Fujiwara; Richard S Kaplan; Francoise Meunier Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul Workman; Eric O Aboagye; Yuen-Li Chung; John R Griffiths; Rachel Hart; Martin O Leach; Ross J Maxwell; Paul M J McSheehy; Pat M Price; Jamal Zweit Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Fiona J Gilbert; Antoinne K Ah-See; Oleg Eremin; Leslie G Walker; Tarun K Sarkar; S Peter Eggleton; Keith N Ogston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ryan Hickey; Michael Vouche; Daniel Y Sze; Elias Hohlastos; Jeremy Collins; Todd Schirmang; Khairuddin Memon; Robert K Ryu; Kent Sato; Richard Chen; Ramona Gupta; Scott Resnick; James Carr; Howard B Chrisman; Albert A Nemcek; Robert L Vogelzang; Robert J Lewandowski; Riad Salem Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 3.464