S Martín-Algarra1, L de la Cruz-Merino2, V Soriano3, J L Manzano4, E Espinosa5. 1. Department of Oncology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra. Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra (IDISNA), Av. Pío XII, 36, 31008, Pamplona, Navarra, España, Spain. smalgarra@unav.es. 2. Department of Clinical Oncology, Hospital Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain. 3. Department of Oncology, Instituto Valenciano Oncología, Valencia, Spain. 4. Department of Oncology, Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol. ICO-Badalona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Department of Oncology, Hospital La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Ipilimumab has been approved in patients with advanced melanoma by different regulatory bodies worldwide, but its use in clinical practice is not fully consistent among oncologists. We have surveyed a representative sample of Spanish medical oncologists on issues related to the use of ipilimumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was based on the Delphi method, where experts respond anonymously to two rounds of a questionnaire. Questionnaire consisted of 42 statements divided among the following eight categories: Pathology and Diagnosis; Patterns of Response; Parameters affecting Treatment Selection; Patient Profile; Sequencing of Treatment; Definition of Long-Term Survivors; Quality of Life; Concept of Immuno-oncology. The experts were asked to rate each statement on a scale of 1-9, where 1 meant "completely disagree" and 9 meant "completely agree". RESULTS: Thirty-three oncologists responded to both rounds of the survey (62.3 % of total surveyed). On issues related to pathology and diagnosis, patterns of response, and immuno-oncology, the specialists reached a high level of consensus. There was also a high level of agreement, albeit without consensus on assessment of BRAF mutations before deciding on treatment with ipilimumab. However, there was a lower level of agreement on sequencing treatment with BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab, on predictive factors, on the use of corticosteroids, and on patient quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in many of these topics suggests that oncologists need more information on certain aspects of ipilimumab treatment. We need to define generally accepted algorithms of treatment, especially with regard to issues that were shown to be controversial or unclear.
INTRODUCTION:Ipilimumab has been approved in patients with advanced melanoma by different regulatory bodies worldwide, but its use in clinical practice is not fully consistent among oncologists. We have surveyed a representative sample of Spanish medical oncologists on issues related to the use of ipilimumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was based on the Delphi method, where experts respond anonymously to two rounds of a questionnaire. Questionnaire consisted of 42 statements divided among the following eight categories: Pathology and Diagnosis; Patterns of Response; Parameters affecting Treatment Selection; Patient Profile; Sequencing of Treatment; Definition of Long-Term Survivors; Quality of Life; Concept of Immuno-oncology. The experts were asked to rate each statement on a scale of 1-9, where 1 meant "completely disagree" and 9 meant "completely agree". RESULTS: Thirty-three oncologists responded to both rounds of the survey (62.3 % of total surveyed). On issues related to pathology and diagnosis, patterns of response, and immuno-oncology, the specialists reached a high level of consensus. There was also a high level of agreement, albeit without consensus on assessment of BRAF mutations before deciding on treatment with ipilimumab. However, there was a lower level of agreement on sequencing treatment with BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab, on predictive factors, on the use of corticosteroids, and on patient quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The disparity in many of these topics suggests that oncologists need more information on certain aspects of ipilimumab treatment. We need to define generally accepted algorithms of treatment, especially with regard to issues that were shown to be controversial or unclear.
Authors: Keith T Flaherty; Caroline Robert; Peter Hersey; Paul Nathan; Claus Garbe; Mohammed Milhem; Lev V Demidov; Jessica C Hassel; Piotr Rutkowski; Peter Mohr; Reinhard Dummer; Uwe Trefzer; James M G Larkin; Jochen Utikal; Brigitte Dreno; Marta Nyakas; Mark R Middleton; Jürgen C Becker; Michelle Casey; Laurie J Sherman; Frank S Wu; Daniele Ouellet; Anne-Marie Martin; Kiran Patel; Dirk Schadendorf Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S Martín-Algarra; M T Fernández-Figueras; J A López-Martín; A Santos-Briz; A Arance; M D Lozano; A Berrocal; J J Ríos-Martín; E Espinosa; J L Rodríguez-Peralto Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Vafa Shahabi; Gena Whitney; Omid Hamid; Henrik Schmidt; Scott D Chasalow; Suresh Alaparthy; Jeffrey R Jackson Journal: Cancer Immunol Immunother Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 6.968
Authors: Jedd D Wolchok; Jeffrey S Weber; Omid Hamid; Celeste Lebbé; Michele Maio; Dirk Schadendorf; Veerle de Pril; Kevin Heller; Tai-Tsang Chen; Ramy Ibrahim; Axel Hoos; Steven J O'Day Journal: Cancer Immun Date: 2010-10-20
Authors: M F Avril; S Aamdal; J J Grob; A Hauschild; P Mohr; J J Bonerandi; M Weichenthal; K Neuber; T Bieber; K Gilde; V Guillem Porta; J Fra; J Bonneterre; P Saïag; D Kamanabrou; H Pehamberger; J Sufliarsky; J L Gonzalez Larriba; A Scherrer; Y Menu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Alfonso Berrocal; Ana Arance; Jose Antonio Lopez Martin; Virtudes Soriano; Eva Muñoz; Lorenzo Alonso; Enrique Espinosa; Pilar Lopez Criado; Javier Valdivia; Salvador Martin Algarra Journal: Melanoma Res Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.599