 |
|||
|
GfK HealthCare | August 2011 | |
|
|||
ASCO Annual Meeting Buzz: Advancements in Treating Smaller Oncology Indications  By Petra Maertens, Director and Chantal Savelkouls, Director Once again this year’s American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting was a busy and well-attended congress. For those of us seasoned ASCO veterans who have been attending for numerous years, as the GfK Oncology team has, we are used to the sheer size of this conference and the wealth of information presented. Therefore it is always interesting when we talk to those attending for the first time. As one of them commented to us: “It is bewildering fighting your way through the information jungle, there is so much data being presented. Where do I go first?” So what was the interesting data coming out of ASCO this year? Talking with attendees during and after the conference, it was evident that this year was exciting, which inevitably not every year at ASCO can be, with various products presenting impressive data. Talking with oncologists, for example, the biggest buzz was not around some of the bigger indications, as can often be expected, but rather around the treatment of smaller indications, particularly malignant melanoma. For many years, melanoma has been one of the cancer indications with a significant unmet need and that has for oncologists been a frustrating disease to treat. Over the years oncologists have seen many drugs enter clinical trials for this indication, but unfortunately to date none has been able to provide any benefit. In fact when talking to oncologists about melanoma treatment in the past, a sense of resignation has often come through. Therefore it was extremely exciting for ASCO attendees that this year not one, but two, drugs were able to show very positive data in melanoma: Vemurafenib and Ipilimumab. The data presented was deemed to be so important that melanoma was the only indication with two plenary sessions this year, when usually each indication has only one. Our team attended both of those sessions, and the atmosphere at the start of each was filled with anticipation. Typically, attendees walk in and out during sessions, but this time presenters encountered quiet and attentive audiences. Talking to oncologists later, we heard that even those physicians not treating melanoma attended. They told us the data was so exciting and revolutionary that they wanted to see it firsthand. Their comments supported the sense of optimism that was apparent among those who attended the sessions. Another interesting topic was in the area of non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), more specifically the use of biomarkers in this indication. It does not seem long ago that NSCLC was felt by many oncologists to be a largely difficult-to-treat disease, not unlike melanoma. However at this year’s ASCO it was clear that NSCLC is pioneering the way in which biomarkers are being used to drive oncology treatment decisions. According to one study presented, patients who tested positive for one of more than 10 biomarkers and were offered targeted treatment or participation in a clinical trial, irrespective of which biomarker, showed better efficacy results over those getting chemotherapy alone. This supports the belief that the future of cancer treatment is one of personalized therapy, with drugs chosen according to the mutations found in the patient's tumor, rather than chemotherapy chosen for the organ where the tumor is located. Although gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) has become, thanks to the advent of very effective drugs, an easier-to-treat indication for oncologists today than in the past, there was also exciting data presented in this area. The study presented showed the benefits of treating those patients with high risk GIST in the adjuvant setting for longer. This raises an important question and one that was also a point of discussion among ASCO attendees, regardless of which indication. How long is the optimal treatment duration? As we move further into the era of targeted therapies this question will become more relevant regardless of whether we are talking about GIST, NSCLC or colorectal cancer. Given the mechanism of many of these drugs, they are designed to be used for a longer duration. But how long is enough? A study in ovarian cancer also caused some excitement among physicians. Ovarian cancer is an indication where to date limited options exist and where for the last 15 years no significant progress has been made. Therefore attendees were excited to see that a new drug option exists that when added to standard chemotherapy provides efficacy benefits. Breast cancer is today an indication where several good options exist and where, with the help of early screening, outcomes can be good. But there was also some excitement in this arena. A study showed positive data for an aromatase inhibitor in breast cancer prevention for those post-menopausal women deemed at high risk of developing the disease. Overall this year’s ASCO was an exciting conference where many attendees we talked with left feeling more optimistic and hopeful about the future of cancer treatment, especially in those tumors that have proven frustrating for oncologists’ day-to-day practice. One last observation from the team at ASCO: While the number of conference attendees this year was similar to last year (31,800 in 2011 vs 32,700 in 2010), it seemed that the exhibition hall was less well attended by physicians, and that exhibitors, especially the bigger pharmaceutical companies, had scaled down considerably on their booths. This did not go unnoticed by physician attendees, who often commented when visiting our GfK booth that the increasing restrictions being placed on pharmaceutical companies from year to year are deemed to be increasingly unrealistic, especially when physicians from certain states can no longer even be offered a cup of coffee. |
Want to learn more on this topic? Please contact:   |