Show notes
Dr. Nathan Pennell and Dr. Christopher Booth discuss Common Sense Oncology, a global initiative that aims to advance patient-centered, equitable care and improve access to treatments that provide meaningful outcomes. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Nate Pennell: Hello. I'm Dr. Nate Pennell, your guest host today for the ASCO Daily News Podcast. I'm the co-director of the Cleveland Clinic Lung Cancer Program and vice chair of clinical research at the Taussig Cancer Center, and I also serve as the editor-in-chief of the ASCO Educational Book. My guest today is Dr. Christopher Booth, a professor of oncology and health sciences at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, where he also serves as the director of the Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology. He joins me today to discuss his recently published article in the 2024 ASCO Educational Book titled, "Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes that Matter." Dr. Booth also addressed this topic during a joint ASCO/European Cancer Organization session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting. Dr. Booth, welcome. Thanks for joining me. Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks for inviting me here, and I look forward to our conversation. Dr. Nate Pennell: In your article in the Educational Book, and again, thank you so much to you and your co-authors for writing that for us, and during your presentation at the ASCO Annual Meeting, I think your topic really resonated with a lot of people. You explained that the essence of oncology is delivering compassionate care, and I really was struck by the statement, "the treatments need to provide meaningful care, meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter regardless of where the patients live." Can you just tell us what exactly is Common Sense Oncology? What's your vision for what it can do to help address some of our growing challenges today? Dr. Christopher Booth: Thanks, Nate. So, the Common Sense Oncology initiative was launched just over a year ago, and it really was a grassroots gathering of clinicians, policymakers, academics, as well as patients and patient advocates who recognize that there's many things we do well in the current cancer care system, but there's also areas that we can improve. And so it was created as a space for us to advocate for greater access for the things that we know really help people, but also to create a space where we can be willing to have some tough conversations and some humility and look within our field at some of the things that maybe aren't working as well as they should, and try to be constructive and not just be critics of the system, but actually be solution-focused and to try to move things forward. The Common Sense Oncology initiative, which has really taken off over the last year, really brings together people from all health systems who care deeply about people and their families who are with cancer. And our mission is that cancer care systems deliver treatments that have outcomes that matter to patients. And the vision is that, as you stated in your introduction, regardless of where someone lives, they have access to those cancer treatments which really do make a difference in their lives. Dr. Nate Pennell: That certainly sounds like something everyone should be behind. Before we talk about some of what Common Sense Oncology may be doing to help address some of the inequities in cancer care, one of the challenges that is addressed in your paper is the focus on modern clinical trials and perhaps some of the mistakes that we're making in how they are designed. In many ways, we sort of live in a golden age of clinical trials with biomarker driven treatments, which can be incredibly effective in small populations of people, sometimes at great expense. So, focusing on our modern clinical trials, some of the criticisms that have arisen are that perhaps the endpoints that are being designed really aren't ones that are meaningful for patients, or that the gains that they're trying to look for in these trials may not be particularly meaningful. So, talk a little bit about that, if you might. Dr. Christopher Booth One day, I might write a book called Paradoxes in Cancer Care. But there's a number of these things I think about. I'll start, Nate, in response to your question by talking about something I think of called the 'three buckets paradox.' The three buckets paradox, I think, reflects a communication failure on the part of our field whereby if a patient or member of the public only reads the newspapers about cancer, they might wonder why we even have cancer hospitals and why Dr. Pennell and Dr. Booth even have a job, because everything we're doing is curing cancer. But we know the reality is different. And so, I conceptualize cancer treatments as going into three different buckets. We have the red bucket, which are those treatments, which really are transformational, and I've been working in oncology for 20 years now and we've seen a number of these treatments. They markedly increase cure rates or help people live for many, many months or extra years of life. And we have those treatments; they're almost out of a science fiction movie. The green bucket is a series of treatments. They're not perhaps transformational, but they're very, very good. They offer substantial benefits to our patients, and we have quite a few of those. The concern that I think many of us recognize, and just to state emphatically that the problems that CSO is thinking about are not new problems; I think every oncologist has struggled with these things throughout each of our own careers. The concern is the third bucket, which includes many of our newer treatments, some of which, of course, are transformational. But many of the new treatments fall into this bucket, which have important side effects. They have major financial toxicity for patients' families and the system. They have time toxicity, especially in the last year of life. And the reality is most of these new treatments, either there's no proven benefit they help people live longer or better lives, or if they do, it's measured in a number of weeks. I think we need to reconcile the fact that we need to maybe speak honestly about some of the challenges in our field to recognize there's probably too many treatments going into that last bucket, and we need to push harder in the research ecosystem and the policy space to ensure we have more treatments in the first two buckets and that they remain widely available to everyone. So, to get to the specific issues you raised in your question, Nate, some of the effect sizes and the endpoints we're choosing are problematic, I think. We have many, many examples of incredible clinical trials and new treatments that really make a difference for the lives of our patients. I want to state emphatically that the RCT remains the best tool we have to identify new treatments for patients of tomorrow, and any challenges with clinical trials, actually, it's not the fault of the RCT; these are self-inflicted by us who design, interpret, and act on clinical trials. And so the use of surrogate endpoints is a major issue in our field. And I just want to also state emphatically that there are circumstances where surrogate endpoints make a lot of sense and we should be using them. The problem is, I think with our excitement to get treatment answers more quickly, we've really embraced surrogate endpoints in a very, very rapid way. And in fact, I shouldn't even refer to them as surrogate endpoints. Maybe we should use the term alternative endpoints because in many cases they have been found to not be valid surrogates for those things which we know matter to patients: overall survival and quality of life. So certainly, there's a place for surrogate endpoints. I think we live in an era now where the majority of clinical trials are being designed to detect improvements in progression-free survival rather than overall survival. So historically, most clinical trials were being launched to see if we could help people live longer or feel better. Now, the default endpoint is progression-free survival, which largely is based on tumor measurements on a CAT scan. And certainly, there are circumstances where those tumor measurements do relate to how someone feels or how long they live, but in most circumstances, that's not the case. I think we need to take a step back and just see the big picture here about where it is that we're going, and how can we raise the bar and ensure that we're identifying treatments that really offer meaningful gains to patients. Because we have to be honest about the fact that the patients and families are the ones who need to live through the side effects, the time toxicity and financial toxicity of these treatments. So, this is about maybe raising the bar and aiming a bit higher than we currently are. Dr. Nate Pennell: And it looks like CSO basically is putting together teams around evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication that I guess, is trying to advocate and influence this? Dr. Christopher Booth: Yeah. So, when we launched this initiative, which now is this large global coalition of people, we wanted it to be really solution focused. So, our workstream is oriented around trying to improve how we generate evidence, how we interpret evidence, and how we communicate evidence. So, the evidence generation workstream is being led by a series of leading clinical trialists from all over the world, together with patients and patient advocates who are looking at how we can come up with a framework and principles to design, perhaps a more thoughtful approach to the design, reporting, and conduct of clinical trials. So that's kind of a clinical trials workstream. And I should mention all of these project teams are populated by clinicians, academics, members of the public, as well as patient and patient advocates who, in some cases, are co-leaders of the workstreams. The evidence interpretation workstream is an educational bucket being led by clinicians and educators, together with patients, to see how we can improve the skill set of the next generation of oncologists to be better equipped in skills and epidemiology, critical appraisal, and critical thinking, so we can better dissect trials which have been well designed from those which might have some limitations, identify those treatments which have very substantial gains from those which are perhaps more marginal. And then the third workstream relates to how we communicate evidence. And this is communication broadly, how we talk about these very complex and nuanced issues at the bedside between oncologist and patient. But how we talk more broadly in society, through the media, with public and policy makers, about some of the challenges in cancer care, recognizing, of course, that no one individual, group or person is going to have the answer for what treatments matter for any specific patient. This is going to vary by every patient with their unique values, preferences and goals in life. But we think we can do a better job of talking about these issues and empowering patients to have the information they need so they can make the treatments that match their own goals and wishes. Dr. Nate Pennell: Oh, thank you. Another thing that I was interested in in your paper, and when we talk about value and whether these endpoints that are being released for drugs that become approved are meaningful to patients, the other aspect of value is, of course, the cost. And we know that basically every new drug that gets approved, just an astronomical cost these days, which doesn't often factor into whether to approve them. It doesn't often factor into a doctor's decision about whether to use them. Can you talk a little bit about this? And is cost of drugs something that CSO is interested in addressing, or is that more of just a part of the equation in determining value of these? Dr. Christopher Booth: No, I think it's a really important point. So the value construct, I'm not an economist, so I think about this as a simple Canadian chemotherapy doctor would, which is the interface of what you get - so the magnitude of benefits, that's the endpoint, and the effect size - relative to the downsides, the cost, the clinical toxicity, time toxicity, and financial toxicity. So historically, I mean, I think, Nate, you and I will remember maybe 10 or 15 years ago when this really came on the scene, all the conversations focused on the denominator, the cost of cancer medicines, which became astronomical over the last 10 or 20 years. And we've learned a few things about that over time, and I'll get to that in a moment in reference to your question. But I think as individual clinicians or investigators, or even people writing guidelines, we don't have a lot of ability to influence the price of cancer medicines, although I think we still need to speak out about these prices, which are largely unjustified. I'll come back to that. But where I think there's growing interest, and we've seen this in the last five years, is the numerator in that value construct, which is the magnitude of benefit, the endpoint, the effect size. And I think that's where we actually have much more ability to influence. We are the doctors who make treatment recommendations, the experts who write guidelines, the investigators who design trials and so I think we need to take a bit more ownership when it comes to this magnitude of benefit construct. And that's where a lot of the work that Common Sense Oncology is doing rests. But to answer your question about cost, this is a major problem. We've known that it's been shown by several groups that the price of a cancer medicine is not justified by the R and D cost, that's been shown over time. We also have a problem where the magnitude of benefit offered by that drug also has no bearing to the price. And so this speaks to the need to really, I think, undertake more rigorous health technology assessment and think very carefully about- you know every other economic model that you and I live in, Nate, if, you know, if we have a growing family, we need a larger apartment or house, we spend more money, we get a bigger house. If we want to keep up with our kids on their fast bicycles, we spend more money, we get a better bicycle. And when it comes to cancer medicines, we found that not only is there no relationship between how well the drug works and its price, our group and others have found, if anything, there's an inverse relationship, whereby the drugs with the smallest benefit have the largest price tag. And I don't think you need a PhD in economics to know that is an incredibly broken system. So, I think there's a lot that we need to talk about when it comes to cost. Common Sense Oncology cares deeply about this because it's a huge issue about health justice and global equity and access to cancer medicines. And I think we need to work on that. But we also can't forget about the numerator, which is, to what extent do these treatments help people? Dr. Nate Pennell: I know that every time I see one of these fabulous new presentations at ASCO Plenary or something like that, I just imagine many of the doctors and patients who live outside the U.S., maybe in low- and middle-income countries, who don't have the same access to basic oncology care and specialty oncology care that we do in Western countries, and what goes through their minds when they think about this. And so, I know that this is another big part of what CSO is doing, is thinking about global equity and access to cancer care. And so, can you tell me a little bit about how you're hoping to address that?…
Full show notes at the publisher 
Our TOPPODCAST Picks 
Stay Connected
