DOCSLIB.ORG

Overcoming the Challenges of Oral Oncolytic Therapies with a Specialized Crew

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Overcoming the Challenges of Oral Oncolytic Therapies with a Specialized Crew Navigating Safely Through Uncharted Waters: Overcoming the Challenges of Oral Oncolytic Therapies with a Specialized Crew Mitchell E. Hughes, PharmD, BCPS, BCOP Clinical Pharmacy Specialist-Hematology/Oncology The Abramson Cancer Center for Advanced Medicine at Penn Medicine Objectives At the completion of this activity, the participant will be able to: 1. List risks associated with dispensing oral oncolytic agent 2. Recognize potential barriers to implementation of a vigilance program for oral oncolytic agents 3. Discuss strategies to improve safety and communications involved with dispensing oral oncolytic agents 2 Disclosure “I have not received any commercial or financial support for this program” 3 Oral Chemotherapy Definition “Any drug you take by mouth to treat cancer. Oral chemo is not given to you with a needle. It’s a liquid or pill that you swallow.” “Chemo you swallow is as strong as other forms of chemo and works just as well. You take oral chemo at home” “But oral chemo drugs cost a lot” –The American Cancer Society 4 Image available from: https://localtvwiti.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/chemo-pills.jpg?quality=85&strip=all https://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatments-and-side-effects/treatment-types/chemotherapy/oral-chemotherapy.html Misconceptions Oral chemotherapy is less toxic than intravenous (IV) chemotherapy Oral chemotherapy requires less monitoring than IV Patients will be able to start therapy the day oral chemotherapy is prescribed Oral chemotherapy does not involve any hazardous precautions 5 Image available from: http://www.ideastorenepal.com/Upload/Ideas/f434627b-a017-42cd-aded-8fba881b9bd4.jpg FDA Approvals 1953-1999 1990: Altremtamine 1995: Anastrozole, biclutamide 1953: Mercaptopurine, 1996: Nilutamide methotrexate 1997: Letrozole 1954: Busulfan 1970: Mitotane 1998: Capecitabine, 1957: Chlorambucil 1976: Lomustine thalidomide 1959: Cyclophosphamide 1977: Tamoxifen 1999: Exemestane, temozolomide, bexarotene 1964: Melphalan 1981: Estramustine 1966: Thioguanine 1986: Etoposide 1967: Hydroxyurea 1989: Flutamide 1969: Procarbazine Number of Oral Agents Approved Between 1953 and 1999: 25 over 46 years 6 https://www.fda.gov/ FDA Approvals 2000-2017 2001: Imatinib 2013: Sorafenib, ibrutinib, afatinib, trametinib, 2003: Gefitinib dabrafenib, erlotinib, pomalidomide 2004: Erlotinib, trentinoin 2014: Olaparib, ruxolitinib, idelalisib, ceritinib 2005: Sorafenib, lenalidomide 2015: Alectinib, ixazomib, osimertinib, 2006: Dasatinib, sunitinib, vorinostat trifluridine/tiperacil, eltrombopag, sonidegib, 2007: Topotecan, nilotinib, lapatinib gefitinib, panobinostat, lenvatinib, palbociclib, 2009: Everolimus, pazopanib cobimetinib 2011: Ruxolitinib, vandetanib, crizotinib, 2016: Rucaparib, levatinib, venetoclax vemurafenib, abiraterone 2017: Olaparib, enasidenib, neratinib, brigatinib, 2012: Vismodegib, axitinib, bosutinib, niraparib, ribociclib regorafenib, enzalutamide, cabozatinib, ponatinib Number of Oral Agents Approved Number of Oral Agents Approved Between 2001 and 2012: 26 over 12 Between 2013 and 2017: 31 over 5 years years 7 https://www.fda.gov/ Relevance 30-35% of antineoplastics in development are oral formulations 63-89% of patients prefer oral therapy Challenges: Drug acquisition Insurance reimbursement Oral Agents Oral Agents Oral Agents Approved: Approved: Approved: Compliance 1953-1999 2001-2012 2013-2017 Pharmacologic interactions 25 over 46 26 over 12 31 over 5 Patient education years years years Safe handling Financial impact 8 Vu B, et al. JHOP. 2011;1(2). Accessed from: http://jhoponline.com/jhop-issue-archive/2011-issues/june-vol-1-no-2/14266-top-14266 A High-Risk Population Over 25 million oral doses administered annually Error rate: 8.1 errors per 100 clinic visits A 2006 survey of US cancer centers found: 1 in 4 centers have standard safeguards 1 in 5 have measures to monitor safe administration and monitoring Weingart SN, et al. BMJ. 2007;334:407-409 Gandhi TK et al. Cancer. 2005;104:2477-2483 Walsh KE, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:891-896 Weingart SN, et al. Cancer. 2010;116:10:2455-2464 9 Image available from: http://www.untamedscience.com/science/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/boat-with-wave2.jpg Areas of Vulnerability American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Guidelines on Preventing Medication Errors with Chemotherapy and Biotherapy Administration (56%) and ordering (36) were the most common phases where errors occur The exact rate of errors with oral chemotherapy is not well studied The routine use of safety systems is not used for oral chemotherapy 10 Goldspiel B, et al. ASHP Council on Pharmacy Practice. 2014: 231-256 Image available from: http://saimg-a.akamaihd.net/saatchi/685505/art/3775087/2844971-WWUDPNBS-7.jpg Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) Error Report Organizations focus robustly on safety of parenteral oncology agents, but inadvertently omit oral chemotherapy Report: A 60 yo female who took the equivalent of 3 cycles of oral lomustine therapy, thinking the pharmacy only dispensed one dose (450 mg dispensed instead of 150 mg), leading to death 5 other cases since 1977 reported with lomustine 11 Accessed from: https://www.ismp.org/newsletters/acutecare/showarticle.aspx?id=84 ISMP Action Plan Recommendations Prescribers: Nurses: Specify single doses Reinforce education (Patient counseling) Be specific with patients (Patient counseling) Insurers: Provide written instructions Pay for a single month supply only Pharmacists: Manufacturer: Provide alerts (e.g. “Single dose Enhance label warnings in the only”) package insert Only dispense a single dose FDA and Manufacturer: Provide patient counseling Require a mandatory medication Supply leaflets guide Enhance Labeling Fill in community pharmacies (Unless patient counseling can occur) 12 Accessed from: https://www.ismp.org/newsletters/acutecare/showarticle.aspx?id=84 National Cancer Institute (NCI) Survey A questionnaire investigating the use of oral chemotherapy Received 42 completed questionnaires from 42 of 54 eligible NCI cancer centers 29 centers used handwritten prescriptions Organizations did not require compulsory requirements on the prescription and there is a lack of standardization Only 1/3 required written informed consent 26 centers have a nurse or pharmacist review oral therapies during an infusion appointment Estimated 42% of patients decline a pharmacist consultation No consensus for the safe practice of oral chemotherapy 13 Weingart S, et al. BMJ. 2007;334(7590):407 Medication Errors Involving Oral Chemotherapy Weingart et al. Purpose To investigate errors in prescribing, dispensing, administration and monitoring of oral chemotherapies Design Combination of literature reports and voluntary reporting Population Pubmed, Google, LexisNexis, USP, Dana Farber Harvard Cancer Center, 14 members of the Comprehensive Cancer Center Consortium for Quality Improvement, incident reports, pharmacy intervention data, and prompted clinician reports 14 Weingart SN, et al. Cancer. 2010;116:10:2455-2464 Medication Errors Involving Oral Chemotherapy: Results Medication Error Adverse Drug Near Miss Error with Low Event (%) (%) Risk of Harm (%) Wrong or extra dose (N=197) 35 (17.8) 137 (69.5) 25 (12.7) Wrong drug (N=69) 17 (24.6) 48 (69.6) 4 (5.8) Wrong no. of days supplied (N=56) 22 (39.3) 30 (53.6) 4 (7.1) Missed dose or nonadherence (N=51) 9 (17.6) 12 (23.5) 30 (58.8) Failure to check treatment parameters (N=32) 1 (3.1) 31 (96.9) 0 Wrong instructions (N=17) 3 (17.6) 11 (64.7) 3 (17.6) Wrong frequency (N=13) 1 (7.7) 12 (92.3) 0 Incomplete prescription (N=13) 0 9 (69.2) 4 (30.8) Wrong time/delay (N=12) 2 (16.7) 1 (8.3) 9 (75) Protocol breach (N=12) 1 (8.3) 7 (58.3) 4 (33.3) Wrong patient (N=11) 2 (18.2) 8 (72.7) 1 (9.1) Order system error (N=10) 0 7 (70) 3 (30) Dispensing error (N=9) 3 (33.3) 6 (66.7) 0 Other (N=6) 3 (50) 3 (50) 0 15 Weingart SN, et al. Cancer. 2010;116:10:2455-2464 Medication Errors Involving Oral Chemotherapy: Conclusions Majority of events were near misses Most commonly seen wrong or extra dose, wrong drug, wrong number of days supplied, and missed dose or nonadherence Ordering of medications (N=117) accounted for most dose errors (59.4%%), followed by administration errors (27.4%), with dispensing errors being the least leading cause (13.2%) Results subject to reporting bias Selection bias (Large cancer centers>community oncology population) Lacks number of doses dispensed to estimate event rates 16 Weingart SN, et al. Cancer. 2010;116:10:2455-2464 Interventions to Improve Oral Chemotherapy Safety and Quality JAMA Oncology summary of peer-reviewed and gray literature on interventions to improve oral chemotherapy Limitations in the body of literature including inconsistent outcome definitions and primary outcome statistical testing Interventions focused on education and remote telephone-based monitoring following initiation likely results in lower toxicity profiles E-health has not shown improvements in outcomes at this time A framework and standardized outcome definitions are needed to evaluate interventions improving oral chemotherapy delivery 17 Zerillo JA, et al. JAMA Oncology. 2017. Published Online. Available at: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2629957 The Journey So Far… 18 Image available from: https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2015-10/28/3/campaign_images/webdr04/climbing- mount-everest-everything-you-need-to-know-2-26703-1446016282-6_dblbig.jpg Specialty Pharmacy Definition
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Potential High-Impact Interventions Report Priority Area 02: Cancer
    AHRQ Healthcare Horizon Scanning System – Potential High-Impact Interventions Report Priority Area 02: Cancer Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA290201000006C Prepared by: ECRI Institute 5200 Butler Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 December 2012 Statement of Funding and Purpose This report incorporates data collected during implementation of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Healthcare Horizon Scanning System by ECRI Institute under contract to AHRQ, Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA290201000006C). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This report’s content should not be construed as either endorsements or rejections of specific interventions. As topics are entered into the System, individual topic profiles are developed for technologies and programs that appear to be close to diffusion into practice in the United States. Those reports are sent to various experts with clinical, health systems, health administration, and/or research backgrounds for comment and opinions about potential for impact. The comments and opinions received are then considered and synthesized by ECRI Institute to identify interventions that experts deemed, through the comment process, to have potential for high impact. Please see the methods section for more details about this process. This report is produced twice annually and topics included may change depending on expert comments received on interventions issued for comment during the preceding 6 months.
    [Show full text]
  • Investigator Initiated Study IRB-29839 an Open-Label Pilot Study To
    Investigator Initiated Study IRB-29839 An open-label pilot study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combination treatment of Sonidegib and BKM120 for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinomas Version 05 September 2016 NCT02303041 DATE: 12Dec2018 1 Coordinating Center Stanford Cancer Center 875 Blake Wilbur Drive Stanford, CA 94305 And 450 Broadway, MC 5334 Redwood City, CA 94603 Protocol Director and Principal Investigator Anne Lynn S Chang, MD, Director of Dermatological Clinical Trials 450 Broadway St, MC 5334 Redwood City, CA 94603 [email protected] Co-Investigator Anthony Oro, MD PhD 450 Broadway St, MC 5334 Redwood City, CA 94603 [email protected] Biostatistician Shufeng Li, MS 450 Broadway St, MC 5334 Redwood City, CA 94603 [email protected] Study Coordinator Ann Moffat 450 Broadway St, MC 5334 Redwood City, CA 94603 [email protected] 2 Table of Contents 1 Background ................................................................. 7 1.1 Disease Background ..................................................... 7 1.2 Hedgehog Pathway and mechanism of action ............................... 7 1.3 PI3K Pathway and mechanism of action ................................... 9 1.4 Sonidegib Compound Information ............ Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4.1 Preclinical Studies for Sonidegib ....................................................................11 1.4.2 Muscular system...............................................................................................13 1.4.3 Skeletal system ................................................................................................13
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Oncology: Moving Beyond the Tip of the Iceberg Jane De Lartigue, Phd
    FeatureCommunity Report Genomic oncology: moving beyond the tip of the iceberg Jane de Lartigue, PhD istorically, cancer has been diagnosed and in patients with lung cancer, even the most efec- treated on the basis of the tissue of ori- tive targeted therapies can fail if used in the wrong Hgin. Te promise of personalized therapy, patient population.5,6 matched more precisely to an individual’s tumor, In recognition of this issue, the oncology feld has was ushered in with the development of molecularly developed molecular biomarkers that can predict targeted therapies, based on a greater understanding response, or lack thereof, to targeted therapy. Drugs of cancer as a genomic-driven disease. Here, we dis- are now commonly being evaluated in trials that cuss some of the evolution of genomic oncology, the select eligible patients on the basis of biomarker pos- inherent complexities and challenges, and how novel itivity, and a number of companion diagnostics have clinical trial designs are among the strategies being been codeveloped to assist in these eforts (Table 1). developed to address them and shape the future of Notable successes include the development of the personalized medicine in cancer. monoclonal antibody trastuzumab for patients with breast cancers that have human epidermal growth The evolution of genomic oncology factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene amplifcation or In the 15 years since the frst map of the human HER2 protein overexpression,7 and the small mol- genome emerged, genetics has become an inte- ecule BRAF kinase inhibitor
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigator-Initiated Open-Label Trial of Sonidegib in Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma Patients Resistant to Vismodegib Christina Danial, Kavita Y
    Published OnlineFirst November 6, 2015; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1588 Clinical Trial Brief Report Clinical Cancer Research An Investigator-Initiated Open-Label Trial of Sonidegib in Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma Patients Resistant to Vismodegib Christina Danial, Kavita Y. Sarin, Anthony E. Oro, and Anne Lynn S. Chang Abstract Purpose: To assess the tumor response to the smoothened sive disease with sonidegib. Three patients experienced stable (SMO) inhibitor, sonidegib (LDE225), in patients with an disease and discontinued sonidegib either due to adverse events advanced basal cell carcinoma (BCC) resistant to treatment with (n ¼ 1) or due to election for surgery (n ¼ 2). The response of one vismodegib (GDC0449). patient was not evaluable. SMO mutations with in vitro data Experimental Design: Nine patients with an advanced suggesting resistance to Hh pathway inhibition were identified BCC that was previously resistant to treatment with vismode- in 5 patients, and none of these patients experienced responses gib were given sonidegib in this investigational, open- while on sonidegib. label study. Tumor response was determined using the Conclusion: Patients with advanced BCCs that were response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. SMO mutations previously resistant to treatment with vismodegib similarly were identified using biopsy samples from the target BCC demonstrated treatment resistance with sonidegib. Patients location. who have developed treatment resistance to an SMO inhibitor Results: The median duration of treatment with sonidegib was may continue to experience tumor progression in response to 6 weeks (range, 3–58 weeks). Five patients experienced progres- other SMO inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res; 1–5. Ó2015 AACR. Introduction Sonidegib (LDE225) is a new SMO inhibitor approved in 2015 by the FDA for locally advanced BCCs.
    [Show full text]
  • Combination of Ponatinib with Hedgehog Antagonist Vismodegib for Therapy-Resistant BCR-ABL1–Positive Leukemia
    Published OnlineFirst January 14, 2013; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1777 Clinical Cancer Cancer Therapy: Preclinical Research See related commentary by Dao and Tyner, p. 1309 Combination of Ponatinib with Hedgehog Antagonist Vismodegib for Therapy-Resistant BCR-ABL1–Positive Leukemia Seiichiro Katagiri1, Tetsuzo Tauchi1, Seiichi Okabe1, Yosuke Minami2, Shinya Kimura3, Taira Maekawa4, Tomoki Naoe2, and Kazuma Ohyashiki1 Abstract Purpose: The Hedgehog signaling pathway is a key regulator of cell growth and differentiation during development. Whereas the Hedgehog pathway is inactive in most normal adult tissues, Hedgehog pathway reactivation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of several neoplasms including BCR-ABL1–positive leukemia. The clear link between the Hedgehog pathway and BCR-ABL1–positive leukemia led to an effort to identify small molecules to block the pathway. Experimental Design: We investigated the combined effects of vismodegib and ponatinib, a pan-ABL1 kinase inhibitor, in nonobese diabetic/severe-combined immunodeficiency (NOD/SCID) repopulating T315I BCR-ABL1–positive cells in vitro and in vivo. Results: We observed that combination with vismodegib and ponatinib helps to eliminate therapy- resistant NOD/SCID repopulating T315I BCR-ABL1–positive cells. The percentage of CD19-positive leukemia cells in peripheral blood was significantly lower in vismodegib þ ponatinib–treated mice than that of the vehicle or ponatinib alone (P < 0.001). Spleen weights were also lower in vismodegib þ ponatinib–treated mice than in ponatinib alone (P < 0.05). Overall tumor burden, as assessed by BCR-ABL mRNA from bone marrow cells, was significantly lower in vismodegib þ ponatinib–treated mice than in ponatinib alone (P < 0.005).
    [Show full text]
  • Imatinib (Gleevec™)
    Biologicals What Are They? When Did All of this Happen? There are Clear Benefits. Are there also Risks? Brian J Ward Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre Global Health, Immunity & Infectious Diseases Grand Rounds – March 2016 Biologicals Biological therapy involves the use of living organisms, substances derived from living organisms, or laboratory-produced versions of such substances to treat disease. National Cancer Institute (USA) What Effects Do Steroids Have on Immune Responses? This is your immune system on high dose steroids projects.accessatlanta.com • Suppress innate and adaptive responses • Shut down inflammatory responses in progress • Effects on neutrophils, macrophages & lymphocytes • Few problems because use typically short-term Virtually Every Cell and Pathway in Immune System ‘Target-able’ (Influenza Vaccination) Reed SG et al. Nature Medicine 2013 Nakaya HI et al. Nature Immunology 2011 Landscape - 2013 Antisense (30) Cell therapy (69) Gene Therapy (46) Monoclonal Antibodies (308) Recombinant Proteins (93) Vaccines (250) Other (81) http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/biologicsoverview2013.pdf Therapeutic Category Drugs versus Biologics Patented Ibuprofen (Advil™) Generic Ibuprofen BioSimilars/BioSuperiors ? www.drugbank.ca Patented Etanercept (Enbrel™) BioSimilar Etanercept Etacept™ (India) Biologics in Cancer Therapy Therapeutic Categories • Hormonal Therapy • Monoclonal antibodies • Cytokine therapy • Classical vaccine strategies • Adoptive T-cell or dendritic cells transfer • Oncolytic
    [Show full text]
  • Access to Cancer Medicines in Australia
    Access to cancer medicines in Australia Medicines Australia Oncology Industry Taskforce July 2013 Contents Glossary ..................................................................................................................................... i Executive summary .................................................................................................................... i 1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of this report ....................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Report structure ............................................................................................................... 9 2 Cancer in Australia and other countries ......................................................................... 10 2.1 Population statistics on cancer ........................................................................................ 10 2.2 Population impacts of cancer in Australia ........................................................................ 24 2.3 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 33 3 Current and future cancer medicines ............................................................................ 34 3.1 Current
    [Show full text]
  • Session #3 Mfoflox-6 FOLFIRI ± Bevacizumab
    Management of Patients Receiving Oral Chemotherapy Siu Fun Wong, PharmD, FASHP, FCSHP Professor and Associate Dean Chapman University School of Pharmacy (CUSP) Irvine, CA Disclosure I have no conflict of interest . Objectives At the end of the presentation, the participants will be able to: 1. Recognize the difference in care required by patients receiving parenteral vs. oral chemotherapy 2. Deliver personalized care to patients receiving oral chemotherapy 3. Provide appropriate education relating to oral chemotherapy to patients and/or caregivers. Types of Oral Anti-cancer Chemotherapy Cytotoxic Agents Hormone Agents Immunomodulators Differentiating Agents Targeted Therapy Paradigm Change The rise in the use of oral oncology drugs represents a major shift in the management of patient . Directly observed treatment to unsupervised self- administration setting . Intermittent to daily chronic therapy . Perception of less toxicity with oral route of administration – both patients and providers1 . Patient preference due to convenience without compromise for efficacy2 . Provider preference, especially in palliative or adjuvant setting where QOL is paramount3 1Sharma S & Saltz LB. The Oncologist 2000; 5:99-107 2 Liu G et al. J Clin Oncol1997; 15(1):110-115 3 Benjamin et al. Eur J Cancer 2012;48(6):912-920 Goal How to empower patients to take the right dose at the right time under the right circumstances and to complete the treatment !! Effective Use and Monitoring Key (Unique) Elements to Consider Drug Administration Drug Interactions – Pharmacogenomics
    [Show full text]
  • Making Models More Accessible to Decision Makers
    11th November 2014 Making models more accessible to decision makers Michael Barry, PhD National Centre for Pharmacoeconomics, Dublin 11th November 2014 The NCPE conducts the health technology assessment (HTA) of pharmaceutical products for the Health Service Executive Recommendations on 192 medicines for 208 indications 3rd November 2014 1 11th November 2014 The HTA process The process begins with the price Rapid review to application by the determine whether a manufacturer full HTA is required Full HTA with a 90 day time frame NCPE submission to the HSE – CPU. This report will be considered by the New Drugs Group Committee 11th November 2014 Economic evaluations conducted in the Irish healthcare setting are usually in the form of CEA or CUA. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) e.g. COST/LYG Cost-utility analysis (CUA) e.g. COST/QALY 2 11th November 2014 Cost-effectiveness threshold The line passing through the origin represents our ‘acceptable’ cost- effectiveness ratio. That is our maximum (or threshold) willingness-to-pay for a unit of effect ( life year or QALY). Cost (€) Q4 Q1 Effect (QALY) Q3 Q2 The QALY threshold to be used in the HTA process is € 45,000/QALY 11th November 2014 Number of products reviewed by the NCPE 2006 - 2014 3 11th November 2014 We will read through the HTA submission ……carefully ! 11th November 2014 Products reviewed in 2014 • HTA not required = 24 (44%) • Reimbursement recommended = 5 (9%) • Full HTA required = 12 (22%) • Reimbursement not recommended = 13 (24%) 5 at the submitted price & 7 oncology products
    [Show full text]
  • Cell Plasticity and Prostate Cancer: the Role of Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition in Tumor Progression, Invasion, Metastasis and Cancer Therapy Resistance
    cancers Review Cell Plasticity and Prostate Cancer: The Role of Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition in Tumor Progression, Invasion, Metastasis and Cancer Therapy Resistance Sofia Papanikolaou, Aikaterini Vourda, Spyros Syggelos and Kostis Gyftopoulos * Department of Anatomy, University of Patras School of Medicine, Rion, 26504 Patras, Greece; [email protected] (S.P.); [email protected] (A.V.); [email protected] (S.S.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Although epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a well-known cellular process involved during normal embryogenesis and wound healing, it also has a dark side; it is a complex process that provides tumor cells with a more aggressive phenotype, facilitating tumor metastasis and even resistance to therapy. This review focuses on the key pathways of EMT in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer and the development of metastases and evasion of currently available treatments. Abstract: Prostate cancer, the second most common malignancy in men, is characterized by high heterogeneity that poses several therapeutic challenges. Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) is a dynamic, reversible cellular process which is essential in normal embryonic morphogenesis and Citation: Papanikolaou, S.; Vourda, wound healing. However, the cellular changes that are induced by EMT suggest that it may also A.; Syggelos, S.; Gyftopoulos, K. Cell play a central role in tumor progression, invasion, metastasis, and resistance to current therapeutic Plasticity and Prostate Cancer: The options. These changes include enhanced motility and loss of cell–cell adhesion that form a more Role of Epithelial–Mesenchymal aggressive cellular phenotype. Moreover, the reverse process (MET) is a necessary element of the Transition in Tumor Progression, Invasion, Metastasis and Cancer metastatic tumor process.
    [Show full text]
  • Erivedge™ (Vismodegib)
    Drug Policy: Erivedge™ (vismodegib) POLICY NUMBER SUBJECT DEPT/PROGRAM PAGE 1 OF 2 UM ONC_1222 Erivedge™ (vismodegib) UM Dept DATES COMMITTEE REVIEWED APPROVAL DATE EFFECTIVE DATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL DATES 10/03/12, 12/11/13, 03/16/15, January 13, 2021 January 29, 2021 (latest version listed last) 05/24/16, 03/05/17, 03/08/18, 10/03/12, 12/11/13, 03/16/15, 05/24/16, 03/05/17, 03/07/19, 12/11/19, 03/11/20, 03/08/18, 03/07/19, 12/11/19, 03/11/20, 01/13/21 01/13/21 PRIMARY BUSINESS OWNER: UM COMMITTEE/BOARD APPROVAL Utilization Management Committee URAC STANDARDS NCQA STANDARDS ADDITIONAL AREAS OF IMPACT HUM 1 UM 2 CMS REQUIREMENTS STATE/FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE LINES OF BUSINESS Commercial, Exchange, Medicaid I. PURPOSE To define and describe the accepted indications for Erivedge (vismodegib) usage in the treatment of cancer, including FDA approved indications, and off-label indications. New Century Health (NCH) is responsible for processing all medication requests from network ordering providers. Medications not authorized by NCH may be deemed as not approvable and therefore not reimbursable. The use of this drug must be supported by one of the following: FDA approved product labeling, CMS-approved compendia, National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) clinical guidelines, or peer-reviewed literature that meets the requirements of the CMS Medicare Benefit Policy Manual Chapter 15. II. INDICATIONS FOR USE/INCLUSION CRITERIA A. PREFERRED MEDICATION GUIDANCE FOR INITIAL REQUEST: 1. When health plan Medicaid coverage provisions—including any applicable PDLs (Preferred Drug Lists)—conflict with the coverage provisions in this drug policy, health plan Medicaid coverage provisions take precedence per the Preferred Drug Guidelines OR 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2019 −Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines
    COMPARATOR REPORT ON CANCER IN EUROPE 2019 −DISEASE BURDEN, COSTS AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES THOMAS HOFMARCHER GUNNAR BRÅDVIK CHRISTER SVEDMAN PETER LINDGREN BENGT JÖNSSON IHE REPORT NILS WILKING 2019:7 COMPARATOR REPORT ON CANCER IN EUROPE 2019 – DISEASE BURDEN, COSTS AND ACCESS TO MEDICINES Thomas Hofmarcher Gunnar Brådvik Christer Svedman Peter Lindgren Bengt Jönsson Nils Wilking IHE - The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Updated version: October 2020 Please cite this report as: Hofmarcher, T., Brådvik, G., Svedman, C., Lindgren, P., Jönsson, B., Wilking, N. Comparator Report on Cancer in Europe 2019 – Disease Burden, Costs and Access to Medicines. IHE Report 2019:7. IHE: Lund, Sweden. This report was commissioned and funded by EFPIA - the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and based on independent research delivered by IHE. EFPIA has had no influence or editorial control over the content of this report, and the views and opinions of the authors are not necessarily those of EFPIA. IHE REPORT 2019:7 e-ISSN: 1651-8187 ISSN: 1651-7628 The report can be downloaded from IHE’s website. www.ihe.se | [email protected] COMPARATOR REPORT ON CANCER IN EUROPE 2019 Foreword Cancer care remains one of the most intensely discussed health policy issues in Europe. Demographic factors such as an ageing population, in part driven by advancements in other medical fields, have led to an increased disease burden caused by cancer, both to patients and to the health care system as a whole. At the same time, there has been significant scientific advancements made, in some cases transforming cancer from a fatal to a chronic disease which in turn introduces new challenges that need to be addressed.
    [Show full text]