Clinical Trials

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Trials, Vol. 3, No. 2, 149-153 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/1740774506cn144oa

Listen to all the voices: an advocate's perspective on early access to investigational therapies

Musa Mayer

In this issue of the journal, The Society for Clinical Trials, whose members are clinical investigators and regulators in academia, government and industry, has published the rationale for their opposition to US Senate bill S. 1956, the socalled "ACCESS" act, which would allow the marketing of therapies that have undergone only Phase I studies (dose finding and toxicity testing) in humans, to patients with "serious and life-threatening" disease who have exhausted other treatment options. While this bill reflects the views and efforts of some cancer advocates and their supporters, it does not represent the beliefs of the cancer advocacy community overall. The essay that follows is inspired by the need for other voices from the patient and advocacy communities to be heard in this debate.

References

  • 1. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P. Dose-response effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. N Engl J Med1981; 304: 10-15.[Abstract]
  • 2. Peters WP, Shpall EJ, Jones RB et al. High-dose combination alkylating agents with bone marrow support as initial treatment for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1988; 6: 1368-1176.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 3. Williams SF, Mick R, Desser R, Golick J, Beschomer J, Bitran JD. High-dose consolidation therapy with autologous stem cell rescue in stage IV breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 1824-1130.[Abstract]
  • 4. Kennedy MJ, Beveridge, RA, Rowley, SD, Gordon GB, Abeloff MD, Davidson NE. High-dose chemotherapy with reinfusion of purged autologous bone marrow following dose-intense induction as initial therapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst1991; 83: 920-926.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 5. Antman K, Ayash L, Elias A et al. A phase II study of high-dose cyclophosphamide, thiotepa, and carboplatin with autologous marrow support in women with measurable advanced breast cancer responding to standard-dose therapy. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 102-110.
  • 6. Williams SFGilewski T, Mick R, Bitran JD. High-dose consolidation therapy with autologous stem-cell rescue in stage IV breast cancer: follow-up report. J Clin Oncol 1992; 10: 1743-1147.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 7. Peters WP et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy involving high-dose combination cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and carmustine and autologous bone marrow support for stage II/III breast cancer involving ten or more lymph nodes (CALGB 8782): a preliminary report, Proc of ASCO1990; 9: 22-22 (abstract).
  • 8. Bezwoda WR, Seymour L, Dansey RD. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic rescue as primary treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1995; 13: 2483-2289.[Abstract]
  • 9. Belanger D, Moore M, Tannock I, How American oncologists treat breast cancer: an assessment of the influence of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1991; 9: 7-16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 10. Mello MM, Brennan TA. The controversy over high-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. Health Aff (Millwood) 2001; 20: 101-117.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 11. Peters WP, Rogers MC. Variation in approval by insurance companies of coverage for autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer. N Engl J Med1994; 330: 7 473-477.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 12. Health insurance: coverage of autologous bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer (GAO/HEHS-96-83). http://www.gao.gov/archive/1996/he96083.pdf.
  • 13. Stadtmauer EA, O'Neil A, Goldstein LJ et al. Conventional-dose chemotherapy compared with high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1069-1176. (for others, see Farquahar, below).[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • 14. Rahman ZU, Frye DK, Buzdar AU et al. Impact of selection process on response rate and long-term survival of potential high-dose chemotherapy candidates treated with standard-dose doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15: 3171-3377.[Abstract]
  • 15. Weiss RB, Rifkin RM, Stewart FM et al. High-dose chemotherapy for high-risk primary breast cancer: An on-site review of the Bezwoda study. Lancet 2000; 355: 999-1003.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • 16. Bezwoda retraction. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 2973-2973.[Free Full Text]
  • 17. Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Basser R, Hetrick S, Lethaby A. High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; CD003142.
  • 18. Farquhar C, Marjoribanks J, Basser R, Lethaby A. High dose chemotherapy and autologous bone marrow or stem cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy for women with early poor prognosis breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; CD003139.
  • 19. Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs. http://abigail-alliance.org/.
  • 20. Transcript of the November 8, 2005 Meeting of the FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee, pp. 237-261. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4191T1.pdf.
  • 21. Goldberg P. An ‘insurgency’ targets randomized trials, demands access to investigational drugs. The Cancer Letter 2005; 31: 2-2.
  • 22. FDA to patients: Drop dead. Wall Street Journal, September 24, 2002 A18. http://www.mercatus.org/regradar/topnews/archives/003730.php.
  • 23. How about a Kianna's Law? Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2005. http://jiminhofe.com/cgi-data/news_doc/files/210.shtml;http://abigail-alliance.org/3_WSJ_Editorials_Kiannas_Law.pdf.
  • 24. Goldberg P.Op Cit 1-16.
  • 25. Subpart H-Accelerated Approval of New Drugs for Serious or Life-Threatening Illnesses. Code of Federal Regulations [Title 21, Volume 5, Parts 300 to 499] Department of Health and Human Services http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/append4.pdf.
  • 26. Transcript of ODAC Meeting November 8, 2005, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/transcripts/2005-4191T1.pdf. Transcript of ODAC Meeting March 12, 2003, http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/transcripts/3936T1.htm.
  • 27. Talarico L, Pazdur R. Expanded access program (EAP) to investigational drugs. Proc of ASCO 2004. Abstract 6001 (Abstract, lecture, slides), http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO.
  • 28. Fast Track, Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. From FDA/CDER Oncology Tools website, http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/onctools/Accel.cfm.

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JAMAHome page
P. D. Jacobson and W. E. Parmet
A New Era of Unapproved Drugs: The Case of Abigail Alliance v Von Eschenbach
JAMA, January 10, 2007; 297(2): 205 - 208.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mayer, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?