<DOC> [108th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:95598.wais] HARNESSING SCIENCE: ADVANCING CARE BY ACCELERATING THE RATE OF CANCER CLINICAL TRIAL PARTICIPATION ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ MAY 13, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-189 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 95-598 WASHINGTON : DC ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------ PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------ KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on May 13, 2004..................................... 1 Statement of: Christian, Dr. Michaele, Associate Director, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute; and Dr. Richard Pazdur, Director, Division of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, accompanied by Dr. Patricia Keegan, Director of the Division of Therapeutic Biological Products 12 Pecora, Dr. Andrew, chairman and director, the Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center; Dr. Robert Comis, president and Chair, Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups; and Ellen Stovall, president and chief executive officer, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship............................................... 74 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Christian, Dr. Michaele, Associate Director, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, National Cancer Institute, prepared statement of.. 15 Comis, Dr. Robert, president and Chair, Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups, prepared statement of........... 82 Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4 Murphy, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of..................... 11 Pazdur, Dr. Richard, Director, Division of Oncology Drug Products, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, prepared statement of........ 44 Pecora, Dr. Andrew, chairman and director, the Cancer Center, Hackensack University Medical Center, prepared statement of 77 Stovall, Ellen, president and chief executive officer, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, prepared statement of............................................... 100 Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 8 HARNESSING SCIENCE: ADVANCING CARE BY ACCELERATING THE RATE OF CANCER CLINICAL TRIAL PARTICIPATION ---------- THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2004 House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis of Virginia (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Duncan, Murphy, Carter, Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich, Watson, Van Hollen, and Norton. Also present: Representative Garrett. Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director/director of communications; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy clerk; Susie Schulte, professional staff member; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Robert White, press secretary; Kristin Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel; Josh Sharfstein, minority professional staff member; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Naomi Seiler, minority staff assistant. Chairman Tom Davis. Good morning. A quorum being present, the committee will come to order. I want to welcome everybody to today's oversight hearing on cancer clinical trials. This hearing will examine the status of efforts to bring innovative cancer treatments to patients and discuss how to change the face of cancer into a less terminal and more treatable disease. The two panels of witnesses today will present testimony on the various factors contributing to low accrual of adult patients in cancer clinical trials and what efforts are being taken to obtain reasonable participation levels to better provide more treatment options for cancer patients. Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the United States, taking the lives of over a half million Americans each year, more than 1,500 people each day. Roughly 1.3 million new cancer cases are diagnosed in this country each year. These statistics are sobering. All of us here today know a relative or friend who has been diagnosed with some type of cancer. Anyone who has been affected by cancer understands the needs for more and better treatment options for patients. In order for new drugs and therapies to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, several cancer clinical trials must be conducted. Clinical trials are essential for determining safe and effective therapies in modern medicine. Early detection of cancer and the application of new treatments available through clinical research are responsible for significant improvements in cancer survival rates. Clinical trials are designed to answer scientific questions which translate into better and less toxic therapies for patients. Trials allow doctors and researchers to gain information about the benefits, side effects, possible applications, and doses of new and existing drugs. In order for scientists and oncologists to make accurate conclusions about an experimental new drug's effect, clinical trials require the participation of numerous cancer patients. Further, research has shown that trial participants nearly always receive equivalent or better care than those receiving standard treatments, despite the experimental nature of these investigational treatments. Clinical trials can offer patients advanced treatments that would be otherwise unattainable. Thousands of people are helped each year by joining cancer clinical trials, and millions of people have ultimately benefited from others' participation in trials. So we pose the question to our panel of witnesses today: why do only 3 percent of adults nationwide enroll in centers when up to 20 percent are eligible? And what efforts are being taken to resolve the barriers to better clinical trials and adequate adult enrollment? We want to examine the different scientific, logistical, and financial realities that interact and impede reasonable participation in adult trials. The lack of patient and physician education about clinical trials, problems traveling to the trial sites, strict eligibility criteria, and third party payer reimbursement policies prevent a large number of patients from participating. As a result of these contributing factors, a vast majority of cancer patients fail to even consider clinical trials when reviewing their treatment options. We will hear today from the cancer community the urgency to reverse this situation and resolve the barriers to adequate adult enrollment in clinical trials. Clinical trials are essential for improving outcomes in cancer patients. By improving participation levels and creating more trials to new test therapies, we can transform cancer into a more treatable and less fatal disease. The equation is simple: clinical research leads to discovery of new and better therapies for cancer patients, helping them live longer and improving their quality of life. I know all of our witnesses this morning will agree that we need to boost participation in clinical trials. Along with improving accrual rates, we may need to consider improving other ways our health community approaches cancer. Clinical trials are just a single component of the cancer spectrum. I understand the complexity of the disease and the intricacies surrounding the discovery, development, and delivery of treatments. I look forward to a constructive dialog on this topic. The committee welcomes our witnesses for this important testimony today. I would now yield to my colleague, Henry Waxman, for an opening statement. [The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.002 Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to participate in this hearing on how to accelerate progress against cancer. This is a topic that I've worked on for many years. When I was the chair of the Health Subcommittee of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I was responsible for legislation reauthorizing the National Cancer Institute. We worked with experts inside and outside of the Government to improve rehabilitation services, expand research on reproductive cancers, and strengthen education and grantmaking decisions. It has also been my priority to make sure that all Americans have access to benefits of medical progress against cancer, and I'm particularly proud of legislation that expanded access to screening for breast and cervical cancer and of legislation that provided Medicaid coverage for those who are found on screening to have these tumors. Today's hearing highlights how much more needs to be done. Over the last several decades, while rates of heart disease have dropped dramatically, rates of cancer have largely remained stable. Despite progress against a few specific tumors, cancer will kill an estimated 500,000 Americans in 2004. The simplest and quickest way to make a dramatic reduction in cancer in the United States is to prevent it. Every Member of Congress knows that the No. 1 preventable cause of cancer in the United States is the cigarette. Last year a committee advising the Department of Health and Human Services recommended a simple evidence-based plan to help 5 million people quit smoking and save 3 million lives. The plan was endorsed by former Surgeons General Dr. Julius Richmond, Dr. David Satcher, and Dr. C. Everett Koop. Unfortunately, the Bush administration has shelved this report, and this Congress has not held a single hearing to discuss or review its recommendations. This week, New York City announced its smoking rates have dropped 11 percent in just 1 year as a result of Mayor Bloomberg's aggressive anti-tobacco policies, saving an estimated 30,000 lives. The response to this news should be obvious. The President and congressional leaders should pursue how to replicate these achievements across the country. But don't hold your breath. The National Republican Party is so closely aligned with the tobacco industry that the only hearings we have had on tobacco in the House recently have highlighted the alleged health benefits of smokeless tobacco, unbelievable as that is. That's the only hearing that has been held on the topic of tobacco. Today's hearing will focus on the challenges facing clinical research in cancer. Let me mention two issues at the outset. First, to find cures for cancer we must adequately support a clinical research infrastructure that can prove that cures work. I'm very concerned that Dr. Robert Comis, a senior oncologist who represents the Cooperative Groups program, will testify today that current finding stifles innovation; destabilizes key functions such as our tissue banks, data management, and informatics platforms; and acts as a disincentive to both academic and community physician participation in research. That's because of these current funding levels. Now that reductions in reimbursement for oncologists mandated by Congress are due to take effect, it is critical that NCI and Congress assure adequate funding for research. Second, to provide access to clinical trials, it is important that Government resources such as www.clinicaltrials.gov work well. This is a Web site created by the Congress in 1997 that is supposed to contain information for patients about ongoing trials for serious and life- threatening disease such as cancer. A 2003 study by the FDA staff found that fewer than half of the cancer studies that are legally required to be listed on this Web site were actually listed by the companies. This lack of participation by the drug industry in an important resource for patients is inexcusable, and I'm disappointed that the PHRMAceutical Research and Manufacturers Association, PHRMA, which was invited to testify, has been unable to send a witness to this hearing. Today we will hear from leading health officials at the National Cancer Institute and the Food and Drug Administration, from senior cancer researchers, and from a leading representative of cancer patients. I thank these distinguished witnesses for coming today. I look forward to their testimony. [The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.011 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Do any other Members wish to make statements? If not, any statements can be put in the record. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy. Sure. Chairman Tom Davis. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Murphy. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on cancer screening trials. We all know few issues have as negative an impact upon so many as cancer. Though all of us have not been diagnosed, we certainly all hold the roots of this disease and we all know someone close to us who has or has had some impact of cancer. While modern medicine has brought us a long way toward winning this battle, anyone who has a parent or child or friend diagnosed with cancer knows all too well we have not come anywhere near far enough. Increased participation in cancer clinical trials would significantly increase the discovery of newer cancer treatments with the ability to keep cancer patients feeling better while undergoing treatment, add years to their lives, and even cure them of the disease altogether; however, we will never have enough adult volunteers if patients continue to be misinformed or not encouraged to participate. It is certainly sad to me to read the survey cited that the National Cancer Institute revealed that 85 percent of cancer patients are either unaware or unsure of participation in clinical trials is an option, and of the few who are aware of the trials, most of these individuals believe clinical trial treatment would be less effective than standard care, or that their insurance would not cover the cost, so something has to be done to change the public's perception of these trials. I know in southwestern Pennsylvania the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center has received two grants to study these barriers and improve minority participation in clinical trials. This grant money is being used to essentially bring the trials to the patient through the utilization of teleconferencing, video equipment in outlying hospitals, providing modes of transportation to bring patients to trials and treatment, and working with other cancer centers and hospitals outside of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center system. Improving access and public perception of cancer clinical trials may seem to be an overwhelming task, but the doctors in my District are committed and excited about the cause. I'm looking forward to the witnesses' testimony on the various steps groups are voluntarily taking to achieve higher rates of participation, as well as some of the problems they are confronting in their efforts. In addition, I appreciate the committee's efforts to raise national awareness of this issue crucial to the future of medical innovation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Tim Murphy follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.012 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. The gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson? Ms. Watson. I, too, want to add my thanks to you, Mr. Chair, for bringing this issue up. I'm sure that Congressman Waxman will remember that way back in the 1980's a group of us got together in the California Legislature, a group of females, when we found that the only cancer testing was done on males, and breast cancer was coming more into high profile. My statement ends up this way: when you are making good public policy, it takes years because you have to educate. So I thank you for gathering the witnesses here that will educate us to let us know that clinical trials are a must if we are going to make a dent in cancer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. We have a great selection of witnesses today. In our first panel we have Dr. Michaele Christian of the National Cancer Institute, along with Dr. Richard Pazdur from the Food and Drug Administration. They are going to provide the committee with an overview of the Federal Government's role in cancer clinical trials and highlight efforts the Government is taking to increase participation in clinical trials. It is the policy of the committee that we swear all witnesses, so just rise with me and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. We are very privileged to have both of you here today. Your entire testimony is a part of the record and has been read, and what I'd like to do is we have some lights that will be in front of you. The green light goes on for 4 minutes, then you get an orange light for a minute, and then red is the end of 5. Try to sum up, and then we can move right to questions. Your entire statement is in the record. Dr. Christian, we will start with you and then to Dr. Pazdur. Thanks for being with us. STATEMENTS OF DR. MICHAELE CHRISTIAN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CANCER TREATMENT AND DIAGNOSIS, CANCER THERAPY EVALUATION PROGRAM, NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE; AND DR. RICHARD PAZDUR, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ONCOLOGY DRUG PRODUCTS, CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. PATRICIA KEEGAN, DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF THERAPEUTIC BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS Dr. Christian. Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Representative Waxman, and Members for the opportunity to discuss NCI's efforts to deliver innovative and effective cancer treatments to the public. I am Michaele Chamblee Christian, a medical oncologist and associate director of the Division of Cancer Treatment of the National Cancer Institute. I have slides which are going to be hard to see, I think, on these screens, but you have hard copies. Cancer is actually more than 100 complex diseases and as depicted on this first slide, cancer cells have many potential targets and pathways and processes that have been subverted by the malignant process. These differ in different patients and different tumor types, yet, because of our investment in basic research and advances in our understanding of biology, we now have a growing list of new agents and chemical entities in clinical trials and unprecedented opportunities to make significant progress in the treatment and prevention of cancer. NCI funds an extensive clinical trial system, including over 3,000 clinical trial sites, more than 13,000 clinical investigators that accrue over 30,000 patients each year to trials. We study 138 investigational or experimental drugs. And this system has been very effective at developing the treatments and defining the standards of care for patients we treat today, and contributing to the fact that more patients with a diagnosis of cancer are living longer today. We also have 88 formal clinical trials agreements within companies the biopharmaceutical industry, which is the source of most of the promising new agents in clinical development today. Because of these extensive relationships, NCI is in a unique position to sponsor clinical trials of combinations of investigational agents owned by different companies. NCI has worked with over a dozen industry collaborators to arrange more than 20 trials of novel investigational combinations to date, and more are in development. Many of these regimens would not have been evaluated until one or more of the agents had received FDA marketing approval, potentially resulting in years of delay. Why is this important? You have copies of the slides. We are going to try to do this without the slides. The cartoon that I was going to show you depicts one of the common problems and challenges with the targeted therapy of cancer, and that is that there are multiple branching and redundant signal pathways that control the behavior of cancer cells, and it is widely believed that many of the most promising new molecularly targeted agents will demonstrate their optimal utility in combinations that inhibit or modulate multiple targets in these critical pathways blocking progression of cancer, so we need to be able to give these simultaneously, and that's why these combinations are important. I wanted to tell you about the components of the clinical trials program. There is an extensive early clinical trials program which is comprised of phase one and phase two clinical trials done via contracts and grants at academic centers. There are numerous translational research components that conduct the correlative of laboratory studies on blood and tumor specimens from patients so that in clinical trials we may learn not only whether a treatment works but how it works, so that we can select future patients better for treatment. The map that you saw up there at one point represents the distribution of these clinical trial sites around the country and shows a very broad and I think good distribution of these sites. The next slide should have been on Cooperative Groups funding, since funding for clinical trials is an issue, and points out that during the period from fiscal year 1998 to 2003 funding to the Cooperative Groups program increased by 62 percent. NCI was asked to comment on why Cooperative Groups are not fully funded at the levels recommended by peer review, and I wanted to point out that the Cooperative Groups grants are amongst the largest in NCI's portfolio. In addition, each phase three trial that we sponsor costs anywhere from $2 million to $10 million, depending on its size. Our groups undergo peer review once every 6 years, where plans for the next 6 years are reviewed, along with the requested budget. However, this is a projected plan and a provisional budget because it is not possible to predict which clinical trials will actually be conducted 4 or 5 years in the future. So peer review recommendations are one component of effective coordination and stewardship that NCI staff consider in arriving at a funding plan. In the next slide I wanted to show you that during this same period accrual to clinical trials also rose dramatically, by 24 percent in the phase three program and, importantly, by 58 percent, as shown in the light blue bars, in the early clinical trials program. That's important because that's where many of these promising new agents and combinations that will be evaluated in phase three trials are initially studied. So my final slide just points out that there are a number of ongoing initiatives at NCI to broaden access to clinical trials for patients and to facilitate physician participation. The slide lists a number of them. I wanted to just comment also in closing, that NCI is committed to effectively integrating its clinical trials mechanisms in order to make smarter use of the available resources and to ensure that we are optimally positioned to take advantage of emerging scientific and medical opportunities, speed accrual to the highest priority clinical trials, and accelerate the delivery of promising new approaches to cancer prevention and treatment to the American public. I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Doctor. [The prepared statement of Dr. Christian follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.080 Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Pazdur, thanks for being with us. Dr. Pazdur. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Richard Pazdur, M.D., the Director of the Division of Oncology Drug Products at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Patricia Keegan, the Director of the Division of Therapeutic Biological Oncology Products at CDER, is accompanying me today to answer any questions on biological products. I am pleased to be with you today to discuss what our agency is doing to accelerate the delivery of innovative cancer treatments to meet the needs of cancer patients and their families. FDA's mission is to ensure that new cancer drugs are safe and effective. We also facilitate access to promising therapies for seriously ill and dying patients when no other treatment is available. Since the FDA last testified before this committee in June 2000, a number of important cancer drugs have been approved and are helping cancer patients. Of particular note are the number of innovative drugs that are targeted to specific parts of the cancer cells. These new therapies are a glimpse of the future of cancer therapy and should be a source of encouragement to the American public and to cancer patients and their families. FDA has numerous programs in place to help speed the development and approval of promising drugs to cancer patients. Let me briefly mention some of these programs. Under the accelerated approval route, FDA can approve drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions. These drugs demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs based on a surrogate end point that is ``reasonably likely'' to predict clinical benefit. Second, priority review is intended to direct overall FDA review attention and resources to the evaluation of applications for products that have the potential for providing significant therapeutic advances. Third, a drug sponsor may request fast track status. This designation facilitates the investigational development and the approval of drugs that provide significant advancements in the treatment of serious or life threatening diseases. These programs have been instrumental in shortening the time to approval for many promising cancer treatment drugs; however, the FDA is aware that there is growing concern that many of the new basic science discoveries made in recent years may not quickly yield more effective, affordable, and safe medical products for patients. This is because the current medical product development path is becoming increasingly challenging. During the last several years, the number of new drugs and biological applications submitted to the FDA has declined significantly. The number of innovative device applications has also decreased. In response, on March 16, 2004, the FDA released a report entitled, ``Advancing America's Health: Advancing Medical Breakthroughs.'' We refer to this FDA report as a critical path. This timely paper calls for academic researchers, product developers, and patient groups to work with the FDA to identify ways to modernize tools for speeding approval, innovative products to the market to improve public health. The report provides FDA's analysis of the current pipeline problem, the recent slow down instead of the expected acceleration in innovative medical therapies reaching patients. FDA is planning an initiative that will identify and prioritize the most pressing development problems, and, second, the areas that provide the greatest opportunities for rapid development and public health benefits. This will be done for all three dimensions along the critical pathways, namely: safety assessment, evaluation of Maryland utility, and product industrialization. We will work together with stakeholders to identify the most important challenges. Concurrently, FDA will refocus its internal efforts to ensure that we are working on the most important problems and intensify our support of key projects. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these important issues with you. I would be happy to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Pazdur follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.053 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you both. Let me start. We'll take 5 minutes. Dr. Christian, the witnesses on our second panel today are going to cite lack of physician education as a barrier to adequate accrual in clinical trials. You talked briefly, but I wonder if you could elaborate on what efforts the National Cancer Institute has taken to inform physicians about the cancer trial support unit program. I mean, it seems to me that's where the word needs to get out. People go see their doctor, they get the diagnosis, they want a list of options. I think you'd just be teaming with people who want to get in on the latest and be a part of this, but it really starts and ends with the physician that they're treating who really gives them their menu of options. Dr. Christian. Well, I think that is absolutely correct. The NCI and the Cancer Trial Support Unit have worked with a number of organizations, the Coalition for Cooperative Groups being one, since they are intimately involved in that, but also with the American Society for Clinical Oncology and others, to make physicians aware of the opportunities to participate in trials through the Cancer Trials Support Unit. They also use electronic systems---- Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask this. In continuing medical education, do you have requirements of that? I don't know if you have it in every State, but in most States is this part of it? Dr. Christian. To my knowledge it is not part of continuing medical education requirements. We do offer sessions, however, at national meetings so that there are educational opportunities there, but it is not a requirement, per se. Chairman Tom Davis. I mean, it just seems to me when you're going in every year to get updated, that menu option, it's pretty easy to include it. If I were a physician, I'd sure want to know it and be able to give my patients that option, particularly some of those that don't have a lot of good options, as you're working on. Dr. Christian. Can I just elaborate also? Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, please. Dr. Christian. We have also, working with the Cooperative Groups and others, invested quite heavily in patient education, because having patients be aware of clinical trials and requesting those opportunities of their physicians, I think is another way to approach this problem, and so we have, I think, all made major efforts to improve the education of patients about these opportunities. Chairman Tom Davis. I think you touched briefly, but Dr. Comis of our next panel is going to testify that the National Cancer Institute only reimburses physicians about $2,000 per case to perform research in community-based physician practices, while studies suggest the cost is closer to $4,000. Is it possible, working with NCI's budget, to increase the allocation to offset these costs? Physician reimbursements are low on everything. This is an area where you really don't want to do it on the cheap. Dr. Christian. Well, the cost at a site for conducting clinical trials has been a subject of great interest and concern to us. During the 5-year period that I showed on my slide, there was a 62 percent increase in funding to the group system overall. But importantly, I think, funding to the sites actually doubled during that period. So while $2,000 remains perhaps meager, it represented a substantial increase in what we had been able to fund previously. So we are continuing to seek ways to increase funding and to think about how best to allocate the clinical trials resources that we have overall so that we get the work done. There are a number of groups--Dr. Comis and I work on several of them--that are actually trying to nail down much more precisely what the real components of cost are so that we can make, I think, more effective judgments in terms of how we are able to fund. Chairman Tom Davis. I don't mean to single you out. Our reimbursements that we allocate to physicians under Medicare and Medicaid are pitiful, so I hear you. Dr. Pazdur. Dr. Pazdur. I just wanted to jump in. Having done clinical trials for almost 20 years, there is a difference between knowing if they exist and actually doing them. OK? And I think people have to understand that the enrollment of a patient when one is conducting a busy practice is a very time consuming activity. It requires infrastructure to be present. It requires data managers. It requires research nurses. So there has to be an infrastructure within a clinician's practice that will allow him to do the clinical trials that he views to be of importance. It is an issue, and I think when we take a look at the whole issue of why patients do not participate in clinical trials, to leave out the physician component is one that would not be appropriate. It is, as you pointed out, the physician that ultimately will be prescribing the therapy that the patient will be getting, and he has to have the appropriate incentives and also the infrastructure that will allow him to place patients on trial. Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask you, just so I know, understand, how many investigational products fail in clinical trials? I mean, the ratio compared to products approved, any idea? Ball park? Dr. Pazdur. I could--the vast majority of them. It's a small--probably our critical pathway states that one--if you take five drugs that are being developed in their very earliest stages, probably one will make it to the market. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you very much. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman. Dr. Christian, the Clinical Trials Cooperative Groups Program at NCI, they play a key role in clinical research against cancer. I know you're familiar with that. Studies by these networks of researchers have led to major advances in survival, particularly in the pediatric cancers, but we have a chart showing that the funding for this program has not increased in the last several years. And Dr. Comis, who is chair of the Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups is going to testify that current funding stifles innovation, destabilizes key functions such as our tissue banks, data management, and informatics platforms, and acts as a disincentive to both academic and community physician participation. You can see from that chart there is a decrease for leukemia, gynecologic oncology, breast, and bowel cancer. How do you respond to the view that this important research program is threatened? Dr. Christian. Well, I can't see the details there, but my slide also covered, I think, some of those years, and, as I point out, we actually substantially increased funding over a significant portion of that time. Now, with that said, I think that there is no doubt that the costs for enrolling a patient at a site still are not being reimbursed at the proper rate. I think that is something that we continue to need to address. You know, I think that there are many components of the clinical trials program. There is the Cooperative Groups Program, which is extremely important, as you point out, but there are many other critical elements, too, and I think that, given all of the new targeted agents that are coming into the clinic, the early clinical trials are extremely important, too, in advancing regimens to the point that they can go to phase three trials, and, indeed, many of those have been funded at much higher rates and, in fact, new resources have been created to try to get those new novel agents into a point where they can go to phase three trials, so---- Mr. Waxman. Do you agree that with less money and rising expenses the Cooperative Groups will have a harder time recruiting patients and doctors to their clinical trials? Dr. Christian. I think that with less money at each site that would be true, and our approach to that actually is to look at the entire clinical trials program and find ways to better integrate, to make the cost of putting patients on clinical trials lower by having consistent and standard approaches to data collection and other things that cost time and money. Data managers, as Dr. Pazdur pointed out, are one important component. So we are trying to look across the system and find places where we can better integrate, conserve resources, and then allocate them to the places that need them the most so that we can, indeed, raise the funding at the sites where the research is actually being done. Mr. Waxman. Given the NCI's emphasis on the genetics of cancer and the importance of tissue banks, what is NCI doing to enhance the role of the tissue banks run by the Cooperative Groups? Dr. Christian. Well, NCI actually has put forward a request recently for proposals for funding for tissue banks. We are planning not only to increase the funding for tissue banks because we agree that it is a really critical component of this research, but to actually stabilize that funding by awarding grants specifically to that purpose. So, rather than just general Cooperative Groups funding, we are going to provide additional funds specifically targeted to tumor banks in our Cooperative Groups. Mr. Waxman. As NCI reorganizes itself to deal with the challenges of the future, I think it is important not to undermine those resources such as the Cooperative Groups that are the bedrock of our clinical research efforts, and I'm sure you agree with that, as well. Dr. Christian. I agree absolutely. Mr. Waxman. Dr. Pazdur, clinical trials are a key tool in our fight against cancer, but they also can provide one of the few sources of hope for those people who have failed standard treatment options. The Web site, www.clinicaltrials.gov, is a searchable, online registry of clinical trials that patients with serious or life-threatening disease and illness and their providers can use to see if they are eligible for participation. I'm sure you're familiar with this Web site. Now, Federal law requires that the sponsor of any effectiveness study conducted under an investigational new drug proposal register with the data base within 21 days of the start of the patient enrollment. In April 2003, FDA reported that many sponsors of clinical studies of cancer treatments had not submitted the information to the registry. While 91 percent of NIH- and NCI-sponsored studies had been posted, only 47 percent of industry-sponsored studies had been posted, even though FDA had released a detailed guidance for industry in March 2002. Do you think increased industry compliance would benefit patients? Dr. Pazdur. The answer to your question is emphatically yes. We also are greatly concerned about the low participation of industry in listing their trials on www.cancertrials.gov. We have taken a concerted effort to try to find why, what is the reason, and I really don't have a good reason at that time if I could say, you know, this is the reason why industry is not placing studies on the Web site. One would think they would have every reason to place their trials on. If we're talking about poor accrual to clinical trials, industry can't cry about poor accruals to clinical trials if they are not putting it on the Web site. In our own division and at the FDA, in general, after every phase two meeting and industry meeting we have a written bullet that is part of the minutes to that meeting that specifically informs the sponsor of the existence and their obligation to list the Web site. That is a written part of the minutes of every end of phase two meeting. We've taken concerted efforts to talk to patient groups, to encourage patient advocates to advocate for participation of commercial sponsors to list their trials. In addition to that, we've taken a concerted effort of talking to industry about this. There may be some concerns of confidentiality in listing clinical trials on www.clinicaltrials.com. I really don't buy that, Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman. Well, I'm disappointed we couldn't get a PHRMA representative come in and testify today. It's ironic that, while they're refusing to comply fully with the Government Web site, PHRMA has a Web site, and on that PHRMA Web site there are--it's called, ``New medicines and development,'' and on the PHRMA Web site they'll often list clinical trials that they're not listing on the Government Web site, but on their Web site they frequently don't include eligibility details on clinical trials or provide contact information for the trials. I don't know why companies may list information about studies in a form that's not useful to the patients, because if you read about it, you want to find out more about it, there's no contact information. What is FDA going to do to enforce participation in the Web site? Dr. Pazdur. At this point we obviously have a process where we are communicating with the sponsors. We are trying to find out reasons why they are not putting the trials on this. We have begun an education program, as I pointed out, where at every meeting we are asking them and informing them of their obligation to do so. In addition to that, we have a massive process during professional education to encourage physicians and to encourage patients to utilize this resource. We are somewhat limited on what we can do. We can educate, we can talk. Mr. Waxman. Well, thank you very much. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Waxman. Judge Carter. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Richard Nixon was President of the United States in 1970 and he declared war on cancer. He said our goal was to cure cancer in our lifetime. Well, he's dead. We haven't even come close. We spent $52.5 billion under the theory the Government could come up with a solution, and it is my understanding--and please correct me if I am wrong--that if you view the overall war on cancer, it has been a pretty bad failure. If you compare it to other wars in health areas, like heart disease, for instance, there has been much more success. Are we doing something wrong in our direction on the war on cancer as you see it? That's the question that's really concerning me, because where I come from there's a lot of folks dying of cancer. They don't see a whole lot of hope and they don't see a whole lot of success. Do either one of you want to comment on why this--$52 billion and 35 years--hasn't succeeded in any way? Dr. Pazdur. I hear you. OK. I sympathize wholeheartedly, having had patients and family members with this disease. I think it is important for us to understand that cancer is not one disease. As Michaele pointed out, at this time we can say it is 100 diseases, but probably it is even many more diseases on a molecular basis. The riddle of cancer I feel is far, far more complicated than, for example, the problems that we face with HIV infections where we know the ideology, we know the virus that is causing the problems. For most cancers we have very limited or rudimentary knowledge of what causes the cancer, and even sometimes the natural history and the variations. For example, even what we call breast cancer probably is hundreds and hundreds of different diseases. The problem is the science. We have to make scientific advances, and that is on the basic level. We are beginning to do so, I feel, by understanding the genetic causes of cancer. We have seen some drugs that have dramatically changed the face of some diseases. While you are entirely right, if you took at look at the entire scope of cancer, one would have to look at it somewhat pessimistically. However, there are some diseases--for example, CML, a disease that when I began my medical career that was uniformly fatal with drugs that we used from the 1950's to treat it, which now we have a drug called Glevic, which transformed that disease into probably a chronic disease. One can't use the word ``cure'' at this time with many of these diseases, but clearly was an important medical development. Why did we develop this drug? What gave us the capabilities? It was the basic understanding of the genetics of the disease, the molecular pathogenesis of the disease, and marrying that basic understanding of the disease with a therapy that interacted here. I think that is going to be the overriding principle as we take a look at newer drugs, understanding the disease on a molecular basis and then drugs that are targeted toward molecular abnormalities or molecular deficiencies. This is an area that I think is evolving, and I am somewhat pessimistic with the past, but on the future I am very optimistic that we are exactly--or we are now beginning to have the tools that will enable us to move forward. Mr. Carter. About 3 weeks ago Lance Armstrong has a cancer survivor group in Austin, TX, and I went to that, and it was very uplifting about all these cancer survivors, but when you cut through it the definition of a cancer survivor is they survived the first round, really. There's an awful lot of people there that, although they are in remission right now, they face the distinct possibility of seeing the cancer again, and it ultimately killing them. Where I stand from, cure of cancer means you go in, you get treated, and you're not going to have cancer, that cancer at least, again. So we haven't reached that point, I understand, on almost anything but maybe childhood leukemia maybe where we've got a handle on it to some extent, so I'm just concerned about that much money and that much time and that little success, and I'm wondering, is there something innovative we can look at that would stimulate the challenge of the market go to out to win cancer? I firmly believe that if I could invent something to cure cancer I could be, you know, richer than Microsoft, and I think we ought to be able--somebody ought to be able to come up with some incentive to do that. A question I want to raise--and I realize my time is gone, Mr. Chairman, a few more minutes--the question I want to raise is the issue on the development of drugs. Is that becoming a stumbling block to giving incentive to private enterprise to take on full-fledged the challenge of cancer treatment. It takes you 9 or 10 years to approve a cancer drug, gives you another 9 years to recover your cost if you're in the business of inventing or creating that cancer drug. Could we change our intellectual property laws to give a longer time after approval where you still have the assurance of a trademark, a patent which might enhance the ability of private industry to invest the kind of money they are going to invest to go into fighting cancer? How do you feel about that? Dr. Christian. I'd like to comment on that, and then I'd like to comment also on your previous question. You know, I think that intellectual property issues are certainly a problem, particularly for combination treatments, particularly when we want to look at a much broader range of cancers than the more narrowly focused FDA approval pathway, for example. And, you know, I think it is possible that incentives might encourage industry to work more broadly with NCI, with each other, etc., so that we can do the combinations and do the broader development that will speed up this whole process, so I think that there are issues there that are probably worth looking at. I mean, we, for example, have been following the Best PHRMAceuticals for Children Act to see what the impact of that might be on drug development, and I think that will give us some notion, so I think intellectual property is probably an issue that warrants further thought. With regard to where we are with cancer, though, you know, I do want to point out that there are, you know, a growing list of tumors where we actually do cure patients and do prolong survival by adding treatment to surgery. You know, I think 20 years ago the list was negligible and now there is a growing list of situations where we actually do cure patients, and many more where we prolong their lives. So your pessimism I understand, but we have made progress, and I think, like Rick, that, given the array of new entities that we have to use and to develop at this moment, molecularly targeted entities, I am more optimistic than I have been in 20 years of therapeutics development that we actually may make fundamental molecular strides. Of course, the case that he gave with Glevic and chronic myelogenous leukemia is one example. The reason that the numbers remain so daunting is that the major solid tumors--lung cancer, colon cancer--are much more complex molecularly, and so we are going to take a little bit longer, I think, to sort out what the relevant targets there are. But it is very interesting--in two major medical journals this past month, ``The New England Journal of Medicine'' and ``Science,'' there were articles about a mutation found in patients with lung cancer which may help explain how we should better use some of these new targeted agents that we are investigating. It was the first such article, so we are really very optimistic, again, that we are entering a period where we really are going to understand the molecular nature of these tumors and how to treat them. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, sir, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a lot of questions. Let's see what I can get through here. First of all, there has been some frustration in the Hillman Cancer Center in Pittsburgh trying to recruit minority members for these studies--these are more than just racial minorities. These are also socioeconomic minorities--getting them to sites. Statistically speaking, do you believe there are significantly fewer minorities in studies on cancer trials nationwide? Is that a concern? Are there other things we need to be doing to recruit people of various income levels, a wide range of income levels, etc.? Dr. Christian. There are some situations with NCI-sponsored clinical trials where minorities are not accrued in proportion to the numbers that one would expect based on the prevalence of the cancer, for example. That's particularly true of African American men. It's true of Asian men and women. It's true of Hispanic men and women. And there are a lot of efforts ongoing, both in NCI-sponsored trials and at the cancer centers, University of Pittsburgh being one that has a funded grant actually to look at what some of the barriers are to accrual for racial and ethnic minorities and for people of lower socioeconomic status and for the elderly, which are also under- represented on clinical trials. So this is an issue that is important to us, and we are approaching it from a variety of different perspectives. In our cancer centers I think, for reasons that are not altogether clear to me, there are some even greater disparities, so they have an even harder time than we do to our national trials accruing what would seem to be a representative and reasonable number of minorities. I chair actually the Task Force for the American Society of Clinical Oncology on Health Disparities and Workforce Diversity, and there are many issues that have to do with trust in communities, which have to do with the very, very low representation of minority medical professionals who might be able to reach these communities in more effective ways, so there are many issues. I think it is an important problem and one that we need to continue aggressively to try to address. Mr. Murphy. Let me move on to another area here that is important, and that has to do with the issue of people who may have insurance. Some States like California require insurance companies to cover clinical trials, and many other insurance companies will simply say they're not going to cover anything experimental. I'm not sure whether other States in addition to California have these laws. My question is this: has there been a cost/benefit analysis on these things, because there are times when people feel they are desperate and they want to try anything and the insurance company may say, ``No, we're not going to cover that. There's simply no efficacy to support this and it appears to be very expensive.'' Have we done any sort of analysis overall? Is that ongoing? Dr. Christian. There have been a couple of studies looking at the incremental cost of care on clinical trials which have shown that they are not significantly higher than care delivered outside of clinical trials. Mr. Murphy. What does ``significantly higher'' mean? Dr. Christian. I don't remember what the actual dollar amounts were. Do you remember that? Mr. Murphy. Rough idea? Percentage? Dr. Christian. Yes, I can certainly provide those precise details, but the estimate is around 5 percent. We have attempted to look at those incremental costs, but I think in addition there are other important things to consider here. Patients are going to be treated, and the treatments in the community may or may not be as well developed, as well based in evidence, and so there are costs associated with delivering---- Mr. Murphy. Plus, you have differences in communities that may have a university medical center versus what might be in a community that might not be near some of those more advanced research. Dr. Christian. I mean, there are community participants in clinical trials, but there are also the vast majority of patients who are treated outside of clinical trials who are just treated in private practice settings. There, the evidence on which the treatments are based may or may not be as sound as that in the clinical trials. So I think there are a lot of things you have to take in account, but the cost concern, I think there is growing evidence that it should not be an impediment to providing those opportunities for patients through their health insurance coverage. Mr. Murphy. Thank you. That's all I have at this point. Thank you. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to also thank you for holding this hearing. It is a subject I am very much interested in. Dr. Christian, in my District I have Johns Hopkins, and I also have the University of Maryland Hospital, and one of the things that, in trying to get people involved in trials, not just for cancer, but trials, period, African Americans, is that there is a tremendous--and I think you mentioned it a moment ago in response to a question--a tremendous distrust. People cite the Tuskegee experiment. My mother, for example, says at one of those hospitals, if she is in dire straits on her death bed, don't stop there. And that's because they have seen and had rumors at least of African Americans who were experimented upon, and it causes them not to want--many people not to want to be a part of any kind of experiment. And so even when the argument is made that some of what they may have heard in the past isn't absolutely true, what seems to happen, just when we get to a point like, for example, with AIDS, for people to finally get right there at the doorstep to participate, something happens. We have a situation we will be having a hearing here on the 18th where another hospital in my District tested some 2,500 patients and, come to find out, for AIDS and Hepatitis C, and come to find out the results, the machinery was malfunctioning. People knew it was malfunctioning and nobody did anything about it. So then when they hear that kind of information it makes it even worse, so they say, ``Wait a minute. You're talking about AIDS and Hepatitis C, things that could be life threatening, and you mean to tell me I went to--'' people have gone to the hospital, gotten results that may not be accurate, and nobody even waved a red flag. So I was wondering, and I think that this is a situation that probably exists all over the country. And then, of course, with the whole issue of health care disparities, in the Congressional Black Caucus one of our No. 1 issues is health care disparities. African American people, as you well know, are dying early, suffering needlessly, and, as a matter of fact, just recently I was in an audience of about--I'd say about 400 African Americans in my District, and I asked how many of them believed in the last 5 years--within the last 5 years that they had a relative to die earlier than they should have because of some medical foul-up or to suffer serious injury because of something like that, and three-fifths of them raised their hand. I can cite situations in my own family, at least four or five, that I know things like that have happened. So the question becomes: how do you deal with--how does-- and we in the Congress, we not only have these hats that we wear here sitting on these panels, but we also take up the bully pulpit trying to get our constituents to do the right thing. Even when we pass legislation, we still want them to get out there and take the colon test and to do all those things to stay healthy. How do you say and how do you guarantee--not guarantee, but how do you assure people it's OK, particularly when they have these thoughts embedded in the DNA of every cell of their brain? Dr. Christian. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this a little bit. I grew up in a medical family and Tuskegee was very real to us, too, and it was a real phenomenon. But I think that there have been many years since Tuskegee and there are many new protections for patients. I can assure you for NCI-sponsored trials, for example, that they are reviewed exhaustively by experts in the management of the cancer that we're talking about, by people at the National Cancer Institute, and by institutional review boards and others to ensure that the nature of the research is reasonable and ethical. That said, there clearly are health disparities across the entire spectrum of medical care. I actually tell patients that on a clinical trial patients get the same treatment as everybody else. It is prescribed. It is written in a protocol. Exactly what needs to be done is written there and patients are treated according to that protocol. And we audit those sites. We go to the place and we look at the records and we make sure patients were treated the way they were supposed to be treated on the protocol, so there are even additional protections. So there are many protections in place that I think make participation in an NCI-sponsored clinical trial a safe and reasonable thing. I think it is important for minority communities to benefit from the opportunity to participate and from the knowledge that is gained. There are concerns about whether there may be differences in the way various racial groups handle drugs, for example. We won't know that if we don't study them. We won't know that if we don't participate in trials. And so when the new drug is then approved for the treatment of some cancer, we won't know whether that actually benefits us as it does the rest of the population. I think it is important for us to be a part of that and to have the opportunity to have those treatments and to, you know, aggressively pursue those opportunities so that we are sure at least in that venue that we are getting comparable care. So that's what I tell patients. I don't think patients should feel coerced to do it, but I think the opportunity should be made available to them. Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Let me just ask one final question, Dr. Pazdur. You raised concern in your testimony that the development of new cancer treatments will make clinical trials more costly and complicated. How do we address the concern if the criteria for enrollment in trials becomes based more on a patient's biological characteristics than clinical ones? Dr. Pazdur. Well, I think the eligibility criteria of the protocol will say patients must over express a particular enzyme, for example, and then patients will be enrolled that have that particular expression of the target that is aimed at. I look at this as a benefit to patients, to drug development, and to drug regulation because one of the problems obviously that we have in oncology today is even or most effective drugs are relatively modest in their response rate or in their clinical efficacy, so if we can predefine an enriched population that is more likely to benefit from the drug, that efficacy will be greater expressed, we'll have higher response rates, we'll have higher timed progression and better survival. Therefore, I look at it as a positive aspect for the whole area of drug development, and I don't really look at it as an obstacle at all. I look at it as a positive thing. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you both. Dr. Christian, thank you, as well. You have been very helpful, and I will allow you to go now and we'll go to our second panel. Thank you very much. Before we do that, I want to welcome my colleague from New Jersey, Representative Scott Garrett, to our hearing. We'll take a 10-minute break because we just switched, and then, Dr. Garrett, I'll allow you to introduce one of our panel members. [Break.] Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come back into order. We are pleased to have our colleague from New Jersey here with us today. Mr. Garrett, you are recognized. Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to introduce Dr. Andy Pecora, who is a 20-year veteran of the war on cancer. When I first met him, I knew a little bit about his background, now I know a whole lot more about his background and I would like to share that with the panel. He is a graduate of Seton Hall back in 1979. He went on to receive his medical degree from the University of Medicine and Dentistry in New Jersey, the Great State of New Jersey, in 1983. He completed his residency over at New York Hospital, Cornell Hospital Systems, and then moved on to the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and completed a fellowship in hematology and oncology in 1989, after which he moved on to Hackensack University Medical Center to serve as director of hematology and oncology in the adult blood and marrow transplant program, and now has recently been promoted to chairman and director of the Cancer Center at Hackensack University Medical Center. He is a diplomat of the American Board of Internal Medicine with subspecialties in hematology and subspecialties in oncology, and he has received numerous awards and honors, some of which include the Women's Guild Premedical Academic Achievement Scholarship back in 1978. In 1979 the Academic Excellence Award in Biology. In 1983 the Doctors Milton and Rose Petrokowski Award for Overall Excellence in Patient Care. And then the Outstanding Teacher Award from the Department of Internal Medicine at Hackensack University Medical Center in 1989. And for all doctors I think this is important--he was selected as one of the best doctors in America in 1997, 1998, and 2003, and then received the American Cancer Society Physicians in the Forefront Award and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation Award as a hero in the fight against breast cancer. He received the EBMTESMO Award at the International Conference on High Dose Chemotherapy in Breast and Ovarian Cancer. His professional positions include such things as the scientific advisor for the companies ProNeuron and ProVirus. In addition, he has co-founded and served as chairman and chief executive officer of Progenitor Cell Therapy and now serves on the Board of Directors of the American Society of Bone Marrow Transplant, and previously on the International Society of Hemotherapy and Graft Engineering, the Hackensack University Medical Center IPA, and served as chairman of the medical board and board members of the Affiliated Physician Network. In addition to these things, he has served as chairman of the Transplantation Committee on the International Society of Hemotherapy and Graft Engineering and served as a member of the Cancer Institute of New Jersey Protocol Advisory Committee. Recently, he was appointed to the Steering Committee on the Transplant Treatment Trials Group, and he is a fellow of the Academic Academy of Medicine of New Jersey and a fellow of the American College of Physicians and American Society of Clinical Oncology and American Society of Oncology. Finally, the doctor has been involved in numerous research projects in an effort to improve the outcome of patients with cancer. His recent work includes the production of stem cell products that are free of contaminating malignant cells using technology including CD-34 selection and ex vivo expansion. He has led several national trials in the field of transplantation and has published numerous peer reviewed articles and abstracts and has presented the results of his research at many national and international scientific meetings. Probably most importantly, he is married and has three great children and resides in the fair State of New Jersey in the beautiful town of Ridgewood. We welcome you to the panel. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Dr. Pecora. Thank you very much. We are joined here today with Dr. Robert Comis, who is president of the Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups and is a professor of medicine and director at the MCP Honoman University Clinical Trials Research Center in Philadelphia; and Ms. Ellen Stovall, who is a 28-year survivor of two bouts with cancer and president and CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship. This panel of witnesses is going to provide the committee with their perspective on the seriousness of low accrual levels in cancer clinical trials and what efforts are being taken to improve outcomes in cancer patients. They are obviously a very distinguished panel. We appreciate all of you being with us. It is our policy to swear everyone in, so if you would rise with me and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. What we will do is your entire statement is already part of the record. Dr. Pecora, I'll start with you. Try to do it within 5 minutes. You have your lights there that turn orange after 4 minutes, red after 5, and then we'll go straight down the line and then we'll move to questions. Thank you all very much for being with us. STATEMENTS OF DR. ANDREW PECORA, CHAIRMAN AND DIRECTOR, THE CANCER CENTER, HACKENSACK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER; DR. ROBERT COMIS, PRESIDENT AND CHAIR, COALITION OF NATIONAL CANCER COOPERATIVE GROUPS; AND ELLEN STOVALL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL COALITION FOR CANCER SURVIVORSHIP Dr. Pecora. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garrett, for your kind words. First and foremost, thank you, Chairman Davis and distinguished committee members, for providing me the opportunity to participate in this important hearing that hopefully will result in actions leading to improve outcomes for people afflicted with cancer. I have been active in the war on cancer for over 20 years, participating in basic science, clinical trials, and now cancer care administration. I welcome the opportunity to share my ideas on why and how increasing participation in clinical trials, regardless of the status of innovation, will improve outcomes for people suffering with cancer. We all well know that over the past 35 years Government, industry, and the public have spent billions of dollars to create and operate the agencies that oversee and fund efforts in basic and clinical discovery aimed to improve outcomes for people battling cancer. As a result, substantial advances have been made in the understanding of the biology of cancer and, as a consequence, new and more effective treatments have emerged. Unfortunately, even with this focus and extensively funded effort, cancer remains a serious problem. This year in the United States, alone, cancer is expected to claim more than 500,000 lives; thus, criticism of our current system exists. In a recent article in ``Fortune'' magazine authored by Clifton Leaf, significant criticism is levied at the cancer research community claiming the culture is dysfunctional and that the search for knowledge has supplanted the search for cures, they lead to discoveries of marginal benefit regardless of a great expense of time and money. I believe, however, that these claims are only partially correct, and that, as a consequence of our national effort, it is now within our reach to turn cancer in most cases into a chronic disease much like diabetes, while searches for prevention and cures continue. As Mr. Leaf eloquently points out in his article, we must make the entire system of discovery and application of new agents more efficient. Clearly, continued improvements in our understanding of the underlying root causes of cancer and methods of detection, of efficacy, and safety are essential. Of equal importance however is active and robust participation by people with cancer in clinical trials. No matter how promising a therapy appears in laboratory testing, it is only through clinical trials that safety and effectiveness can be established in people. Simply stated, no person or computer program is capable of predicting whether a new treatment will work and be safe in people. In my current experience, it is not the lack of good ideas that is slowing progress in our quest to cure cancer, but it is much more a result of the slow pace of completing active clinical trials. In 2003, there were approximately 1,700 ongoing clinical trials, of which the NCI sponsored 1,200. Despite this large number of trials, only 3 percent of adult patients participated, while 20 percent were eligible. Low participation in clinical trials slows the continuum of drug development from initial concept to FDA approved products, and as a consequence impedes improvements of outcomes for people with cancer. In addition, poor participation at clinical trials lengthens the new drug approval process, estimated now at 10 to 12 years, and has the cascade effect of increasing new drug development cost, now estimated at $800 million, inflating the cost of drugs to consumers once approved, and, worst of all, limiting the number of new agents that make it through the process of the discovery pipeline. Advances in knowledge which will lead to better questions should continue to be supported, but at the same time we need to improve participation in clinical trials. So what can we do about it? Lack of participation is due to several factors that can and should be addressed. A lack of public knowledge of availability of clinical trials and a growing public bias against participation due to poor outcome high profile cases is a key factor. Government should do everything it can to educate the public on the value and importance of participating in clinical trials. In an era of shrinking reimbursement for clinical care, funding needs to be established for clinical programs, both hospital and office based, to support the required infrastructure, including research staff and informatics, to participate in clinical trials. Reductions in their growing regulatory burden, including centralization of institutional review boards, streamlining adverse event reporting, and minimizing regulation resulting in increased cost and complexity without compromising patient safety or privacy must also be accomplished. Finally, insurance reimbursement for clinical trial cost needs to be addressed nationally. In my home State of New Jersey, I was a member of the New Jersey working group to improve outcomes in cancer patients. Our group was successful in convincing the insurance companies covering New Jersey residents to voluntarily reimburse for approved clinical trial related expenses. This could serve as a model for a national effort. Another important aspect to improve outcomes for people with cancer is to have more clinical trials available. This can be accomplished by increasing the efficiency of moving clinical trial concepts through the approval process before they become available to the public. The current system should be more efficient and held to more businesslike timelines for results. Specifically, the Cooperative Groups in the national cancer review process takes too long, at times years, and should have efficiencies mandated by Government, since it is Government that supports these efforts. Moreover, encouraging and rewarding the national Cooperative Groups to work together on questions that require large number of patients to answer is essential. Finally, the issues of creating an environment-- intellectual property protection, FDA approval support, etc.-- for multiple agents to be tested together for effectiveness prior to the FDA approval process needs to be addressed. In summary, I believe this is an exciting time for those engaged in the battle against cancer. The fruits of our efforts over the past 35 years are just beginning to be realized. It is clearly no time to retreat or claim defeat, but instead refocus our energies to make the entire system more efficient, less expensive, and more user friendly. Our family and friends afflicted with cancer deserve our collective best effort. In doing so, participation in clinical trials should increase, resulting in meaningful answers and better answers sooner for those battling this dreaded disease. Thank you. I am happy to answer any of your questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Pecora follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.056 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Dr. Comis. Dr. Comis. Congressmen Davis, Waxman, and members of the committee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of 8,000 Cooperative Groups members from cancer centers, community practices, and patient advocacy groups across the country. Most importantly, we should all thank the courageous patients who enter our clinical trials. They are the real pioneers who move the frontiers of cancer treatment forward. There are two distinct forces in cancer clinical trials-- those studies directly supported by industry and overseen by the FDA, and those studies supported by the NCI which are conceived, designed, and executed in academic and community practices throughout the Nation. Typical industry supported trials are directed toward drug approval; Cooperative Groups trials are designed to evaluate new approaches and establish new evidence-based standards of care. We estimate that approximately 50,000 patients participate in clinical trials yearly. The NCI-funded Cooperative Groups account for about half, or 25,000 of those patients. The Cooperative Groups have always played a key role in the Nation's cancer research system. We develop curative therapies for childhood cancers, improve the post-surgical survival for patients with breast and colorectal cancer by 25 to 30 percent, and show that cancer can, indeed, be prevented in high-risk patients. As importantly, though, the publicly funded system allows us to ask and answer questions that challenge the mainstream. Our studies evaluating high-dose chemotherapy for breast cancer showed that this extraordinarily expensive and toxic treatment was of no clear benefit, saving the country hundreds of millions of dollars and patients unquestionable toxicity. Much has changed since President Nixon declared the war on cancer. The understanding of the biology of cancer has increased tremendously. The public and private sector has invested huge resources in the development of biologically directed therapies, and new targeted agents are entering the oncology practice in our phase two and three trials. The Cooperative Groups have adjusted to the opportunities and challenges created by these changes. We are investigating the newest molecules and approaches. Virtually all of our studies now include laboratory correlative studies which attempted to find why something does or does not work. In order to do this, we've established excellent tissue banks and laboratory programs in cancer centers throughout the country which collect, store, and analyze tissue specimens and correlate biology with clinical events occurring in our controlled clinical trials. But we must do more to ensure that patients have the opportunity to benefit from our work. First, let me address the issue of accrual of adults onto cancer clinical trials. We estimate that only about 3 to 5 percent of adult cancer patients participate in clinical trials. This number was confirmed prospectively in our survey, which we did along with Ellen's group, which also revealed that only 15 percent of patients were aware that participation was even an option. That survey also reinforced the critical role of the oncologist in informing and educating patients about this option. Increasing awareness, dispelling misconceptions, engaging physicians are key elements of the solution to the accrual problem. These considerations led the Coalition of National Cancer Cooperative Groups to launch a national awareness campaign along with ``Newsweek,'' which is in its 4th year, develop Web- based tools to facilitate trial searches, and work with the American Society of Clinical Oncology in developing both recognition and educational programs for physicians. Indeed, the efforts of the Coalition and others have born some fruit. There has been a 30 percent increase in overall accrual onto cooperative group studies from 1997 to 2002, from about 20,000 patients a year to about 26,000 patients, but more needs to be done. However, the system is stressed even at this level of accrual. The Cooperative Groups have been and remain chronically under-funded. Two extensive reviews of the system in the mid 1990's recommended that the Cooperative Groups be funded at the full peer recommended level. We continue to be funded at approximately 60 percent of that level, and funding has been flat for the last 3 years. This stifles innovation, destabilizes key functions such as our tissue banks, data management platforms, and acts as a disincentive to both academic and community physician participation. Keep in mind that about 60 percent of accrual comes from community-based practices. The NCI reimburses $2,000 per case to perform the research at the site. It is estimated in the ASCO survey that the actual cost is more like $4,000 to $6,000 per case. The ability for both academic and community sites to continue in Government-sponsored work will be increasingly challenged, particularly when the full effect of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 takes place in 2005. The entire system is being buried under a regulatory mountain. It is estimated that about 30 percent of clinical trials research dollars goes toward ensuring regulatory compliance. Our studies are overseen by about 1,600 separate IRBs. HIPA compliance complicates our laboratory work. The current discussions about off-label drug use in oncology could have a huge impact on our studies, which try to explore new indications and uses for targeted agents as they become available. We all believe that there is an important balance between the need for innovation and the critical societal concerns, but the balance must ultimately be struck for the advantage of all who suffer from cancer. The Cooperative Groups remain totally committed to providing high-quality care and new opportunities for cancer patients, but rest assured the development of the newer cancer treatments will make clinical trials more complicated and more costly and accrual will remain a major concern. The Cooperative Groups chairs have developed a white paper entitled, ``Harnessing the Science: A Proposal to Improve the Publicly Funded Cancer Clinical Research System,'' which I have submitted for the record, which outlines our thoughts on what can be done to ensure the continued vitality and importance of the Cooperative Groups in the publicly funded system, which is so critical to our cancer patients in the Nation. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Comis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.075 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Stovall, thanks for being with us. Ms. Stovall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am Ellen Stovall, president and CEO of the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, and I am a 32-year, two-time survivor of cancer. NCCS is the Nation's oldest survivor-led organization for people with all type of cancer. Our mission is to advocate for quality cancer care for all Americans, including the 10 million cancer survivors alive today in this country. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify to the important work of this committee. I have a very direct and personal experience with cancer clinical trials. When I was first diagnosed in 1971, I actually started treatment on the day that President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act. My father literally thought I would be cured in 7 years, as the whole world would be, of cancer. Unfortunately, I was unable to participate in a cancer clinical trial promising a new therapy for the type of Hodgkin's Disease that I had because I was deemed ineligible for the trial, as I had just had a baby. Today, that therapy has become the standard of care for Hodgkin's Disease, and when I was re- diagnosed with the same disease 12 years later I was able to take the drugs that had been in that clinical trial some 12 years earlier, so I really do understand the progress that is made through clinical research. I cite this experience to draw your attention to two key issues: first, restrictive standards for trial enrollment unnecessarily prohibit many patients from entering a trial; and, second, clinical trials do serve as the means of testing new therapies and moving the standard of care forward step by step, extending or even saving many lives that would have been lost to cancer. There are many reasons why the rate of participation in trials is low. Both physicians who enroll their patients in trials and those individuals who agree to receive their care in a trial encounter several barriers to participation. All of those obstacles must be addressed if we are to improve the clinical trial system. The community has made great strides in increasing the awareness that care in a clinical trial may, indeed, be the best treatment option for a cancer patient, but our educational mission is incomplete. We still have to address the fears of some regarding the risks associated with trials, as well as the reservation of others about the value of trials. This is perhaps most acutely felt in under-served communities where socioeconomic, cultural, ethnic, and language disparities present even more barriers. Cancer patients may have to make sacrifices to enroll in a trial, and they want to believe that their time and energy are well spent in a valuable research endeavor. Over the last several years, some researchers and companies have taken the step of involving advocates early in the clinical trial design process. The FDA has also made great progress, particularly in the last few years, of involving advocates at earlier and earlier stages of drug development. Those efforts have generally been rewarded because advocates have embraced those trials and encouraged participation in them. Examples of this are breast cancer advocates' involvement with the design of the hterceptin<SUP>'</SUP>, trials, and multiple myeloma advocates' involvement more recently with trials for Velcade<SUP>'</SUP>. For more than a decade, NCCS and a number of other patient advocacy organizations and professional societies like ASCO collaborated in a legislative effort to address the failure by third party payers to pay for the routine patient cost in trials. After many years of unsuccessful legislative effort, we were able to persuade the Clinton administration to issue an Executive memorandum instructing Medicare to allow all beneficiaries, those with cancer as well as other life-threatening diseases, to participate in high-quality clinical trials such as those sponsored by Federal programs or under the oversight of FDA. With this change in the leadership role of Medicare in health policy, reimbursement has seemingly become less of an obstacle. While cost is a primary concern, of no less concern is the fact that so few doctors recommend a clinical trial for their patients as a viable treatment option. Clinical research is expensive, requiring an extensive infrastructure both at the central point of control that is the research centers providing overall management of the trial and at the level of the individual provider. Research requires sophisticated, dedicated personnel such as research nurses, as well as the means for data collection and management, not to mention additional time commitment from physicians involved. For many years, cancer clinical researchers have made clear that the rate of payment from NCI for their participation is inadequate, despite some modest increases over the last few years. Privately funded research has overtaken that sponsored by NIH and other Federal sources because industry is willing and able to pay the full cost of research, whereas the Government's funding lags behind. As you probably know, over the last two decades cancer care has truly moved into the community. As much as 80 percent of cancer care is provided by community oncologists around the country. This system has been welcomed by cancer patients who prefer to record their care near their homes, thereby avoiding the dislocation that occurs if they must travel. Obtaining care in the community does not eliminate a patient's ability to receive care in a trial. As we just heard from Dr. Comis, as many as 60 percent of clinical trial enrollees are referred to trials by community doctors. The fact remains that only a small percentage of adults are enrolled. We are hearing disturbing reports from community oncologists that, as a result of changes in Medicare reimbursement for cancer care that were included in the MMA, they may be forced to reassess their participation in clinical trials altogether. The MMA reformed the system of payment that was over-paying for chemotherapy drugs, a reform that we all agree was necessary. The bill also made a temporary adjustment in the payment for expenses associated with delivering chemotherapy, but the concern of all of us who care about quality cancer care is that in 2005 this new law will reduce total payments to cancer care that such an extent that services offered by the community oncologists will have to be reduced, and clinical trial participation may be among the first things to go. We often describe the system of cancer care in the United States as the best in the world, and yet a series of reports from the Institute of Medicine's National Cancer Policy Board proclaimed great inconsistencies in the quality of care and the lack of any systematized way of assuring access to it. We do know that a good deal of this disparity could be corrected if more people were involved in clinical research and were assured access to a high quality clinical trial as a matter of first course rather than last resort. Our country is unusual in our ability to provide high- quality care, including care in a trial in a community, but the system is suffering from so many strains that I fear all these factors will create such a stress that it may be impossible to carry on clinical research in the future that people could have access to. NCCS and others have been engaged for more than a decade in efforts that will ensure that clinical trials are an integral part of cancer care in this country. We are dedicated to that outcome, and we look forward to cooperating with this committee and others in ensuring that it continues in the future. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Stovall follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.065 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you all very much. I think the committee has some questions, so I'll start with Judge Carter. Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank all of you for being here. Ms. Stovall, please don't be mad at me for what I said about Lance Armstrong, but it was a shock to me to realize that the definition of a survivor was survive each time, and as you pointed out in your testimony, you said, ``I'm a two-time survivor.'' To me a survivor is it's all over and it won't happen again. Ms. Stovall. It would be nice if that were true. Mr. Carter. Yes, and I think that's the goal we are looking for. And a question I also have, I question what's going on, and maybe you can give me an answer. It seems to me that the research that we're doing in the areas of cancer is how to fight the tumor. Do you know, in these clinical research experiments that are being done, are we doing anything to inoculate for cancer, to come up with a genetic engineering to fight cancer? Are we still in the same direction we were in 1970, how to fight a tumor? Does anybody know the answer to that? Dr. Pecora. I'm happy to comment on that. I think it is two-fold. I think, one, and sort of a generic way of speaking, is there is a focus to make the tumor go away, and that's a lot of giving medicines, doing surgery, radiation, but I think there is a growing and equal emphasis of keeping it from coming back and understanding how and what you need to do. You're right. I mean, there are strategies now aimed at using certain approaches to make tumors go away and then using cancer vaccines as an example to prevent it from coming back. When you have therapies that are only of modest benefit, you do the best you can. There are a whole new class of agents now-- you heard about them this morning--that's changing the whole cancer paradigm that I'm not even sure how to answer that question, because it may be you don't need to make the tumor go away and the person could have a happy and healthy life, like Glevic that you heard about. It doesn't cure CML, but it makes that clonive cell go away for a very long period of time, maybe forever. So the answer to that question is changing, but I do think your concern about keeping it from coming back is on the minds of people who do this sort of thing. Mr. Carter. You know, one of the things, just human nature--and I have no expertise in this at all, just human nature and comments--in Texas MD Anderson has a great reputation in Texas. Anybody that has cancer in Texas will try to go to MD Anderson Hospital. I'm sure there are people at Brackovitch Hospital in Austin, oncologists that can do a great job in treating. That's the publicly perceived--it is perceived all the way--it's really a private hospital now--it is perceived by the people in Austin to be a public hospital because it was at one time our public hospital. If given the choice, they will go to MD Anderson, which is funded heavily by public funds, and it is perceived to be a great scientific research center, a private hospital, if you will. It is perceived that way and everybody would want to go to MD Anderson because they think they have success. I think that's part of what your clinical trial situation is. People perceive this as another Government program rather than--do you get my drift? When you're talking about the National Cancer Institute, well, they've been at it for 50 years with $52 billion worth of money spent. They're just another Government program. And if I can go to MD Anderson and participate, that's fine. In fact, I think MD Anderson actually runs some of your programs. But do you understand? It's the public perception. I would be willing to bet we have a better turnout at MD Anderson in Texas than you would some place else. I'd be willing to bet the farm on that. So a whole lot of what you have is the public perception that Government is failing in the war on cancer and that it is going to take private involvement to succeed in the war on cancer. Dr. Pecora. Well, I did make a statement that I will stand on. I think that the Government side of the equation can be more efficient, and I think that it takes too long to get things through the process, and I think we have created a bureaucracy that you heard about that is impeding discovery and making it harder to do. I've learned more in the last 2 years as a cancer administrator than I ever learned as a cancer investigator about why we're not getting more people into clinical trials, and many of them are business issues. They're not science issues. These are the things that--one of the reasons I wanted to come here today was to address this with Congress, because you fund these efforts. So I think if you--the money for you is to look at these things and to try to drive efficiencies into the system. Mr. Carter. Absolutely, and that's one of the reasons I mentioned it to the last panel about the intellectual properties issues. The incentives--and let's face it, we live in a world where we're all trying to make a living, and the incentives to go out and meet these challenges and advance private capital in meeting these challenges, in my opinion, needs to be encouraged. The Government can't fight this war forever. We fought it and we can use some help, I guess is what I'm saying. Dr. Pecora. There's one other thing I want to say before--I don't want to monopolize the microphone, but another misnomer, this concept of clinical research, people hear ``research'' and it has all these connotations that we heard one of the Congressmen speak to before. In cancer care, when the outcome is dismal, clinical trials should be the standard of care, not that there's something better and they're trying this out. I mean, that's a bad way of looking at it, particularly when the likelihood, as we get smarter about the mechanisms of the disease, how to read if something is effective or not are improving at light speed. The likelihood of you having a better outcome by participating in trial is going to go up proportionately. So what we need to do as a Nation is to push cancer trials out into the community offices, into the hospitals that aren't the MD Anderson's of the world, because that's not where all patients are treated. That's where the minority of patients are treated. Mr. Carter. That's right. Dr. Pecora. We have to get this in the doctors' offices, and in order to do that we're going to have to support them. We're going to have to provide them funding for research nurses, data managers, and we're going to have to simplify the process or it is not going to happen. Mr. Carter. We're going to have to convince the public's perception that they'll get that equal treatment in that doctor's office that they would get in this famous--supposedly famous cancer center. And that's the perception you've got to overcome on these clinical trials, in my opinion. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Garrett, would you like to ask any questions? Mr. Garrett. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony of everyone. A couple of quick questions. First of all, with respect to New Jersey and on the insurance side of the issue, you indicated how you were able to convince the insurance industry to provide coverage for the expenses of clinical trials. How did you do that? What is the status nationally, if you know? And what is the recommendation as far as facilitating that on a national basis? Dr. Pecora. Well, how we did it in the State is we got the major cancer program directors and people involved in various aspects of clinical trials to come together in a forum and we brought in the CEOs and other representatives of the insurance industry and showed them the data. We made the claim, ``Look, you know, you're paying for things that are marginally effective. Wouldn't you want to pay for something that could be better for your subscriber?'' And they got it. And they got it to the point where they did it voluntarily. I can't speak to the rest of the Nation. I know there's efforts around the country, but I'm not privy to that information. Dr. Comis. Maybe I can help clarify. This is a very complicated issue. In the Harris Survey that I mentioned before we asked several questions about personal barriers to participation--travel, taking time off from work, insurance coverage, etc.--and the thing that was on the very top of the list, 60 percent of the 6,000 cancer patients that we surveyed said that they were afraid their insurance companies wouldn't pay. Then we went to the 4 percent of patients who did actually participate and asked a final question which was: in the end, did your insurance company pay? And 86 percent said yes. Now, how hard it was to get there we didn't ask, or how difficult it was to navigate the system, but this insurance barrier issue is a major perception barrier, at least, and there are now--Ellen may know the exact number. I think there are 19 States now that have legislative solutions, there are about three States that have non-legislative solutions. Medicare said they would pay. I think it is incumbent on us, and this is what we try to do in a lot of our materials is to get the word out that, in fact, your insurance companies have said that they would pay, that States are backing you, and if you are having trouble you have to use that information to make sure that you have access to clinical trials. Mr. Garrett. And, following upon this, then, if I may, Dr. Comis, you made the comment--and you did, too, Andy--as far as the responsibility of greater education, but to me isn't the education responsibility on the part of the doctor, the oncologist? Isn't he supposed to know this, and isn't he the one that's supposed to convince the patient that clinical trials are necessary and, if he has been in the practice for a while, that he should know the statistics that he can rattle off that he can put his patient at ease? Dr. Pecora. Right. Well Mr. Carter I think hit the nail on the head. It is very hard to battle public perception. I am a practicing physician. I see cancer patients. I still put people on clinical trials. I do it every day, and it is hard. And the reason it is hard is because people come in with preconceived notions, and the minute you start talking about a clinical trial all of the sudden warning bells go off. You know, we have high-profile cases in our country, the Jesse Geisinger case, going back historically to the Tuskegee experiment, the whole concept of what IRBs are doing now. It is, I think, pushing people in the general direction of being suspicious and having a bias against clinical trial, and I don't think at the individual physician level that's going to be reversed very readily. I think it has to be a societal issue. Dr. Comis. Maybe I can followup on that, because we've studied this a lot. I agree totally. In the end, it's the interaction between the doctor and the patient that decides when somebody goes on. And, in fact, I mentioned in my remarks that only 15 percent of the patients in the survey were aware that they could participate, 85 percent weren't. If you look at the people who were aware, a quarter went on. And if you look at the difference between the quarter that went on study and the three-quarters that didn't, it was all the doctor. The doctor helped educate them about trials, helped find a trial for them. The doctor and the staff worked on this together. I agree. There are two components on how we have to approach this. One is to increase awareness and decrease misconceptions on the part of the patients and the public, but the other thing is to facilitate the involvement of the doctor in the process. You know, it's not just reimbursement. It takes time. It takes staff time, patient time to do this, and we have to get the resources out to the sites, particularly the community sites that are really committed to do this, and the resources are not there and the challenges are great. Ms. Stovall. And I just want to add that, you know, I put a lot in my testimony, my submitted testimony, about physician reimbursement issues which, Mr. Chairman, you touched on, and it is not about the income of doctors or what doctors make, it's about how we value the time they spend with their patients and their families. When we have been over-paying for the chemotherapy that they provide and grossly under-paying for the time that they spend counseling families and patients about treatment decisions which are more and more complex as time goes on with the new science, I think that we really have to look at our reimbursement system and put the dollars where we value the doctors' time. Mr. Garrett. Thank you. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Duncan, do you have any questions? Mr. Duncan. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling this hearing. One thing I'm curious about, I have read in the ``Wall Street Journal'' and other places sometimes that it takes--I've seen figures of $650 to $850 million to get a typical drug approved in this country, and it sometimes takes 10 or 12 years, and I've also read that in no other developed nation does it take anywhere close to as long. I remember the ``Wall Street Journal'' had on its front page several years ago this small company in Illinois had a breast cancer detection pad that had been approved in every other country where they had asked for approval, most of them within days or weeks, but they had been--I think it was 9 years, and they still weren't approved in this country, and they had some quotes from cancer specialists saying that thousands of lives have been lost because that had happened. I'm just wondering. I assume that none of you can say anything critical about the FDA or maybe they'd get back at you later, but are we doing any better on any of that stuff? Why is it that it takes so much longer and so much more money to get approved here as compared to any other developed nation? I mean, you can go overboard on anything, and I'm just wondering about all that. Can any of you say anything---- Dr. Pecora. I'd like to comment on that. Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Without getting in trouble? Dr. Pecora. Well, you always get in trouble. Mr. Duncan. OK. Dr. Pecora. But I do think that the FDA talked a little bit about this critical path document that they put out, and personally, as someone involved both on the academic side and on the corporate side, I find them getting more and more user friendly, and I do think that some of the initiatives will decrease time to discovery and cost to discovery, particularly as we get better at screening for toxicities and putting the right kind of people on trials, i.e., people who have the potential for benefit. But I see the major stumbling block becoming this issue about clinical trials. This is not going to go away. This is going to get worse. People in the community, people who are doing this, you're not going to answer a question of whether or not something is safe or effective until you test it on a person, period. And until we fix this system, which is going in the wrong direction, that's going to maintain that high cost of discovery, the 10- to 12-year timeline. You heard plenty of testimony today to attest to that, and I think that's where the emphasis should be now. Ms. Stovall. I just want to add on to that. I mean, I remember Dr. Pazdur, who was on your first panel, remarking at several meetings over the last few years that we've attended that when a really good drug, a really novel therapy comes to the FDA, you see it move very, very fast. I don't know what that means if they're not exciting therapies that are coming to the FDA what the countervailing point would be. But I do know that the FDA--the burden on the FDA in terms of peer review capabilities, well-trained specialists to review oncology products is just not what it needs to be in terms of capacity building. I think that's another area for this committee perhaps to examine in its future deliberations. I think that would be a very interesting thing to pursue. Mr. Duncan. Well, what happens? If it takes, you know, hundreds of millions or years to get a drug approved, then obviously what you do--this is one of the main reasons why the drug industry has ended up in the hands of a few big giants, because a small company can't handle that. And then also the small companies don't have the connections within the FDA. Chairman Burton said in here one time that 9 out of the last 14 FDA commissioners work for the big drug companies now. I don't know if that's true or not, but, boy, there just is a lot of things going on apparently that--I mean, people wonder why drugs cost so much, and that's--this seems to me to be why. It is our own--we've let the Government get too big and too bureaucratic, and if we don't cut this down a little bit and speed this process up and make it where a small company has a chance again, these drug prices are just going to go up even more, it seems to me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Let me just try to wrap a few questions up. First of all, let me just pick up on where Mr. Duncan left off. If there's one or two things Government could do to really help this process along, would it be the funding dollars, would it be speeding up the regulatory process, would it be reducing the paperwork and the bureaucracy that you have to go through and patients have to go through, would it be information dissemination? Let me start, Ms. Stovall. You've taken a leadership role on this from the patients' perspective. From your perspective, what do you see? And then let me ask everybody what they see from their perspective. We're talking about Government's role. So much of this is private. Ms. Stovall. Well, I think as patient advocates we do look to Government and the very, very important role of both the FDA and the NIH and CMS, frankly, play in this whole, you know, landscape of both developing new drugs, the research approval, and then finally paying for them and getting them to people. I would like to see better coordination among these agencies, working more collaboratively, having some of the regulatory barriers removed, having a bit of a more transparency to the FDA processes that I believe could truly make things work better, better training of reviewers, more attention paid to that whole process, including I think something that has been mentioned but largely not examined very closely, and that is institutional review board reforms, because I think the regulatory burdens on the system, as Dr. Comis and others have mentioned, are at this point very onerous, and really helping lawyers more than they are helping patients succeed in getting these new therapies. Chairman Tom Davis. I like that one. That's not even, I mean, that's something that is within this committees jurisdiction and is not even big dollars. It's just trying to be efficient with what we do. Ms. Stovall. It's just making more efficient the things that we already have in place, because I do think that the protections that Government offers are very important to patient care but shouldn't be burdensome. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Dr. Comis, do you have any thoughts on that? Dr. Comis. Yes. I would followup with three areas. One is I think the Government--the NCI has to recognize that it needs to fund these things at an acceptable level, at a level it can be done. For the group system, $150 million out off a $4.3 or $4.4 billion budget, I mean, that's like chump change. So, I mean, people have to decide whether they want the Government to be involved in this. And they have to be, because we can ask questions that a company can't. The second thing is we have to be able to interact and develop relationships between the public side and the private side. The private side has developed all the drugs, and we have to be able to work with them very, very effectively, and there are a lot of barriers to that need to be broken down. As well, I think that the layering of the Government bureaucracies have to be harmonized between FDA, NCI, etc. And, last, I'd followup with one other huge thing that could happen, and it does relate to the OHRP, the regulatory office. If that office wrote a letter to the 1,600 IRBs that we deal with tomorrow and said, ``We will accept the recommendation of the central IRB that has been sponsored by the NCI,'' that would open up the whole deal. Those three things could really make a huge difference. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Dr. Pecora, any thoughts? Dr. Pecora. Yes. It's somewhat repetitious, but for the Government which funds all of these efforts to take a product development, like you want to make a product mindset, and look at all of the issues that we've discussed and see where Government can intervene in a way that continues to protect patient safety, continues to protect patient privacy but gets rid of the bureaucracy and the inefficiencies, centralizing IRBs, getting rid of the craziness we have with the way we do adverse event reporting, and there's a list of things that I don't want to repeat in the interest of time that can and should be done. Chairman Tom Davis. Well, let me ask you this. Do you think that the central IRB that has been developed by the National Cancer Institute has proven to be effective in eliminating duplicative applications in the review process? Dr. Pecora. I think it will. I think it has been and I think it will, and I think centralization of IRBs in the country would be wonderful. Chairman Tom Davis. Well, let me just ask this. In terms of getting the doctors involved in this, because that's really your pressure point here--people get diagnosed by their doctors. What are my options? What's the best way to get that? Is continuing medical education an option here for oncology? You do an hour talking about what is involved here, what are the options, how they can counsel patients? Or is there a better way to get that word out? Because it seems to me if we do a better job of that, we're going to have plenty of people lining up to be part of these trials. Dr. Pecora. It will only happen if you match that with the resources they need to do it, and they don't have it right now. Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Dr. Comis. But I also think that--you know, I mentioned in the body of my talk that the Coalition or the Cancer Cooperative Groups are working closely with ASCO, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, in education. You know, I think that we have to--you know, ASCO is perfectly positioned to try to take the lead in this educational process along with us, and, in fact, there have been some innovative approaches with regards to recognition awards at the annual meeting, and also with we're developing a series of meetings to try to have the 25 or 30 percent of the practices that are really great at this educate the people who are really interested but can't see a way how to do it. And over the course of the next 3 years we hope to have several meetings and a syllabus that arises from that. I think we have to focus on the doctors who are interested in doing this but don't seem to have the wherewithal to do it, but it can't be done without resources. Chairman Tom Davis. Ms. Stovall, let me ask you--you answered that, but also, as you look around and you network with patients and so on, are we seeing any geographical issues on this, as well, or any demographic issues in terms of who is getting notified, who sees the options, and who is lining up? Ms. Stovall. Well, to answer your last question first, I really think that if you looked at the map that Michaele Christian put up originally with all the dots on it about where places are funded to do the work, there's a big gap right in the middle of the country where there aren't too many dots, and this represents a lot of farmland, it represents a lot of rural America and a lot of poor people. I want to add on to that the disparity again is created both in the inconsistency in the way treatment is provided and offered to patients, but also the health care disparities. The uninsured and under-insured are terribly disadvantaged by not having access. I really think that the point again, building on what Bob just said about physicians, physician education, training, all of that is wonderful. If we do not fix the reimbursement system that's being dismantled with the current MMA, we really are going to see even more disparity in care than we are seeing now. And that's not just with clinical research, that's with all kinds of treatment, because doctors are just going to go out of business, and it is just a pure and simple fact. Chairman Tom Davis. And that's a problem---- Ms. Stovall. It's a serious problem. Chairman Tom Davis [continuing]. Across the medical field. It's not just here, it's everywhere. Ms. Stovall. Right. Chairman Tom Davis. You get the Government buying so much health care, and that's how we think we save money. Let me ask you this, too. Has the FDA's accelerated approval, their expanded access, priority reviews, and fast track policies--do you think they've approved and shortened the length of the approval process as a whole? And do patients receive drugs and therapies more quickly under these policies? Or do you think it is just a lot of rhetoric? Ms. Stovall. I have seen improvement, and I think it is because I know that patient advocates are actually in there and they are involved and they are constantly putting pressure on, as well. They have the most to gain or lose from what happens with new therapies that come through the FDA. So I would say yes, there has been improvement, and I think particularly under Dr. McClellan when he was there and Dr. Pazdur specifically we saw tremendous improvement. Dr. Comis. I agree with that, and I think that the drugs that appear active are getting in the hands of the physicians and patients quicker, and I think that most as importantly, you know, we're regulated by two bureaucracies, the NCI bureaucracy and the FDA bureaucracy, and we need to harmonize those things and, in fact, Rick Pazdur and Michaele and those of us from the extramural environment are working on trying to do those things. So it will be very, very important to facilitate this interaction between the public side and the private side of the system. Chairman Tom Davis. Well, let me say to all of you thank you for, first of all, your testimony. I think it has been very, very helpful to us. I hope it has been helpful to the previous panel, as well, as they take notes on this and try to improve and see what we can do about it. But I also thank you for what you're doing in the fight against cancer. You are in the front lines, all of you. You have a little bit different roles, but what you're doing is very, very important and I want to thank you for that. We now adjourn the hearing. [Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5598.054 <all>