Maurie Markman, MD

A phase III trial in ovarian cancer was allowed to continue even as the patients who received the experimental study drug were experiencing strikingly inferior outcomes compared with participants on standard therapy. The lack of answers about this trial remains a glaring example of shortcomings in the research paradigm.

The importance of gaining the input of individual patients with cancer into their own medical management cannot be overstated.

The debate over the confirmation of Robert M. Califf, MD, as FDA commissioner illustrates the need to change the way we talk about whether a medical professional has a "conflict of interest" rather than simply an "association of interest."

Shouldn’t the goal of oncologists be to do what is best for their patients, regardless of the currently existing level of evidence and particularly when any timeline for obtaining that "gold standard" evidence will be irrelevant for the patient being cared for today?

If germline testing for a cancer-associated purpose reveals the risk of an unrelated illness like Alzheimer disease, should patients routinely be told—even if there’s nothing that can be done about that “incidental” finding?

Clinical oncologists may not be fully aware of shortcomings in the laboratory research paradigm that have the potential to distort the scientific underpinnings of vital cancer studies.

The delivery of antineoplastic therapy via the intravenous route is a long-standing, critical, and well-coordinated component of oncology practice. But what happens when a novel treatment strategy is introduced into the oncology arena that challenges this traditional drug infusion paradigm?

One hopes that the infrastructure established to support the Moonshot initiative will serve as an effective counterbalance to the efforts to derail activities critical to improving cancer outcomes.

There is growing evidence that continued reliance on the mantra of “randomized phase III trials” is highly problematic.

The appropriateness of off-label drug use in the management of patients with cancer in the United States is one of the most contentious issues confronting individual oncologists, patients, insurers, and governmental policy makers.

In The Death of Cancer, written by Vincent T. DeVita Jr, MD, a pioneering oncologist reveals, after 50 years on the front lines of medicine, why the war on cancer is winnable, and how to get there. In an interview with OncLive hosted by Maurie Markman, MD, he speaks with DeVita on his book and his thoughts on how the field has evolved.

Although the goals of quality-care and value-based oncology initiatives are legitimate and laudable, some of the assertions should be examined more closely.

The greatest concern with the profoundly distressing episode that has unfolded at Duke University in recent years is whether it will truly serve as a learning experience that would help prevent future misconduct— events that have the potential to result in serious harm to highly vulnerable patients with cancer.

There is an objectively rational and scientifically valid alternative to evaluate N-of-1 experiences, and there is a critical need for the continued development of such approaches, which the oncology community increasingly recognizes as a necessary step to replace the established but untenable randomized clinical trial paradigm.

It is simply unrealistic and highly counterproductive to the future of cancer care to believe that the only acceptable approach to determining the absolute or relative clinical utility of a specific drug, regimen, device, or procedure, is through the conduct of a so-called evidence-based randomized trial.

Although legitimate questions have been raised over the years regarding the generalizability of clinical study results in the nonresearch setting, patients with cancer have benefited greatly from the appropriate conduct, completion, and ultimate reporting of such trials in the peer-reviewed medical literature.

During the past several years, there has been considerable discussion-and even intense debate- within the oncology literature regarding the currently documented benefits of precision cancer medicine.

In some ways, the Pathway Genomics test reflects the serious problem of lead time bias in the oncology arena.

Examples of the clinical relevance of an individual patient's normal polymorphisms continue to mount.

How can any analysis of the quality of cancer care being delivered by providers that focuses on a survival outcome as the ultimate measure of that quality-rather than on an evaluation of the optimization of the care process-be considered objectively valid and clinically meaningful?

Mismatch repair deficiency may serve as an immuno-oncology biomarker and may illustrate the clinical utility of analyzing the number of mutations per tumor.

A trend in the biomedical industry to bypass the rigors of scientific publishing was highlighted recently in a provocative commentary regarding the virtual absence of data in the peer-reviewed literature demonstrating the utility of a novel proprietary laboratory testing platform.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses how the molecular complexities of cancer necessitate that clinical research evolves beyond the basket trial design.

Dr. Maurie Markman discusses how the transition to the new therapeutic paradigm of oral therapies necessitates that we consider unique aspects of this strategy that may negatively impact outcomes compared with an approach of systemic antineoplastic drug administration.

The debate over the relative impact on survival outcomes of therapy versus the inherent biology of an individual patient's cancer remains one of the most controversial areas in all of cancer medicine.

Amid the increasingly public discussion and often vigorous debate surrounding the general topic of precision cancer medicine, there appears to be a misconception of what the term is meant to imply.

Maurie Markman, MD, national director, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, discusses what he sees as future treatment paradigms in ovarian cancer.

Patients with advanced cancers of the pancreas or prostate, or where progression to this state occurs later in the course of the illness, should have tumor or germline testing performed looking for the presence of a BRCA mutation.

Maurie Markman, MD, offers examples of clinical trials where the interpretation of study results is worthy of considerable additional discussion or where justification for the actual conduct of the study can be called into question.

What if a negative study had been made available through a secure online registry where patients could sign up, with the assistance of their own oncologists?