Maurie Markman, MD

The publication of the objectively meaningful outcomes in high-impact peer-reviewed medical journals does not necessarily result in the observations being implemented into routine clinical care.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses maintenance therapy and how it differs from other strategies in cancer care.

In the opinion of this commentator, one of the more exciting developments in clinical investigation over the past several years is the increasing recognition of the importance of real-world data and its role for physicians, regulators, policy makers, patients, and society.

Peer-reviewed articles continue to challenge the recognition of progression-free survival as an acceptable primary end point in randomized cancer trials or insist on labeling this objectively measured outcome as nothing more than a potential surrogate for effects representing actual clinically meaningful results.

From evaluating clinical outcomes to determining payment for services, measurements are important in health care.

Maurie Markman, MD, offers expert insights on the hurdles facing community oncologists, the uptake of biomarkers in the clinic, and an overview of what to look forward to in his area of expertise: gynecologic oncology.

There are serious concerns about textbook descriptions of peer review, specifically within the realm of clinical research, which pose a threat to both the objectivity of the field of investigative medicine and, perhaps most importantly, to the public’s support of clinical science.

Despite numerous well-designed and conducted randomized trials, a definitive answer to the role of specific disease management remains unclear, particularly in the discussions of the optimal role for the regional delivery of cytotoxic chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with ovarian cancer.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses the need for oncologists to improve communication with the public and patients.

Pragmatic clinical trials “inform a clinical or policy decision by providing evidence for adoption of the intervention into real-world clinical practice.”

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses the obstacles between implementing clinical trial data into practice.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses the expansion and overlap of the language of science within different medical disciplines and the general public.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses the obstacles presented to cancer efforts as a result of challenges to scientific authority during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Maurie Markman, MD, explains the concerns surrounding liquid biopsies in cancer screening, and why regulatory agencies should be cautious and not approve any proposed molecularly based cancer diagnostic screening strategy until the tool is shown to effect cancer-specific survival compared with a control population not undergoing such testing.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses the debate between surrogate end points of overall survival and progression-free survival in clinical trials within oncology.

It is difficult to know where exactly to begin this commentary regarding the FDA approval to permit commer-cial sales of the Alzheimer disease drug aducanumab-avwa.

Maurie Markman, MD, shares how evidence strongly supports that approaches to cancer prevention have little chance of success unless those being targeted are willing to listen to, and ultimately trust, the recommendations being made by members of the scientific community.

Maurie Markman, MD on strategies to appropriately evaluate small but clinically relevant patient subsets for whom traditional phase 3 randomized clinical trials are difficult, if not impossible, to complete in a realistically timely manner.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses how agency leaders should be encouraged to improve regulatory science, include a patient’s perspective in approval decisions, reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and costs associated with the conduct of trials, and accelerate the overall review process for drug approval.

Maurie Markman, MD, discusses the need for peer-reviewed publications to encourage further discussion and debate, challenge existing ideas or dogma, or provide support for current biological concepts or in the clinical realm for treatment of patients.

Maurie Markman, MD, highlights the ongoing regulatory concerns that demand attention of the FDA in the cancer arena amidst evolving issues regarding COVID-19.

The continued uncertainties of the current and future status of the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in a lack of trust in the authority of the scientific establishment in the United States, and elsewhere, as it operates during these difficult times.

There has been limited discussion in the cancer literature for how peer review among the multiple oncology journals and international cancer conferences is conducted.

It is difficult to overstate the confusion associated with our nation’s messaging regarding a well-considered, rational, and scientifically based public health–focused approach to the current and future ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic.

One year ago, few objective observers would have suggested that the percentage of individuals who are currently fully vaccinated is less than 30%, despite the well-documented real-world success data for the vaccines in preventing serious illness, hospitalizations, and death from COVID-19 infection.

Within the hierarchy of clinical trials, phase 3 randomized studies remain the gold standard, though some argue that appropriately designed meta-analysis of multiple studies provides even more definitive and meaningful insight.

The overall picture related to COVID-19 in the Unites States is encouraging, and we might suspect that the American public would be relatively united with favorable views of efforts of public health officials and organizations at the national, state, and local levels to successfully control this terrible event and return us to our prepandemic state.

Multiple FDA approvals and an increasing number of clinical trials examining molecular target–based therapeutics, including second- or even third-generation drugs against a well-defined target, present an ever-widening array of drugs for routine cancer care based on the discovery of specific molecular targets within the tumor or within the germline.

Although the COVID-19 vaccine rollout is unprecedented in speed and scope, the process of postapproval surveillance has been shown to be robust and should serve as a source of reassurance to the public regarding the effectiveness of the initial and follow-up review process.

The challenges of assessing COVID-19 vaccines shows that events in the real world may differ from those of a formal objective scientific analysis, especially in a setting where such evaluations of necessity involve very small numbers.