BackgroundIn 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) initiated a pilot project on parallel scientific advice with Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTABs) that allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both the European Union (EU) regulators and HTABs on their development plans for medicines.AimsThe present retrospective qualitative analysis aimed to explore how the parallel scientific advice system is working and levels of commonality between the EU regulators and HTABs, and among HTABs, when applicants obtain parallel scientific advice from both a regulatory and an HTA perspective.MethodsWe analysed the minutes of discussion meetings held at the EMA between 2010, when parallel advice was launched, and 1 May 2015, when the cutoff date for data extraction was set. The analysis was based on predefined criteria and conducted at two different levels of comparison: the answers of the HTABs vs. those of the regulators, and between the answers of the participating HTA agencies.ResultsThe analysis was based on 31 procedures of parallel scientific advice. The level of full agreements was highest for questions on patient population (77%), while disagreements reached a peak for questions on the study comparator (30%). With regard to comparisons among HTABs, there was a high level of agreement for all domains.ConclusionsThere is evident commonality, in terms of evidence requirements between the EU regulators and participating HTABs, as well as among HTABs, on most aspects of clinical development. Indeed, regardless of the question content, the analysis showed that a high level of overall agreement was reached through the process of parallel scientific advice.

The 5th EORTC Quality of Life in Cancer Clinical Trials Conference presented the current state of quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) research from the perspectives of researchers, regulators, industry representatives, patients and patient advocates and health care professionals. A major theme was the assessment of the burden of cancer treatments, and this was discussed in terms of regulatory challenges in using PRO assessments in clinical trials, patients' experiences in cancer clinical trials, innovative methods and standardisation in cancer research, innovative methods across the disease sites or populations and cancer survivorship. Conferees demonstrated that PROs are becoming more accepted and major efforts are ongoing internationally to standardise PROs measurement, analysis and reporting in trials. Regulators are keen to collaborate with all stakeholders to ensure that the right questions are asked and the right answers are communicated. Improved technology and increased flexibility of measurement instruments are making PROs data more

Clinically relevant differences in the outcome of the EMA and FDA approval process of oncology products were found. Neither of the agencies seems to have a prevailing restrictive behavior over the other. Further efforts on harmonizing decision making between regulatory systems are needed.