Having revealed the top attributes for successful leadership in ImmunoOncology, MDOutlook’s latest release reveals that specific commercial and marketing activities influence about 25% of oncologists’ leadership criteria.

As important criteria for steering successful leadership reputation, oncologists rated the following specific commercial and marketing activities in order of impact.

1. Length of time in market
2. Corporate reputation
3. Medical educational activities
4. Patient access (affordability and availability)
5. Patient support programs
6. Supportive tools / services for healthcare professionals
7. Promotional educational activities
8. Sales representatives and MSLs
9. Supportive digital health solutions

Subtle geographical differences were observed. US oncologist favored “longevity”, “corporate reputation” and “patient access (affordability / availability) to treatments”. EU based oncologists stressed more importance on “medical educational activities” and “supportive tools and services for healthcare professionals”.

To gain richer insight and understanding for your organization and your competitors, we analyzed performance by each attribute based on oncologist perspectives with their chosen life science companies. Get in touch to find out how your company and your competitors performed.

In a future release, we will explore specific attributes revealing company performance and opportunity.

About the study

The 2019 Leadership Study was conducted with 100 oncologists across US and EU using MDOutlook’s proprietary ONCpulse™ service.

The research objectives were to:

• Define the meaning of “corporate leadership” to the oncology community
• Reveal the leaders in oncology and ImmunoOncology (IO) and to compare / contrast how companies are evaluated by oncologists
• Assess current drivers & barriers to ImmunoOncology treatment use and identify what oncologists would like to see improved by corporate leaders in the IO space

Please contact us if you wish to be included in the distribution of the study.

In our latest release from the 2019 Leadership study, we reveal 7 key attributes that account for 75% of Oncologists’ definition of leadership in ImmunoOncology (IO).

These attributes comprise R&D / pipeline and product related aspects of life science company activities.

We found high consistency across geography. However, EU oncologists placed greater emphasis on “clinical trials & research grants” and “integration of biomarkers and diagnostics” compared to their US colleagues.

The attributes are in order of overall impact:

1. Number of approvals (cancer types & lines of therapy)
2. Number of different IO products available within portfolio
3. Development of combination therapies with IO
4. Clinical trials and research grants
5. Integration of biomarkers and diagnostics
6. Differentiation from other IO offerings
7. Value proposition of product portfolio

For each of these attributes we analyze performance by life science companies. Get in touch to find out how your company and your competitors performed.

In our next release, we will explore the remaining attributes and reveal the relative importance of specific commercial and marketing activities to oncologists when defining leadership.

About the study

The 2019 Leadership Study was conducted with 100 oncologists across US and EU using MDOutlook’s proprietary ONCpulse™ service. The research objectives were to:

• Define the meaning of “corporate leadership” to the oncology community
• Reveal the leaders in oncology and ImmunoOncology (IO) and to compare / contrast how companies are evaluated by oncologists
• Assess current drivers & barriers to ImmunoOncology treatment use and identify what oncologists would like to see improved by corporate leaders in the IO space

Please contact us if you wish to be included in the distribution of the study.

Later this month, MDOutlook will release results from the latest wave of their global leadership study.

Using ONCpulse™, we engaged with a robust sample of oncologists located in the United States and Europe. The research objectives were to:

• Define the meaning of “corporate leadership” to the oncology community
• Reveal the leaders in oncology and ImmunoOncology (IO) and to compare / contrast how companies are evaluated by oncologists
• Assess current drivers & barriers to ImmunoOncology treatment use and identify what oncologists would like to see improved by corporate leaders in the IO space

Early results reveal the top 3 companies in Oncology and ImmunoOncology.

Across tumor types, BMS were rated as the top ImmunoOncology leader in 9 out of the 12 areas covered. Oncologists favored Roche & Merck highest in breast cancer (Roche); bladder cancer (Roche & Merck) and NSCLC (Merck).

Oncologists chose to rate leadership across a greater number of companies in the broader oncology arena compared to a tighter list of companies they rated in ImmunoOncology.

Seventy percent of US oncologists viewed leadership success across tumor types than in any one specific area (30% respondents). This view was stronger when compared to the split picture (49% vs 51% respectively) presented by EU-based oncologists.

More information about the 2019 Leadership Study will become available as we publish the read-out results. Please contact us if you wish to be included in the distribution of the study.

Since 1901 the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine has been awarded to 216 Laureates. In total, 122 different discoveries have been endowed; 36 of which directly or indirectly related to cancer development and treatment [source: Team Analysis].

We are excited that the Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute recognizes the very significant progress that has been made in the area of targeted cancer therapies and awards the 2018 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to Drs. James P. Allison of the United States and Tasuku Honjo of Japan for “their discovery of cancer therapy by inhibition of negative immune regulation”.

A sincere congratulations to Drs. Allison and Honjo for this prestigious achievement!

Targeting and individualization in cancer management is occurring at many levels: diagnosis, treatment, and continuous care. This has implications for the commercialization of new and existing therapies, especially including identifying the right physicians relevant to the disease state of the affected patients and understanding them deeply.

MDOutlook offers a range of targeting and profiling offerings mapping the most relevant physicians and HCPs for our customers. To put this to the test, following last week’s Nobel Prize announcement we constructed the professional networks of Drs. Allison and Honjo across different cancers and different domains using our proprietary platform and data, merged with desk research of publicly available information.

This research endeavor was conducted globally and over several domains such as scientific publications, clinical trials, institutions and leadership. Any connection that is shown as an orange circle means that there is collaboration across multiple domains. The thickness of the line connecting 2 physicians indicates the strength of their collaboration (see images below).

Lead data scientist Dag Holmboe and VP of Research, Dr. Robert Stephan led the MDOutlook analysis team to several interesting conclusions:

• Dr. Allison collaborates across multiple domains, including association and editorial leadership, whereas Dr. Honjo’s network focuses on publications
• Specific clusters of collaboration appear as additional filters are applied. For instance, by requiring a minimum of 3 collaborations, Dr. Allison shows a strong collaborative network at MD Anderson across multiple cancers (melanoma, gynecological, gastrointestinal) as highlighted by the grey shape. And in onco-immunology, Dr. Allison collaborates across leadership roles such as editorial (Cancer Immunology Research, Oncoimmunology) and associations (AACR) as highlighted by the yellow shape
• These connections transcend borders and are truly international

MDOutlook’s cloud-based applications offer interactive mapping and real-time updating, providing users with the ability to supplement our research with their own, to pivot and explore meaningful or intriguing collaborations. Through our work, we encourage our clients to dive deeper into the analysis and create competitive advantages with a more profound understanding of the space.

Figure 1. Professional network of Dr. Allison across multiple cancers and domains. Connections with two or more collaborations are shown.

Figure 2. Professional network of Dr. Honjo across multiple cancers and domains. Connections with two or more collaborations are shown.

Figure 3. Professional network of Dr. Allison across multiple cancers and domains. Connections with three or more collaborations are shown.

For more information on this research and to learn more about how working with us will enhance your decision-making, please connect with us here.

Two very common questions we are often asked by our clients are “What is a typical patient volume for this disease?” and “Who are the high-volume treaters?” Recently, we performed an analysis of nearly 1300 U.S. physician-reported recent patient volumes in selected GI tumor types, leading to interesting insights.

In line with overall incidence reporting, the patient volumes for colorectal cancer (CRC) are much larger than the other GI cancer types researched: hepatocellular, gastric and pancreatic cancer (Figure 1). Separating by typical practice setting, academics treat more patients in the smaller GI cancers by approximately 30% over average patient volumes. Yet for CRC, the community oncologists actually treat more patients than their academic counterparts, by 10%. Similar to our experience in other major cancers – such as breast, lung, and prostate – community oncologists see enough of these patients that they are sufficiently experienced to keep the patients under their care into later lines and with greater complexities, instead of having them referred to an academic center.

Figure 1: U.S. Physician reported patient volumes in GI oncology – Academic vs. Community settings

 

As in our previous post, Knowing is Half the Battle, there is a deeper story behind the numbers. Our research team identified other characteristics to separate out high-volume treaters. One aspect our clients often ask us about is the patient-facing role of key leaders in the field, so-called ThoughtLeaders.

MDOutlook uses a range of expert activities, so called expert domains, to establish different tiers of ThoughtLeaders. Our team first analyzed how commonly applied domains, such as body of peer-reviewed publications on the subject and participation in clinical trials, would separate patient volumes. Considering how closely-related these GI cancer types are, we identified those who either publish or are a trial investigator in 1 of these or multiple cancer types (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Impact of ThoughtLeader Activities (Publication or Clinical Trial Participation) on GI Patient Volumes

As expected, those engaged in these types of activities did have a higher average patient volume. However, two conclusions stuck out to us:

1. Those with expert activity in 2 or more disease states did not appear to have higher patient volumes than those with activity in just 1 disease. So, while performing these activities in multiple areas may have synergistic benefits for the physicians (they know how to publish or perform clinical trials), drivers of patient volume are really focused on activity for that particular cancer (see below).
2. Considering these expert activities alone has a similar predictive value to patient volume as the practice setting.

Because one of our specialties at MDOutlook is enhanced ThoughtLeader insight, our research team went a step further to assess the self-reported patient volumes for the true ThoughtLeaders in each area. MDOutlook considers multiple expert domains for such determination: Authorship, Trial Investigator activity, Physician Peer Nominations, and Leadership roles. As shown in Figure 3, identified ThoughtLeaders in a specific disease state have the highest patient volumes. This also settles an oft-asked question if they are too busy in their expert activities to actually see patients! And this enrichment in patient volumes is even stronger when separating the ThoughtLeaders to only those at academic centers.

Figure 3: Patient Volume Enrichment for GI Cancer ThoughtLeaders

Further analysis performed by the MDOutlook team (internal data) implies that the higher patient volumes of ThoughtLeaders are mostly a result of their prominence as an expert and less the mechanism to which they become an expert. And these experts conclusively do find the time to treat many patients.

Finally, when thinking about the entire market, we encourage you to keep one more aspect in mind: while ThoughtLeaders have considerably higher patient volumes than others, the majority of patients are treated by non-ThoughtLeaders. In our research, ThoughtLeaders comprise only 8-15% of the treaters in any given therapy area and total patient volume managed by this group comprises about 20% of the market.

Of course, a key value of the ThoughtLeaders is their impact and influence with the non-ThoughtLeaders. So with an informed, comprehensive ThoughtLeader engagement strategy, you can achieve the ‘double-whammy’ of propelling high-volume treaters in their practice and their larger sphere of influence.

MDOutlook utilizes these advanced methodologies to provide real, actionable insights to our clients. Our newest offering ONCpulse™ offers this sophistication while having your business questions answered in record time.

Contact us to learn how we can help you drive success in today’s rapidly changing environment.

 

 

 

 

For 10+ years, MDOutlook has been helping clients to fight the battle to better understand how new clinical data drives treatment decisions. Early this summer, we completed a study that exemplifies how a data presentation at major medical meeting impacts oncologists’ treatment decisions.

As shown in Figure 1, we project that the star of the new data presentation, “Product X,” will see major increases in its usage. These increases will come primarily at the expense of the 2 current leaders: Treatment A & Treatment B. Tx A and Tx B are the 1st and 2nd most used treatment approaches in the sample geography, except one. In fact, Product X will become the leader or 2nd most used treatment in this setting in 5 of the 6 major countries researched (Figure 2).

    

Certainly, those with Product X are pleased with these projections, and those with Tx A and B are worried and need to act immediately to prevent this loss of share. But what if Treatment C or D is your responsibility? In fact, their usage is going to be relatively unaffected by Product X. Granted, these treatments are used in smaller selected subsets of patients, but the treatment of these patients will continue as before (data not shown).

Before this data presentation, only a few physicians were using Product X in their practice, likely as an investigational approach or in an “off-label” decision. After the presentation, most physicians said they would be using it (Figure 3). However, notice the proportion who would continue using Tx A and B. By and by, there really won’t be wholesale losses in the number of physicians using these products. For the main three treatments, pretty much almost everyone will be using all three in their practice (with, of course, some country-specific variations, which are always important to understand!).

Looking further into Tx C and D, only a relatively small group of physicians is using these treatments (Figure 3); these proportions do not change from the baseline measurement (data not shown). Moving forward, Product X does not appear to impact overall usage of Tx C and D, used selectively by a subset of physicians in a specific patient subgroup. Therefore, if you are managing Tx C or D, you should not really be concerned about the impact of the data announcement compared to those responsible for Tx A and B.

Taking everything together, what’s the real outcome of this data presentation? Well, Product X will have a major impact on treatment selection. And this impact is best understood as a patient segmentation event: the main group of patients will be split into those being treated with Product X and those remaining with Treatments A & B. Treatments C & D will remain the preferred option for the selected subsets of patients currently receiving them and not impacted by Product X.

Whether you are Product X, or Treatments A-D, shouldn’t you want to know what will happen to your product’s usage? Don’t you think it is critical for your success to understand which physicians and how many will be using your product, and in which subsets of their patients? Whether the new data is a presentation at a major meeting, a publication in a peer-reviewed journal, or an announcement of regulatory approval/label-expansion, knowing and understanding sooner rather than later is half the battle!

Contact us NOW to learn how we can help YOU drive success in today’s rapidly changing environment, for instance with data announcements at upcoming meetings such as ESMO and ASH.

We are thrilled to announce the launch of our newest subscription service: ONCpulse™. Realizing that many of our clients struggle with obtaining rapid insights to improve their decision-making, MDOutlook has developed ONCpulse.

ONCpulse delivers rapid, on-demand insights from verified, high quality cancer treaters and experts:
Rapid: Delivering actionable insights within 72 hours
Right: Engaging verified, high-quality cancer treaters and experts
Reach: Covers all cancers and geographies, accessing more than 100,000 cancer treaters globally
Relevant: Answers your specific questions through customized questions

Clients pre-purchase a set research bank of insights that they can implement on-demand. This drives transparency, eases client operations, creates flexibility in timing and scope, and most importantly delivers clients the desired, actionable insights within 72 hours. ONCpulse utilized proprietary assets including the MDOutlook network and technology.

For more information, view the ONCpulse page here, and contact the ONCpulse team at [email protected] or +1.404.496.4136.

Our President and Founder, Jan Heybroek, was invited by PM360 to comment on recent concerns about the quality of (oncology) market research. The need to quickly track new product performance in priority markets is a key driver for this anxiety. This is relevant since standard prescription data, multi-disciplinary patient management, and varied institutional settings provide a scattered picture of the oncology market.

The industry can take major steps to ensure receipt of impeccable oncology market intelligence on a consistent basis. Jan provides 6 key measures to consider. Read his full column in PM360.

For more information on how MDOutlook provides impeccable and actionable disease intelligence, navigate our site and contact us here.