Search

PURPOSE: Real-world data (RWD) holds promise for ascribing a real-world (rw) outcome to a drug intervention; however, ascertaining rw-response to treatment from RWD can be challenging. Friends of Cancer Research formed a collaboration to assess available data attributes related to rw-response across RWD sources to inform methods for capturing, defining, and evaluating rw-response. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective noninterventional (observational) study included seven electronic health record data companies (data providers) providing summary-level deidentified data from 200 patients diagnosed with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) and treated with first-line platinum doublet chemotherapy following a common protocol. Data providers reviewed the availability and frequency of data components to assess rw-response (ie, images, radiology imaging reports, and clinician response assessments). A common protocol was used to assess and report rw-response end points, including rw-response rate (rwRR), rw-duration of response (rwDOR), and the association of rw-response with rw-overall survival (rwOS), rw-time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD), and rw-time to next treatment (rwTTNT). RESULTS: The availability and timing of clinician assessments was relatively consistent across data sets in contrast to images and image reports. Real-world response was analyzed using clinician response assessments (median proportion of patients evaluable, 77.5%), which had the highest consistency in the timing of assessments. Relative consistency was observed across data sets for rwRR (median 46.5%), as well as the median and directionality of rwOS, rwTTD, and rwTTNT. There was variability in rwDOR across data sets. CONCLUSION: This collaborative effort demonstrated the feasibility of aligning disparate data sources to evaluate rw-response end points using clinician-documented responses in patients with mNSCLC. Heterogeneity exists in the availability of data components to assess response and related rw-end points, and further work is needed to inform drug effectiveness evaluation within RWD sources. Consistency of real-world response taken from EHR data in patients with mNSCLC treated with chemotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with soft tissue sarcoma with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) amplification treated with palbociclib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16+ weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. The DC rate was estimated with a 90% CI. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Forty-two patients with CDK4 amplification were enrolled. One patient was not evaluable for efficacy. One patient with partial response and 18 with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 46% (90% CI, 36 to 100) and 2% (95% CI, <1 to 13), respectively. Median PFS was 16 weeks (95% CI, 9 to 28) and median OS was 69 weeks (95% CI, 31 to 111) for evaluable patients. Twenty patients had at least one grade 3 to 4 adverse event (AE) at least possibly related to palbociclib, including alanine aminotransferase increase, anemia, fatigue, hypophosphatemia, leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia. No serious AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: Palbociclib met prespecified criteria to declare a signal of antitumor activity in patients with sarcoma and CDK4 amplification. Palbociclib met @ASCO #TAPUR criteria to declare antitumor activity in patients with CDK4-amplified liposarcoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with various solid tumors with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations treated with talazoparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, measurable disease (RECIST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Patients with germline BRCA -mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were not eligible for this study. Primary end point was disease control (DC) determined by investigator assessment of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power = 0.82; α =.10). Secondary end points were OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (20 cancer types) with BRCA1/2 mutations were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2021 and collapsed into a single histology pooled cohort for analysis. All patients were evaluable for efficacy. One complete response, nine partial response, and six SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 57% (one-sided 90% CI, 43 to 100) and 36% (95% CI, 19 to 56), respectively. The null hypothesis of a 15% DC rate was rejected (P <.001). Patients with OR had the following tumor types: breast (2), nonmelanoma skin, mesothelioma, stomach, uterus, non–small cell lung cancer, ovary, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreas. Thirteen patients had at least one grade 3-5 adverse event (AE) or serious AE at least possibly related to talazoparib. All were consistent with the drug label except bilirubin increase and hyponatremia (both grade 3 AEs). CONCLUSION: Talazoparib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRCA1/2 mutations, including cancer types for which poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors are not yet US Food and Drug Administration–approved. Talazoparib showed activity in patients with BRCA-mutated tumors for which PARP inhibitors are not yet FDA-approved. @ASCO #TAPUR [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the advent of targeted agents and immunological therapies, the medical research community has become increasingly aware that conventional methods for determining the best dose or schedule of a new agent are inadequate. It has been well established that conventional phase I designs cannot reliably identify safe and effective doses. This problem applies, generally, for cytotoxic agents, radiation therapy, targeted agents, and immunotherapies. To address this, the US Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus, with the goal "to reform the dose optimization and dose selection paradigm in oncology drug development." As a response to Project Optimus, the articles in this special issue of Clinical Trials review recent advances in methods for choosing the dose or schedule of a new agent with an overall objective of informing clinical trialists of these innovative designs. This introductory article briefly reviews problems with conventional methods, the regulatory changes that encourage better dose optimization designs, and provides brief summaries of the articles that follow in this special issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Artificial intelligence (AI) models can generate scientific abstracts that are difficult to distinguish from the work of human authors. The use of AI in scientific writing and performance of AI detection tools are poorly characterized. METHODS: We extracted text from published scientific abstracts from the ASCO 2021-2023 Annual Meetings. Likelihood of AI content was evaluated by three detectors: GPTZero, Originality.ai, and Sapling. Optimal thresholds for AI content detection were selected using 100 abstracts from before 2020 as negative controls, and 100 produced by OpenAI's GPT-3 and GPT-4 models as positive controls. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of predicted AI content with submission year and abstract characteristics, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were computed. RESULTS: Fifteen thousand five hundred and fifty-three abstracts met inclusion criteria. Across detectors, abstracts submitted in 2023 were significantly more likely to contain AI content than those in 2021 (aOR range from 1.79 with Originality to 2.37 with Sapling). Online-only publication and lack of clinical trial number were consistently associated with AI content. With optimal thresholds, 99.5%, 96%, and 97% of GPT-3/4–generated abstracts were identified by GPTZero, Originality, and Sapling respectively, and no sampled abstracts from before 2020 were classified as AI generated by the GPTZero and Originality detectors. Correlation between detectors was low to moderate, with Spearman correlation coefficient ranging from 0.14 for Originality and Sapling to 0.47 for Sapling and GPTZero. CONCLUSION: There is an increasing signal of AI content in ASCO abstracts, coinciding with the growing popularity of generative AI models. Analysis of 15,553 ASCO meeting abstracts with 3 AI detectors suggests rise in AI content in 2023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite extensive studies of the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer, there is a dearth of information from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Our study aimed to report pertinent MENA COVID-19 and Cancer Registry (MCCR) findings on patient management and outcomes. Methods: MCCR was adapted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology COVID-19 Registry to collect data specifically from patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection from 12 centers in eight countries including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, United Arab Emirates, and Morocco. The Registry included data on patients and disease characteristics, treatment, and patient outcomes. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with mortality. Results: Between November 29, 2020, and June 8, 2021, data were captured on 2008 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic. Median age was 56 years (16–98), 56.4% were females, and 26% were current or ex-smokers. Breast cancer (28.5%) was the leading diagnosis and 50.5% had metastatic disease. Delays of planned treatment (.14 days) occurred in 80.3% for surgery, 48.8% for radiation therapy, and 32.9% for systemic therapy. Significant reduction in the delays of all three treatment modalities occurred after June 1, 2020. All-cause mortality rates at 30 and 90 days were 17.1% and 23.4%, respectively. All-cause mortality rates at 30 days did not change significantly after June 1, 2020; however, 90-day mortality increased from 33.4% to 42.9% before and after that date (p ¼ 0.015). Multivariable regression analysis showed the following predictors of higher 30- and 90-day mortality: age older than 70 years, having metastatic disease, disease progression, and being off chemotherapy. Conclusion: Patients with cancer in the MENA region experienced similar risks and outcome of COVID-19 as reported in other populations. Although there were fewer treatment delays after June 1, 2020, 90-day mortality increased, which may be attributed to other risk factors such as disease progression or new patients who presented with more advanced disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: With the advent of precision medicine, molecular tumor boards (MTBs) were established to interpret genomic results and guide decision making for targeted therapy in oncology patients. There are currently no universal guidelines for how MTBs should operate and thus variance can be seen depending on which MTB is reviewing the case. This study assesses the concordance of MTB recommendations when a participant case is reviewed by two different MTBs, establishes potential reasons for discordance, and advocates for the establishment of standard MTB operating guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with advanced cancer, who had exhausted all standard treatment options were screened for the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study. Cases were submitted for MTB review if the treatment proposal was outside the protocol genomic matching rules, or if multiple treatment options were identified. Of the 306 cases submitted for review by the TAPUR MTB from 2016 to 2018, 107 were randomly selected for secondary review by a different MTB group. Recommendations from the original review were not disclosed. Concordance between MTB group recommendations was assessed. Concordance was defined as agreement between MTB reviews on the genomic alteration and study drug match proposed by the clinical site. Thematic qualitative analysis was conducted for the discordant cases to assess reasons for discordance. RESULTS: Complete or partial concordance was observed in 79% of cases (95% CI, 70 to 86; one-sided P =.25). Most discordant analyses were due to disagreements on the strength of evidence regarding efficacy of the proposed treatment (32%). CONCLUSION: When presented with identical participant cases, different MTB review groups make the same or similar treatment recommendations approximately 80% of the time. Over 300 cases have been submitted to TAPUR Study molecular tumor board (MTB). When presented with the same study participant cases, different MTB review groups make the same or similar treatment recommendations most of the time in the context of a precision medicine study for patients with advanced cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results from cohorts of patients with metastatic breast cancer (BC) with FGFR1 and FGFR2 alterations treated with sunitinib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary end point of disease control (DC), defined as objective response (OR) or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+) according to RECIST v1.1. Secondary end points included OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Forty patients with BC with FGFR1 (N = 30; amplification only n = 26, mutation only n = 1, both n = 3) or FGFR2 (N = 10; amplification only n = 2, mutation only n = 6, both n = 2) alterations were enrolled. Three patients in the FGFR1 cohort were not evaluable for efficacy; all patients in the FGFR2 cohort were evaluable. For the FGFR1 cohort, two patients with partial response and four with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 27% (90% CI, 13 to 100) and 7% (95% CI, 1 to 24), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% DC rate was not rejected (P =.169). No patients achieved DC in the FGFR2 cohort (P = 1.00). Thirteen of the 40 total patients across both cohorts had at least one grade 3-4 adverse event or serious adverse event at least possibly related to sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib did not meet prespecified criteria to declare a signal of antitumor activity in patients with BC with either FGFR1 or FGFR2 alterations. Other treatments and clinical trials should be considered for these patient populations. Sunitinib did not demonstrate antitumor activity in patients with FGFR1-/2-amplified or -mutated breast cancer. @ASCO #TAPUR [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket study evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. The results in a cohort of patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) or stable disease of at least 16-weeks duration (SD16+). Low-accruing histology-specific cohorts with BRAF mutations treated with cobimetinib plus vemurafenib were collapsed into a single histology-pooled cohort for this analysis. The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power,.82; α,.10). The secondary end points were objective response (OR), progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with solid tumors with BRAF mutations were enrolled. Twenty-eight patients were evaluable for efficacy. Patients had tumors with BRAF V600E (n = 26), K601E (n = 2), or other (n = 3) mutations. Two patients with CR (breast and ovarian cancers; V600E), 14 with PR (13 V600E, one N581I), and three with SD16+ (two V600E, one T599_V600insT) were observed with a DC rate of 68% (P <.0001; one-sided 90% CI, 54 to 100) and an OR rate of 57% (95% CI, 37 to 76). Nineteen patients experienced ≥one drug-related grade 3-5 adverse event or serious adverse event including one death attributed to treatment-related kidney injury. CONCLUSION: Cobimetinib plus vemurafenib showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors with BRAF V600E mutations; additional study is warranted to confirm the antitumor activity in tumors with non-V600E BRAF mutations. @ASCO #TAPUR results build upon efficacy of BRAF + MEK inhibitors in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRAF V600E mutations [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conceptual framework of pragmatism in clinical trials is explored using the American Society of Clinical Oncology's pragmatic, non-randomized, phase II, multi-center basket clinical trial, the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study (NCT02693535) as a model. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study aims to identify signals of drug activity when Food and Drug Administration approved drugs are matched to pre-specified genomic targets in patients with advanced cancer outside of their approved indication(s). The objectives of the study are to generate evidence of potential signals of activity in targeted therapies prescribed in an off-label setting as well as to expose and educate community cancer centers to genomic testing and precision medicine through the study protocol. The principles of pragmatic trial design can be applied across a broad spectrum of evidence-generation strategies, from explanatory trials to real-world evidence studies, and are briefly discussed. American Society of Clinical Oncology's Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study falls closer to the pragmatic end of this spectrum as it seeks to assess the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration approved drugs used outside their approved indications under usual care conditions, yielding results generalizable to the population that would likely receive the intervention in practice, while still adhering to rigorous data quality standards. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study's pragmatic objectives, characteristics, strengths, and limitations in its implementation are discussed and demonstrate that a large, multi-center, precision medicine basket trial can be mounted in the context of community practice and can generate clinically useful information with minimal burden to patients and clinical trial sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket study evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with solid tumors with ATM mutations treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as complete (CR) or partial (PR) response or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). Low-accruing histology-specific cohorts with ATM mutations treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab were collapsed into a single histology-pooled cohort for this analysis. The results were evaluated based on a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power =.84; α =.10). Secondary end points were objective response (OR), progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients with 10 tumor types with ATM mutations were enrolled from January 2018 to May 2020. One patient was not evaluable for efficacy. One CR, three PR, and three SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 24% (P =.13; one-sided 90% CI: 14 to 100) and 14% (95% CI: 4 to 32), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% DC rate was not rejected. Eleven patients had one treatment-related grade 3 adverse event (AE) or serious AE. There were two treatment-related patient deaths including immune-related encephalitis and respiratory failure. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab plus ipilimumab did not meet prespecified criteria to declare a signal of activity in patients with solid tumors with ATM mutations. Nivolumab + ipilimumab did not meet @ASCO #TAPUR criteria to declare antitumor activity in patients w/ ATM-mutated solid tumors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic medical centers nationwide face numerous fiscal challenges resulting from implementation of restructured healthcare delivery models, contracting state support for higher education, and increased competition for federal and other sources of biomedical research funding. In pursuing greater accountability and transparency in its fiscal operations, the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) has implemented a responsibility centers management budgetary model, which requires all MUSC colleges to be eventually self-sustaining financially. Graduate schools in the biomedical sciences are particularly vulnerable in the face of these challenges, depending traditionally as they do on financial support from training grant tuition, occasional medical school tuition and medical practice plan revenues, graduate college--based revenue-generating programs, and faculty payment of PhD tuition. The revenue streams are often insufficient to support PhD training programs, and supplemental financial support is required from the institution. In the context of a college of graduate studies, estimates of the cost of educating a graduate student become a significant necessity. This study presents a readily applicable model of empirically estimating the faculty salary costs that may provide a basis for budgetary planning that will help to sustain a biomedical sciences graduate school's commitment to its teaching, research, and service mission goals. The authors have included a supplemental materials article.

PURPOSE The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifi- cations to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct. METHODS This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified. RESULTS Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n 5 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the prepandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n 5 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n 5 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n 514) or no impact (n 51) on overall data integrity. CONCLUSION Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]