Search

Objectives: To characterise the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria in contemporary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials, using recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)‐Friends of Cancer Research (FCR) initiative. Methods: vPhase I–III trials assessing systemic therapies in patients with RCC starting between 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2022 were identified. Eligibility criteria regarding brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were identified and stratified into three groups: exclusion, conditional inclusion, and not reported. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of eligibility criteria. Fisher's exact test or chi‐square test were used to calculate their associations with certain trial characteristics. Results: A total of 423 RCC trials were initially identified of which 112 (26.5%) had sufficient accessible information. Exclusion of patients with HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, brain metastases, and prior or concurrent malignancies were reported in 74.1%, 53.6%, 33.0%, and 8.0% of trials, respectively. In the context of HIV and HBV/HCV infection, patients were largely excluded from trials evaluating immunotherapy (94.4% and 77.8%, respectively). In addition, brain metastases were excluded in trials assessing targeted therapy (36.4%), combined therapy (33.3%), and immunotherapy (22.2%). Exclusion of patients with prior or concurrent malignancies was less frequently reported, accounting for 9.1%, 8.3%, and 5.6% targeted therapy, combined therapy and immunotherapy trials, respectively. Conclusion: A substantial proportion of RCC trials utilise restrictive eligibility criteria, excluding patients with fairly prevalent comorbidities. Implementing the ASCO‐FCR recommendations will ensure resulting data are more inclusive and aligned with patient populations in the real‐world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A comprehensive evaluation of advanced prostate cancer clinical trials' eligibility criteria between 2012 and 2022 demonstrated an overly restrictive eligibility criteria among patients with concurrent brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, and performance status. More inclusive eligibility criteria are required to enhance generalizability of the clinical trials. Purpose: Eligibility criteria illustrate the characteristics of the study population and promote the safety of participants. However, overreliance on restrictive eligibility criteria may limit the generalizability of outcomes. As a result, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) issued statements to curtail these challenges. In this study, we aimed to assess restrictiveness in eligibility cr iter ia across advanced prostate cancer clinical trials. Materials and Methods: We identified all phase I, II, and III advanced prostate cancer clinical trials between June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2022, through Clinicaltrials.gov. We evaluated whether a clinical trial excluded, conditionally included, or did not report 4 common cr iter ia: brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Performance status (PS) cr iter ia were recorded based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale. Results: Out of 699 clinical trials within our search strategy, 265 (37.9%) trials possessed all the required data and were included in our analysis. The most common excluded condition of our interest was brain metastases (60.8%), followed by HIV positivity (46.4%), HBV/HCV positivity (46.0%), and concurrent malignancies (15.5%). Additionally, 50.9% of clinical trials only included patients with ECOG PS 0 to 1. HIV and HBV/HCV infection were exclusion cr iter ia of 22 (80.8%) and 19 (73.1%) immunotherapy trials, respectively. Conclusion: Patients with brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, or low-functioning PS were overly restricted from participating in advanced prostate clinical trials. Advocating for broader cr iter ia may ameliorate generalizability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this retrospective multicenter study (9 sites), including 298 patients with advanced RCC, we investigated the safety of cabozantinib with different anticoagulants. DOACs appear safe for VTE treatment for patients with RCC on cabozantinib as we did not observe any difference in major bleeding events between the no anticoagulant, LMWH, and DOAC groups. Optimized anticoagulation management remains vital in clinical practice. Background: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) on cabozantinib, venous thromboembolism (VTE) management remains challenging due to limited safety data regarding direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) use in conjunction with cabozantinib. We investigated the safety of cabozantinib with different anticoagulants in patients with RCC. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study (9 sites), patients with advanced RCC were allocated into 4 groups: (1) cabozantinib without anticoagulation, cabozantinib with concomitant use of (2) DOACs, (3) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), or (4) warfarin. The primary safety endpoint was the proportion of major bleeding events (defined per International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis cr iter ia). The pr imary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of new/recurrent VTE while anticoagulated. Results: Between 2016 and 2020, 298 patients with RCC received cabozantinib (no anticoagulant = 178, LMWH = 41, DOAC = 64, and warfarin = 15). Most patients had clear cell histology (78.5%) and IMDC intermediate/poor disease (78.2%). Cabozantinib was first, second, or = third line in 21.8%, 31.9%, 43.3% of patients, respectively. Overall, there was no difference in major bleeding events between the no anticoagulant, LMWH, and DOAC groups (P = .088). Rate of new/recurrent VTE was similar among anticoagulant groups. Patients with a VTE had a statistically significantly worse survival than without a VTE (HR 1.48 [CI 95% 1.05-2.08, P = .02]). Conclusion: This real-world cohort provides first data on bleeding and thrombosis complications in patients with RCC treated with cabozantinib with or without concurrent anticoagulation. DOACs appear safe for VTE treatment for patients with RCC on cabozantinib, but optimized anticoagulation management, including individualized risk-benefit discussion, remains important in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tertiary cancer centers offer clinical expertise and multi-modal approaches to treatment alongside the integration of research protocols. Nevertheless, most patients receive their cancer care at community practices. A better understanding of the relationships between tertiary and community practice environments may enhance collaborations and advance patient care. Methods: A 31-item survey was distributed to community and tertiary oncologists in Southern California using REDCap. Survey questions assessed the following attributes: demographics and features of clinical practice, referral patterns, availability and knowledge of clinical trials and precision medicine, strategies for knowledge acquisition, and integration of community and tertiary practices. Results: The survey was distributed to 98 oncologists, 85 (87%) of whom completed it. In total, 52 (61%) respondents were community practitioners and 33 (38%) were tertiary oncologists. A majority (56%) of community oncologists defined themselves as general oncologists, whereas almost all (97%) tertiary oncologists reported a subspecialty. Clinical trial availability was the most common reason for patient referrals to tertiary centers (73%). The most frequent barrier to tertiary referral was financial considerations (59%). Clinical trials were offered by 97% of tertiary practitioners compared to 67% of community oncologists (p = 0.001). Most oncologists (82%) reported only a minimal-to-moderate understanding of clinical trials available at regional tertiary centers. Conclusions: Community oncologists refer patients to tertiary centers primarily with the intent of clinical trial enrollment; however, significant gaps exist in their knowledge of trial availability. Our results identify the need for enhanced communication and collaboration between community and tertiary providers to expand patients’ access to clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]