Jennifer L. Ersek

Modernizing Eligibility Criteria for Molecularly Driven Trials.

As more clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents evolve, the number of eligibility criteria seems to be increasing. The importance and utility of eligibility criteria must be considered in the context of the fundamental goal of a clinical trial: to understand the risks and benefits of a treatment in the intended-use patient population. Although eligibility criteria are necessary to define the population under study and conduct trials safely, excessive requirements may severely restrict the population available for study, and often, this population is not reflective of the general population for which the drug would be prescribed. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee, which comprises academic faculty, industry representatives, and patient advocates, evaluated this issue. Evaluation results were mixed. Most physicians agreed that excessive eligibility criterias slow study enrollment rates and prolong the duration of enrollment; however, this hypothesis was difficult to validate with the data examined. We propose the organization of a public workshop, with input from regulatory bodies and key stakeholders, with the goal of developing an algorithmic approach to determining eligibility criteria for individual study protocols, which may help guide future investigators and companies in streamlining eligibility criteria in the era of molecularly driven therapy.

Management of hyperglycemia from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) targeting T790M-mediated resistance

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients are associated with sensitivity to small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as erlotinib, gefitinib, and afatinib. Although studies show an increased progression free survival (PFS) with use of EGFR TKIs in the first-line setting, most patients will develop resistance to therapy after the first 8-16 months. T790M is an acquired resistance mutation reported in 60-70% of patients who initially responded to a prior EGFR TKI. Recently, EGFR TKIs targeting T790M have been developed to overcome resistance with positive results in PFS and objective response rate in patients who have had disease progression on at least one TKI. Two EGFR TKIs targeting T790M, AZD9291 and rociletinib, are new active treatment options for NSCLC but differ in adverse effect profiles. Dose-limiting hyperglycemia has been reported with rociletinib and has required dose reduction, an oral antihyperglycemic, or both, without discontinuation of therapy. This suggests that patients may be effectively treated chronically for hyperglycemia associated with EGFR TKIs targeting T790M, however, guidelines for treatment of hyperglycemia in this setting have not been published. We discuss mechanisms of hyperglycemia associated with TKIs and initial management of hyperglycemia, including benefits and limitations of oral antihyperglycemic options, adjustment of therapy based on grade of hyperglycemia, and recommendations for follow-up glucose monitoring.

Lung cancer biomarkers, targeted therapies and clinical assays

Until recently, the majority of genomic cancer research has been in discovery and validation; however, as our knowledge of tumor molecular profiling improves, the idea of genomic application in the clinic becomes increasingly tangible, paralleled with the drug development of newer targeted therapies. A number of profiling methodologies exist to identify biomarkers found within the patient (germ-line DNA) and tumor (somatic DNA). Subsequently, commercially available clinical assays to test for both germ-line and somatic alterations that are prognostic and/or predictive of disease outcome, toxicity or treatment response have significantly increased. This review aims to summarize clinically relevant cancer biomarkers that serve as targets for therapy and their potential relationship to lung cancer. In order to realize the full potential of genomic cancer medicine, it is imperative that clinicians understand these intricate molecular pathways, the therapeutic implication of mutations within these pathways, and the availability of clinical assays to identify such biomarkers.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility: Recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology–Friends of Cancer Research Minimum Age Working Group

Purpose Children have historically been excluded from first-in-human studies of promising new cancer drugs and later phase adult clinical trials. Delays in evaluation may result in off-label use without dosing information as the only access to new drugs. A multistakeholder workshop was convened in May 2016 by ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research to identify opportunities for when it would be scientifically appropriate to expand trial eligibility to include children younger than age 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials. Methods This group convened experts from academia, government, and industry to review barriers to enrolling children and adolescents in oncology clinical trials. We evaluated the historical context, published literature, regulatory considerations, and myriad risks and benefits associated with lowering the age of enrollment on oncology clinical trials. Results We conclude that many of the historical concerns about including children early in oncology clinical trials do not apply in the current scientific and clinical environment of pediatric oncology and drug development; we provide specific recommendations for how the inclusion of children in early-phase investigational cancer drug trials might be accomplished. Automatic inclusion of pediatric patients is appropriate in early-phase trials that assess dose, safety, and pharmacokinetics in a variety of tumor types and later phase trials that assess efficacy in a specific disease that spans adult and pediatric populations. Conclusion Including children in appropriately designed adult clinical oncology trials is feasible and can be done in a way that enhances their access to these agents without compromising safety or development strategies.

Transforming Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria to Reflect Practical Clinical Application.

Historically, oncology clinical trials have focused on comparing a new drugs efficacy to the standard of care. However, as our understanding of molecular pathways in oncology has evolved, so has our ability to predict how patients will respond to a particular drug, and thus comparison with a standard therapy has become less important. Biomarkers and corresponding diagnostic testing are becoming more and more important to drug development but also limit the type of patient who may benefit from the therapy. Newer clinical trial designs have been developed to assess clinically meaningful endpoints in biomarker-enriched populations, and the number of modern, molecularly driven clinical trials are steadily increasing. At the same time, barriers to clinical trial enrollment have also grown. Many barriers contribute to nonenrollment in clinical trials, including patient, physician, institution, protocol, and regulatory barriers. At the protocol level, eligibility criteria have become a large roadblock to clinical trial accrual. Over time, eligibility criteria have become more and more restrictive. To accrue an adequate number of patients to molecularly driven trials, we should consider eligibility criteria carefully and attempt to reduce restrictive criteria. Reducing restrictive eligibility criteria will allow more patients to be eligible for clinical trial participation, will likely increase the speed of drug approvals, and will result in clinical trial results that more accurately reflect treatment of the population in the clinical setting.

The effect of radiation therapy in the treatment of adult soft tissue sarcomas of the extremities: a long-term community-based cancer center experience

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of external beam radiotherapy (RT) in the treatment of extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) before or after limb‐sparing surgery (LSS) in a community‐based setting. Patients presenting to our institution from 1992 to 2010 and meeting eligibility criteria were stratified into low (G1) or high (G2, G3) pathologic grade and evaluated. Major complication events, including amputation, radiation‐induced sarcoma, and pathologic fracture, were assessed. Kaplan–Meier techniques and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used. One hundred and sixty‐two eligible patients underwent LSS for extremity STS (120 high grade, 42 low grade). Median time of follow‐up was 5.1 years (0.8–20.3 years). RT was administered to 111 patients. In unadjusted models, RT significantly decreased the risk of local recurrence (LR) in high‐grade STS patients (P = 0.005) and had a trend for improved recurrence‐free survival (RFS) (P = 0.069). In multivariable‐adjusted models, RT significantly improved time to LR (P = 0.001), RFS (P = 0.003), and overall survival (OS) (P = 0.003). Analysis of all patients showed those who underwent RT had a major complication rate (MCR) of 16.2%, compared to 3.9% in the no RT group (P = 0.037); however, the difference in MCR did not differ significantly when the analysis was restricted to high‐grade sarcomas. In our large experience of patients with extremity STS undergoing limb sparing surgery (LSS), RT significantly improved local recurrence (LR), RFS, and OS, in patients with high‐grade tumors. Efficacy benefits of RT should be weighed against potential complications. External beam RT should be considered in patients with resected high‐grade sarcomas.

Treatment Decisions for Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Patient and Physician Perspectives on Maintenance Therapy

IntroductionAdvanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a severe disease with burdensome symptoms and traditionally poor outcomes. The treatment of advance disease is based on chemotherapy, with the recent addition of immunotherapy. Patients who respond to initial treatment can opt to receive maintenance therapy (MT). It is important to understand why patients with advanced NSCLC choose to accept or refuse therapy, and how physician recommendations play into this decision-making process. This study characterized patient and physician decision-making regarding treatment for patients with advanced non-squamous NSCLC in the USA using the example of MT.Methods and MaterialsThis study employed multiple approaches: patient interviews, a patient survey, and a physician survey. Qualitative interviews were conducted among patients who had been offered MT to identify factors influencing treatment decision-making. The patient survey explored the decision-making process and quantified challenges and motivators for receiving MT. The physician survey included a discrete choice experiment to understand the relationship between physician treatment recommendations and patient characteristics.ResultsInterviewed patients (n = 10) were motivated to receive MT in the hope of extending their lives and being proactive against their cancer, and they anticipated reduced adverse effects compared with first-line therapy. Surveyed patients (n = 77) described several deterrents to receiving therapy; the most prominent was severity of adverse effects, which was an influencing factor for 34% of patients. The major motivator for receiving therapy was the potential to extend life, which influenced 97% of patients. A total of 100 oncologists participated in the physician survey. Patients’ lack of treatment motivation/inconvenience, disease progression, presence of severe renal co-morbidities, and older age decreased the likelihood of physicians recommending the use of MT.ConclusionThis study identified challenges and motivators influencing advanced NSCLC patients’ decisions to accept or refuse therapy, as well as patient and disease characteristics associated with physician’s treatment recommendations for MT.

Implementing Precision Medicine Programs and Clinical Trials in the Community-Based Oncology Practice: Barriers and Best Practices

There has been a rapid uptick in the pace of oncology precision medicine advancements over the past several decades as a result of increasingly sophisticated technology and the ability to study more patients through innovative trial designs. As more precision oncology approaches are developed, the need for precision medicine trials is increasing in the community setting, where most patients with cancer are treated. However, community-based practices, as well as some academic centers, may face unique barriers to implementing precision medicine programs and trials within their communities. Such challenges include understanding the tissue needs of molecular tests (e.g., tumor, blood), identifying which molecular tests are best used and when tissue should be tested, interpreting the test results and determining actionability, understanding the role of genetic counseling and/or follow-up testing, determining clinical trial eligibility, and assessing patient attitudes and financial concerns. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance to community-based oncology practices currently conducting clinical trials who want to expand their research program to include precision medicine trials. Here, we describe the core components of precision medicine programs and offer best practices for successful implementation of precision medicine trials in community-based practices.

Clinical Pathways and the Patient Perspective in the Pursuit of Value-Based Oncology Care

The art of practicing oncology has evolved substantially in the past 5 years. As more and more diagnostic tests, biomarker-directed therapies, and immunotherapies make their way to the oncology marketplace, oncologists will find it increasingly difficult to keep up with the many therapeutic options. Additionally, the cost of cancer care seems to be increasing. Clinical pathways are a systematic way to organize and display detailed, evidence-based treatment options and assist the practitioner with best practice. When selecting which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway, considerations must include the efficacy and safety, as well as costs, of the therapy. Pathway treatment regimens must be continually assessed and modified to ensure that the most up-to-date, high-quality options are incorporated. Value-based models, such as the ASCO Value Framework, can assist providers in presenting economic evaluations of clinical pathway treatment options to patients, thus allowing the patient to decide the overall value of each treatment regimen. Although oncologists and pathway developers can decide which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway based on the efficacy of the treatment, assessment of the value of that treatment regimen ultimately lies with the patient. Patient definitions of value will be an important component to enhancing current value-based oncology care models and incorporating new, high-quality, value-based therapeutics into oncology clinical pathways.