Margaret Mooney

Effect of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab on survival among patients with resected stage III colon cancer: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT Leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is the standard adjuvant therapy for resected stage III colon cancer. Adding cetuximab to FOLFOX benefits patients with metastatic wild-type KRAS but not mutated KRAS colon cancer. OBJECTIVE To assess the potential benefit of cetuximab added to the modified sixth version of the FOLFOX regimen (mFOLFOX6) in patients with resected stage III wild-type KRAS colon cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A randomized trial of 2686 patients aged 18 years or older at multiple institutions across North America enrolled following resection and informed consent between February 10, 2004, and November 25, 2009. The primary randomized comparison was 12 biweekly cycles of mFOLFOX6 with and without cetuximab. KRAS mutation status was centrally determined. The trial was halted after a planned interim analysis of 48% of predicted events (246/515) occurring in 1863 (of 2070 planned) patients with tumors having wild-type KRAS. A total of 717 patients with mutated KRAS and 106 with indeterminate KRAS were accrued. The 2070 patients with wild-type KRAS provided 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (2-sided α = .05), with planned interim efficacy analyses after 25%, 50%, and 75% of expected relapses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Disease-free survival in patients with wild-type KRAS mutations. Secondary end points included overall survival and toxicity. RESULTS Median (range) follow-up was 28 (0-68) months. The trial demonstrated no benefit when adding cetuximab. Three-year disease-free survival for mFOLFOX6 alone was 74.6% vs 71.5% with the addition of cetuximab (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.98-1.49; P = .08) in patients with wild-type KRAS, and 67.1% vs 65.0% (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.46; P = .38) in patients with mutated KRAS, with no significant benefit in any subgroups assessed. Among all patients, grade 3 or higher adverse events (72.5% vs 52.3%; odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.8; P < .001) and failure to complete 12 cycles (33% vs 23%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9; P < .001) were significantly higher with cetuximab. Increased toxicity and greater detrimental differences in all outcomes were observed in patients aged 70 years or older. CONCLUSION Among patients with stage III resected colon cancer, the use of cetuximab with adjuvant mFOLFOX6 compared with mFOLFOX6 alone did not result in improved disease-free survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Consensus Recommendations of the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting

Hepatocelluar carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver in adults and the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. The incidence of HCC in the United States is rising steadily because of the prevalence of hepatitis C viral infection and other causes of hepatic cirrhosis. The majority of patients have underlying hepatic dysfunction, which complicates patient management and the search for safe and effective therapies. The Clinical Trials Planning Meeting (CTPM) in HCC was convened by the National Cancer Institutes Gastrointestinal Cancer Steering Committee to identify the key knowledge gaps in HCC and define clinical research priorities. The CTPM structured its review according to current evidence-based treatment modalities in HCC and prioritized the recommendations on the basis of the patient populations representing the greatest unmet medical need.

Consensus report of the national cancer institute clinical trials planning meeting on pancreas cancer treatment

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality, despite significant improvements in diagnostic imaging and operative mortality rates. The 5-year survival rate remains less than 5% because of microscopic or gross metastatic disease at time of diagnosis. The Clinical Trials Planning Meeting in pancreatic cancer was convened by the National Cancer Institutes Gastrointestinal Cancer Steering Committee to discuss the integration of basic and clinical knowledge in the design of clinical trials in PDAC. Major emphasis was placed on the enhancement of research to identify and validate the relevant targets and molecular pathways in PDAC, cancer stem cells, and the microenvironment. Emphasis was also placed on developing rational combinations of targeted agents and the development of predictive biomarkers to assist selection of patient subsets. The development of preclinical tumor models that are better predictive of human PDAC must be supported with wider availability to the research community. Phase III clinical trials should be implemented only if there is a meaningful clinical signal of efficacy and safety in the phase II setting. The emphasis must therefore be on performing well-designed phase II studies with uniform sets of basic entry and evaluation criteria with survival as a primary endpoint. Patients with either metastatic or locally advanced PDAC must be studied separately.

Insurance Status and the Use of Guideline Therapy in the Treatment of Selected Cancers

PURPOSE This study estimates the impact of type of insurance coverage on the receipt of guideline therapy in a population-based sample of cancer patients treated in the community. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients (n = 7,134) from the National Cancer Institutes Patterns of Care studies who were newly diagnosed with 11 different types of cancer were analyzed. The definition of guideline therapy was based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network treatment recommendations. Insurance status was categorized as a mutually exclusive hierarchical variable (no insurance, any private insurance, any Medicaid, Medicare only, and all other). Multivariate analyses were used to examine the association between insurance and receipt of guideline therapy. RESULTS Adjusting for clinical and nonclinical variables, insurance status was a modest, although statistically significant, determinant of receipt of guideline therapy, with 65% of the privately insured patients receiving recommended therapy compared with 60% of patients with Medicaid. Seventy percent of the uninsured patients received guideline therapy, which was nonsignificantly different compared with private insurance. When stratified by race, insurance was a statistically significant predictor of the receipt of guideline therapy only for non-Hispanic blacks. CONCLUSION Overall, levels of guideline treatment were lower than expected and particularly low for patients with Medicaid or Medicare only. The use of guideline therapy for ovarian and cervical cancer patients and for patients with rectal cancers was unrelated to type of insurance. Of particular concern is the significantly lower use of guideline therapy for non-Hispanic black patients with Medicaid. After adjusting for other factors, only half of these patients received guideline therapy.

Blinded Independent Central Review of Progression-Free Survival in Phase III Clinical Trials: Important Design Element or Unnecessary Expense?

Progression-free survival is an important end point in advanced disease settings. Blinded independent central review (BICR) of progression in randomized clinical trials has been advocated to control bias that might result from errors in progression assessments. However, although BICR lessens some potential biases, it does not remove all biases from evaluations of treatment effectiveness. In fact, as typically conducted, BICRs may introduce bias because of informative censoring, which results from having to censor unconfirmed locally determined progressions. In this article, we discuss the rationale for BICR and different ways of implementing independent review. We discuss the limitations of these approaches and review published trials that report implementing BICR. We demonstrate the existence of informative censoring using data from a randomized phase II trial. We conclude that double-blinded trials with consistent application of measurement criteria are the best means of ensuring unbiased trial results. When such designs are not practical, BICR is not recommended as a general strategy for reducing bias. However, BICR may be useful as an auditing tool to assess the reliability of marginally positive results.

National Cancer Institute's Precision Medicine Initiatives for the New National Clinical Trials Network

The promise of precision medicine will only be fully realized if the research community can adapt its clinical trials methodology to study molecularly characterized tumors instead of the traditional histologic classification. Such trials will depend on adequate tissue collection, availability of quality controlled, high throughput molecular assays, and the ability to screen large numbers of tumors to find those with the desired molecular alterations. The National Cancer Institutes (NCI) new National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) is well positioned to conduct such trials. The NCTN has the ability to seamlessly perform ethics review, register patients, manage data, and deliver investigational drugs across its many sites including both in cities and rural communities, academic centers, and private practices. The initial set of trials will focus on different questions: (1) Exceptional Responders Initiative-why do a minority of patients with solid tumors or lymphoma respond very well to some drugs even if the majority do not?; (2) NCI MATCH trial-can molecular markers predict response to targeted therapies in patients with advanced cancer resistant to standard treatment?; (3) ALCHEMIST trial-will targeted epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors improve survival for adenocarcinoma of the lung in the adjuvant setting?; and (4) Lung Cancer Master Protocol trial for advanced squamous cell lung cancer-is there an advantage to developing drugs for small subsets of molecularly characterized tumors in a single, multiarm trial design? These studies will hopefully spawn a new era of treatment trials that will carefully select the tumors that may respond best to investigational therapy.

Patterns of Care for Adjuvant Therapy in a Random Population-Based Sample of Patients Diagnosed with Colorectal Cancer

OBJECTIVES:Over the past decade, clinical trials have proved the efficacy of treatments for colorectal cancer (CRC). This study tracks dissemination of these treatments for patients diagnosed with stage II and III disease and compares risk of death for those who received guideline therapy to those who did not.METHODS:We conducted a stratified randomly sampled, population-based study of CRC treatment trends in the United States. Multivariate models were used to explore patient characteristics associated with receipt of treatments. We pooled data with a previous study—patients diagnosed in 1987–1991 and 1995. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess observed cause-specific and all-cause mortality.RESULTS:In 2000, guideline therapy receipt decreased among stage III rectal cancer patients, but increased for stage III colon and stage II rectal cancer patients. As age increased, likelihood of receiving guideline treatment decreased (p < 0.0001). Overall, race/ethnicity was significantly associated with guideline therapy (p = 0.04). Rectal patients were less likely to have received guideline treatment. Consistent with randomized clinical trial findings, all-cause mortality was lower in patients who received guideline therapy, regardless of Charlson comorbidity score.CONCLUSIONS:Mortality was decreased in patients receiving guideline therapy. Although, rates of guideline-concordant therapy are low in community clinical practice, they are apparently increasing. Newer treatment (oxaliplatin, capecitabine) started to disseminate in 2000. Racial disparities, present in 1995, were not detected in 2000. Age disparities remain despite no evidence of greater chemotherapy-induced toxicity in the elderly. More equitable receipt of cancer treatment to all segments of the community will help to reduce mortality.

Designing therapeutic clinical trials for older and frail adults with cancer: U13 conference recommendations.

A majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths occur in patients age ≥ 65 years. With the aging of the US population, the number of older adults with cancer will grow. Although the coming wave of older patients with cancer was anticipated in the early 1980s, when the need for more research on the cancer-aging interface was recognized, many knowledge gaps remain when it comes to treating older and/or frailer patients with cancer. Relatively little is known about the best way to balance the risks and benefits of existing cancer therapies in older patients; however, these patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. Furthermore, the available clinical trials often do not include end points pertinent to the older adult population, such as preservation of function, cognition, and independence. As part of its ongoing effort to advance research in the field of geriatric oncology, the Cancer and Aging Research Group held a conference in November 2012 in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute on Aging, and the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. The goal was to develop recommendations and establish research guidelines for the design and implementation of therapeutic clinical trials for older and/or frail adults. The conference sought to identify knowledge gaps in cancer clinical trials for older adults and propose clinical trial designs to fill these gaps. The ultimate goal of this conference series is to develop research that will lead to evidence-based care for older and/or frail adults with cancer.

Accrual Experience of National Cancer Institute Cooperative Group Phase III Trials Activated From 2000 to 2007

PURPOSE Recent reports have suggested that 40% or more of National Cancer Institute (NCI) -sponsored Cooperative Group phase III trials failed to achieve their accrual goals. We examine in detail the accrual experience of the Cooperative Group phase III trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS All Cooperative Group phase III trials activated from 2000 to 2007 were examined for their accrual experience. For trials that stopped accrual with < 90% of their accrual goal, the reasons for having < 90% accrual were documented. We focus on trials that ended with < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates rather than for other reasons, such as an interim monitoring analysis by an independent data monitoring committee that stops the trial early because one treatment is clearly superior. RESULTS There were 191 trials activated from 2000 to 2007. We project that 22.0% of these trials will have < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates. We project that there will be 176,627 patients eventually accrued on the 191 trials (current accrual, 154,579) and that 2,991 of these patients will be on trials that have < 90% accrual because of inadequate accrual rates (1.7%). For nonpediatric cancer trials, the corresponding percentages are 26.7% and 2.0%. CONCLUSION We find that insufficient accrual rates are not as high as previously reported and that only a small proportion of patients were enrolled on trials that ended with insufficient accrual because of an inadequate accrual rate. NCI has implemented new procedures to reduce the number of trials that fail to reach their accrual goals and to minimize the number of patients accrued on these trials.

Stopping or Reporting Early for Positive Results in Randomized Clinical Trials: The National Cancer Institute Cooperative Group Experience From 1990 to 2005

Randomized clinical trials are designed with stopping boundaries to guide data monitoring committees with their decision making concerning ongoing trials. In particular, when extremely positive results are seen and a boundary is crossed, the data monitoring committee may recommend releasing the results earlier to the public than at the definitive final analysis time specified in the protocol. For trials that are still accruing, this also means stopping accrual. Because the information about treatment efficacy is more limited in an early analysis than in a final analysis, questions have been raised about the appropriateness of incorporating early stopping for positive results in trial designs. In particular, there are concerns that treatment effects seen early may not be real or may be overly optimistic. To examine this issue, we collected information about treatment efficacy on National Cancer Institute Cooperative Group trials that were stopped early for positive results (information both at the time the trial was stopped/released and at times of further follow-up). Twenty-seven such trials were located. For 17 of 18 of these trials with sufficient follow-up information, the treatment effect was similar or only slightly smaller at last follow-up compared with the stopping/release time. We critically evaluate reasons why one might be concerned about early stopping for positive results. We conclude that for trials with well-designed interim monitoring plans, the ability to stop early for positive results is an important component of the trial design, allowing the public to benefit as soon as possible from the study conclusions.