Scott Christensen

Prospective Evaluation of Cancer Clinical Trial Accrual Patterns: Identifying Potential Barriers to Enrollment

PURPOSE Well-conducted cancer clinical trials are essential for improving patient outcomes. Unfortunately, only 3% of new cancer patients participate in clinical trials. Barriers to patient accrual in cancer clinical trials must be identified and overcome to increase patient participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS We prospectively tracked factors that potentially affected patient accrual into cancer clinical trials at the University of California Davis Cancer Center. Oncologists seeing new outpatients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding patient characteristics and the physicians decision-making on patient eligibility, protocol availability, and patient opinions on participation. Statistical analysis was performed to correlate these parameters with subsequent protocol accrual. RESULTS There were 276 assessable patients. At the initial visits, physicians did not consider clinical trials in 38% (105/276) of patients principally because of a perception of protocol unavailability and poor performance status. Physicians considered 62% (171/276) of patients for participation in clinical trials. Of these, only 53% (91/171) had an appropriate protocol available for site and stage of disease. Seventy-six of 90 patients (84%) with available protocols met eligibility criteria for a particular study. Only 39 of 76 patients (51%) agreed to participate in cancer clinical trials, for an overall accrual rate of 14% (39/276). The remainder (37/76, 49%) declined trial participation despite meeting eligibility criteria. The most common reasons were a desire for other treatment (34%), distance from the cancer center (13%), patient refusal to disclose reason (11%), and insurance denial (8%). Patients with private insurance were less likely to enroll in clinical trials compared to those with government-funded insurance (OR, 0.34; P =.03; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.9). CONCLUSION Barriers to cancer clinical trial accrual can be prospectively identified and addressed in the development and conduct of future studies, which may potentially lead to more robust clinical trials enrollment. Investigation of patient perceptions regarding the clinical trials process and the role of third party-payers is warranted.

CCI-779 in metastatic melanoma: a phase II trial of the California Cancer Consortium.

CCI‐779 is an analog of the immunosuppressive agent, rapamycin, that has demonstrated activity against melanoma in preclinical models and shown clinical benefit in patients with breast and renal carcinoma. CCI‐779 is not immunosuppressive when administered on an intermittent schedule, and its toxicity is modest, consisting of nausea, diarrhea, hypertriglyceridemia, thrombocytopenia, asthenia, and follicular dermatitis.

Aflibercept (VEGF Trap) in inoperable stage III or stage IV melanoma of cutaneous or uveal origin

Purpose: Aflibercept is a soluble decoy VEGF receptor and angiogenesis inhibitor with potent preclinical antitumor activity in melanoma. We conducted a multicenter phase II study in patients with inoperable stage III or IV melanoma and no prior chemotherapy. Experimental Design: A two-stage design was adopted to evaluate 4-month progression-free survival rate (PFSR) and response rate. Aflibercept was given at 4 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Response was assessed every 8 weeks. First-stage accrual of 21 patients was specified and with an adequate 4-month PFSR accrual continued to a total of 41. Results: Forty-one patients of ages 23 to 84 (median = 57) were enrolled. Thirty-nine had American Joint Committee on Cancer stage IV (5 M1a, 7 M1b, and 27 M1c) and 2 had inoperable stage IIIC (N3). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was 0 (27 patients) or 1 (14 patients). Ten patients had primary uveal melanoma, 28 cutaneous, and 3 had unknown primaries. A median of 7 cycles were initiated (range: 1–56). Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included hypertension in 9 patients (22%) and proteinuria in 6 (15%). Among 40 patients evaluable for efficacy (those who initiated aflibercept), 3 (7.5%) had a confirmed partial response and 20 had progression-free survival of 4 months or above. The predicted 1-year survival rate derived from the Korn meta-analysis model is 36% (N = 39), whereas we observed a corresponding 56.4% survival rate at 1 year (95% CI, 43–74, P < 0.005). Median overall survival in this trial is 16.3 months (95% CI, 9.2 to not reached). We observed a significant association between severity of hypertension following aflibercept and survival improvement. Conclusions: Aflibercept showed promising activity in patients with metastatic melanoma of cutaneous or uveal origin. Further evaluation of aflibercept as a single agent and in combination is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 17(20); 6574–81. ©2011 AACR.

Phase I Study of Two Different Schedules of Bortezomib and Pemetrexed in Advanced Solid Tumors with Emphasis on Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Introduction: Bortezomib and pemetrexed are approved anticancer agents with non-overlapping mechanisms of action and toxicity. We examined the safety and tolerability of pemetrexed in combination with two different schedules of bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumors. Methods: Two separate dose-escalating arms (arm A and arm B) were conducted simultaneously. Patients received pemetrexed on day 1 (D1) (500–600 mg/m2 IV) every 21 days. In arm A, bortezomib was given twice weekly (0.7–1.3 mg/m2 on D1, 4, 8, and 11). In arm B, bortezomib was given weekly (1.0–1.6 mg/m2 on D1 and 8). Results: We treated 27 patients on four dose levels in arm A and three dose levels in arm B. Tumor types included lung (n = 16), adenoid cystic carcinoma (n = 2), prostate (n = 2), sarcoma (n = 2), breast (n = 1), thymus (n = 1), head and neck (n = 1), and gastrointestinal(n = 2). Dose-limiting toxicities were seen in arm A only; grade 3 asthenia (n = 2), grade 3 transaminitis and dehydration (n = 1). The most common grade 3/4 toxicity was neutropenia. Of 26 evaluable patients, 2 patients had partial response (1 in arm A and 1 in arm B), 13 had stable disease (7 in arm A and 6 in arm B), and 11 had progression (6 in arm A and 5 in arm B). Of the 16 patients with non-small cell lung cancer, 2 (12.5%) had partial response and 9 had stable disease, for a disease control rate of 68.8%. Recommended phase II dose for arm A is pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 twice weekly. For arm B, the recommended dose is pemetrexed 500 mg/m2, bortezomib 1.6 mg/m2 weekly. Conclusions: Pemetrexed with bortezomib is feasible and tolerable at recommended single-agent doses. Based on the observed efficacy, a phase II study in non-small cell lung cancer is warranted.

An evaluation of barriers to accrual in the era of legislation requiring insurance coverage of cancer clinical trial costs in California

PURPOSEClinical trials are essential to improve cancer therapy, but only 3% of newly diagnosed adult cancer patients enroll annually. We previously conducted a prospective analysis of factors affecting trial accrual at the UC Davis Cancer Center between 1997 and 2000. It was found that the accrual rate was 14% and that patients with private insurance were significantly less likely than patients with government insurance to enroll, suggesting that fear of insurance denial was a barrier. In 2002, a new California law (SB37) required insurers to reimburse routine costs of care for cancer trials. METHODSTo assess the impact of SB37 on accrual, we repeated our study using the same survey instrument. Oncologists seeing new patients at the UC Davis Cancer Center from August to November 2002 completed questionnaires that inquired about patient characteristics and eligibility, protocol availability, and patient willingness to participate. RESULTSPhysicians considered clinical trials for 55% (118/216) of patients, but trials were available for only 53% (62/118). Eligibility criteria were met by 82% (51/62). Of these, 69% (35/51) agreed to participate (vs 51% previously). No patient declined to participate because of insurance limitations (vs 8% previously). Furthermore, insurance type was no longer a significant factor in determining whether patients would enroll. This suggests that although the overall rate of accrual is only slightly increased after passage of SB37, patients may be more willing to enroll. Efforts to increase participation must include enhancing physician and patient awareness of SB37.

A randomised phase II trial of selumetinib vs selumetinib plus temsirolimus for soft-tissue sarcomas.

Background:The MEK inhibitor, selumetinib, suppresses soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) cell proliferation in vitro. Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors possess modest activity against STS; however, resistance develops via MAPK pathway feedback activation. The combination of selumetinib and temsirolimus synergistically inhibits STS cell line growth. Therefore, a randomized phase II trial of selumetinib vs selumetinib plus temsirolimus was conducted.Methods:Seventy-one adults with advanced STS who received ⩽2 prior chemotherapeutics were randomized to selumetinib 75 mg p.o. bid and allowed to crossover upon progression, or to selumetinib 50 mg p.o. bid plus temsirolimus 20 mg i.v. weekly, with primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS).Results:There was no difference in PFS between the two arms for the overall cohort (median 1.9 vs 2.1 months); an improved median PFS was observed in the combination arm (N=11) over single agent (N=10) in the prespecified leiomyosarcoma stratum (median 3.7 vs 1.8 months; P=0.01). Four-month PFS rate was 50% (95% confidence interval 0.19–0.81) with the combination vs 0% with selumetinib alone in the leiomyosarcoma cohort. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events with the combination were mucositis (29%), lymphopenia (26%), neutropenia and anaemia (20% each).Conclusions:While single-agent selumetinib has no significant activity in STS, the combination may be active for leiomyosarcomas.

Influence of Physician Specialty on Treatment Recommendations in the Multidisciplinary Management of Soft Tissue Sarcoma of the Extremities

IMPORTANCE Although prospective randomized data are available to guide the multidisciplinary management of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) of the extremities, controversy exists regarding adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine if clinical specialty introduces bias in recommendations for multimodality treatment of STS. DESIGN Electronic survey. SETTING Database of active members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the Society of Surgical Oncology, and the Connective Tissue Oncology Society. PARTICIPANTS Members of specialty oncology societies with an active interest in STS. EXPOSURE Physician specialty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Survey responses regarding the multidisciplinary management of STS were scored on a 5-point Likert scale and analyzed using analysis of variance. RESULTS The questionnaire was completed by 320 of 490 potential respondents (65%), including medical (18%), radiation (8%), orthopedic (22%), and surgical oncologists (45%). Respondents concurred on the use of radiation therapy for margins positive for tumor, for high-grade tumors, for improvement in local control, for tumors larger than 10 cm, and for tumors in close proximity to a neurovascular bundle. Respondents diverged on the use of radiation therapy for tumors 5 to 10 cm in size, for low-grade tumors, for radiation-associated STS, and for survival benefit. Only radiation oncologists felt that radiation therapy was underutilized as a treatment modality (mean [SEM] Likert scale score, 2.44 [0.12]; P < .001). There was agreement on the use of chemotherapy for synovial sarcoma, for high-grade tumors, for tumors larger than 10 cm, for patients younger than 50 years of age, and for survival benefit. Medical oncologists were more likely to recommend chemotherapy for margins positive for tumor (mean [SEM] score, 3.12 [0.12]; P = .03) and for improvement in local control (mean [SEM] score, 2.91 [0.12] P = .08). Surgical oncologists placed the least emphasis on chemotherapy in the overall treatment plan (mean [SEM] score, 2.60 [0.07]; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Specialty bias exists in adjuvant treatment recommendations for STS. This highlights the importance of multidisciplinary STS tumor boards and interdisciplinary care to facilitate consensus decision making for individual patients.

Phase I study of the combination of temsirolimus and pazopanib in advanced solid tumors

Inhibition of either vascular endothelial growth factor receptor or mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling improves outcomes in patients with several advanced solid tumors. We conducted a phase I trial of temsirolimus with pazopanib to investigate the feasibility of simultaneous ‘vertical inhibition’ of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and mTOR pathways. Patients with advanced solid tumors, no previous pazopanib or mTOR inhibitor, good performance status, and acceptable end-organ function were eligible. In a typical 3+3 escalation design starting at temsirolimus 15 mg by an intravenous infusion weekly and pazopanib 400 mg orally daily, we defined dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) as attributable grade 3 or higher nonhematologic adverse events in the first 28-day cycle and the maximum tolerable dose as the maximum dose level at which less than two patients experienced DLT. At the initial dose level, two patients had four DLTs (anorexia, fatigue, hyponatremia, and hypophosphatemia). After reduction to temsirolimus 10 mg intravenous infusion weekly and pazopanib 200 mg orally daily, one of three patients had DLT (fatigue) and the first patient in the subsequent expansion had dose-limiting hypophosphatemia. Attributable grade 3 or higher adverse events in more than one patient included leukopenia, neutropenia, fatigue, and hypophosphatemia. Tumor reduction not fulfilling the RECIST criteria for partial response was the best response in four of seven evaluable patients. The combination of temsirolimus and pazopanib was not feasible at clinically meaningful doses in this population because of constitutional and electrolyte disturbances.

CCI-779 in metastatic melanoma: A phase II trial of the California Cancer Consortium.

BACKGROUND CCI-779 is an analog of the immunosuppressive agent, rapamycin, that has demonstrated activity against melanoma in preclinical models and shown clinical benefit in patients with breast and renal carcinoma. CCI-779 is not immunosuppressive when administered on an intermittent schedule, and its toxicity is modest, consisting of nausea, diarrhea, hypertriglyceridemia, thrombocytopenia, asthenia, and follicular dermatitis. METHODS The current trial was designed to detect a median time to disease progression of >18 weeks in patients with metastatic melanoma treated with a 250-mg weekly dose of CCI-779 administered intravenously after diphenhydramine premedication. Patients with measurable disease, no more than one previous chemotherapy regimen for metastatic disease, and normal organ function were eligible, and patients with central nervous system involvement, P450-inducing or P450-suppressing drugs, or hypertriglyceridemia were excluded. RESULTS Thirty-three patients (21 males) were treated, 21 of whom had been treated previously with chemotherapy and/or biologic agents for advanced-stage disease. One patient had a partial response lasting 2 months. The median time to disease progression and overall survival were 10 weeks and 5 months, respectively. Toxicity was mild and predominantly mucocutaneous (stomatitis, diarrhea, and rash). Hyperlipidemia was cumulative and was managed with lipid-lowering agents. CONCLUSIONS CCI-779 was not sufficiently active in melanoma to warrant further testing as a single agent.

Consistent tumor measurement reporting in serial CT scans: A pilot study.

99 Background: Oncologists in community cancer centers affiliated with the UC Davis Cancer Care Network reported quality concerns with inconsistently measured lesions on serial Computed Tomography (CT) scan reports. Radiologic imaging is an important tool in diagnosis, staging, and assessment of response to therapy in cancer treatment cancer. Accurate assessment of oncologic therapeutic efficacy is dependent on reliable radiology and report quality. The primary objective of this pilot study was to validate oncologist concerns about tumor measurement consistency in radiology reports through an audit. The secondary objective was to identify areas for quality improvement and establish process and time requirements for auditing. Two of four affiliated cancer centers (CC1 and CC2) were selected for a pilot assessment. METHODS CC1 and CC2 identified charts with CT scans in the audit timeframes. Auditors reviewed charts for serial CT scans and measureable disease in the audit date range and created a list of eligible charts. Auditors randomized the list and a sample of 61 (CC1) and 66 (CC2) charts were audited. Auditors reviewed CT orders, radiology reports for consistent lesion measurement, comparison to previous scan, addenda, service dates, radiology facilities, reading radiologist, and medical provider placing order. RESULTS This audit demonstrated deficiencies with lesion measurement consistency at both CC1 and CC2. At CC1 64% of radiology reports were consistently measured and at CC2 57% were consistently measured. Both CC1 and CC2 had identifiable areas for process and quality improvement. The audit required 86 hours at CC1 and 83 hours at CC2. The audit identified deficiencies in order clarity and information flow from the cancer center to the reading radiologist. At CC1 a radiologist reviewed the audited charts and reported an 85% concurrence with the auditors. A literature search did not provide benchmarks for measurement consistency in radiology reports. CONCLUSIONS Oncologists complaints were verified regarding lesion measurement inconsistencies. This pilot demonstrated the need for quality oversight and implementation of standardized measurement (RECIST) criteria and tumor logs in the non-clinical trial environment.