Beyond the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic: opportunities to optimize clinical trial implementation in oncology

New Benchmarks on Protocol Amendment Experience in Oncology Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The drug development industry's focus on cancer-related treatments continues to rise, with narrow patient populations and complex procedures increasing the complexity of oncology protocols at an accelerated rate compared to non-oncology drugs. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development utilized data from a study investigating the impact of protocol amendments to compare how oncology clinical trials differ from non-oncology and identify opportunities to optimize performance in oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

Sixteen drug development industry companies contributed data from 950 protocols and 2,188 amendments to a study conducted in 2022 investigating protocol amendments. Analysis compared differences in amendment impact and causes between 249 oncology and 701 non-oncology protocols.

RESULTS

Compared to non-oncology, oncology protocols had a significantly higher prevalence (72.1% and 91.1%, respectively) and number (3.0 and 4.0, respectively) of protocol amendments. Oncology protocols with amendments had significantly lower participant completion rates compared to oncology protocols without amendments, while no significant differences were found among non-oncology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the study found an increased number of substantial amendments, lower completion rates, and higher dropout rates among oncology protocols compared to before the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to prevent avoidable protocol amendments in the industry have not been effective in oncology, where increasingly complex designs are reflected in difficult to predict cycle times, barriers to recruitment and retention and an increase in protocol amendments.

TBCRC 057: Survey about willingness to participate in cancer clinical trials during the pandemic

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic-related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic-era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic-related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two-sample t-tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic-related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate-severe pandemic-related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research-only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.

CONCLUSIONS

While pandemic-related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

RAPID framework for improved access to precision oncology for lethal disease: Results from a modified multi-round delphi study

Introduction

Predictive oncology, germline technologies, and adaptive seamless trials are promising advances in the treatment of lethal cancers. Yet, access to these therapies is stymied by costly research, regulatory barriers, and structural inequalities worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

To address the need for a comprehensive strategy for rapid and more equitable access to breakthrough therapies for lethal cancers, we conducted a modified multi-round Delphi study with 70 experts in oncology, clinical trials, legal and regulatory processes, patient advocacy, ethics, drug development, and health policy in Canada, Europe, and the US. Semi-structured ethnographic interviews (n = 33) were used to identify issues and solutions that participants subsequently evaluated in a survey (n = 47). Survey and interview data were co-analyzed to refine topics for an in-person roundtable where recommendations for system change were deliberated and drafted by 26 participants.

Results

Participants emphasized major issues in patient access to novel therapeutics including burdens of time, cost, and transportation required to complete eligibility requirements or to participate in trials. Only 12% of respondents reported satisfaction with current research systems, with "patient access to trials" and "delays in study approval" the topmost concerns.

Conclusion

Experts agree that an equity-centered precision oncology communication model should be developed to improve access to adaptive seamless trials, eligibility reforms, and just-in-time trial activation. International advocacy groups are a key mobilizer of patient trust and should be involved at every stage of research and therapy approval. Our results also show that governments can promote better and faster access to life-saving therapeutics by engaging researchers and payors in an ecosystem approach that responds to the unique clinical, structural, temporal, and risk-benefit situations that patients with life-threatening cancers confront.

Streamlining clinical research: an ESMO awareness call to improve sponsoring and monitoring of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

During recent years, the burden of bureaucracy in clinical research has increased dramatically, adversely impacting the activity of investigators and clinical research teams. Although compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and other applicable regulations remains unquestionable, their overinterpretation and substitution by the internal operating procedures of sponsors and Contract Research Organizations (CROs) have increased the administrative burden. A survey conducted by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Research Observatory (ECRO) among 940 investigators confirmed that they considered that the administrative burden in clinical research is excessive; that administrative procedures could be reduced without affecting the safety and the rights of the patients and the quality of the data; and that bureaucracy represents an obstacle for clinical research.

METHODS

A panel of physicians with extensive experience in clinical research, composed by members of the ECRO and the ESMO Scientific Medical and Public Policy divisions, analyzed clinical trial procedures related to administrative workflow, pharmacovigilance, and medical care.

RESULTS

The panel identified situations that generate debate between investigators and sponsors/CROs and selected real clinical scenarios that exemplify such situations. The panel discussed and proposed specific recommendations for those situations, based on GCP.

CONCLUSIONS

This initiative aspires to streamline clinical research procedures and to become a platform for discussion among all clinical trial stakeholders, with the aim of promoting the sustainability of clinical research and the care of cancer patients.

Suspension of Oncology Randomized Clinical Trials during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Evaluation of COVID-Related Suspensions

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov-registered oncology randomized controlled trials between September 2019 and December 2021 to identify predictors of trial suspensions. The dataset included 1,183 oncology trials, of which 384 (32.5%) were suspended. COVID-19 accounted for 47 (12.2%) suspensions. Trials that were single center- or US-based had higher odds of COVID-19 (ORs: 3.85 and 2.48, 95% CIs: 1.60-11.50 and 1.28-4.93, respectively) or any-reason suspensions (ORs: 2.33 and 2.04, 95% CIs: 1.46-3.45 and 1.40-2.76, respectively). Phase two (OR 1.27), three (OR 6.45) and four trials (OR 11.5) had increased odds of COVID-19 suspensions, compared to phase one trials.

Molecular oncology: what is needed to speed access to innovative therapies in clinical research?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A better understanding of the biology of cancer cells has led in the past 20 years to more and more molecular and immunological driven treatment strategies impacting both clinical trials and day-to-day practice. The aim of this review is to describe new approaches to conduct clinical trials in this area to speed up drug development and increase access to innovation for cancer patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The design of an early phase trial has an impact on its clinical benefit. Trials deriving from a specific biomarker or histologic characteristic (also known as enrichment design) are more likely to demonstrate benefit than trials based on a more conventional design. However, the increase of low incidence cancer molecular subtypes poses a major hurdle in the clinical management and drug development research for cancer patients.

SUMMARY

With the identification of news targets and the subsequent introduction of precision medicine, new strategies and tools are needed to provide access to biomarker identification and target-oriented clinical trials to all cancer patients. We propose to set up a new patient-centered model to conduct clinical trials allowing simply to 'bring the trial to the patient'.

COVID-19 in patients with cancer: first report of the ESMO international, registry-based, cohort study (ESMO-CoCARE)

BACKGROUND

ESMO COVID-19 and CAncer REgistry (ESMO-CoCARE) is an international collaborative registry-based, cohort study gathering real-world data from Europe, Asia/Oceania and Africa on the natural history, management and outcomes of patients with cancer infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

ESMO-CoCARE captures information on patients with solid/haematological malignancies, diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Data collected since June 2020 include demographics, comorbidities, laboratory measurements, cancer characteristics, COVID-19 clinical features, management and outcome. Parameters influencing COVID-19 severity/recovery were investigated as well as factors associated with overall survival (OS) upon SARS-CoV-2 infection.

RESULTS

This analysis includes 1626 patients from 20 countries (87% from 24 European, 7% from 5 North African, 6% from 8 Asian/Oceanian centres), with COVID-19 diagnosis from January 2020 to May 2021. Median age was 64 years, with 52% of female, 57% of cancer stage III/IV and 65% receiving active cancer treatment. Nearly 64% patients required hospitalization due to COVID-19 diagnosis, with 11% receiving intensive care. In multivariable analysis, male sex, older age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≥2, body mass index (BMI) <25 kg/m2, presence of comorbidities, symptomatic disease, as well as haematological malignancies, active/progressive cancer, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥6 and OnCovid Inflammatory Score ≤40 were associated with COVID-19 severity (i.e. severe/moderate disease requiring hospitalization). About 98% of patients with mild COVID-19 recovered, as opposed to 71% with severe/moderate disease. Advanced cancer stage was an additional adverse prognostic factor for recovery. At data cut-off, and with median follow-up of 3 months, the COVID-19-related death rate was 24.5% (297/1212), with 380 deaths recorded in total. Almost all factors associated with COVID-19 severity, except for BMI and NLR, were also predictive of inferior OS, along with smoking and non-Asian ethnicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Selected patient and cancer characteristics related to sex, ethnicity, poor fitness, comorbidities, inflammation and active malignancy predict for severe/moderate disease and adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on a Cancer Fast-Track Programme

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted many aspects of clinical practice in oncology, particularly regarding early cancer diagnosis, sparking public health concerns that possible delays could increase the proportion of patients diagnosed at advanced stages. In 2009, a cancer fast-track program (CFP) was implemented at the Clinico-Malvarrosa Health Department in Valencia, Spain with the aim of shortening waiting times between suspected cancer symptoms, diagnosis and therapy initiation.

Objectives

The study aimed to explore the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our cancer diagnosis fast-track program.

Methods

The program workflow (patients included and time periods) was analysed from the beginning of the state of alarm on March 16th, 2020 until March 15th, 2021. Data was compared with data from the same period of time from the year before (2019).

Results

During the pandemic year, 975 suspected cancer cases were submitted to the CFP. The number of submissions only decreased during times of highest COVID-19 incidence and stricter lockdown, and overall, referrals were slightly higher than in the previous 2 years. Cancer diagnosis was confirmed in 197 (24.1%) cases, among which 33% were urological, 23% breast, 16% gastrointestinal and 9% lung cancer. The median time from referral to specialist appointment was 13 days and diagnosis was reached at a median of 18 days. In confirmed cancer cases, treatment was started at around 30 days from time of diagnosis. In total, 61% of cancer disease was detected at early stage, 20% at locally advanced stage, and 19% at advanced stage, displaying time frames and case proportions similar to pre-pandemic years.

Conclusions

Our program has been able to maintain normal flow and efficacy despite the challenges of the current pandemic, and has proven a reliable tool to help primary care physicians referring suspected cancer patients.