Implementation of the Australasian Teletrial Model: Lessons from practice

Lurbinectedin in small cell lung cancer: real-world experience of a multicentre national early access programme

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lurbinectedin is a novel oncogenic transcription inhibitor active in several cancers, including small cell lung cancer (SCLC). We aimed to describe the first Australian experience of the clinical efficacy and tolerability of lurbinectedin for the treatment of SCLC after progression on platinum-containing therapy.

METHODS

Multicentre real-world study of individuals with SCLC initiating lurbinectedin monotherapy (3.2 mg/m2 three-weekly) on an early access programme between May 2020 and December 2021. Key outcomes were clinical utilisation, efficacy and tolerability. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcome data were collected within the AUstralian Registry and biObank of thoRacic cAncers (AURORA).

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 46 individuals across seven sites. Lurbinectedin was given as second- (83%, 38/46) or subsequent- (17%, 8/46) line therapy, mostly with prior chemoimmunotherapy (87%, 40/46). We report dose modifications (17%, 8/46), interruptions/delays (24%, 11/46), high-grade toxicities (28%, 13/46) and hospitalisations (54%, 25/46) during active treatment. The overall response rate was 33% and the disease control rate was 50%. Six-month OS was 44% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29.0-57.1). Twelve-month OS was 15% (95% CI: 6.5-26.8). From lurbinectedin first dose, the median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.8-2.9) and OS was 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.5-7.2). From SCLC diagnosis, the median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 11.0-17.2). Individuals with a longer chemotherapy-free interval prior to lurbinectedin had longer PFS and OS.

CONCLUSION

This real-world national experience of lurbinectedin post-platinum chemotherapy and immunotherapy for individuals with SCLC was similar to that reported in clinical trials.

Telehealth in oncology: a cost analysis to evaluate the financial impact of implementing regional trial hubs within a phase 3 cancer clinical trial

This cost analysis, from a societal perspective, compared the cost difference of a networked teletrial model (NTTM) with four regional hubs versus conventional trial operation at a single metropolitan specialist centre. The Australian phase 3 cancer interventional randomised controlled trial included 152 of 328 regional participants (patient enrolment 2018-2021; 6-month primary end point). The NTTM significantly reduced (AU$2155 per patient) patient travel cost and time and lost productivity.

Implementation of the Australasian Teletrial Model: Translating ideas into action using implementation science frameworks

Background: Despite Government investment, disparity in access to clinical trials continue between metropolitan and regional & rural sectors (RRR) in Australia and around the world. To improve trial access closer to home for RRR communities and rare cancer patients even in metro settings, the Australasian Teletrial Model (ATM) was developed by Clinical Oncology Society of Australia and implemented in four states. Aim of this paper is to describe the steps and processes involved in the development and implementation of ATM guided by implementation science frameworks. Method: Two implementation science frameworks namely iPARIHS and Strategic Implementation Framework were chosen to guide the project. Details of steps and processes were extracted from COSA final report. Results: ATM met the criteria for worthy innovation. For the development and implementation of the ATM, stakeholders were at national, statewide and clinical levels. A co-design with end-users and inclusion of key stakeholders in steering committees and advisory groups made the implementation smoother. Clinician levers including advocacy were useful to overcome system barriers. During the project, more patients, and clinicians at RRR participated in trials, more primary sites collaborated with RRR sites and more RRR sites gained trial capabilities. Conclusion: Pilot project achieved its objectives including improved access to patients locally, creation of linkages between metro and RRR sites and enhanced capabilities of and access to RRR sites. Implementation science frameworks were useful for identifying the necessary steps and processes at the outset. Ownership by governments and creation of streamlined regulatory systems would enable broader adoption.

Impact of travel distance on outcomes for clinical trial patients: the Kinghorn Cancer Centre experience

BACKGROUND

Geographic isolation and travel distance to specialist care is a known social determinant of health and contributes to poorer oncology survival outcomes.

AIMS

To compare survival and toxicity outcomes for patients travelling long distances (>50 km) for treatment on clinical trials with local patients (<10 km and 10-50 km).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study based at the Kinghorn Cancer Centre, a comprehensive cancer care centre in metropolitan Sydney. We included adult patients with advanced solid-organ malignancies who were enrolled on therapeutic clinical trials between July 2015 and December 2017. Outcome measures included overall survival, progression-free survival, rates of grade 3-4 toxicity and unplanned hospital admissions for the duration of the clinical trial.

RESULTS

We included 173 patients, of whom 27% lived within 10 km, 29% lived between 10 and 50 km and 44% lived further than 50 km. We did not identify significant differences between survival or toxicity outcomes between patients travelling long distances and local patients.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients should be considered for clinical trial referral based on clinical parameters and preference, regardless of geographic proximity. In the meantime, improving access to clinical trials for rural and regional patients continues to be a priority.

Teletrials, the new norm? Expert recommendations for teletrials into the future: Findings from the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Clinical Trial Research Professionals Group Workshop

INTRODUCTION

The Australasian Teletrial Model was piloted in co-funded sites across Australia. The purpose was to extend the reach of clinical trials using telemedicine to improve equity and access to this treatment pathway for oncology patients. Experts across Australia gathered to share the learnings of implementation so that future directions can be effective and sustainable.

METHODS

The 1-day workshop was attended in person and virtually. Attendees were invited to analyze and disseminate the results. Recordings from the presentations were coded independently by three researchers and synthesized. The results were sent to the authorship team for further review to build consensus on the findings in three drafts.

RESULTS

Four key themes were identified: "Being on the Same Page," "Building Foundations," "Key Roles in Teletrials," and "Incentives." Although there were many successes that were accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, there is work still to be done.

CONCLUSION

The Australasian Teletrial Model has been identified as acceptable and feasible. Future directions need to continue to work on streamlining regulatory processes, implementation and monitoring, and build knowledge to further build networks across Australia.

CRAFT-A Proposed Framework for Decentralized Clinical Trials Participation in Canada

Canada's vast geography, and centralized delivery of cancer care and clinical trials create barriers for trial participation for patients in remote and rural settings. The development and implementation of a framework that enables safe and regulatory compliant trial participation through local healthcare providers would benefit Canadian patients, clinicians, trial sponsors and the health care system. To address this issue, representatives of Canada's cancer clinical trial community met to identify key challenges and develop recommendations for remote patient participation in trials. A structured literature review identified remote/rural trial delivery models. A panel of expert stakeholders reviewed the models and participated in a workshop to assess health system readiness, identify needed processes, tools and mechanisms, and develop recommendations for a Canadian framework for decentralized clinical trial conduct. The Canadian Remote Access Framework for clinical Trials (CRAFT) represents a risk-based approach used by site investigators to delegate responsibilities for a given trial to satellite health centres within a hub-and-spoke "trial cluster". The Framework includes specific recommendations to ensure research experience, capacity, regulatory compliance and patient safety. Canada's cancer care and telemedicine systems can be leveraged to enable broader access to clinical trials for patients who are geographically remote from cancer centres. CRAFT's risk-based framework is based on other successful models of remote trial patient management and is in the pilot implementation phase in Canada.

Resilience and ongoing quality care for cancer clinical trials during COVID-19: Experience from a tertiary hospital in Australia

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced rapid system-wide changes to be implemented within cancer care at an alarming pace. Clinical trials are a key element of comprehensive cancer care. Ensuring the continuing safe conduct of cancer clinical trials in the context of a pandemic is challenging.

METHODS

We aimed to describe the COVID-19 pandemic response of a Cancer Care Clinical Research Unit (CRU) of a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach for this case study. Emailed directives from CRU managers to all CRU staff sharing were qualitatively analysed and mapped against our unit activities over longitudinal time points. Data from patient recruitment and protocol deviations were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Mapping activity from 11 March to 30 September 2020 revealed rapid change during the first 2 weeks. Four key strategies to accommodate change were identified: supporting patients and families, introduction of telehealth, accessing investigational product, and social distancing. Early in the pandemic we recognised that our core key stakeholders were integral to our response. When compared to the previous 12 months, our recruitment numbers dropped markedly in early phases of the response but recovered over time, as we accommodated internal and external impacts.

CONCLUSION

Our experience of agility as a necessity, adapting to support patients, and managing both clinical research activity and sponsors during the height of the pandemic response is presented here in order to inform future disaster response planning by clinical trial organisations.

Exploring Australian regional cancer patients' experiences of clinical trial participation via telemedicine technology

INTRODUCTION

Regional cancer patients face various barriers in accessing specialist cancer services. Teletrials are a new model of care that utilise telemedicine technology to enable access to and participation in clinical trials close to home. The present study aimed to explore the experiences of regional cancer patients and their carers while participating in a teletrial, and those of regional patients who travelled to a metropolitan centre for trial participation.

METHODS

A concurrent, mixed methods study design was used to address the study aim. Patient quality of life data were gathered for both groups and an audio-recorded semi-structured interview undertaken to explore patients' and carers' experiences of the two modes of trial participation. Greater weighting was given to the qualitative data.

RESULTS

Participants described teletrials as an acceptable and valuable initiative that reduced overall burden of trial participation. Irrespective of mode of delivery, patients and carers identified access to trials and specialist cancer services as an important equity issue for regional cancer patients.

DISCUSSION

From the perspective of regional cancer patients and carers, a teletrial offers convenient, acceptable access to a clinical trial. Although not all patients may want to engage in a teletrial, patients and carers agree that it offers equity of opportunity for trial participation, irrespective of where people live.

Practical Considerations for Treating Patients With Cancer in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Cancer has become a prevalent disease, affecting millions of new patients globally each year. The COVID-19 pandemic is having far-reaching impacts around the world, causing substantial disruptions to health and health care systems that are likely to last for a prolonged period. Early data have suggested that having cancer is a significant risk factor for mortality from severe COVID-19. A diverse group of medical oncologists met to formulate detailed practical advice on systemic anticancer treatments during this crisis. In the context of broad principles, issues including risks of treatment, principles of prioritizing resources, treatment of elderly patients, and psychosocial impact are discussed. Detailed treatment advice and options are given at a tumor stream level. We must maintain care for patients with cancer as best we can and recognize that COVID-19 poses a significant competing risk for death that changes conventional treatment paradigms.