Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Washout Period and Concomitant Medication Work Group

Dose Optimization in Oncology Drug Development: An International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development White Paper

The landscape of oncology drug development has witnessed remarkable advancements over the last few decades, significantly improving clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients with cancer. Project Optimus, introduced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, stands as a groundbreaking endeavor to reform dose selection of oncology drugs, presenting both opportunities and challenges for the field. To address complex dose optimization challenges, an Oncology Dose Optimization IQ Working Group was created to characterize current practices, provide recommendations for improvement, develop a clinical toolkit, and engage Health Authorities. Historically, dose selection for cytotoxic chemotherapeutics has focused on the maximum tolerated dose, a paradigm that is less relevant for targeted therapies and new treatment modalities. A survey conducted by this group gathered insights from member companies regarding industry practices in oncology dose optimization. Given oncology drug development is a complex effort with multidimensional optimization and high failure rates due to lack of clinically relevant efficacy, this Working Group advocates for a case-by-case approach to inform the timing, specific quantitative targets, and strategies for dose optimization, depending on factors such as disease characteristics, patient population, mechanism of action, including associated resistance mechanisms, and therapeutic index. This white paper highlights the evolving nature of oncology dose optimization, the impact of Project Optimus, and the need for a tailored and evidence-based approach to optimize oncology drug dosing regimens effectively.

Pharmaceutical care in the screening process of phase I oncohaematological clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the pharmaceutical interventions in patients eligible for phase I cancer clinical trials, focusing specifically on exclusion criteria related to medication or relevant interactions.

METHOD

Descriptive, observational study conducted at a comprehensive cancer centre. Patients undergoing screening for phase I clinical trials (March 2019-December 2022) were included. The pharmacist reviewed concomitant medication and provided a recommendation.

RESULTS

The concomitant medication of 512 patients eligible to participate in 84 phase I clinical trials was analysed. In 230 (44.9%) patients, the clinical trial treatment included oral medication. The median number of concomitant medications was 5 (IQR 3-8) per patient.A total of 280 pharmaceutical interventions were performed in 140 (27.3%) patients: 240 (85.7%) were due to interactions in 124 (24.2%) patients, and 40 (14.3%) were due to exclusion criteria in 34 (6.6%) patients. Interactions and exclusion criteria were detected in 18 (3.5%) patients. The main groups of drugs involved were 68 (24.3%) antacids and antiulcer drugs, 28 (10.0%) antidepressants and 26 (9.3%) opioids. Acceptance analysis of the recommendation was applicable in 215 cases; in 208 (96.7%), the pharmaceutical intervention was accepted.Differences were identified for exclusion criteria (7 vs 27) and interactions (37 vs 87) between parenteral and oral clinical trial medication (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist's review of concomitant medication during the screening period in phase I clinical trials enables the detection of prohibited medication or relevant interactions, potentially avoiding screening failures and increasing the efficacy and safety of treatments.

Target trial framework for determining the effect of changes in training load on injury risk using observational data: a methodological commentary

In recent years, a large focus has been placed on managing training load for injury prevention. To minimise injuries, training recommendations should be based on research that examines causal relationships between load and injury risk. While observational studies can be used to estimate causal effects, conventional methods to study the relationship between load and injury are prone to bias. The target trial framework is a valuable tool that requires researchers to emulate a hypothetical randomised trial using observational data. This framework helps to explicitly define research questions and design studies in a way that estimates causal effects. This article provides an overview of the components of the target trial framework as applied to studies on load and injury and describes various considerations that should be made in study design and analyses to minimise bias.

Amplifying the Patient's Voice in Oncology Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Solutions to Burdens and Barriers

Dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) provide early access to novel compounds of potential therapeutic benefit in addition to providing critical safety and dosing information. While access to trials for which a patient is eligible remains the largest barrier to enrollment on clinical trials, additional direct and indirect barriers unique to enrollment on DFOTs are often overlooked but worthy of consideration. Direct barriers including financial costs of care, travel and time investments, and logical challenges including correlative study designs are important to bear in mind when developing strategies to facilitate the patient experience on DFOTs. Indirect barriers such as strict eligibility criteria, washout periods, and concomitant medication restrictions should be accounted for during DFOT design to maintain the fidelity of the trial without being overly exclusionary. Involving patients and advocates and incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) throughout the process, from initial DFOT design, through patient recruitment and participation, is critical to informing strategies to minimize identified barriers to offer the benefit of DFOTs to all patients.

Addressing disparities in cancer clinical trials: a roadmap to more equitable accrual

The Georgia Center for Oncology Research and Education (Georgia CORE) and the Georgia Society of Clinical Oncology (GASCO) held a one-day summit exploring opportunities and evidence-based interventions to address disparities in cancer clinical trials. The purpose of the summit was to identify clear and concise recommendations aimed at decreasing clinical trial accrual disparities in Georgia for rural and minority populations. The summit included expert presentations, panel discussions with leaders from provider organizations throughout Georgia, and breakout sessions to allow participants to critically discuss the information presented. Over 120 participants attended the summit. Recognizing the need for evidence-based interventions to improve clinical trial accrual among rural Georgians and persons of color, summit participants identified four key areas of focus that included: improving clinical trial design, providing navigation for all, enhancing public education and awareness of cancer clinical trials, and identifying potential policy and other opportunities. A comprehensive list of takeaways and action plans was developed in the four key areas of focus with the expectation that implementation of the strategies that emerged from the summit will enhance cancer clinical trial accrual for all Georgians.

Consensus framework for conducting phase I/II clinical trials for children, adolescents, and young adults with pediatric low-grade glioma: Guidelines established by the International Pediatric Low-Grade Glioma Coalition Clinical Trial Working Group

Within the last few decades, we have witnessed tremendous advancements in the study of pediatric low-grade gliomas (pLGG), leading to a much-improved understanding of their molecular underpinnings. Consequently, we have achieved successful milestones in developing and implementing targeted therapeutic agents for treating these tumors. However, the community continues to face many unknowns when it comes to the most effective clinical implementation of these novel targeted inhibitors or combinations thereof. Questions encompassing optimal dosing strategies, treatment duration, methods for assessing clinical efficacy, and the identification of predictive biomarkers remain unresolved. Here, we offer the consensus of the international pLGG coalition (iPLGGc) clinical trial working group on these important topics and comment on clinical trial design and endpoint rationale. Throughout, we seek to standardize the global approach to early clinical trials (phase I and II) for pLGG, leading to more consistently interpretable results as well as enhancing the pace of novel therapy development and encouraging an increased focus on functional endpoints as well and quality of life for children faced with this disease.

An Analysis of the Biotin-(Strept)avidin System in Immunoassays: Interference and Mitigation Strategies

An immunoassay is an analytical test method in which analyte quantitation is based on signal responses generated as a consequence of an antibody-antigen interaction. They are the method of choice for the measurement of a large panel of diagnostic markers. Not only are they fully automated, allowing for a short turnaround time and high throughput, but offer high sensitivity and specificity with low limits of detection for a wide range of analytes. Many immunoassay manufacturers exploit the extremely high affinity of biotin for streptavidin in their assay design architectures as a means to immobilize and detect analytes of interest. The biotin-(strept)avidin system is, however, vulnerable to interference with high levels of supplemental biotin that may cause elevated or suppressed test results. Since this system is heavily applied in clinical diagnostics, biotin interference has become a serious concern, prompting the FDA to issue a safety report alerting healthcare workers and the public about the potential harm of ingesting high levels of supplemental biotin contributing toward erroneous diagnostic test results. This review includes a general background and historical prospective of immunoassays with a focus on the biotin-streptavidin system, interferences within the system, and what mitigations are applied to minimize false diagnostic results.

Temporal Changes in Quality Indicators in a Regional System of Care After Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Historically, quality-of-care monitoring was performed separately for transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR, SAVR). Using consensus indicators, we provide a global report on the quality of care for treatment of aortic stenosis across the highest-volume treatments: transfemoral (TF) TAVR, isolated SAVR, and SAVR combined with coronary artery bypass graft.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study of consecutive patients in a regional system of care. Primary endpoint was 30-day and 1-year mortality (2015-2019). Secondary endpoints included rate of new pacemaker, rate of readmission, and length of stay (2012-2019). Following multivariable logistic regressions, we developed mortality case-mix adjustment models to report risk estimates.

Results

The proportion of patients receiving TAVR grew from 32% to 53% (2015-2019). Those receiving TF TAVR were significantly older, with higher rates of comorbidities. Observed 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality after TF TAVR decreased from 3.1% to 0.6% (P = 0.03), and 13.6% to 6.6% (P = 0.09), respectively; surgical mortality rates for isolated SAVR and SAVR combined with coronary artery bypass graft were low and did not change significantly over time, ranging from 0.3% to 1.4% and from 0.9% to 3.4%, respectively at 30 days, and from 0.9% to 3.4% and from 4.7% to 6.7 at 1 year. In the TF TAVR cohort, the observed vs expected ratio for 30-day and 1-year mortality decreased significantly from 1.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9, 3.5) to 0.3 (95% CI 0.1, 0.8), and from 1.3 (95% CI 0.9, 1.7) to 0.7 (95% CI 0.5, 0.99), respectively; no change occurred in risk-adjusted surgical mortality.

Conclusions

Consensus quality indicators provide unique insights on the quality of care for patients receiving treatment for aortic stenosis.

An update on Alectinib: a first line treatment for ALK-positive advanced lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

Alectinib is a second-generation, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) for the treatment of ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and is able to induce significant and durable CNS responses. However, long-term use of alectinib has been clinically reported to cause some serious and even life-threatening adverse events. There are currently no effective interventions for its adverse events, and this undoubtedly leads to delays in patient treatment and limits its long-term clinical use.

AREAS COVERED

Based on the clinical trials conducted so far, we summarize the efficacy and adverse events that occurred, especially those related to cardiovascular disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, and respiratory disorders. The factors that may influence alectinib selection are also described. Findings are based on a PubMed literature search of clinical and basic science research papers spanning 1998-2023.

EXPERT OPINION

The significant prolongation of patient survival compared with first-generation ALK inhibitor suggests its potential as a first-line treatment for the NSCLC, but the severe adverse events of alectinib limit its long-term clinical use. Future research should focus on the exact mechanisms of these toxicities, how to alleviate the adverse events caused by alectinib clinically, and the development of next-generation drugs with reduced toxicities.

Call to action: overcoming enrollment disparities in cancer clinical trials with modernized eligibility criteria

Traditional clinical trial eligibility criteria restrict study populations, perpetuating enrollment disparities. We aimed to assess implementation of modernized eligibility criteria guidelines among pancreatic cancer (PC) clinical trials. Interventional PC trials in the United States since January 1, 2014, were identified via clinicaltrials.gov with December 31, 2017, as the transition for pre- and postguidance eras. Trials were assessed for guideline compliance and compared using Fisher exact test. In total, 198 trials were identified: 86 (43.4%) were pre- and 112 (56.6%) postguidance era. Improvements were seen in allowing patients with history of HIV (8.6% vs 43.8%; P < .0001), prior cancer (57.0% vs 72.3%; P = .034), or concurrent and/or stable cancer (2.1% vs 31.1%; P < .0001) to participate. Most (>95%) trials were compliant with laboratory reference ranges, QT interval corrected for heart rate (QTc) cutoffs, and rationalizing excluding prior therapies both pre- and postguidance eras. However, overall compliance with modernized criteria remains poor. We advocate for stakeholders to update protocols and scrutinize traditionally restrictive eligibility criteria.

Germain D, Mohile S, Hudson MF. Enrolling Older Adults Onto National Cancer Institute-Funded Clinical Trials in Community Oncology Clinics: Barriers and Solutions

In April 2021, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Division of Cancer Prevention collaborated with the NCI Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis to produce a virtual workshop that developed recommendations for enhancing NCI-sponsored clinical trial accrual of older adults. Prior to the workshop, a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders (eg, community oncologists, advanced practice practitioners, clinic and research staff, and patient advocates) gathered information related to accrual of older adults to clinical trials from the literature. Subsequently, a survey was conducted to detail NCI Community Oncology Research Program members' perspective on accrual barriers for this population; 305 individuals responded to the survey. Barriers to clinical trial accruals included comorbidity-attributed trial ineligibility, transportation and time issues, concern that the proposed regimen is too toxic for older adults, patient or family caregiver declined participation, and lack of trials relevant to older patients. Identified solutions included broadening clinical trial inclusion criteria, increasing the number of clinical trials specifically designed for older adults, simplifying consent forms, improving recruitment materials for older adults and their families, and facilitating transportation vouchers. At the workshop, participants, including stakeholders, used prior literature and survey results to develop recommendations, including interventions to address clinician bias, implement geriatric assessment, and promote clinician and staff engagement as mechanisms to improve accrual of older adults to clinical trials.

Increasing Inclusiveness of Patient-Centric Clinical Evidence Generation in Oncology: Real-World Data and Clinical Trials

Rapid advancements in cancer discovery, diagnosis, and treatment options available to patients with cancer have highlighted the need for enhancements in clinical trial design. The drug development process is costly, with more than 80% of trials failing to reach recruitment targets. Historical approaches to trial design are increasingly burdensome and lack real-world application in the intent-to-treat patient population. Equitable access to clinical trials combined with increased availability of real-world data are creating new opportunities for inclusiveness, improved outcomes, and evidence-based advances in therapies that will generate more generalizable data to better inform clinical decision-making. Clinical trials need to be inclusive if lifesaving data are not to be missed and investigational therapies are to be more accessible to a broader patient base. Real-world data can facilitate the conduct of studies that are identifying and understanding where disparities exist and developing new interventions to improve patient care. The clinical trial design process should be a multistakeholder and consensus- and evidence-driven process in which stakeholders are working together across the health care industry to close the care gap and ensure elimination of barriers that prevent equal access to specialized cancer care and advanced therapies available in clinical trials. The patient voice is essential throughout the trial process; however, it is often excluded from the design process. Integrating real-world data as well as ensuring patient involvement in early trial design during drug development can enhance enrollment and retention, leading to greater diversity.

Current Practices, Gap Analysis, and Proposed Workflows for PBPK Modeling of Cytochrome P450 Induction: An Industry Perspective

The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality (IQ) Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling Induction Working Group (IWG) conducted a survey across participating companies around general strategies for PBPK modeling of induction, including experience with its utility to address various questions, regulatory interactions, and regulatory acceptance. The results highlight areas where PBPK modeling is used with high confidence and identifies opportunities where confidence is lower and further evaluation is needed. To enhance the survey results, the PBPK-IWG also collected case studies and analyzed recent literature examples where PBPK models were applied to predict CYP3A induction-mediated drug-drug interactions. PBPK modeling of induction has evolved and progressed significantly, proving to have great potential to accelerate drug discovery and development. With the aim of enabling optimal use for new molecular entities that are either substrates and/or inducers of CYP3A, the PBPK-IWG proposes initial workflows for PBPK application, discusses future trends, and identifies gaps that need to be addressed.

Eligibility in Cancer Clinical Research: The Intersection of Discovery, Generalizability, Beneficence, and Justice

Eligibility criteria in clinical trials limit the study population for safety and scientific purposes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and The Friends of Cancer Research collaboration reconsidered common eligibility criteria in cancer trials and found many to be unnecessarily restrictive. The current recommendations further their efforts to facilitate accrual and improve the generalizability of research results to practice.See related articles, p. 2394, 2400, 2408, 2416, 2424, and 2430.