Reaffirming and Clarifying the American Society of Clinical Oncology's Policy Statement on the Critical Role of Phase I Trials in Cancer Research and Treatment

Decision-making and autonomy among participants in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Participants considering early-phase cancer clinical trials (CTs) need to understand the unique risks and benefits prior to providing informed consent. This qualitative study explored the factors that influence patients' decisions about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs through the ethical lens of relational autonomy.

METHODS

Using an interpretive descriptive design, interviews were conducted with 21 adult patients with advanced cancer who had enrolled in an early-phase CT. Data was analyzed using relational autonomy ethical theory and constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

The extent to which participants perceived themselves as having a choice to participate in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs was a central construct. Perceptions of choice varied according to whether participants characterized their experience as an act of desperation or as an opportunity to receive a novel treatment. Intersecting psychosocial and structural factors influenced participants' decision making about participating in early-phase cancer immunotherapy trials. These relational factors included: (1) being provided with hope; (2) having trust; (3) having the ability to withdraw; and (4) timing constraints.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight the continuum of perceived choice that exists among patients with cancer when considering participation in early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs. All participants were interpreted as exhibiting some degree of relational autonomy within the psychosocial and structural context of early-phase CT decision making. This study offers insights into the intersection of cancer care delivery, personal beliefs and values, and established CT processes and structures that can inform future practices and policies associated with early-phase cancer immunotherapy CTs to better support patients in making informed decisions.

Rural cancer disparities from Oklahoma cancer and vital records registries 2016-2020

OBJECTIVES

Compared to Oklahoma, 33 states have higher all-cause cancer incidence rates, but only three states have higher all-cause cancer mortality rates. Given this troubling gap between Oklahoma's cancer incidence and mortality rankings, in-depth examination of cancer incidence, staging, and mortality rates among this state's high-risk populations is warranted. This study provides in-depth information on overall and cause-specific cancer incidence and mortality for the rural and urban Oklahoma populations classified by Rural-Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC).

METHODS

Data were publicly available and de-identified, accessed through Oklahoma Statistics on Health Available for Everyone (OK2SHARE). Statistical analysis included calculating age-specific rates, age-adjusted rates, and percentages, as well as assessing temporal patterns using average annual percent change with 95 % confidence intervals determined by Joinpoint regression analysis.

FINDINGS

Urban areas had a higher proportion of female breast cancer cases, while large and small rural areas had higher rates of lung and bronchus cancer. Urban residents were more likely to have private insurance and less likely to have Medicare compared to rural residents. Cancer incidence rates increased with age, and men had higher mortality rates than women. Lung and bronchus cancer was the leading cause of cancer death, with lower rates in urban areas compared to rural areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings demonstrate the need to improve the early detection of cancer among the rural populations of Oklahoma. Additionally, the high mortality rates for most types of cancer experienced by the state's rural population underscores the need to improve cancer detection and treatment in these locations.

Equitable Access to Clinical Trials: How Do We Achieve It?

The mismatch between the study populations participating in oncology clinical trials and the composition of the targeted cancer population requires urgent amelioration. Regulatory requirements can mandate that trial sponsors enroll diverse study populations and ensure that regulatory revue prioritizes equity and inclusivity. A variety of projects directed at increasing accrual of underserved populations to oncology clinical trials emphasize best practices: broadened eligibility requirements for trials, simplification of trial procedures, community outreach through patient navigators, decentralization of clinical trial procedures and institution of telehealth, and funding to offset costs of travel and lodging. Substantial improvement will require major changes in culture in the educational and professional practice, research, and regulatory communities and will require major increases in public, corporate, and philanthropic funding.

Identifying Early-Phase Clinical Trial Participants at Risk for Experiencing Worse Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To identify early-phase clinical trial (EP-CT) participants at risk for experiencing worse clinical outcomes and describe receipt of supportive care services.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 examined baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services. The validated Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognosis score was calculated using data at the time of EP-CT enrollment (scores range from 0 to 3; scores ≥ 2 indicate poor prognosis). Differences in patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services were compared on the basis of RMH scores.

RESULTS

Among 350 patients (median age = 63.2 years [range, 23.0-84.3 years], 57.1% female, 98.0% metastatic cancer), 31.7% had an RMH score indicating a poor prognosis. Those with poor prognosis RMH scores had worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; P < .001), shorter time on trial (HR, 1.53; P < .001), and lower likelihood of completing the dose-limiting toxicity period (odds ratio, 0.42; P = .006) versus those with good prognosis scores. Patients with poor prognosis scores had greater risk of emergency room visits (HR, 1.66; P = .037) and hospitalizations (HR, 1.69; P = .016) while on trial, and earlier hospice enrollment (HR, 2.22; P = .006). Patients with poor prognosis scores were significantly more likely to receive palliative care consultation (46.8% v 27.6%; P < .001), but not other supportive care services.

CONCLUSION

This study found that RMH prognosis score could identify patients at risk for decreased survival, shorter time on trial, and greater use of health care services. The findings underscore the need to develop supportive care interventions targeting EP-CT participants' distinct needs.

Expanding access to early phase trials: the CATCH-UP.2020 experience

BACKGROUND

Disparities in cancer outcomes persist for underserved populations; one important aspect of this is limited access to promising early phase clinical trials. To address this, the National Cancer Institute-funded Create Access to Targeted Cancer Therapy for Underserved Populations (CATCH-UP.2020) was created. We report the tools developed and accrual metrics of the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020 with a focus on racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomically underserved populations.

METHODS

CATCH-UP.2020 is a P30 supplement awarded to 8 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers with existing resources to rapidly open and accrue to Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) trials with emphasis on engaging patients from underserved populations. Sites used patient-based, community-based, investigator-based, and program-based tools to meet specific program goals.

RESULTS

From September 2020 to August 2021, CATCH-UP.2020 sites opened 45 ETCTN trials. Weighted average trial activation time for the 7 sites reporting this was 107 days. In the initial year, sites enrolled 145 patients in CATCH-UP.2020 with 68 (46.9%) representing racial, ethnic, rural, and socioeconomically underserved populations using the broader definition of underserved encompassed in the grant charge. During the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020, a time impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, 15.8% (66 of 417) and 21.4% (31 of 145) of patients enrolled to ETCTN trials at network and at CATCH-UP sites, respectively, were from racial and ethnic minority groups, a more limited definition of underserved for which comparable data are available.

CONCLUSION

Targeted funding accelerated activation and accrual of early phase trials and expanded access to this therapeutic option for underserved populations.

Patients in phase 1 cancer trials: psychological distress and understanding of trial information

BACKGROUND

Psychological distress may be present among patients who are considering enrollment in phase 1 cancer trials, as they have advanced cancer and no documented treatment options remain. However, the prevalence of psychological distress has not been previously investigated in larger cohorts. In complex phase 1 cancer trials, it is important to ensure adequate understanding of the study premises, such as the undocumented effects and the risk of adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a prospective study, patients completed questionnaires at two time points. We investigated psychological distress, measured as stress, anxiety, and depression, among patients at their first visit to the phase 1 unit (N = 229). Further, we investigated the understanding of trial information among patients who were enrolled in a phase 1 cancer trial (N = 57).

RESULTS

We enrolled 75% of 307 eligible patients. We found a lower mean score of stress in our population compared to population norms, while the mean scores of anxiety and depression were higher. A total of 9% showed moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety and 11% showed moderate to severe symptoms of depression, which indicates higher levels than cancer patients in general. A total of 46 (81% of enrolled patients) completed questionnaires on trial information and consent. The understanding of the information on phase 1 cancer trials in these patients was slightly lower than the level reported for cancer trials in general. Some aspects relating to purpose, benefit, and additional risks were understood by fewer than half of the patients.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that distress is not as prevalent in the population of patients referred to phase 1 cancer trials as in the general cancer population. Although patients' understanding of trial information was reasonable, some aspects of complex phase 1 cancer trials were not easily understood by enrolled patients.

Recruitment, outcomes, and toxicity trends in phase I oncology trials: Six-year experience in a large institution

Background

With the rapid influx of novel anti‐cancer agents, phase I clinical trials in oncology are evolving. Historically, response rates on early phase trials have been modest with the clinical benefit and ethics of enrolment debated. However, there is a paucity of real‐world data in this setting.

Aim

To better understand the changing landscape of phase I oncology trials, we performed a retrospective review at our institution to examine patient and trial characteristics, screening outcomes, and treatment outcomes.

Methods and results

We analyzed all consecutive adult patients with advanced solid organ malignancies who were screened across phase I trials from January 2013 to December 2018 at a single institution. During this period, 242 patients were assessed for 28 different trials. Median age was 64 years (range 30–89) with an equal sex distribution. Among 257 screening visits, the overall screen failure rate was 18%, resulting in 212 patients being enrolled onto a study. Twenty‐six trials (93%) involved immunotherapeutic agents or molecular targeted agents either alone or in combination, with only two trials of cytotoxic agents (7%). Twenty‐two (13.4%) of the 209 treated patients experienced a total of 33 grade 3 or higher treatment‐related adverse events. There was one treatment‐related death (0.5%). Of 190 response‐evaluable patients, 7 (4%) had a complete response, 34 (18%) a partial response, and 59 (31%) experienced stable disease for a disease control rate of 53%. The median overall survival for our cohort was 8.0 (95% CI: 6.8–9.2) months.

Conclusion

The profile of phase I trials at our institution are consistent with the changing early drug development landscape. Response rates and overall survival in our cohort are superior to historically reported rates and comparable to contemporaneous studies. Severe treatment‐related toxicity was relatively uncommon, and treatment‐related mortality was rare.

The Contribution of Clinical Pharmacologists in Precision Medicine: An Opportunity for Health Care Improvement

Background

Clinical pharmacologists play an important role and have professional value in the field, especially regarding their role within precision medicine (PM) and personalized therapies.

Objective

In this work, we sought to stimulate debate on the role of clinical pharmacologists.

Methods

A literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, through electronic consultation of 2 databases, PubMed/Medline and Embase, and Google Scholar with manual research taking into account the peer-reviewed literature such as observational studies, reviews, original research articles, comments, mini-reviews, and opinion papers published in English between 2010 and February 2020. Titles and abstracts were screened by 1 author, and studies identified for full-text analysis and selected according to inclusion criteria were agreed on by 2 reviewers.

Results

We identified a total of 535 peer-reviewed articles and the number of full texts eligible for the project was 43. Several publications highlight the clinical value of pharmacologists in highly complex hospitals, where the strategies of PM are implemented. Although there are still no studies measuring the clinical efficiency and the efficacy of clinical pharmacology services, and the applicability of PM protocols, this review shows the considerable debate around the future mission of clinical pharmacology services as a bridging discipline capable of combining the complex knowledge and different professional skills needed to fully implement PM.

Conclusions

Various strategies have been conceived and planned to facilitate the transition from mainstream medicine to PM, which will enable patients to be treated more accurately, with significant advantages in terms of safety and effectiveness of treatments. Therefore, in the future, to ensure that the evolutionary process of medicine can involve as many patients and caregivers as possible, infrastructures capable of bringing together different multidisciplinary skills among health professionals will have to be implemented. Clinical pharmacologists could be the main drivers of this strategy because they already, with their multidisciplinary training, operate in a series of services in high-level hospitals, facilitating the clinical governance of the most challenging patients. The implementation of these strategies will lastly allow national health organizations to adequately address the management and therapeutic challenges related to the advent of new drugs and cell and gene therapies by facilitating the removal of economic and organizational barriers to ensure equitable access to PM. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX–XXX)

Reprioritizing Risk and Benefit: The Future of Study Design in Early-Phase Cancer Research

The scientific purpose of phase I trials is to determine the maximum tolerated dose and/or optimal biological dose of experimental agents. Yet most participants in phase I oncology trials enroll hoping for direct medical benefit. The most common phase I trial designs use low starting doses and escalate cautiously in a "risk-escalation" model focused on minimizing risk for each participant. This approach ensures that a proportion of subjects will likely not receive any benefit, even if the intervention proves to be successful at appropriate doses. In this article, we propose that trial designs should employ dosing strategies that increase chances of providing benefit if the investigational agent should prove to be successful while limiting risk to reasonable levels. We then describe how adaptive trial designs can facilitate refined dose optimization based on both therapeutic benefit and toxicity, which can simultaneously decrease the risk of harm while increasing the chances of benefit.

Before Consent: Qualitative Analysis of Deliberations of Patients With Advanced Cancer About Early-Phase Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

Patients with advanced cancer and oncologists deliberate about early-phase (EP) trials as they consider whether to pursue EP trial enrollment. We have limited information about those deliberations and how they may facilitate or impede trial initiation. This study describes these deliberations and their relationship to trial initiation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We collected longitudinal, ethnographic data on deliberations of patients with advanced cancer at two academic medical centers. We used constant comparative and framework analyses to characterize the deliberative process and its relationship to trial initiation.

RESULTS

Of 96 patients with advanced cancer, 26% initiated EP enrollment and 19% joined a trial. Constant comparative analysis revealed two foci of deliberation. Setting the stage focused on patient and physician support for EP trial involvement, including patients' interest in research and oncologists' awareness of trials and assessment of patient fit. Securing a seat focused on eligibility for and entrance to a specific trial and involved trial availability, treatment history, disease progression, and enrollment timing. Patients enrolled in a trial only when both stages could be successfully navigated.

CONCLUSION

Ethnographic data revealed two foci of deliberation about EP trial enrollment among patients with advanced cancer. Physician support played a consequential role in both stages, but enrollment also reflected factors beyond the control of any specific individual. Insights from this study, combined with other recent studies of trial enrollment, advance our understanding of the complex process of EP trial accrual and may help identify strategies to improve rates of participation.

Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer

For many years, oncology phase I trials have been referred to as 'toxicity trials' and have been believed to have low clinical utility other than that of establishing the adverse event profile of novel therapeutic agents. The traditional distinction of clinical trials into three phases has been challenged in the past few years by the introduction of targeted therapies and immunotherapies into the routine management of patients with cancer. This transformation has especially affected early phase trials, leading to the current situation in which response rates are increasingly reported from phase I trials. In this Perspectives, we highlight key elements of phase I trials and discuss how each one of them contributes to a new paradigm whereby preliminary measurements of the clinical benefit from a novel treatment can be obtained in current phase I trials, which can therefore be considered to have a therapeutic intent.

New clinical trial designs in the era of precision medicine

Cancer treatment has made significant strides towards the promise of personalized medicine. Recent scientific advances have shown that there are numerous genetic deregulations that are common in multiple cancer types, raising the possibility of developing drugs targeting those deregulations irrespective of the tumour type. Precision Cancer Medicine (PCM) was born out of accumulated evidence matching targeted agents with these tumour molecular deregulations. At the same time, the therapeutic armamentarium is rapidly increasing and the number of new drugs (including immune-oncology agents) entering drug development continues to rise. These factors, added to strong collaboration with regulatory agencies, which have approved novel agents based on data obtained from phase 1/2 trials, have led to unprecedented evolution in the design of early-stage clinical trials. Currently, we have seen rapid phase 1 dose-escalation trials followed by remarkably large expansion cohorts, and are witnessing the emergence of new trials, such as adaptive studies with basket and umbrella designs aimed at optimizing the biomarker-drug co-development process. Alongside the growing complexity of these clinical trials, new frameworks for stronger and faster collaboration between all stakeholders in drug development, including academic institutions and frameworks, clinicians, pharma companies and regulatory agencies, have been established. In this review article, we describe the main challenges and opportunities that these new trial designs may provide for a more efficient drug development process, which may ultimately help ensure that PCM becomes a reality for patients.

Duality of purpose: Participant and parent understanding of the purpose of genomic tumor profiling research among children and young adults with solid tumors

PURPOSE

Increasing use of genomic tumor profiling may blur the line between research and clinical care. We aimed to describe research participants' perspectives on the purpose of genomic tumor profiling research in pediatric oncology.

METHODS

We surveyed 45 participants (response rate 85%) in a pilot study of genomic profiling in pediatric solid tumors at four academic cancer centers following return of sequencing results. We defined understanding according to a one-item ("basic") definition (recognizing that the primary purpose was not to improve the patient's treatment) and a four-item ("comprehensive") definition (primary purpose was not to improve patient's treatment; primary purpose was to improve treatment of future patients; there may not be direct medical benefit; most likely result of participation was not increased likelihood of cure).

RESULTS

Sixty-eight percent of respondents (30/44) demonstrated basic understanding of the study purpose; 55% (24/44) demonstrated comprehensive understanding. Understanding was more frequently seen in those with higher education and greater genetic knowledge according to basic (81% vs 50%, p=0.05; and 82% vs 46%, p=0.03, respectively) and comprehensive definitions (73% vs 28%, p=0.01; 71% vs 23%, p=0.01). Ninety-three percent of respondents who believed the primary purpose was to improve the patient's care simultaneously stated that the research also aimed to benefit future patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Most participants in pediatric tumor profiling research understand that the primary goal of this research is to improve care for future patients, but many express dual goals when participating in sequencing research. Some populations demonstrate increased rates of misunderstanding. Nuanced participant views suggest further work is needed to assess and improve participant understanding, particularly as tumor sequencing moves beyond research into clinical practice.

Quality of online information about phase I clinical cancer trials in Sweden, Denmark and Norway

Patients increasingly search for online information about clinical trials. Little is known about the quality and readability of the information in these databases. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of online information available to the public on phase I clinical cancer trials in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A qualitative content analysis was made of 19 online trial descriptions from three public websites in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, and the readability of the documents was tested. Both the quality of the content and the readability scores were best for the Danish information. The Swedish texts were very short and were the least readable. Overall, the quality of the information was highly variable and nearly all the documents were misleading in part. Furthermore, the descriptions provided almost no information about possible adverse effects or disadvantages of study participation. This study highlights a communication problem and proposes new ways of presenting studies that are less suggestive of positive outcomes, arguing that we should be more careful to include information about adverse effects, and that the use of simple measures like readability testing can be useful as an indicator of text quality.

DNA repair and systemic lupus erythematosus

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a chronic autoimmune disease with no known cure that affects at least five million people worldwide. Monozygotic twin concordance and familial aggregation studies strongly suggest that lupus results from genetic predisposition along with environmental exposures including UV light. The majority of the common risk alleles associated with genetic predisposition to SLE map to genes associated with the immune system. However, evidence is emerging that implicates a role for aberrant DNA repair in the development of lupus. Here we summarize our current knowledge of the potential association of lupus with mutations in DNA repair genes. We also discuss how defective or aberrant DNA repair could lead to the development of lupus.