Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-Friends of Cancer Research Brain Metastases Working Group

BMScope: A scoping review to chart the evolving clinical study landscape in brain and leptomeningeal metastasis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have challenged the notion that patients with brain metastasis (BM) or leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) should be excluded from systemic therapy clinical trials. This scoping study summarizes the BM/LM clinical studies published between 2010 and 2023.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL, CAB Abstracts, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, HINARI, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE electronic databases were searched on June 21, 2021. An updated search was performed on February 21, 2023. Eligible studies investigated a therapeutic intervention in solid tumor patients with BM and/or LM and reported a patient outcome. Extracted study-level data, including study type, publication date, geographical location, number of BM/LM patients in the study, primary tumor type, and type of therapeutic intervention, were collected.

RESULTS

4921 unique studies were eligible for analysis. The key finding is that BM/LM clinical research is expanding globally, both in observational studies and clinical trials. Despite the shift over time toward a higher proportion of systemic therapy trials, the majority still do not include patients with symptomatic disease and lack reporting of BM/LM-specific endpoints. Globally, there has been a trend to more international collaboration in BM/LM clinical studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of the BM/LM literature charts the evolving landscape of studies involving this previously excluded population. Given the increasing clinical research activity, particularly involving late-stage systemic therapy trials, it is imperative that due consideration is given to the intracranial activity of new investigational agents. Wider adoption of standardized reporting of intracranial-specific endpoints will facilitate the evaluation of relative intracranial efficacy.

Neratinib and ado-trastuzumab emtansine for pretreated and untreated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer brain metastases: Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium trial 022

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer brain metastases (BCBMs) remain limited. We previously reported central nervous system (CNS) activity for neratinib and neratinib-capecitabine. Preclinical data suggest that neratinib may overcome resistance to ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) when given in combination. In Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) 022's cohort 4, we examined the efficacy of neratinib plus T-DM1 in patients with HER2-positive BCBM.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this multicenter, phase II study, patients with measurable HER2-positive BCBM received neratinib 160 mg daily plus T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg intravenously every 21 days in three parallel-enrolling cohorts [cohort 4A-previously untreated BCBM, cohorts 4B and 4C-BCBM progressing after local CNS-directed therapy without (4B) and with (4C) prior exposure to T-DM1]. Cycle 1 diarrheal prophylaxis was required. The primary endpoint was the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Brain Metastases (RANO-BM) by cohort. The overall survival (OS) and toxicity were also assessed.

RESULTS

Between 2018 and 2021, 6, 17, and 21 patients enrolled in cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C. Enrollment was stopped prematurely for slow accrual. The CNS objective response rate in cohorts 4A, 4B, and 4C was 33.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.3% to 77.7%], 35.3% (95% CI 14.2% to 61.7%), and 28.6% (95% CI 11.3% to 52.2%), respectively; 38.1%-50% experienced stable disease for ≥6 months or response. Diarrhea was the most common grade 3 toxicity (22.7%). The median OS was 30.2 [cohort 4A; 95% CI 21.9-not reached (NR)], 23.3 (cohort 4B; 95% CI 17.6-NR), and 20.9 (cohort 4C; 95% CI 14.9-NR) months.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed intracranial activity for neratinib plus T-DM1, including those with prior T-DM1 exposure, suggesting synergistic effects with neratinib. Our data provide additional evidence for neratinib-based combinations in patients with HER2-positive BCBM, even those who are heavily pretreated.

Central nervous system metastases in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A review of the therapeutic landscape

Up to 40% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Current treatments for this subgroup of patients with advanced NSCLC include local therapies (surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery, and, less frequently, whole-brain radiotherapy), targeted therapies for oncogene-addicted NSCLC (small molecules, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and antibody-drug conjugates), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (as monotherapy or combination therapy), with multiple new drugs in development. However, confirming the intracranial activity of these treatments has proven to be challenging, given that most lung cancer clinical trials exclude patients with untreated and/or progressing CNS metastases, or do not include prespecified CNS-related endpoints. Here we review progress in the treatment of patients with CNS metastases originating from NSCLC, examining local treatment options, systemic therapies, and multimodal therapeutic strategies. We also consider challenges regarding assessment of treatment response and provide thoughts around future directions for managing CNS disease in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Impact of Broadening Trial Eligibility Criteria on the Inclusion of Patients With Brain Metastases in Cancer Clinical Trials: Time Series Analyses for 2012-2022

PURPOSE

In October 2017, an ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research (FoCR), and US Food and Drug Administration (ASCO/FoCR/FDA) task force recommended that common eligibility criteria be modified to make trials more inclusive. We examined whether patterns of exclusions regarding patients with brain metastases changed over time in relation to these recommendations.

METHODS

Trial eligibility criteria were abstracted from ClinicalTrials.gov for phase I-III US-based interventional clinical trials for patients with advanced breast, colorectal, lung, or melanoma cancers from January 2012 to December 2022. Trials were examined to determine whether patients with brain metastases were not excluded, conditionally excluded (ie, excluded in some circumstances), or wholly excluded. An interrupted time series analysis with multinomial logistic regression was used to determine whether the ASCO/FoCR/FDA recommendations were associated with changes in brain metastases criteria.

RESULTS

We evaluated N = 3,077 trials. Patients with brain metastases were not excluded in 506 trials (16.4%), conditionally excluded in 2,263 trials (73.5%), and wholly excluded in 308 trials (10.0%). In the postrecommendation period, we estimated a 68% increase in the odds of brain metastases not excluded compared with conditionally excluded (odds ratio, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.06 to 2.66], P = .03). The proportion of trials in which patients with brain metastases were not excluded increased (from 11.5% v 17.3%) and conditionally excluded decreased (from 82.3% to 75.2%, P = .03). We found no difference in the proportion of trials in which patients with brain metastases were wholly excluded (7.5% v 6.2%, P = .42).

CONCLUSION

The ASCO/FoCR/FDA task force recommendations were associated with a shift in patterns of brain metastases exclusion criteria from conditionally excluded to not excluded. These findings demonstrate that the cancer clinical trial community has begun to change the way trials are written to be more inclusive.

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.

Enrollment Trends Among Patients with Melanoma Brain Metastasis in Active Clinical Trials

The CNS is a common site for distant metastasis and treatment failure in melanoma patients. This study aimed to evaluate the inclusion rate of patients with melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in prospective clinical trials. 69.3% of trials excluded MBM patients based on their CNS disease. In univariate analysis, trials not employing immunotherapy (p = 0.0174), inclusion of leptomeningeal disease (p < 0.0001) and non-pharmaceutical sponsor trials (p = 0.0461) were more likely to enroll patients with MBM. Thoughtful reconsideration of clinical trial designs is needed to give patients with MBMs access to promising investigational agents and improve outcomes for patients with MBM.

Symptomatic brain metastases in melanoma

Although clinical outcomes in metastatic melanoma have improved in recent years, the morbidity and mortality of symptomatic brain metastases remain challenging. Response rates and survival outcomes of patients with symptomatic melanoma brain metastases (MBM) are significantly inferior to patients with asymptomatic disease. This review focusses upon the specific challenges associated with the management of symptomatic MBM, discussing current treatment paradigms, obstacles to improving clinical outcomes and directions for future research.

Assessment of eligibility criteria in renal cell carcinoma trials evaluating systemic therapy

OBJECTIVES

To characterise the restrictiveness of eligibility criteria in contemporary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials, using recommendations from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-Friends of Cancer Research (FCR) initiative.

METHODS

vPhase I-III trials assessing systemic therapies in patients with RCC starting between 30 June 2012 and 30 June 2022 were identified. Eligibility criteria regarding brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were identified and stratified into three groups: exclusion, conditional inclusion, and not reported. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the frequency of eligibility criteria. Fisher's exact test or chi-square test were used to calculate their associations with certain trial characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 423 RCC trials were initially identified of which 112 (26.5%) had sufficient accessible information. Exclusion of patients with HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, brain metastases, and prior or concurrent malignancies were reported in 74.1%, 53.6%, 33.0%, and 8.0% of trials, respectively. In the context of HIV and HBV/HCV infection, patients were largely excluded from trials evaluating immunotherapy (94.4% and 77.8%, respectively). In addition, brain metastases were excluded in trials assessing targeted therapy (36.4%), combined therapy (33.3%), and immunotherapy (22.2%). Exclusion of patients with prior or concurrent malignancies was less frequently reported, accounting for 9.1%, 8.3%, and 5.6% targeted therapy, combined therapy and immunotherapy trials, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A substantial proportion of RCC trials utilise restrictive eligibility criteria, excluding patients with fairly prevalent comorbidities. Implementing the ASCO-FCR recommendations will ensure resulting data are more inclusive and aligned with patient populations in the real-world.

Brain Metastases in the Setting of Stable Versus Progressing Extracranial Disease Among Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Women with metastatic breast cancer (BC) are at risk of developing brain metastases (BrM), which may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Given the emergence of systemic therapies with activity in the brain, more breast oncology clinical trials include patients with BrM, but most require extracranial disease progression for trial participation.

METHODS

We evaluated the proportion of patients with BC BrM who have intracranial disease progression in the setting of stable extracranial disease in a retrospective cohort study of 751 patients treated between 2008 and 2018 at the Sunnybrook Odette Cancer. Extracranial disease progression was defined as any progression outside of the brain within 4 weeks of a patient's local/regional treatment. Clinical/pathologic characteristics and outcomes were also abstracted from patients' medical records.

RESULTS

Of 752 patients in the cohort, 691 were included in our study. Sixty-one patients were excluded due to the presence of a second primary tumor or uncertain tissue origin of the BrM. BC subtype based on the primary tumor was known for 592 (85.6%) patients; 33.1% (n = 196) had HER2+ disease, 40% (n = 237) had HR+/HER2- disease, and 26.9% (n = 159) had triple negative BC. Extracranial disease status was available for 677 patients (98%); 41.1% (n = 284/691) had stable extracranial disease and 56.8% (n = 393/691) had extracranial disease progression within 4 weeks of treatment for BrM.

DISCUSSION

A high proportion of patients with BC BrM (41.1%) would be excluded from clinical trials due to stable extracranial disease. Efforts should be made to design trials for this patient population.

Examining Exclusion Criteria in Advanced Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: An Assessment of recommendations From the American Society Of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research

PURPOSE

Eligibility criteria illustrate the characteristics of the study population and promote the safety of participants. However, overreliance on restrictive eligibility criteria may limit the generalizability of outcomes. As a result, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) issued statements to curtail these challenges. In this study, we aimed to assess restrictiveness in eligibility criteria across advanced prostate cancer clinical trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all phase I, II, and III advanced prostate cancer clinical trials between June 30, 2012, and June 30, 2022, through Clinicaltrials.gov. We evaluated whether a clinical trial excluded, conditionally included, or did not report 4 common criteria: brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, and hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Performance status (PS) criteria were recorded based on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale.

RESULTS

Out of 699 clinical trials within our search strategy, 265 (37.9%) trials possessed all the required data and were included in our analysis. The most common excluded condition of our interest was brain metastases (60.8%), followed by HIV positivity (46.4%), HBV/HCV positivity (46.0%), and concurrent malignancies (15.5%). Additionally, 50.9% of clinical trials only included patients with ECOG PS 0 to 1. HIV and HBV/HCV infection were exclusion criteria of 22 (80.8%) and 19 (73.1%) immunotherapy trials, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with brain metastases, prior or concurrent malignancies, HIV infection, HBV/HCV infection, or low-functioning PS were overly restricted from participating in advanced prostate clinical trials. Advocating for broader criteria may ameliorate generalizability.

Utility of a prognostic assessment tool to predict survival following surgery for brain metastases

Background

Brain metastases account for more than 50% of all intracranial tumors and are associated with poor outcomes. Treatment decisions in this highly heterogenous cohort remain controversial due to the myriad of treatment options available, and there is no clearly defined standard of care. The prognosis in brain metastasis patients varies widely with tumor type, extracranial disease burden and patient performance status. Decision-making regarding treatment is, therefore, tailored to each patient and their disease.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study assessing survival outcomes following surgery for brain metastases over a 50-month period (April 1, 2014-June 30, 2018). We compared predicted survival using the diagnosis-specific Graded Prognostic Assessment (ds-GPA) with actual survival.

Results

A total of 186 patients were included in our cohort. Regression analysis demonstrated no significant correlation between actual and predicted outcome. The most common reason for exclusion was insufficient information being available to the neuro-oncology multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting to allow GPA calculation.

Conclusions

In this study, we demonstrate that "predicted survival" using the ds-GPA does not correlate with "actual survival" in our operated patient cohort. We also identify a shortcoming in the amount of information available at MDT in order to implement the GPA appropriately. Patient selection for aggressive therapies is crucial, and this study emphasizes the need for treatment decisions to be individualized based on patient and cancer clinical characteristics.

Brain Metastases and Leptomeningeal Disease

OBJECTIVE

Central nervous system (CNS) metastases include brain parenchymal, spinal cord, and leptomeningeal metastases. This article discusses the diagnostic and therapeutic advances of the last decade that have improved outcomes for patients with these CNS metastases.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

The diagnostic tools for CNS metastases, particularly leptomeningeal disease, have evolved over the past decade with respect to advancements in CSF analysis. Multiple medical therapies are now available for brain metastasis treatment that have shown CNS efficacy, including targeted therapies and antibody-drug conjugates. Molecular testing for CNS metastases has become more common and the repertoire of molecularly targeted therapies continues to expand. Advancements in radiation therapy, including improvements in stereotactic radiation techniques, whole-brain radiation with hippocampal avoidance, and proton beam radiation, have changed the radiation management of patients with CNS metastases. New intrathecal agents are currently being tested for the management of leptomeningeal metastases.

ESSENTIAL POINTS

CNS metastases are far more common than primary brain tumors and are increasing in prevalence in the setting of improved treatments and prolonged survival in patients with systemic cancers. There have been many changes in the diagnostics and treatment of CNS metastases, yielding subsequent improvements in patient outcomes with further advancements on the horizon.

Newly Approved and Emerging Agents in HER2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer (HER2+ BC) is an aggressive tumor type, accounting for 15% to 20% of the approximately 300,000 new BC cases in the United States each year. The goal of this review is to discuss the evolving landscape of therapies for HER2+ metastatic BC (mBC). Targeted therapies that have been the standard of care (SOC) for HER2+ mBC for almost a decade have greatly improved patient outcomes. The SOC for the first-line treatment of HER2+ mBC continues to be HER2-targeted monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) + a taxane, but recent updates in the second-line setting favor use of a newer HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugate (ADC), trastuzumab deruxtecan, versus the prior SOC ADC, trastuzumab emtansine. Numerous options are now available in the third line and beyond, including tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) regimens, newer mAbs, and other ADCs. The optimal course of treatment for individual patients can be guided by location of metastases, prior therapies, concomitant biomarkers, and monitoring and management of adverse events. Ongoing trials will further the evolution of the HER2+ mBC treatment landscape. Furthermore, next-generation ADCs, TKIs, and classes of drugs that have not been approved for the treatment of HER2+ mBC, including immune checkpoint inhibitors and cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors, are also being evaluated for their efficacy in the first and second line. Although the influx of new drugs may complicate treatment decisions for physicians, having a multitude of options will undoubtedly further improve patient outcomes and patient-centered care.

Growth in eligibility criteria content and failure to accrue among National Cancer Institute (NCI)-affiliated clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Cancer trial accrual is a national priority, yet up to 20% of trials fail to accrue. Trial eligibility criteria growth may be associated with accrual failure. We sought to quantify eligibility criteria growth within National Cancer Institute (NCI)-affiliated trials and determine impact on accrual.

METHODS

Utilizing the Aggregated Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov, we analyzed phase II/III interventional NCI-affiliated trials initiated between 2008 and 2018. Eligibility criteria growth was assessed via number of unique content words within combined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Association between unique word count and accrual failure was evaluated with multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for known predictors of failure. Medical terms associated with accrual failure were identified via natural language processing and categorized.

RESULTS

Of 1197 trials, 231 (19.3%) failed due to low accrual. Accrual failure rate increased with eligibility criteria growth, from 11.8% in the lowest decile (12-112 words) to 29.4% in the highest decile (445-750 words). Median eligibility criteria increased over time, from 214 (IQR [23, 282]) unique content words in 2008 to 417 (IQR [289, 514]) in 2018 (r²  = 0.73, P < 0.001). Eligibility criteria growth was independently associated with accrual failure (OR: 1.09 per decile, 95% CI [1.03-1.15], p = 0.004). Eighteen exclusion criteria categories were significantly associated with accrual failure, including renal, pulmonary, and diabetic, among others (Bonferroni-corrected p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Eligibility criteria content growth is increasing dramatically among NCI-affiliated trials and is strongly associated with accrual failure. These findings support national initiatives to simplify eligibility criteria and suggest that further efforts are warranted to improve cancer trial accrual.

Tucatinib vs Placebo, Both in Combination With Trastuzumab and Capecitabine, for Previously Treated ERBB2 (HER2)-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer in Patients With Brain Metastases: Updated Exploratory Analysis of the HER2CLIMB Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

It is estimated that up to 50% of patients with ERBB2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC) will develop brain metastases (BMs), which is associated with poor prognosis. Previous reports of the HER2CLIMB trial have demonstrated that tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine provides survival and intracranial benefits for patients with ERBB2-positive MBC and BMs.

Objective

To describe overall survival (OS) and intracranial outcomes from tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine in patients with ERBB2-positive MBC and BMs with an additional 15.6 months of follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

HER2CLIMB is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. The 612 patients, including those with active or stable BMs, had ERBB2-positive MBC previously treated with trastuzumab, pertuzumab, and trastuzumab emtansine. The study was conducted from February 23, 2016, to May 3, 2019. Data from February 23, 2016, to February 8, 2021, were analyzed.

Interventions

Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive tucatinib (300 mg orally twice daily) or placebo (orally twice daily), both in combination with trastuzumab (6 mg/kg intravenously or subcutaneously every 3 weeks with an initial loading dose of 8 mg/kg) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 of each 3-week cycle).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Evaluations in this exploratory subgroup analysis included OS and intracranial progression-free survival (CNS-PFS) in patients with BMs, confirmed intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) and duration of intracranial response (DOR-IC) in patients with measurable intracranial disease at baseline, and new brain lesion-free survival in all patients. Only OS was prespecified before the primary database lock.

Results

At baseline, 291 of 612 patients (47.5%) had BMs. Median age was 52 years (range, 22-75 years), and 289 (99.3%) were women. At median follow-up of 29.6 months (range, 0.1-52.9 months), median OS was 9.1 months longer in the tucatinib-combination group (21.6 months; 95% CI, 18.1-28.5) vs the placebo-combination group (12.5 months; 95% CI, 11.2-16.9). The tucatinib-combination group showed greater clinical benefit in CNS-PFS and ORR-IC compared with the placebo-combination group. The DOR-IC was 8.6 months (95% CI, 5.5-10.3 months) in the tucatinib-combination group and 3.0 months (95% CI, 3.0-10.3 months) in the placebo-combination group. Risk of developing new brain lesions as the site of first progression or death was reduced by 45.1% in the tucatinib-combination group vs the placebo-combination group (hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.36-0.85]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This subgroup analysis found that tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine improved OS while reducing the risk of developing new brain lesions, further supporting the importance of this treatment option for patients with ERBB2-positive MBC, including those with BMs.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02614794.

Oncology phase I trial design and conduct: time for a change - MDICT Guidelines 2022

In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence announced Project Optimus focusing on dose optimization for oncology drugs. The Methodology for the Development of Innovative Cancer Therapies (MDICT) Taskforce met to review and discuss the optimization of dosage for oncology trials and to develop a practical guide for oncology phase I trials. Defining a single recommended phase II dose based on toxicity may define doses that are neither the most effective nor the best tolerated. MDICT recommendations address the need for robust non-clinical data which are needed to inform trial design, as well as an expert team including statisticians and pharmacologists. The protocol must be flexible and adaptive, with clear definition of all endpoints. Health authorities should be consulted early and regularly. Strategies such as randomization, intrapatient dose escalation, and real-world eligibility criteria are encouraged whereas serial tumor sampling is discouraged in the absence of a strong rationale and appropriately validated assay. Endpoints should include consideration of all longitudinal toxicity. The phase I dose escalation trial should define the recommended dose range for later testing in randomized phase II trials, rather than a single recommended phase II dose, and consider scenarios where different populations may require different dosages. The adoption of these recommendations will improve dosage selection in early clinical trials of new anticancer treatments and ultimately, outcomes for patients.

IMPACT the Brain: A Team-Based Approach to Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer With CNS Metastases

PURPOSE

CNS metastases are associated with decreased survival and quality of life for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Team-based care can optimize outcomes. IMPACT the Brain is a care coordination program that aims to improve access to team-based care for patients with MBC and CNS metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with MBC and CNS metastases were eligible for enrollment in this care coordination program. A team of specialists supported a dedicated program coordinator who provided navigation, education, specialty referral, and clinical trial screening. A unique intake form developed for the program created personalized, coordinated, and expedited specialty referrals. Patient-reported outcomes and caregiver burden assessments were collected on a voluntary basis throughout enrollment. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were referred, and 53 were enrolled (88%). The median time to program enrollment was 1 day (range, 0-11) and to first visit was 5 days (range, 0-25). On the basis of the program intake form, 47 referrals were made across six specialties, most commonly physical medicine and rehabilitation (n = 10), radiation oncology (n = 10), and neuropsychology (n = 10). Nineteen patients (36%) consented to enroll in clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

A tailored team-based care coordination program for patients with MBC and CNS metastases is feasible. Use of a unique intake screening form by a dedicated program coordinator resulted in faster time to first patient visit, enabled access to subspecialist care, and supported enrollment in clinical trials. Future research should focus on intervention development using PRO data collected in this care coordination program.

The Analysis of Trends in Survival for Patients with Melanoma Brain Metastases with Introduction of Novel Therapeutic Options before the Era of Combined Immunotherapy-Multicenter Italian-Polish Report

Stage IV melanoma patients develop melanoma brain metastases (MBM) in 50% of cases. Their prognosis is improving, and its understanding outside the context of clinical trials is relevant. We have retrospectively analyzed the clinical data, course of treatment, and outcomes of 531 subsequent stage IV melanoma patients with BM treated in five reference Italian and Polish melanoma centers between 2014 and 2021. Patients with MBM after 2017 had a better prognosis, with a significantly improved median of overall survival (OS) after 2017 in the worst mol-GPA prognostic groups (mol-GPA ≤ 2): a median OS >6 months and HR 0.76 vs. those treated before 2017 (CI: 0.60−0.97, p = 0.027). In our prognostic model, mol-GPA was highly predictive for survival, and symptoms without steroid use did not have prognostic significance. Local therapy significantly improved survival regardless of the year of diagnosis (treated before or after 2017), with median survival >12 months. Systemic therapy improved outcomes when it was combined with local therapy. Local surgery was associated with improved OS regardless of the timing related to treatment start (i.e., before or after 30 days from MBM diagnosis). Local and systemic treatment significantly prolong survival for the poorest mol-GPA prognosis. Use of modern treatment modalities is justified in all mol-GPA prognostic groups.

Brain metastases: A Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) consensus review on current management and future directions

Brain metastases occur commonly in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Yet, less is known about brain metastases than cancer-related entities of similar incidence. Advances in oncologic care have heightened the importance of intracranial management. Here, in this consensus review supported by the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO), we review the landscape of brain metastases with particular attention to management approaches and ongoing efforts with potential to shape future paradigms of care. Each coauthor carried an area of expertise within the field of brain metastases and initially composed, edited, or reviewed their specific subsection of interest. After each subsection was accordingly written, multiple drafts of the manuscript were circulated to the entire list of authors for group discussion and feedback. The hope is that the these consensus guidelines will accelerate progress in the understanding and management of patients with brain metastases, and highlight key areas in need of further exploration that will lead to dedicated trials and other research investigations designed to advance the field.

Potential Impact of Revised NCI Eligibility Criteria Guidance: Prior Malignancy Exclusion in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Many individuals with cancer have survived a prior cancer and for this reason may have been excluded from clinical trials. Recent NCI guidance recommends including these individuals, especially when the risk of the prior malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Using breast cancer as an example, we determined the potential effect this policy change may have on clinical trial accrual.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed protocols of NCI-sponsored breast cancer clinical trials activated in 1991 through 2016. We quantified prevalence of prior cancer-related exclusion criteria and assessed the association with trial characteristics using Fisher's exact tests. Using SEER data, we estimated the prevalence and timing of prior primary (nonbreast) cancer diagnoses among patients with breast cancer.

RESULTS

Among 87 clinical trials (total target enrollment, 137,253 patients), 77% excluded individuals with prior cancer, most commonly (79%) within the preceding 5 years. Among trials with radiographic response or toxicity endpoints, 69% excluded prior cancer. In SEER data, the prevalence of a prior (nonbreast) cancer diagnosis ranged from 5.7% to 7.7%, depending on breast cancer stage, of which 39% occurred within 5 years of the incident breast cancer. For trials excluding prior cancer, the estimated proportion of patients excluded for this reason ranged from 1.3% to 5.8%, with the estimated number of excluded patients ranging from 1 to 288.

CONCLUSIONS

More than three-fourths of NCI-sponsored breast cancer clinical trials exclude patients with prior cancer, including almost 70% of trials with response or toxicity endpoints. Given that >5% of patients with breast cancer have a history of prior cancer, in large phase III trials this practice may exclude hundreds of patients. Following recent NCI eligibility guidance, the inclusion of patients with prior cancer on breast cancer trials may have a meaningful impact on accrual.

Central nervous system disease in phase III studies for advanced HER2 positive breast cancer: A review

Importance

The introduction of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) directed therapy has transformed the outcomes of patients with advanced breast cancer (BC). However, HER2 positive breast cancer has a predilection for the central nervous system (CNS) which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Understanding the intracranial activity of novel HER2 directed agents is key to developing treatments as well as possible preventative strategies for HER2-positive CNS disease.

Observations

Using protocols and data from published phase III clinical trials for locally advanced/metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer since the licensing of single agent trastuzumab for advanced BC we review the central nervous system related aspects. This includes CNS related entry criteria, use of baseline and on study cross-sectional imaging of the CNS and protocol and non-protocol defined CNS end points and reported data.

Conclusions

and Relevance: This review found heterogeneity between studies with regard to the entry criteria, use of CNS imaging and reported end points within the pivotal phase III studies. Based on these data, a standardisation of both entry criteria and end points with regard to the CNS should be developed and applied to future studies of HER2-positive advanced BC. Such an approach would enable the generation of comparable data and allow a meaningful analysis of different treatment approaches with regard to the CNS. This in turn would allow the development of the most optimal treatment approaches for HER2 positive CNS disease and ultimately the development of preventative strategies.

•

Heterogeneity exists with respect to the CNS in studies of advanced HER2 positive breast cancer.

•

A standardised approach to the CNS is required in future clinical trials.

•

This would enable the generation of comparable CNS data for meaningful analysis.

•

This would aid the development of treatments for HER2 positive CNS disease.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with central nervous system involvement from HER2-positive breast cancer: The DEBBRAH trial

BACKGROUND

Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) has shown durable antitumor activity in pretreated patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (ABC), but its efficacy has not yet been evaluated in patients with active brain metastases (BMs). DEBBRAH aims to assess T-DXd in patients with HER2-positive or HER2-low ABC and central nervous system involvement.

METHODS

This ongoing, five-cohort, phase II study (NCT04420598) enrolled patients with pretreated HER2-positive or HER2-low ABC with stable, untreated, or progressing BMs, and/or leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Here, we report findings from HER2-positive ABC patients with non-progressing BMs after local therapy (n = 8; cohort 1), asymptomatic untreated BMs (n = 4; cohort 2), or progressing BMs after local therapy (n = 9; cohort 3). Patients received 5.4 mg/kg T-DXd intravenously once every 21 days. The primary endpoint was 16-week progression-free survival (PFS) for cohort 1 and intracranial objective response rate (ORR-IC) for cohorts 2 and 3.

RESULTS

As of October 20, 2021, 21 patients received T-DXd. In cohort 1, 16-week PFS rate was 87.5% (95%CI, 47.3-99.7; P < .001). ORR-IC was 50.0% (95%CI, 6.7-93.2) in cohort 2 and 44.4% (95%CI, 13.7-78.8; P < .001) in cohort 3. Overall, the ORR-IC in patients with active BMs was 46.2% (95%CI, 19.2-74.9). Among patients with measurable intracranial or extracranial lesions at baseline, the ORR was 66.7% (12 out of 18 patients; 95%CI, 41.0-86.7), 80.0% (95%CI, 28.4-99.5) in cohort 1, 50.0% (95%CI, 6.7-93.2) in cohort 2, and 66.7% (95%CI, 29.9-92.5) in cohort 3. All responders had partial responses. The most common adverse events included fatigue (52.4%; 4.8% grade ≥3), nausea (42.9%; 0% grade ≥3), neutropenia (28.6%; 19% grade ≥3), and constipation (28.6%; 0% grade ≥3). Two (9.5%) patients suffered grade 1 interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis.

CONCLUSIONS

T-DXd showed intracranial activity with manageable toxicity and maintained the quality of life in pretreated HER2-positive ABC patients with stable, untreated, or progressing BMs. Further studies are needed to validate these results in larger cohorts.

Trials, tribunals, and opportunities for lung cancer KRASG12C brain metastases

The activity of KRAS inhibitors against brain metastases is relatively unexplored. The recent work on pre-clinical models and preliminary data from the ongoing KRYSTAL-1 phase 1b clinical trial support the potential of adagrasib (MRTX849) to penetrate the central nervous system (CNS) and provide control of KRASG12C brain metastases.

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.

Extending Our Reach: Expanding Enrollment in Brain Metastases and Primary Brain Tumor Clinical Trials

Despite the unmet need, clinical trial opportunities for primary and metastatic central nervous system cancers are limited and clinical trial enrollment is poor. Multiple stakeholders have launched efforts to improve the clinical trial landscape for patients with primary and metastatic central nervous system tumors, including work that promotes the inclusion of patients with brain tumors into clinical trials, re-examination of eligibility criteria, and careful consideration of trial design aspects that may uniquely impact the patients with this disease. Herein, we consider regulatory perspectives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and clinician-trialist perspectives from a neuro-oncologist and a medical oncologist.

Evolving management of HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases and leptomeningeal disease

Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer are at a particularly high risk of breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM) and leptomeningeal disease (LMD). Improvements in systemic therapy have translated to improved survival for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. However, the optimal management of these cases is rapidly evolving and requires a multidisciplinary approach. Herein, a team of radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, neuro-oncologists, and breast surgeon created a review of the evolving management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD. We assess the epidemiology, diagnosis, and evolving treatment options for patients with HER2-positive BCBM and LMD, as well as the ongoing prospective clinical trials enrolling these patients. The management of HER2-positive BCBM and LMD represents an increasingly common challenge that involves the coordination of local and systemic therapy. Advances in systemic therapy have resulted in an improved prognosis, and promising targeted therapies currently under prospective investigation have the potential to further benefit these patients.

p16INK4A-deficiency predicts response to combined HER2 and CDK4/6 inhibition in HER2+ breast cancer brain metastases

Approximately 50% of patients with metastatic HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer develop brain metastases (BCBMs). We report that the tumor suppressor p16^INK4A is deficient in the majority of HER2+ BCBMs. p16^INK4A-deficiency as measured by protein immunohistochemistry predicted response to combined tucatinib and abemaciclib in orthotopic patient-derived xenografts (PDXs) of HER2 + BCBMs. Our findings establish the rationale for a biomarker-driven clinical trial of combined CDK4/6- and HER2-targeted agents for patients with HER2 + BCBM.

Tucatinib versus placebo added to trastuzumab and capecitabine for patients with pretreated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer with and without brain metastases (HER2CLIMB): final overall survival analysis

BACKGROUND

In the primary analysis of the HER2CLIMB trial, tucatinib added to trastuzumab and capecitabine significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer. We report efficacy and safety outcomes, including the final OS and safety outcomes from follow-up in HER2CLIMB.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

HER2CLIMB is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2+ breast cancer, including patients with brain metastases. Patients were randomized 2 : 1 to receive tucatinib or placebo, in combination with trastuzumab and capecitabine. After the primary analysis (median follow-up of 14 months), the protocol was amended to allow for unblinding sites to treatment assignment and cross-over from the placebo combination to the tucatinib combination. Protocol prespecified descriptive analyses of OS, PFS (by investigator assessment), and safety were carried out at ∼2 years from the last patient randomized.

RESULTS

Six hundred and twelve patients enrolled in the HER2CLIMB trial. At a median OS follow-up of 29.6 months, median duration of OS was 24.7 months for the tucatinib combination group versus 19.2 months for the placebo combination group [hazard ratio (HR) for death: 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.59-0.90, P = 0.004] and OS at 2 years was 51% and 40%, respectively. HRs for OS across prespecified subgroups were consistent with the HR for the overall study population. Median duration of PFS was 7.6 months for the tucatinib combination group versus 4.9 months for the placebo combination group (HR for progression or death: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.47-0.70, P < 0.00001) and PFS at 1 year was 29% and 14%, respectively. The tucatinib combination was well tolerated with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

With additional follow-up, the tucatinib combination provided a clinically meaningful survival benefit for patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer.

Glioblastoma Clinical Trials: Current Landscape and Opportunities for Improvement

Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as "recruiting" or "not yet recruiting" as of February 2021.

Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria and Recently Approved Cancer Therapies for Patients With Brain Metastases

Brain metastases cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced cancer. In the era of precision oncology and immunotherapy, there are rapidly evolving systemic treatment options. These novel therapies may have variable intracranial efficacy, and patients with brain metastases remain a population of special interest. Typically, only patients with stable, asymptomatic and/or treated brain metastases are enrolled in clinical trials, or may be excluded altogether, particularly in the setting of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Consequently, this leads to significant concerns on the external validity of clinical trial evidence to real-world clinical practice. Here we describe the current trends in cancer clinical trial eligibility for patients with brain metastases in both early and late phase trials, with a focus on targeted and immunotherapies. We evaluate recent newly FDA approved therapies and the clinical trial evidence base leading to approval. This includes analysis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, requirements for baseline screening for brain metastases, surveillance cerebral imaging and incorporation of trial endpoints for patients with brain metastases. Finally, the use of alternative sources of data such as real-world evidence with registries and collaborative studies will be discussed.

Re-thinking therapeutic development for CNS metastatic disease

There has been unprecedented progress in the development of systemic therapies for patients with metastatic melanoma over the last decade. There is now tremendous potential and momentum to further and markedly reduce the impact of this disease. However, developing more effective treatments for metastases to the CNS remains a critical challenge for patients with melanoma. Melanoma patients with active CNS metastases have largely been excluded from both early-phase and registration trials for all currently approved targeted and immune therapies for this disease. While this exclusion has generally been justified in clinical research due to concerns about poor prognosis, lack of CNS penetration of agents and/or risk of toxicities, recent post-approval trials have shown the feasibility, safety and clinical benefit of clinical investigation in these patients. These trials have also identified key areas for which more effective strategies are needed. In parallel, recent translational and preclinical research has provided insights into novel immune, molecular and metabolic features of melanoma brain metastases that may mediate the aggressive biology and therapeutic resistance of these tumors. Together, these advances suggest the need for new paradigms for therapeutic development for melanoma patients with CNS metastasis.

Targeted therapy strategies for melanoma brain metastasis

Melanoma is the most aggressive of the common forms of skin cancer. Metastasis to the central nervous system is one of the most common and deadly complications of this disease. Historically, melanoma patients with brain metastases had a median survival of less than 6 months. However, outcomes of melanoma patients have markedly improved over the last decade due to new therapeutic approaches, including immune and targeted therapies. Targeted therapies leverage the high rate of driver mutations in this disease, which result in the activation of multiple key signaling pathways. The RAS-RAF-MEK-ERK pathway is activated in the majority of cutaneous melanomas, most commonly by point mutations in the Braf serine-threonine kinase. While most early targeted therapy studies excluded melanoma patients with brain metastases, subsequent studies have shown that BRAF inhibitors, now generally given concurrently with MEK inhibitors, achieve high rates of tumor response and disease control in Braf-mutant melanoma brain metastases (MBMs). Unfortunately, the duration of these responses is generally relatively short- and shorter than is observed in extracranial metastases. This review will summarize current data regarding the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies for MBMs and discuss rational combinatorial strategies that may improve outcomes further.

Patient Eligibility and Results for Brain Metastasis in Phase 3 Trials of Advanced Breast Cancer: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Although brain metastases (BM) affect 5% of all breast cancer patients and 14% of those with metastatic disease, patients with BM are often excluded from participation in clinical trials. We conducted a structured assessment of the contemporary restrictions to enrolment of, and results for, patients with BM in phase 3 trials published over a period of 23 years in advanced breast cancer.

METHODS

We used PubMed to search for completed randomized trials published between 01/98 and 12/20. For all eligible trials, two authors independently abstracted data on general characteristics of the studies and detailed information on patient eligibility regarding the presence of BM.

RESULTS

We analyzed 210 trials, which enrolled 92,409 eligible patients. Of that total, 162 (77.1%) publications explicitly mentioned eligibility criteria related to the presence of BM and 75 (35.7%) trials reportedly allowed patients with BM, usually with restrictions related to prior brain treatment or stability of lesions. There was a significant increase over time in the percentages of trials allowing patients with BM (p < 0.001), and these trials were more frequently dedicated to HER2-positive or triple-negative disease (p = 0.001). Only 11 trials reported separate results for patients with BM at baseline. The direct treatment activity on BM was usually not reported, although in subgroup analyses the treatment effect in relative terms was usually better among patients with BM than in overall populations.

CONCLUSION

Nearly 36% of phase 3 trials in advanced breast cancer over a 23-year period allowed patients with BM, and this practice is increasing over time. More research is needed to establish the activity of current and promising therapies in patients with BM.

A common goal to CARE: Cancer Advocates, Researchers, and Clinicians Explore current treatments and clinical trials for breast cancer brain metastases

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. Approximately one-tenth of all patients with advanced breast cancer develop brain metastases resulting in an overall survival rate of fewer than 2 years. The challenges lie in developing new approaches to treat, monitor, and prevent breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM). This review will provide an overview of BCBM from the integrated perspective of clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates. We will summarize the current management of BCBM, including diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. We will highlight ongoing translational research for BCBM, including clinical trials and improved detection methods that can become the mainstay for BCBM treatment if they demonstrate efficacy. We will discuss preclinical BCBM research that focuses on the intrinsic properties of breast cancer cells and the influence of the brain microenvironment. Finally, we will spotlight emerging studies and future research needs to improve survival outcomes and preserve the quality of life for patients with BCBM.

Dynamics of eligibility criteria for central nervous system metastases in non-small cell lung cancer randomized clinical trials over time: A systematic review

Although central nervous system (CNS) metastases frequently occur in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), historically these patients have been excluded from clinical trials. However, due to improving NSCLC prognosis, time to develop CNS metastases increases and information on CNS efficacy of systemic treatment is important. We performed a systematic PubMed review (2000-2020) to describe CNS related eligibility and screening criteria over time. Randomized phase III, and for tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) also randomized phase II trials enrolling advanced/metastatic NSCLC patients were included. 256/1195 trials were included. In 71 %, CNS metastases were eligible, but in only 3% regardless of symptoms/treatment. Only 37 % required baseline CNS screening (most often TKI and immunotherapy trials), without significant increase over time. A CNS endpoint was pre-specified in 4%. CONCLUSION: CNS screening and eligibility criteria are heterogenous across trials, and CNS related endpoints are rare. These criteria and endpoints should be improved and harmonized.

Automated classification of clinical trial eligibility criteria text based on ensemble learning and metric learning

BACKGROUND

Eligibility criteria are the primary strategy for screening the target participants of a clinical trial. Automated classification of clinical trial eligibility criteria text by using machine learning methods improves recruitment efficiency to reduce the cost of clinical research. However, existing methods suffer from poor classification performance due to the complexity and imbalance of eligibility criteria text data.

METHODS

An ensemble learning-based model with metric learning is proposed for eligibility criteria classification. The model integrates a set of pre-trained models including Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach (RoBERTa), XLNet, Pre-training Text Encoders as Discriminators Rather Than Generators (ELECTRA), and Enhanced Representation through Knowledge Integration (ERNIE). Focal Loss is used as a loss function to address the data imbalance problem. Metric learning is employed to train the embedding of each base model for feature distinguish. Soft Voting is applied to achieve final classification of the ensemble model. The dataset is from the standard evaluation task 3 of 5th China Health Information Processing Conference containing 38,341 eligibility criteria text in 44 categories.

RESULTS

Our ensemble method had an accuracy of 0.8497, a precision of 0.8229, and a recall of 0.8216 on the dataset. The macro F1-score was 0.8169, outperforming state-of-the-art baseline methods by 0.84% improvement on average. In addition, the performance improvement had a p-value of 2.152e-07 with a standard t-test, indicating that our model achieved a significant improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

A model for classifying eligibility criteria text of clinical trials based on multi-model ensemble learning and metric learning was proposed. The experiments demonstrated that the classification performance was improved by our ensemble model significantly. In addition, metric learning was able to improve word embedding representation and the focal loss reduced the impact of data imbalance to model performance.

Preservation of quality of life in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer treated with tucatinib or placebo when added to trastuzumab and capecitabine (HER2CLIMB trial)

AIMS

In HER2CLIMB, tucatinib significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the impact of tucatinib on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in HER2CLIMB.

METHODS

Patients were randomised 2:1 to tucatinib or placebo combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Starting with protocol version 7, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) were administered at day 1 of cycle 1, every two cycles during cycles 3-9, every three cycles during cycle 12 and thereafter and at each patient's 30-day follow-up visit.

RESULTS

Among 364 patients eligible for HR-QoL assessment, 331 (91%) completed ≥1 assessment. EQ-VAS scores were similar for both arms at baseline and maintained throughout treatment. EQ-5D-5L scores were similar between the treatment arms, stable throughout therapy and worsened after discontinuing treatment. Risk of meaningful deterioration (≥7 points) on EQ-VAS was reduced 19% in the tucatinib vs. placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55, 1.18); the median (95% CI) time to deterioration was not reached in the tucatinib arm and was 5.8 months (4.3, -) in the placebo arm. Among patients with brain metastases (n = 164), risk of meaningful deterioration on EQ-VAS was reduced 49% in the tucatinib arm (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.93); the median (95% CI) time to deterioration was not reached in the tucatinib arm and was 5.5 months (4.2, -) in the placebo arm.

CONCLUSIONS

HR-QoL was preserved for patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who were treated with tucatinib added to trastuzumab and capecitabine and maintained longer with tucatinib therapy than without it among those with brain metastases.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02614794.

US Food and Drug Administration regulatory updates in neuro-oncology

Objective

Contemporary management of patients with neuro-oncologic disease requires an understanding of approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) related to nervous system tumors. To summarize FDA updates applicable to neuro-oncology practitioners, we sought to review oncology product approvals and Guidances that were pertinent to the field in the past year.

Methods

Oncology product approvals between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020, were reviewed for clinical trial outcomes involving tumors of the nervous system. FDA Guidances relevant to neuro-oncology were also reviewed.

Results

Five oncology product approvals described outcomes for nervous system tumors in the year 2020. These included the first regulatory approval for neurofibromatosis type 1: selumetinib for children with symptomatic, inoperable plexiform neurofibromas. Additionally, there were 4 regulatory approvals for non-central nervous system (CNS) cancers that described clinical outcomes for patients with brain metastases. These included the approval of tucatinib for metastatic human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive breast cancer including patients with brain metastases, brigatinib for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pralsetinib and selpercatinib for RET fusion-positive NSCLC. Finally, two FDA Guidances for Industry, “Cancer Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Brain Metastases” and “Evaluating Cancer Drugs in Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases” were published to facilitate drug development for and inclusion of patients with CNS metastases in clinical trials.

Conclusions

Despite the challenges of the past year brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, progress continues to be made in neuro-oncology. These include first-of-their-kind FDA approvals and Guidances that are relevant to the management of patients with nervous system tumors.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Prior Therapies Work Group

PURPOSE

Restrictive eligibility criteria induce differences between clinical trial and "real-world" treatment populations. Restrictions based on prior therapies are common; minimizing them when appropriate may increase patient participation in clinical trials.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A multi-stakeholder working group developed a conceptual framework to guide evaluation of prevailing practices with respect to using prior treatment as selection criteria for clinical trials. The working group made recommendations to minimize restrictions based on prior therapies within the boundaries of scientific validity, patient centeredness, distributive justice, and beneficence.

RECOMMENDATIONS

(i) Patients are eligible for clinical trials regardless of the number or type of prior therapies and without requiring a specific therapy prior to enrollment unless a scientific or clinically based rationale is provided as justification. (ii) Prior therapy (either limits on number and type of prior therapies or requirements for specific therapies before enrollment) could be used to determine eligibility in the following cases: a) the agents being studied target a specific mechanism or pathway that could potentially interact with a prior therapy; b) the study design requires that all patients begin protocol-specified treatment at the same point in the disease trajectory; and c) in randomized clinical studies, if the therapy in the control arm is not appropriate for the patient due to previous therapies received. (iii) Trial designers should consider conducting evaluation separately from the primary endpoint analysis for participants who have received prior therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial sponsors and regulators should thoughtfully reexamine the use of prior therapy exposure as selection criteria to maximize clinical trial participation.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

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.

Optimizing eligibility criteria and clinical trial conduct to enhance clinical trial participation for primary brain tumor patients

Building on an initiative to enhance clinical trial participation involving the Society for Neuro-Oncology, the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, and other partners, we evaluate the impact of eligibility criteria and trial conduct on neuro-oncology clinical trial participation. Clinical trials often carry forward eligibility criteria from prior studies that may be overly restrictive and unnecessary and needlessly limit patient accrual. Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be evaluated based on the goals and design of the study and whether they impact patient safety and/or treatment efficacy. In addition, we evaluate clinical trial conduct as a barrier to accrual and discuss strategies to minimize such barriers for neuro-oncology trials.

Semantic categorization of Chinese eligibility criteria in clinical trials using machine learning methods

BACKGROUND

Semantic categorization analysis of clinical trials eligibility criteria based on natural language processing technology is crucial for the task of optimizing clinical trials design and building automated patient recruitment system. However, most of related researches focused on English eligibility criteria, and to the best of our knowledge, there are no researches studied the Chinese eligibility criteria. Thus in this study, we aimed to explore the semantic categories of Chinese eligibility criteria.

METHODS

We downloaded the clinical trials registration files from the website of Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) and extracted both the Chinese eligibility criteria and corresponding English eligibility criteria. We represented the criteria sentences based on the Unified Medical Language System semantic types and conducted the hierarchical clustering algorithm for the induction of semantic categories. Furthermore, in order to explore the classification performance of Chinese eligibility criteria with our developed semantic categories, we implemented multiple classification algorithms, include four baseline machine learning algorithms (LR, NB, kNN, SVM), three deep learning algorithms (CNN, RNN, FastText) and two pre-trained language models (BERT, ERNIE).

RESULTS

We totally developed 44 types of semantic categories, summarized 8 topic groups, and investigated the average incidence and prevalence in 272 hepatocellular carcinoma related Chinese clinical trials. Compared with the previous proposed categories in English eligibility criteria, 13 novel categories are identified in Chinese eligibility criteria. The classification result shows that most of semantic categories performed quite well, the pre-trained language model ERNIE achieved best performance with macro-average F1 score of 0.7980 and micro-average F1 score of 0.8484.

CONCLUSION

As a pilot study of Chinese eligibility criteria analysis, we developed the 44 semantic categories by hierarchical clustering algorithms for the first times, and validated the classification capacity with multiple classification algorithms.

Impact of Broadening Trial Eligibility Criteria for Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-World Analysis of Select ASCO-Friends Recommendations

PURPOSE

Cancer clinical trials often accrue slowly or miss enrollment targets. Strict eligibility criteria are a major reason. Restrictive criteria also limit opportunities for patient participation while compromising external validity of trial results. We examined the impact of broadening select eligibility criteria on characteristics and number of patients eligible for trials, using recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A retrospective, observational analysis used electronic health record data from ASCO's CancerLinQ Discovery database. Study cohort included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated from 2011 to 2018. Patients were grouped by traditional criteria [no brain metastases, no other malignancies, and creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 60 mL/minute] and broadened criteria (including brain metastases, other malignancies, and CrCl ≥ 30 mL/minute).

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 10,500 patients. Median age was 68 years, and 73% of patients were White. Most patients had stage IV disease (65%). A total of 5,005 patients (48%) would be excluded from trial participation using the traditional criteria. The broadened criteria, however, would allow 98% of patients (10,346) to be potential participants. Examination of patients included by traditional criteria (5,495) versus those added (4,851) by broadened criteria showed that the number of women, patients aged 75+ years, and those with stage IV cancer was significantly greater using broadened criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis of real-world data demonstrated that broadening three common eligibility criteria has the potential to double the eligible patient population and include trial participants who are more representative of those encountered in practice.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Laboratory Reference Ranges and Testing Intervals Work Group

PURPOSE

In clinical research, eligibility criteria promote patient safety and optimize the evidence generated from clinical trials. However, overly stringent eligibility criteria, including laboratory requirements, may limit enrollment, resulting in delayed trial completion and potentially limiting applicability of trial results to a general practice population.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Starting in 2018, a working group consisting of experts in direct patient care, the FDA, industry, and patient advocacy developed recommendations to guide the optimal use of laboratory reference ranges and testing intervals in clinical trial eligibility criteria and study procedures. The working group evaluated current eligibility criteria across different clinical trial phases and performed a literature review to evaluate the impact of and justification for laboratory test eligibility requirements and testing intervals in clinical trials. Recommendations were developed on the basis of the goals of promoting safety and optimizing the evidence generated, while also expanding eligibility and applicability, and minimizing excess burden of trial participation.

RESULTS

In general, we found little variation over time and trial phase in laboratory test requirements, suggesting that these eligibility criteria are not refined according to ongoing clinical experience. We propose recommendations to optimize the use of laboratory tests when considering eligibility criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailoring the use of laboratory test requirements and testing intervals may increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and provide clinical data that more closely represent the general practice populations.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.