Drug development for major chronic health conditions-aligning with growing public health needs: Proceedings from a multistakeholder think tank

The global pharmaceutical industry portfolio is skewed towards cancer and rare diseases due to more predictable development pathways and financial incentives. In contrast, drug development for major chronic health conditions that are responsible for a large part of mortality and disability worldwide is stalled. To examine the processes of novel drug development for common chronic health conditions, a multistakeholder Think Tank meeting, including thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, non-profit healthcare organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payors as well as investors, was convened in July 2022. Herein, we summarize the proceedings of this meeting, including an overview of the current state of drug development for chronic health conditions and key barriers that were identified. Six major action items were formulated to accelerate drug development for chronic diseases, with a focus on improving the efficiency of clinical trials and rapid implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing

PURPOSE

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE.

RESULTS

Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%.

CONCLUSION

In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.

Heterogeneity and Utility of Pharmaceutical Company Sharing of Individual-Participant Data Packages

Importance

The pharmaceutical industry has made substantial investments in developing processes for sharing individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical trials. However, the utility and completeness of shared IPD and supporting documents must be evaluated to ensure the potential for scientific advancements from the data sharing ecosystem can be realized.

Objective

To assess the utility and completeness of IPD and supporting documents provided from industry-sponsored clinical trials.

Design, Setting, and Participants

From February 9, 2022, to February 9, 2023, 91 of 203 clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration registrations of anticancer medicines for the treatment of solid tumors from the past decade were confirmed as eligible for IPD request. This quality improvement study performed a retrospective audit of the utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided from the 91 clinical trials for a planned meta-analysis.

Exposures

Request for IPD from 91 clinical oncology trials indicated as eligible for the request.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The utility and completeness of the IPD and supporting documents provided.

Results

The IPD packages were obtained from 70 of 91 requested clinical trials (77%). The median time to data provision was 123 (range, 117-352) days. Redactions were observed in 18 of the acquired IPD packages (26%) for outcome data, 11 (16%) for assessment variables, and 19 (27%) for adjustment data. Additionally, 20 IPD packages (29%) lacked a clinical study report, 4 (6%) had incomplete or missing data dictionaries, and 20 (29%) were missing anonymization or redaction description files. Access to IPD from 21 eligible trials (23%) was not granted.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this quality improvement study, there was substantial variability within the provided IPD packages regarding the completeness of key data variables and supporting documents. To improve the data sharing ecosystem, key areas for enhancement include (1) ensuring that clinical trials are eligible for IPD sharing, (2) making eligible IPD transparently accessible, and (3) ensuring that IPD packages meet a standard of utility and completeness.

Clinical characteristics, racial inequities, and outcomes in patients with breast cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and cancer consortium (CCC19) cohort study

Background

Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations.

Methods

This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity.

Results

1383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32-1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70-6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83-12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63-3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20-2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66-3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89-22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing, and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status.

Conclusions

Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC-related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to non-Hispanic White patients.

Funding

This study was partly supported by National Cancer Institute grant number P30 CA068485 to Tianyi Sun, Sanjay Mishra, Benjamin French, Jeremy L Warner; P30-CA046592 to Christopher R Friese; P30 CA023100 for Rana R McKay; P30-CA054174 for Pankil K Shah and Dimpy P Shah; KL2 TR002646 for Pankil Shah and the American Cancer Society and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research (MRSG-16-152-01-CCE) and P30-CA054174 for Dimpy P Shah. REDCap is developed and supported by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research grant support (UL1 TR000445 from NCATS/NIH). The funding sources had no role in the writing of the manuscript or the decision to submit it for publication.

Clinical trial number

CCC19 registry is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701.

Impact of treatment experience on patient knowledge of colony-stimulating factors among patients receiving cancer chemotherapy: evidence from S1415CD-a large pragmatic trial

PURPOSE

Primary prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (PP-CSFs) are prescribed alongside chemotherapy regimens that carry a significant risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). As part of S1415CD, a prospective, pragmatic trial evaluating the impact of automated orders to improve PP-CSF prescribing, we evaluated patients' baseline knowledge of PP-CSF and whether that knowledge improved following the first cycle of chemotherapy.

METHODS

Adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small-cell lung cancer initiating chemotherapy were enrolled in S1415CD between January 2016 and April 2020. Eight questions assessing knowledge of CSF indications, risks, benefits, and out-of-pocket costs were included in a baseline survey and in a follow-up survey at the end of the first cycle of chemotherapy. Responses were stratified by the trial arm and whether chemotherapy was low, intermediate, or high FN risk.

RESULTS

Of the 3605 eligible patients, 3580 (99.3%) completed the baseline survey, and 3420 (95.5%) completed the follow-up survey. At baseline, 803 (22.4%) patients responded "Don't know" to all 8 questions, and all patients averaged 2.75 correct questions. At follow-up, knowledge increased by 0.34 in the high-FN-risk group (p < 0.001) but declined for the other FN-risk groups. In multivariate analysis, receiving a high-FN-risk regimen and younger age were significantly associated with knowledge improvement.

CONCLUSION

Chemotherapy patients had poor knowledge of PP-CSF that improved only modestly among recipients of high-FN-risk chemotherapy. Further efforts to inform patients about the risks, benefits, and costs of PP-CSF may be warranted, particularly for those in whom prophylaxis is indicated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02728596, April 6, 2016.

Real-World Impact of Prophylactic Growth Factor Use on Timing of Febrile Neutropenia and Infection After High-Risk Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic growth-factor therapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) reduces the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with breast cancer initiating myelosuppressive chemotherapy. However, little is known about the protective benefit early in the chemotherapy cycle.

METHODS

To assess the relationship between G-CSF prophylaxis and incidence of FN/infection in week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle, a retrospective study was conducted using Medicare claims from 2005 through 2020 among patients with breast cancer initiating high-risk chemotherapy. Two cohorts were compared based on G-CSF prophylaxis within 3 days following chemotherapy initiation. The primary outcome was FN or infection, defined as hospitalization with neutropenia, fever, or infection diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were a stricter definition of FN and infection-related hospitalization. Unadjusted and regression-adjusted proportions of patients experiencing each outcome during week 1 versus beyond week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle were compared.

RESULTS

Of 78,810 patients meeting all inclusion criteria (>98% female; mean age, 69 years), 79% initiated TC (docetaxel/cyclophosphamide), 14% TCH (docetaxel/carboplatin/trastuzumab), and 7% TAC (docetaxel/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide). Among patients receiving G-CSF (74%), incidence of first-cycle FN/infection was lower compared with patients not receiving G-CSF (overall, 6% vs 13%; TAC, 12% vs 19%; TC, 6% vs 12%; TCH, 5% vs 15%). However, patients who received G-CSF were generally more likely to experience FN/infection in week 1 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.24 for all; 1.73 for TAC; 1.35 for TC; and 0.76 for TCH). Results were similar for strictly defined FN (overall aOR, 1.29 for week 1 and 0.12 for beyond week 1) and infection-related hospitalization (overall aOR, 1.33 for week 1 and 0.27 for beyond week 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the rates of chemotherapy-related FN and infection in week 1 of the first chemotherapy cycle are similar for patients receiving and not receiving G-CSF, suggesting continued risk in week 1 despite prophylactic G-CSF.

Mitigating long-term and delayed adverse events associated with cancer treatment: implications for survivorship

Despite the importance of chemotherapy-associated adverse events in oncology practice and the broad range of interventions available to mitigate them, limited systematic efforts have been made to identify, critically appraise and summarize the totality of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. Herein, we review the most common long-term (continued beyond treatment) and late or delayed (following treatment) adverse events associated with chemotherapy and other anticancer treatments that pose major threats in terms of survival, quality of life and continuation of optimal therapy. These adverse effects often emerge during and continue beyond the course of therapy or arise among survivors in the months and years following treatment. For each of these adverse effects, we discuss and critically evaluate their underlying biological mechanisms, the most commonly used pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment strategies, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for their appropriate management. Furthermore, we discuss risk factors and validated risk-assessment tools for identifying patients most likely to be harmed by chemotherapy and potentially benefit from effective interventions. Finally, we highlight promising emerging supportive-care opportunities for the ever-increasing number of cancer survivors at continuing risk of adverse treatment effects.

Pandemic Phase-Adjusted Analysis of COVID-19 Outcomes Reveals Reduced Intrinsic Vulnerability and Substantial Vaccine Protection From Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Although representing the majority of newly diagnosed cancers, patients with breast cancer appear less vulnerable to COVID-19 mortality compared with other malignancies. In the absence of patients on active cancer therapy included in vaccination trials, a contemporary real-world evaluation of outcomes during the various pandemic phases, as well as of the impact of vaccination, is needed to better inform clinical practice.

METHODS

We compared COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with breast cancer across prevaccination (February 27, 2020-November 30, 2020), Alpha-Delta (December 1, 2020-December 14, 2021), and Omicron (December 15, 2021-January 31, 2022) phases using OnCovid registry participants (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04393974). Twenty-eight-day case fatality rate (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were compared in unvaccinated versus double-dosed/boosted patients (vaccinated) with inverse probability of treatment weighting models adjusted for country of origin, age, number of comorbidities, tumor stage, and receipt of systemic anticancer therapy within 1 month of COVID-19 diagnosis.

RESULTS

By the data lock of February 4, 2022, the registry counted 613 eligible patients with breast cancer: 60.1% (n = 312) hormone receptor-positive, 25.2% (n = 131) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, and 14.6% (n = 76) triple-negative. The majority (61%; n = 374) had localized/locally advanced disease. Median age was 62 years (interquartile range, 51-74 years). A total of 193 patients (31.5%) presented ≥ 2 comorbidities and 69% (n = 330) were never smokers. In total, 392 (63.9%), 164 (26.8%), and 57 (9.3%) were diagnosed during the prevaccination, Alpha-Delta, and Omicron phases, respectively. Analysis of CFR28 demonstrates comparable estimates of mortality across the three pandemic phases (13.9%, 12.2%, 5.3%, respectively; P = .182). Nevertheless, a significant improvement in outcome measures of COVID-19 severity across the three pandemic time periods was observed. Importantly, when reported separately, unvaccinated patients from the Alpha-Delta and Omicron phases achieved comparable outcomes to those from the prevaccination phase. Of 566 patients eligible for the vaccination analysis, 72 (12.7%) were fully vaccinated and 494 (87.3%) were unvaccinated. We confirmed with inverse probability of treatment weighting multivariable analysis and following a clustered robust correction for participating center that vaccinated patients achieved improved CFR28 (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.40), hospitalization (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69), COVID-19 complications (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.45), and reduced requirement of COVID-19-specific therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.63) and oxygen therapy (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.67) compared with unvaccinated controls.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight a consistent reduction of COVID-19 severity in patients with breast cancer during the Omicron outbreak in Europe. We also demonstrate that even in this population, a complete severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccination course is a strong determinant of improved morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021

PURPOSE

Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use.

METHODS

We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices.

RESULTS

Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic.

CONCLUSION

Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis and Treatment in Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To conduct an update of the ASCO venous thromboembolism (VTE) guideline.

METHODS

After publication of potentially practice-changing clinical trials, identified through ASCO's signals approach to updating, an updated systematic review was performed for two guideline questions: perioperative thromboprophylaxis and treatment of VTE. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between November 1, 2018, and June 6, 2022.

RESULTS

Five RCTs provided information that contributed to changes to the 2019 recommendations. Two RCTs addressed direct factor Xa inhibitors (either rivaroxaban or apixaban) for extended thromboprophylaxis after surgery. Each of these postoperative trials had important limitations but suggested that these two oral anticoagulants are safe and effective in the settings studied. An additional three RCTs addressed apixaban in the setting of VTE treatment. Apixaban was effective in reducing the risk of recurrent VTE, with a low risk of major bleeding.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Apixaban and rivaroxaban were added as options for extended pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis after cancer surgery, with a weak strength of recommendation. Apixaban was also added as an option for the treatment of VTE, with high quality of evidence and a strong recommendation.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

National Cancer Institute Combination Therapy Platform Trial with Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (ComboMATCH)

Over the past decade, multiple trials, including the precision medicine trial National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH, EAY131, NCT02465060) have sought to determine if treating cancer based on specific genomic alterations is effective, irrespective of the cancer histology. Although many therapies are now approved for the treatment of cancers harboring specific genomic alterations, most patients do not respond to therapies targeting a single alteration. Further, when antitumor responses do occur, they are often not durable due to the development of drug resistance. Therefore, there is a great need to identify rational combination therapies that may be more effective. To address this need, the NCI and National Clinical Trials Network have developed NCI-ComboMATCH, the successor to NCI-MATCH. Like the original trial, NCI-ComboMATCH is a signal-seeking study. The goal of ComboMATCH is to overcome drug resistance to single-agent therapy and/or utilize novel synergies to increase efficacy by developing genomically-directed combination therapies, supported by strong preclinical in vivo evidence. Although NCI-MATCH was mainly comprised of multiple single-arm studies, NCI-ComboMATCH tests combination therapy, evaluating both combination of targeted agents as well as combinations of targeted therapy with chemotherapy. Although NCI-MATCH was histology agnostic with selected tumor exclusions, ComboMATCH has histology-specific and histology-agnostic arms. Although NCI-MATCH consisted of single-arm studies, ComboMATCH utilizes single-arm as well as randomized designs. NCI-MATCH had a separate, parallel Pediatric MATCH trial, whereas ComboMATCH will include children within the same trial. We present rationale, scientific principles, study design, and logistics supporting the ComboMATCH study.

ASCO Policy Statement on Biosimilar and Interchangeable Products in Oncology

As the voice of cancer care clinicians and the patients they serve, ASCO has taken steps to elevate awareness about biosimilar products and their use in oncology. In 2018, ASCO released its Statement on Biosimilars in Oncology which was subsequently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology to serve as an educational tool which highlighted and provided guidance on several topical areas surrounding biosimilars. At the time of its publication, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved eight biosimilar products for use in the United States, including one product for use as a supportive care agent in the cancer setting and two products for use in the treatment for cancer. This number has risen dramatically (40 approvals), with a total of 22 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products approved since 2015. Recently, the FDA also approved the four interchangeable biosimilar products for diabetes, certain inflammatory diseases, and certain ophthalmic diseases. Given the current market dynamics and the regulatory landscape, this ASCO manuscript now seeks to propose several policy recommendations across the scope of value, interchangeability, clinician barriers, and patient education and access. This policy statement is intended to guide ASCO's future activities and strategies and serves to affirm our commitment to providing education to the oncology community on the use of biosimilars in the cancer setting.

Cardiac Safety and Efficacy of SB3 Trastuzumab Biosimilar for ERBB2-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Trastuzumab has been the standard of care for the treatment of patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer; however, cardiac events have been reported. This long-term follow-up study provides clinical evidence supporting the similarity of a trastuzumab biosimilar (SB3) to reference trastuzumab (TRZ).

Objective

To compare cardiac safety and efficacy between SB3 and TRZ for patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer after up to 6 years of follow-up.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, conducted from April 2016 to January 2021, included patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer from a multicenter double-blind, parallel-group, equivalence phase 3 randomized clinical trial of SB3 vs TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy who completed neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment.

Interventions

In the original trial, patients were randomized to either SB3 or TRZ with concomitant neoadjuvant chemotherapy for 8 cycles (4 cycles of docetaxel followed by 4 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide). After surgery, patients continued SB3 or TRZ monotherapy for 10 cycles of adjuvant treatment per previous treatment allocation. Following neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, patients were monitored for up to 5 years.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the incidence of symptomatic congestive heart failure and asymptomatic, significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). The secondary outcomes were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

A total of 538 female patients were included (median age, 51 years [range, 22-65 years]). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the SB3 and TRZ groups. Cardiac safety was monitored for 367 patients (SB3, n = 186; TRZ, n = 181). Median follow-up was 68 months (range, 8.5-78.1 months). Asymptomatic, clinically significant LVEF decreases were rarely reported (SB3, 1 patient [0.4%]; TRZ, 2 [0.7%]). No patient experienced symptomatic cardiac failure or death due to a cardiovascular event. Survival was evaluated for the 367 patients in the cardiac safety cohort and an additional 171 patients enrolled after a protocol amendment (538 patients [SB3, n = 267; TRZ, n = 271]). No difference was observed in EFS or OS between treatment groups (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; P = .34; OS: HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.36-1.05; P = .07). Five-year EFS rates were 79.8% (95% CI, 74.8%-84.9%) in the SB3 group and 75.0% (95% CI, 69.7%-80.3%) in the TRZ group, and OS rates were 92.5% (95% CI, 89.2%-95.7%) in the SB3 group and 85.4% (95% CI, 81.0%-89.7%) in the TRZ group.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, SB3 demonstrated cardiac safety and survival comparable to those of TRZ after up to 6 years of follow-up in patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02771795.

Impact of COVID-19 in patients on active melanoma therapy and with history of melanoma

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 particularly impacted patients with co-morbid conditions, including cancer. Patients with melanoma have not been specifically studied in large numbers. Here, we sought to identify factors that associated with COVID-19 severity among patients with melanoma, particularly assessing outcomes of patients on active targeted or immune therapy.

METHODS

Using the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry, we identified 307 patients with melanoma diagnosed with COVID-19. We used multivariable models to assess demographic, cancer-related, and treatment-related factors associated with COVID-19 severity on a 6-level ordinal severity scale. We assessed whether treatment was associated with increased cardiac or pulmonary dysfunction among hospitalized patients and assessed mortality among patients with a history of melanoma compared with other cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Of 307 patients, 52 received immunotherapy (17%), and 32 targeted therapy (10%) in the previous 3 months. Using multivariable analyses, these treatments were not associated with COVID-19 severity (immunotherapy OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 - 1.39; targeted therapy OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.64 - 5.55). Among hospitalized patients, no signals of increased cardiac or pulmonary organ dysfunction, as measured by troponin, brain natriuretic peptide, and oxygenation were noted. Patients with a history of melanoma had similar 90-day mortality compared with other cancer survivors (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.62 - 2.35).

CONCLUSIONS

Melanoma therapies did not appear to be associated with increased severity of COVID-19 or worsening organ dysfunction. Patients with history of melanoma had similar 90-day survival following COVID-19 compared with other cancer survivors.

Clinical Characteristics, Racial Inequities, and Outcomes in Patients with Breast Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Cohort Study

Background

Limited information is available for patients with breast cancer (BC) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), especially among underrepresented racial/ethnic populations.

Methods

This is a COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry-based retrospective cohort study of females with active or history of BC and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosed between March 2020 and June 2021 in the US. Primary outcome was COVID-19 severity measured on a five-level ordinal scale, including none of the following complications, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression model identified characteristics associated with COVID-19 severity.

Results

1,383 female patient records with BC and COVID-19 were included in the analysis, the median age was 61 years, and median follow-up was 90 days. Multivariable analysis revealed higher odds of COVID-19 severity for older age (aOR per decade, 1.48 [95% CI, 1.32 - 1.67]); Black patients (aOR 1.74; 95 CI 1.24-2.45), Asian Americans and Pacific Islander patients (aOR 3.40; 95 CI 1.70 - 6.79) and Other (aOR 2.97; 95 CI 1.71-5.17) racial/ethnic groups; worse ECOG performance status (ECOG PS ≥2: aOR, 7.78 [95% CI, 4.83 - 12.5]); pre-existing cardiovascular (aOR, 2.26 [95% CI, 1.63 - 3.15])/pulmonary comorbidities (aOR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.20 - 2.29]); diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.66 - 3.04]); and active and progressing cancer (aOR, 12.5 [95% CI, 6.89 - 22.6]). Hispanic ethnicity, timing and type of anti-cancer therapy modalities were not significantly associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. The total all-cause mortality and hospitalization rate for the entire cohort was 9% and 37%, respectively however, it varied according to the BC disease status.

Conclusions

Using one of the largest registries on cancer and COVID-19, we identified patient and BC related factors associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, underrepresented racial/ethnic patients experienced worse outcomes compared to Non-Hispanic White patients.

Grade 4 Neutropenia Frequency as a Binary Risk Predictor for Adverse Clinical Consequences of Chemotherapy‑Induced Neutropenia: A Meta-analysis

Neutropenia is the major toxicity of myelosuppressive cancer chemotherapy. Grade 4 neutropenia (Gr4N) is a measure of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (CIN) severity. We conducted a meta-analysis of CIN data. Gr4N incidence was significantly correlated with febrile neutropenia (FN), days of severe neutropenia (DSN), and nadir absolute neutrophil count (ANC), which are all important predictors of morbidity. With a Gr4N threshold of 65%, both FN and DSN were below levels for low risk of adverse CIN outcomes. Gr4N was highly predictive for adverse CIN outcomes, and a 65% threshold demarcated low vs. high risk for FN and other adverse CIN outcomes.

Low-Intensity Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer in Older Women: Results From the Prospective Multicenter HOPE Trial

PURPOSE

Older women with high-risk early breast cancer (EBC) benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy, but their treatment is frequently complicated by toxic side effects, resulting in dose reductions and delays. This makes it challenging for oncologists to maintain a relative dose intensity (RDI) ≥ 85%, as recommended for optimal curative-intent treatment. Understanding which women are at risk of receiving suboptimal RDI may inform treatment discussions and guide early, targeted supportive care or geriatric comanagement interventions.

METHODS

This was a prespecified secondary analysis of the HOPE trial, which enrolled women age ≥ 65 years with EBC initiating neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. RDI was calculated as the ratio of delivered to planned chemotherapy dose intensity. The primary outcome was low RDI, defined as RDI < 85%. Multivariable logistic regression with stepwise selection was used to evaluate the association between baseline variables (demographic, clinical, and geriatric assessment) and low RDI. Survival probability was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the log-rank test was used to compare overall survival.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-two patients (median age at diagnosis, 70 years; range, 65-86 years) were included. The median follow-up was 4 years. Sixty-six patients (21%) had a low RDI. Age ≥ 76 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.12 to 5.91; P = .03), lower performance status (OR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.98 to 9.42; P < .001), and use of anthracycline-based or cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil regimens (OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.71 to 7.05; P < .001) were associated with low RDI. The 5-year overall survival probability was 0.80 versus 0.91 in patients with RDI < 85 versus ≥ 85%, respectively (log-rank P = .02).

CONCLUSION

One in five older patients with EBC treated with standard chemotherapy received low RDI and had inferior survival outcomes. Older patients at risk for low RDI should be identified and targeted upfront before initiating chemotherapy.

Risk Model Development and Validation in Clinical Oncology: Lessons Learned

Reliable risk models can greatly facilitate patient-centered inferences and decisions. Herein we summarize key considerations related to risk modeling in clinical oncology. Often overlooked challenges include data quality, missing data, effective sample size estimation, and selecting the variables to be included in the risk model. The stability and quality of the model should be carefully interrogated with particular emphasis on rigorous internal validation.

Prescriber Perspectives on Biosimilar Adoption and Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology: A Workshop Summary

The approval and adoption of biosimilar products are essential to contain increasing healthcare costs and provide more affordable choices for patients. Despite steady progress in the number of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) biosimilar approvals over the years, biosimilar adoption in the United States has been slow and gradual, largely driven by payers rather than clinicians. In order to better understand the barriers to biosimilar adoption in the clinic, the University of Maryland Center of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (M-CERSI) and the FDA jointly hosted a virtual workshop on April 13, 2022, titled "Biosimilars: A Decade of Experience and Future Directions - Strategies for Improving Biosimilar Adoption and the Potential Role of Clinical Pharmacology." This summary documents the experiences of four leading academic clinicians with specialties in oncology, rheumatology, gastroenterology, and endocrinology and their perspectives on how to increase biosimilar adoption, including the role of clinical pharmacology. Besides systemic changes in pricing and reimbursement, there is a need for additional education of a broad range of providers, including advanced care practitioners, and patients themselves. Educational efforts highlighting the rigor of the studies that support the approval of biosimilars-including the clinical pharmacology studies-and the benefits of biosimilars, can play a major role in improving biosimilar acceptance.

Interplay of Immunosuppression and Immunotherapy Among Patients With Cancer and COVID-19

Importance

Cytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.

Objective

To determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.

Exposures

Immunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.

Results

The median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701.

An evaluation of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness research: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD

Aim: Stakeholder engagement is central to comparative effectiveness research yet there are gaps in definitions of success. We used a framework developed by Lavallee et al. defining effective engagement criteria to evaluate stakeholder engagement during a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were developed from the framework and completed to learn about members' experiences. Interviews were analyzed in a deductive approach for themes related to the effective engagement criteria. Results: Thirteen members participated and described: respect for ideas, time to achieve consensus, access to information and continuous feedback as areas of effective engagement. The primary criticism was lack of diversity. Discussion: Feedback was positive, particularly among themes of respect, trust and competence, and led to development of a list of best practices for engagement. The framework was successful for evaluating engagement. Conclusion: Standardized frameworks allow studies to formally evaluate their stakeholder engagement approach and develop best practices for future research.

Integrative Medicine for Pain Management in Oncology: Society for Integrative Oncology-ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on integrative approaches to managing pain in patients with cancer.

METHODS

The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 227 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Among adult patients, acupuncture should be recommended for aromatase inhibitor-related joint pain. Acupuncture or reflexology or acupressure may be recommended for general cancer pain or musculoskeletal pain. Hypnosis may be recommended to patients who experience procedural pain. Massage may be recommended to patients experiencing pain during palliative or hospice care. These recommendations are based on an intermediate level of evidence, benefit outweighing risk, and with moderate strength of recommendation. The quality of evidence for other mind-body interventions or natural products for pain is either low or inconclusive. There is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients. More research is needed to better characterize the role of integrative medicine interventions in the care of patients with cancer.Additional information is available at https://integrativeonc.org/practice-guidelines/guidelines and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines.

Predictive models for thromboembolic events in giant cell arteritis: A US veterans health administration population-based study

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) that affects older patients is an independent risk factor for thromboembolic events. The objective of this study was to identify predictive factors for thromboembolic events in patients with GCA and develop quantitative predictive tools (prognostic nomograms) for pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT). A total of 13,029 patients with a GCA diagnosis were included in this retrospective study. We investigated potential predictors of PE and DVT using univariable and multivariable Cox regression models. Nomograms were then constructed based on the results of our Cox models. We also assessed the accuracy and predictive ability of our models by using calibration curves and cross-validation concordance index. Age, inpatient status at the time of initial diagnosis of GCA, number of admissions before diagnosis of GCA, and Charlson comorbidity index were each found to be independent predictive factors of thromboembolic events. Prognostic nomograms were then prepared based on these predictors with promising prognostic ability. The probability of developing thromboembolic events over an observation period of 5 years was estimated by with time-to-event analysis using the method of Kaplan and Meier, after stratifying patients based on predicted risk. The concordance index of the time-to-event analysis for both PE and DVT was &gt; 0.61, indicating a good predictive performance. The proposed nomograms, based on specific predictive factors, can accurately estimate the probability of developing PE or DVT among patients with GCA.

Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Colony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Sites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.

RESULTS

A total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Can order entry systems improve oncology practice? The TrACER Experience

339

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Prior research suggested poor adherence to PP-CSF prescribing relative to national guidelines. Accordingly, the objective of the TrACER study was to examine whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) system for PP-CSF improves use and reduces FN. TrACER also included a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk chemotherapy, where evidence of benefit is weaker. Methods: We conducted a patient-informed, cluster randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Patients age ≥18 with breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy were enrolled. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to the implementation of a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Automated orders for PP-CSF were added for high-risk regimens and an alert not to use PP-CSF was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. A secondary 1:1 randomization for intermediate risk-regimens assigned 16 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF. Results: 2,946 patients were enrolled (2287 intervention, 659 usual care). PP-CSF use among high-risk patients was high and not significantly different between arms (89.2% SOE; 95.8% usual care). FN rates for the SOE and usual care arms were 6.1% and 4.2% and not significantly different. The FN rate among high-risk patients not receiving PP-CSF was 14.9%. Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms (6.3% SOE, 5.5% usual care). FN rates did not differ between the SOE system (1.5%) and usual care (0.8%). In contrast, for the intermediate risk substudy, rates of PP-CSF use were substantially higher among sites randomized to SOE (37.1% vs 9.9%, OR = 5.91(95% CI 1.77-19.70; p = 0.0038), and rates of FN were low and identical between arms (3.7% vs 3.7%). Similarly, FN rates did not differ between intermediate-risk patients that did or did not receive PP-CSF, irrespective of assignment. Conclusions: Implementation of a guideline-informed SOE system did not impact PP-CSF use or FN rates in high- and low-risk patients, where evidence supporting PP-CSF is stronger, and had a significant impact on PP-CSF use but not FN rates among intermediate risk patients, where evidence of benefit is weak. Overall, adherence to PP-CSF for low- and high-risk chemotherapy was much better than predicted based on evidence available at trial design. SOE interventions may be more useful in situations where more uncertainty of benefit exists. The pragmatic trial design provides high-quality evidence that had previously been lacking on the use and performance of PP-CSF in real world settings across the spectrum of FN risk. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

Intervention non-adherence in a pragmatic randomized trial of a standardized order entry for colony stimulating factor prescribing

374

Background: Pragmatic trials evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in routine practice conditions. Pragmatic trials have high generalizability, but the treatment effect can be influenced by nonadherence to the intervention of interest. We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) system improves use of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Clinics were assigned to the SOE or usual care. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention. Methods: TrACER was a patient-informed, cluster randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care (primary study). Among SOE intervention sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization assigned the 24 intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate FN risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the standing orders for individual patients. Results: Overall, 8 sites (659 patients) were randomized to usual care and 24 sites (2287 patients) to the intervention; 12 (1296 patients) were randomized to the intermediated risk SOE intervention and 12 (991 patients) to the alert not to prescribe PP-CSF. PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms (89.2% SOE; 95.8% usual care), however rates of PP-CSF use by site ranged from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms (6.3% SOE, 5.5% usual care), however PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites randomized to the alert to not prescribe. In the intermediate risk sub-study, PP-CSF was higher among sites randomized to SOE vs. the alert not to prescribe PP-CSF (37.1% vs 9.9%, OR = 5.91, 95% CI 1.77-19.70; p = 0.0038). However, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE, and despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF rates ranged among sites from 0% to 33%. FN rates were low and similar in both arms. Conclusions: In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. While the ability to opt-out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, careful pre-study planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power to detect an effect. Understanding reasons for intervention opt-outs will is also inform future pragmatic studies aimed at improving adherence to practice guidelines. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

Characterization of older adults with cancer seeking acute emergency department care: A prospective observational study

INTRODUCTION

Disparities in care of older adults in cancer treatment trials and emergency department (ED) use exist. This report provides a baseline description of older adults ≥65 years old who present to the ED with active cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Planned secondary analysis of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network observational ED cohort study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Of 1564 eligible adults with active cancer, 1075 patients were prospectively enrolled, of which 505 were ≥ 65 years old. We recruited this convenience sample from eighteen participating sites across the United States between February 1, 2016 and January 30, 2017.

RESULTS

Compared to cancer patients younger than 65 years of age, older adults were more likely to be transported to the ED by emergency medical services, have a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and be admitted despite no significant difference in acuity as measured by the Emergency Severity Index. Despite the higher admission rate, no significant difference was noted in hospitalization length of stay, 30-day mortality, ED revisit or hospital admission within 30 days after the index visit. Three of the top five ED diagnoses for older adults were symptom-related (fever of other and unknown origin, abdominal and pelvic pain, and pain in throat and chest). Despite this, older adults were less likely to report symptoms and less likely to receive symptomatic treatment for pain and nausea than the younger comparison group. Both younger and older adults reported a higher symptom burden on the patient reported Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale than to ED providers. When treating suspected infection, no differences were noted in regard to administration of antibiotics in the ED, admissions, or length of stay ≤2 days for those receiving ED antibiotics.

DISCUSSION

We identified several differences between older (≥65 years old) and younger adults with active cancer seeking emergency care. Older adults frequently presented for symptom-related diagnoses but received fewer symptomatic interventions in the ED suggesting that important opportunities to improve the care of older adults with cancer in the ED exist.

Palliative Care Needs and Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Advanced Cancer in the Emergency Department

Background: Older adults with cancer use the emergency department (ED) for acute concerns. Objectives: Characterize the palliative care needs and clinical outcomes of advanced cancer patients in the ED. Design: A planned secondary data analysis of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN) data. Settings/Subjects: Cancer patients who presented to the 18 CONCERN affiliated EDs in the United States. Measurements: Survey included demographics, cancer type, functional status, symptom burden, palliative and hospice care enrollment, and advance directive code status. Results: Of the total (674/1075, 62.3%) patients had advanced cancer and most were White (78.6%) and female (50.3%); median age was 64 (interquartile range 54-71) years. A small proportion of them were receiving palliative (6.5% [95% confidence interval; CI 3.0-7.6]; p = 0.005) and hospice (1.3% [95% CI 1.0-3.2]; p = 0.52) care and had a higher 30-day mortality rate (8.3%, [95% CI 6.2-10.4]). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer continue to present to the ED despite recommendations for early delivery of palliative care.

Webinar as an Informational Resource on Trastuzumab Biosimilars: Planning, Promotion, Execution, and Evaluation

Despite the incorporation of trastuzumab biosimilars (to treat HER2-positive breast cancer) in clinical practice guidelines, gaps remain such as patient and clinician education. We hosted a webinar comprised of a panel of biosimilars experts, oncologists, pharmacist, infusion nurse, patient advocate. The outcomes of the webinar include: audience responses to pre- and post-webinar questionnaires, educational benefits, real-time opportunities to ask questions, recorded webinar. Education needs to be tailored to the needs of both, patients and clinicians.

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of a standing physician order entry intervention for colony stimulating factor use among patients at intermediate risk for febrile neutropenia (SWOG S1415CD)

1518

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) but their benefit for regimens with intermediate FN risk is uncertain. Within a pragmatic, randomized trial of a standing order entry (SOE) intervention for prescribing PP-CSF, we designed a substudy to evaluate the effectiveness of PP-CSF for patients receiving therapy with intermediate FN risk. Methods: TrACER was a cluster randomized trial where NCI community Oncology Research Program practices were randomized to usual care (UC) or a guideline-based SOE intervention. In the primary study, sites were randomized 3:1 to a SOE of automated PP-CSF orders for NCCN-designated high FN risk chemotherapy regimens and alerts against PP-CSF orders for low FN risk regimens (intervention) versus usual care. A secondary randomization assigned intervention sites to a SOE intervention either to prescribe or not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Clinicians were allowed to override the SOE. Patients age ≥18 with either breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer were enrolled and followed for 12 mo. PP-CSF was defined as initiation within 24-72 hours after systemic chemotherapy. Sample size calculations were based on an FN risk reduction from 15% to 7.5%, and provided 80% power at a planned enrollment of 90 patients per site. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used to test differences between sites randomized to prescribe or not prescribe PP-CSF. Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 24 sites (2,287 patients) were randomized to the intervention. Among intervention sites, 12 were randomized to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for the 542 patients receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Rates of PP-CSF use were higher among sites randomized to prescribe PP-CSF (37.1% vs 9.9%, OR = 5.90 (95% CI 1.72-20.20; p = 0.0048)). Overall, the rates of FN were low and identical between PP-CSF and no PP-CSF arms (3.7% vs 3.7%). Among patients who did not receive PP-CSF, rates of FN were also low and similar between arms (3.8% vs 4.1%). Conclusions: While implementation of a SOE intervention for PP-CSF significantly increased PP-CSF use among patients receiving intermediate risk regimens, FN rates did not differ between arms. Despite SOE, 63% of patients assigned to receive PP-CSF did not receive it. FN rates overall were lower than expected and did not differ between patients that did or did not receive PP-CSF. Although this guideline-informed SOE influenced prescribing, the results suggest that neither the SOE nor PP-CSF itself provide sufficient benefit to justify their use for persons receiving intermediate FN risk regimens. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of a computerized clinical decision support system to improve colony stimulating factor prescribing for patients with cancer receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy (SWOG S1415CD)

1525

Background: Primary prophylactic colony stimulating factors (PP-CSF) are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN). Prior studies have shown that 55-95% of CSF prescribing is inconsistent with practice guidelines. We conducted a cluster randomized trial to determine if guideline-informed standing orders for PP-CSF improved prescribing and reduced the incidence of FN. Methods: Patients age ≥18 with breast, colorectal or non-small cell lung cancer initiating first cancer-directed therapy with NCCN-recommended regimens were eligible. The intervention consisted of automated PP-CSF orders for high FN risk chemotherapy regimens and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk regimens. Regimen FN risk was based on NCCN guidelines. Clinicians could override the orders. Primary and secondary outcomes were PP-CSF use among patients receiving high and low risk regimens FN incidence within 6 months of initial therapy. Sample size estimates assumed an FN risk of 25% for high-risk chemotherapy. 32 NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices randomized 3:1 to the order entry system (intervention) versus usual care (UC) provided 90% power to detect a 50% reduction in FN at a planned enrollment of 90 patients per site. Mixed effect logistic regression models were used to test differences among randomized sites. 13 practices with pre-existing PP-CSF order sets enrolled in a parallel cohort study. Patients and other stakeholder groups informed study design, conduct and reporting. Results: Between January 2016 and April 2020, 2,946 patients were randomized (2287 intervention, 659 UC); 718 were enrolled in the cohort. Mean age across arms was 58.1. 77% of patients were female; 61% diagnosed with breast cancer. Among patients receiving high-risk regimens, PP-CSF use did not differ between arms (89.2% intervention; 95.8% UC, adjusted p = 0.21) and was similar to the cohort patients (93.0%). The FN rate for high-risk patients was 5.7% in intervention clinics and 4.2% in UC clinics (adjusted p = 0.26); FN was 14.9% among high-risk patients who did not receive PP-CSF. Among patients receiving low-risk regimens, PP-CSF use did not differ between arms (intervention 6.3%, UC 5.5%, adjusted p = 0.74) and was slightly lower than the cohort (8.3%). FN rates did not differ between low risk groups (intervention 1.5%, UC 0.8%, adjusted p = 0.51). Conclusions: Guideline-informed standing orders did not increase PP-CSF use in high-risk patients, nor did it decrease use in low-risk patients. Adherence to guidelines in both risk groups exceeded historical reports. FN rates among patients not receiving PP-CSF were substantially below those reported in CSF guidelines. Automated standing orders for PP-CSF do not appear to be helpful or necessary. Clinical trial information: NCT02728596.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Hematopoietic Growth Factors, Version 1.2022

The NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors provide recommendations for the appropriate use of growth factors in the clinical management of febrile neutropenia (FN), chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT), and chemotherapy-induced anemia (CIA). Management and prevention of these sequelae are an integral part of supportive care for many patients undergoing cancer treatment. The purpose of these guidelines is to operationalize the evaluation, prevention, and treatment of FN, CIT, and CIA in adult patients with nonmyeloid malignancies and to enable the patient and clinician to assess management options for FN, CIT, and CIA in the context of an individual patient's condition. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of the important recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Hematopoietic Growth Factors, with particular emphasis on the incorporation of a newly developed section on CIT.

Successes and challenges of implementing a cancer care delivery intervention in community oncology practices: lessons learned from SWOG S1415CD

Background

Cancer Care Delivery (CCD) research studies often require practice-level interventions that pose challenges in the clinical trial setting. The SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) conducted S1415CD, one of the first pragmatic cluster-randomized CCD trials to be implemented through the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Program (NCORP), to compare outcomes of primary prophylactic colony stimulating factor (PP-CSF) use for an intervention of automated PP-CSF standing orders to usual care. The introduction of new methods for study implementation created challenges and opportunities for learning that can inform the design and approach of future CCD interventions.

Methods

The order entry system intervention was administered at the site level; sites were affiliated NCORP practices that shared the same chemotherapy order system. 32 sites without existing guideline-based PP-CSF standing orders were randomized to the intervention (n = 24) or to usual care (n = 8). Sites assigned to the intervention participated in tailored training, phone calls and onboarding activities administered by research team staff and were provided with additional funding and external IT support to help them make protocol required changes to their order entry systems.

Results

The average length of time for intervention sites to complete reconfiguration of their order sets following randomization was 7.2 months. 14 of 24 of intervention sites met their individual patient recruitment target of 99 patients enrolled per site.

Conclusions

In this paper we share seven recommendations based on lessons learned from implementation of the S1415CD intervention at NCORP community oncology practices representing diverse geographies and patient populations across the U. S. It is our hope these recommendations can be used to guide future implementation of CCD interventions in both research and community settings.

Trial Registration

NCT02728596, registered April 5, 2016.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07835-4.

Patients recently treated for B-lymphoid malignancies show increased risk of severe COVID-19: a CCC19 registry analysis

Patients with B-lymphoid malignancies have been consistently identified as a population at high risk of severe COVID-19. Whether this is exclusively due to cancer-related deficits in humoral and cellular immunity, or whether risk of severe COVID-19 is increased by anti-cancer therapy, is uncertain. Using data derived from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19), we show that patients treated for B-lymphoid malignancies have an increased risk of severe COVID-19 compared to control populations of patients with non-B-lymphoid hematologic malignancies. Among patients with B-lymphoid malignancies, those who received anti-cancer therapy within 12 months of COVID-19 diagnosis experienced increased COVID-19 severity compared to patients with B-lymphoid malignancies off therapy, after adjustment for cancer status and several other prognostic factors. Our findings suggest that patients recently treated for a B-lymphoid malignancy are at uniquely high risk for severe COVID-19.

Abstract P2-13-04: Final survival analysis of a phase 3 study comparing SB3 (trastuzumab biosimilar) and reference trastuzumab in HER2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer

Background: SB3 (trastuzumab-dttb) is a biosimilar approved globally based on its similarity with reference trastuzumab (TRZ) demonstrated by thorough comparability exercises in analytical, biological, and clinical studies. In a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 study of 875 patients with HER2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting, equivalent efficacy, similar safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity between SB3 and TRZ were shown. However, when quality attributes of TRZ were examined, downward drifts in antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity activities (ADCC) were observed in the TRZ lots with expiry dates ranging from Aug 2018 to Dec 2019. Some of these lots of the reference product were found to be used in the Phase 3 study. After completing the Phase 3 study, patients from select countries were included in a follow-up observational study to monitor cardiac safety and survival. Here, we report the final survival results, including post-hoc subgroup analysis based on ADCC status, at a median follow-up of 68 months. Methods: During the follow-up observational study, the protocol was amended to include additional patients who originally were enrolled in the Phase 3 study but had not been followed in the observational study, in order to collect a larger sample of survival data. For these additional patients, medical records from the last assessment in the Phase 3 study through the date of enrollment in the follow-up study were collected retrospectively. As post-hoc analysis, patients in the TRZ arm were stratified into two subgroups: patients who received during neoadjuvant treatment at least one vial of TRZ with downward drift in ADCC as “Drifted TRZ”, and the others as “Non-drifted TRZ”. Event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: Of 875 patients randomized in the Phase 3 study, 538 patients (SB3, N=267; TRZ, N=271) were enrolled in the follow-up observational study: 367 patients were initially enrolled in the follow-up study, and 171 patients were additionally enrolled following the protocol amendment. The median follow-up duration was 68 months from randomization in the Phase 3 study. 54 events (20.2%) in the SB3 arm, and 67 events (24.7%) in the TRZ arm were reported (HR 0.84 [0.58, 1.20], p=0.335). 22 deaths (8.2%) and 38 deaths (14%) were reported in SB3 and TRZ arms, respectively (HR 0.61 [0.36, 1.05], p=0.073). In post-hoc analysis, of 271 patients in TRZ arm, 107 patients were grouped as “Non-drifted TRZ”, and 164 patients as “Drifted TRZ”. 19 events (17.8%) in the Non-drifted TRZ group and 48 (29.3%) events in the Drifted TRZ group occurred (HR 2.57 [1.28, 5.14], p=0.008). 9 deaths (8.4%) in the Non-drifted TRZ group and 29 deaths (17.7%) in the Drifted TRZ group were reported (HR 3.87 [1.37, 10.93], p=0.011). No difference was observed between SB3 arm and Non-drifted TRZ group in terms of EFS (HR 1.28 [0.73, 2.22], p=0.391) and OS (HR 0.99 [0.42, 2.31], p=0.975). Conclusions: Comparable long-term efficacy results in EFS and OS were shown at 68 months of follow-up, further supporting biosimilarity of SB3 to the reference product. Currently, these follow-up results represent the longest monitoring data of patients treated with a trastuzumab biosimilar for HER2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer.

Citation Format: Xavier Pivot, Mark D Pegram, Javier Cortes, Diana Lüftner, Gary H Lyman, Giuseppe Curigliano, Igor M Bondarenko, Mikhail Dvorkin, Jin Hee Ahn, Seock-Ah Im, Maria Litwiniuk, Yaroslav V Shparyk, Gwo Fuang Ho, Nikolay V Kislov, Marek Wojtukiewicz, Tomasz Sarosiek, Yee Soo Chae, Jin Seok Ahn, Hyerin Jang, Sujung Kim, Jiwon Lee, Soo Young Lee, Ye Chan Yoon. Final survival analysis of a phase 3 study comparing SB3 (trastuzumab biosimilar) and reference trastuzumab in HER2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-04.

Coinfections in Patients with Cancer and COVID-19: A COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) Study

Background

The frequency of coinfections and their association with outcomes have not been adequately studied among patients with cancer and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a high-risk group for coinfection.

Methods

We included adult (≥18 years) patients with active or prior hematologic or invasive solid malignancies and laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection, using data from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19, NCT04354701). We captured coinfections within ±2 weeks from diagnosis of COVID-19, identified factors cross-sectionally associated with risk of coinfection, and quantified the association of coinfections with 30-day mortality.

Results

Among 8765 patients (hospitalized or not; median age, 65 years; 47.4% male), 16.6% developed coinfections: 12.1% bacterial, 2.1% viral, 0.9% fungal. An additional 6.4% only had clinical diagnosis of a coinfection. The adjusted risk of any coinfection was positively associated with age >50 years, male sex, cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities, diabetes, hematologic malignancy, multiple malignancies, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, progressing cancer, recent cytotoxic chemotherapy, and baseline corticosteroids; the adjusted risk of superinfection was positively associated with tocilizumab administration. Among hospitalized patients, high neutrophil count and C-reactive protein were positively associated with bacterial coinfection risk, and high or low neutrophil count with fungal coinfection risk. Adjusted mortality rates were significantly higher among patients with bacterial (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33–1.95) and fungal (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.28–3.76) coinfections.

Conclusions

Viral and fungal coinfections are infrequent among patients with cancer and COVID-19, with the latter associated with very high mortality rates. Clinical and laboratory parameters can be used to guide early empiric antimicrobial therapy, which may improve clinical outcomes.

Use of Biosimilar Medications in Oncology

PURPOSE

The increased number and expanded utilization of biosimilars raise important considerations for their safe and appropriate use in oncology practice. This report provides an update on currently approved oncology biosimilars and identifies current knowledge gaps in the management of patients with cancer.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was convened to review the medical literature and to provide a practical summary of currently approved biosimilar therapeutics for cancer treatment or supportive care in the United States.

RESULTS

A total of 17 cancer or cancer-related biosimilar products have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2015. Despite years of clinical experience with oncology biosimilars, variance in their use persists. ASCO supports that biosimilars and reference products are considered equally efficacious for the purpose of inclusion in ASCO clinical practice guideline recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The use of biosimilars might provide competitive, lower-cost alternatives to biologics used in cancer care, and specific mention in ASCO guidelines and other evidence products is supported where appropriate.

COVID-19 and Cancer: A Review of the Registry-Based Pandemic Response

Importance

The COVID-19 pandemic has had consequences for patients with cancer worldwide and has been associated with delays in diagnosis, interruption of treatment and follow-up care, and increases in overall infection rates and premature mortality.

Observations

Despite the challenges experienced during the pandemic, the global oncology community has responded with an unprecedented level of investigation, collaboration, and technological innovation through the rapid development of COVID-19 registries that have allowed an increased understanding of the natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of patients with cancer who are diagnosed with COVID-19. This review describes 14 major registries comprising more than 28 500 patients with cancer and COVID-19; these ongoing registry efforts have provided an improved understanding of the impact and outcomes of COVID-19 among patients with cancer.

Conclusions and Relevance

An initiative is needed to promote active collaboration between different registries to improve the quality and consistency of information. Well-designed prospective and randomized clinical trials are needed to collect high-level evidence to guide long-term epidemiologic, behavioral, and clinical decision-making for this and future pandemics.