Modernizing Clinical Trials for Patients With Cancer

Importance of clinical trials and contributions to contemporary medicine: commentary

Clinical trials are crucial to contemporary medicine, offering valuable insights into the safety, efficacy, and appropriate use of new treatments. They contribute to public health improvements, reduce healthcare costs, uncover new understandings of disease biology, and facilitate the development of therapies for rare conditions. Investing in clinical trials is therefore essential for advancing medical science and enhancing patient outcomes globally.

Promoting physical activity through supervised vs motivational behavior change interventions in breast cancer survivors on aromatase inhibitors (PAC-WOMAN): protocol for a 3-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Aromatase inhibitors (AI) are frequently used to treat hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer, but they have multiple adverse effects (e.g., osteoporosis, arthralgia), resulting in premature therapy discontinuation/switch. Physical activity (PA) can attenuate these negative effects and improve quality of life (QoL). However, most cancer survivors fail to perform/sustain adequate PA levels, especially in the long-term. Theory-based interventions, using evidence-based behavior change techniques, aimed at promoting long-term behavior change in breast cancer survivors are effective, but remain scarce and fail to promote self-regulatory skills and better-quality motivations associated with sustained PA adoption. This paper describes the design of the PAC-WOMAN trial, which will test the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two state of the art, group-based interventions encouraging sustained changes in PA, sedentary behavior, and QoL. Additional aims include examining the impact of both interventions on secondary outcomes (e.g., body composition, physical function), and key moderators/mediators of short and long-term changes in primary outcomes.

METHODS

A 3-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial, involving a 4-month intervention and a 12-month follow-up, will be implemented, in a real exercise setting, to compare: 1) brief PA counseling/motivational intervention; 2) structured exercise program vs. waiting-list control group. Study recruitment goal is 122 hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer survivors (stage I-III), on AI therapy (post-primary treatment completion) ≥ 1 month, ECOG 0-1. Outcome measures will be obtained at baseline, 4 months (i.e., post-intervention), 10 and 16 months. Process evaluation, analyzing implementation determinants, will also be conducted.

DISCUSSION

PAC-WOMAN is expected to have a relevant impact on participants PA and QoL and provide insights for the improvement of interventions designed to promote sustained adherence to active lifestyle behaviors, facilitating its translation to community settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

April 20, 2023 - NCT05860621. April 21, 2023 - https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZAQ9N April 27, 2023 - UMIN000050945.

Understanding common key indicators of successful and unsuccessful cancer drug trials using a contrast mining framework on ClinicalTrials.gov

Clinical trials are essential to the process of new drug development. As clinical trials involve significant investments of time and money, it is crucial for trial designers to carefully investigate trial settings prior to designing a trial. Utilizing trial documents from ClinicalTrials.gov, we aim to understand the common characteristics of successful and unsuccessful cancer drug trials to provide insights about what to learn and what to avoid. In this research, we first computationally classified cancer drug trials into successful and unsuccessful cases and then utilized natural language processing to extract eligibility criteria information from the trial documents. To provide explainable and potentially modifiable recommendations for new trial design, contrast mining was applied to discoverhighly contrasted patterns with a significant difference in prevalence between successful (completion with advancement to the next phase) and unsuccessful (suspended, withdrawn, or terminated) groups. Our method identified contrast patterns consisting of combinations of drug categories, eligibility criteria, study organization, and study design for nine major cancers. In addition to a literature review for the qualitative validation of mined contrast patterns, we found that contrast-pattern-based classifiers using the top 200 contrast patterns as feature representations can achieve approximately 80% F₁ score for eight out of ten cancer types in our experiments. In summary, aligning with the modernization efforts of ClinicalTrials.gov, our study demonstrates that understanding the contrast characteristics of successful and unsuccessful cancer trials may provide insights into the decision-making process for trial investigators and therefore facilitate improved cancer drug trial design.

Implementing Modernized Eligibility Criteria in US National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials

In 2018, the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) at the US National Cancer Institute published new protocol template language that focused on organ function and prior and concurrent cancers in an effort to modernize eligibility criteria for cancer treatment trials. We conducted an analysis of CTEP-supported trials to evaluate the uptake and incorporation of the new language. The analysis included evaluation of 122 protocols approved in the years 2018-2020 for inclusion of the modernized eligibility criteria and consistency with new protocol template language related to 7 major eligibility criteria. These were cardiac function, liver function, kidney function, HIV status, prior and/or concurrent malignancies, treated and/or stable brain metastasis, and new and/or progressive brain metastases. Overall, CTEP trials evaluated in this period demonstrated that eligibility criteria were implemented to a relatively high degree ranging from a low of 54.1% for prior and/or concurrent malignancies to a high of 93.4% for eligibility criteria related to HIV infection. The findings demonstrate that modernized eligibility criteria can be successfully implemented but that consistent implementation requires sustained focused effort. As a result of these findings, CTEP began a new initiative in January 2022 that incorporates a specific review of eligibility criteria for new protocols to promote and improve consistency with the modernization effort.

Building External Control Arms From Patient-Level Electronic Health Record Data to Replicate the Randomized IMblaze370 Control Arm in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

External control (EC) arms derived from electronic health records (EHRs) can provide appropriate comparison groups when randomized control arms are not feasible, but have not been explored for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials. We constructed EC arms from two patient-level EHR-derived databases and evaluated them against the control arm from a phase III, randomized controlled mCRC trial.

METHODS

IMblaze370 evaluated atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib versus regorafenib in patients with mCRC. EC arms were constructed from the Flatiron Health (FH) EHR-derived de-identified database and the combined FH/Foundation Medicine Clinico-Genomic Database (CGDB). IMblaze370 eligibility criteria were applied to the EC cohorts. Propensity scores and standardized mortality ratio weighting were used to balance baseline characteristics between the IMblaze370 and EC arms; balance was assessed using standardized mean differences. Kaplan-Meier method estimated median overall survival (OS). Cox proportional hazards models estimated hazard ratios with bootstrapped 95% CIs to compare differences in OS between study arms.

RESULTS

The FH EC included 184 patients; the CGDB EC included 108 patients. Most characteristics were well-balanced (standardized mean difference < 0.1) between each EC arm and the IMblaze370 population. Median OS was similar between the IMblaze370 control arm (8.5 months [95% CI, 6.41 to 10.71]) and both EC arms: FH (8.5 months [6.93 to 9.92]) and CGDB (8.8 months [7.85 to 9.92]). OS comparisons between the IMblaze370 experimental arm and the FH EC (hazard ratio, 0.85 [0.64 to 1.14]) and CGDB EC (0.86 [0.65 to 1.18]) yielded similar results as the comparison with the IMblaze370 control arm (1.01 [0.75 to 1.37]).

CONCLUSION

EC arms constructed from the FH database and the CGDB closely replicated the control arm from IMblaze370. EHR-derived EC arms can provide meaningful comparators in mCRC trials when recruiting a randomized control arm is not feasible.

COVID-19, Social Justice, and Clinical Cancer Research

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related socioeconomic events have markedly changed the environment in which cancer clinical trials are conducted. These events have resulted in a substantial, immediate-term decrease in accrual to both diagnostic and therapeutic cancer investigations as well as substantive alterations in patterns of oncologic care. The sponsors of clinical trials, including the US National Cancer Institute, as well as the cancer centers and community oncology practices that conduct such studies, have all markedly adapted their models of care, usage of healthcare personnel, and regulatory requirements in the attempt to continue clinical cancer investigations while maintaining high levels of patient safety. In doing so, major changes in clinical trials practice have been embraced nationwide. There is a growing consensus that the regulatory and clinical research process alterations that have been adopted in response to the pandemic (such as the use of telemedicine visits to reduce patient travel requirements and the application of remote informed consent procedures) should be implemented long term. The COVID-19 outbreak has also refocused the oncologic clinical trials community on the need to bring clinical trials closer to patients by dramatically enhancing clinical trial access, especially for minority and underserved communities that have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In this commentary, changes to the program of clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute that could improve clinical trial availability, effectiveness, and diversity are proposed.

Future Approaches to Precision Oncology-Based Clinical Trials

The last 2 decades have seen a rapid advance of the precision oncology paradigm-from its early singular successes to becoming the prevailing model of cancer therapy. As the treatment of cancer moves away from traditional chemotherapy, so too will oncology clinical trials have to move away from the traditional model of phase I to phase III progression of drug development. Achieving this goal of individualized care will involve a concerted effort by the entire cancer care community to fundamentally change the design and implementation of oncology clinical trials. We envision that the next 2 decades will be a period of evolution in precision oncology clinical trials through scientific and technologic advances, transformation of clinical trial infrastructure, and changes in the kind of evidence required for regulatory approval.

National Cancer Institute: Restructuring to Support the Clinical Trials of the Future

OBJECTIVES

To describe the evolution and structure of the National Cancer Institute clinical trials programs, their notable accomplishments, nurses' roles in these accomplishments, and the essential role of nursing today and in the future.

DATA SOURCES

Manuscripts, government publications, websites, and professional communications.

CONCLUSION

Change is inevitable and a constant factor in the world of advancing science and clinical research. Nurses' contribution to research and evidence-based practice will continue to grow and is vital as the scientific landscape evolves.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

As the understanding of cancer biology increases and clinical trials evolve, nurses will need to remain key team members and leaders in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Trials Network trials and their associated infrastructure.

Enhancing global access to cancer medicines

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.

Building internal capacity in pragmatic trials: a workshop for program scientists at the US National Cancer Institute

Background

Building capacity in research funding organizations to support the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials is an essential component of advancing biomedical and public health research. To date, efforts to increase the ability to design and carry out pragmatic trials have largely focused on training researchers. To complement these efforts, we developed an interactive workshop tailored to meet the roles and responsibilities of program scientists at the National Cancer Institute—the leading cancer research funding agency in the USA. The objectives of the workshop were to improve the understanding of pragmatic trials and enhance the capacity to distinguish between elements that make a trial more pragmatic or more explanatory among key programmatic staff. To our knowledge, this is the first reported description of such a workshop.

Main body

The workshop was developed to meet the needs of program scientists as researchers and stewards of research funds, which often includes promoting scientific initiatives, advising prospective applicants, collaborating with grantees, and creating training programs. The workshop consisted of presentations from researchers with expertise in the design and interpretation of trials across the explanatory-pragmatic continuum. Presentations were followed by interactive, small-group exercises to solidify participants’ understanding of the purpose and conduct of these trials, which were tailored to attendees’ areas of expertise across the cancer control continuum and designed to reflect their scope of work as program scientists at NCI. A total of 29 program scientists from the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and the Division of Cancer Prevention participated; 19 completed a post-workshop evaluation. Attendees were very enthusiastic about the workshop: they reported improved knowledge, significant relevance of the material to their work, and increased interest in pragmatic trials across the cancer control continuum.

Conclusion

Training program scientists at major biomedical research agencies who are responsible for developing funding opportunities and advising grantees is essential for increasing the quality and quantity of pragmatic trials. Together with workshops for other target audiences (e.g., academic researchers), this approach has the potential to shape the future of pragmatic trials and continue to generate more and better actionable evidence to guide decisions that are of critical importance to health care practitioners, policymakers, and patients.

Genomic expertise in action: molecular tumour boards and decision-making in precision oncology

The recent development of cancer precision medicine is associated with the emergence of 'molecular tumour boards' (MTBs). Attended by a heterogenous set of practitioners, MTBs link genomic platforms to clinical practices by establishing 'actionable' connections between drugs and molecular alterations. Their activities rely on a number of evidential resources - for example databases, clinical trial results, basic knowledge about mutations and pathways - that need to be associated with the clinical trajectory of individual patients. Experts from various domains are required to master and align diverse kinds of information. However, rather than examining MTBs as an institution interfacing different kinds of expertise embedded in individual experts, we argue that expertise is the emergent outcome of MTBs, which can be conceptualised as networks or 'agencements' of humans and devices. Based on the ethnographic analysis of the activities of four clinical trial MTBs (three in France and an international one) and of two French routine-care MTBs, the paper analyses how MTBs produce therapeutic decisions, centring on the new kind of expertise they engender. The development and activities of MTBs signal a profound transformation of the evidentiary basis and processes upon which biomedical expertise and decision-making in oncology are predicated and, in particular, the emergence of a clinic of variants.

Online Search Behavior for Cancer Immunotherapy Resources and Readability Analysis: An Opportunity to Aid in Medical Decision-making

Cancer patients are faced with increasing options for cancer care, especially with the introduction of cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Though many patients turn to online resources to supplement their decision-making, it is unknown whether online resources in cancer immunotherapy with ICIs are written at an appropriate level of readability according to national medical organizations. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of internet search behavior for cancer immunotherapy by ICIs and clinical trial availability per ClinicalTrials.gov in the United States (US) from 2004 - 2018 with subsequent quantitation of readability by four readability formulas of top 50 online resources. Internet search behavior for “cancer immunotherapy” has steadily increased since 2013 and coincides with the year of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for individual ICIs. Furthermore, internet search behavior was significantly correlated with clinical trial availability in the US (R = 0.97, p < 0.0001). None of the top 50 resources available to patients were found to be within the recommended level of sixth-grade readability or less with only one (2%) written at the middle school level, 21 (42%) at the high school level, 23 (46%) at the university level, and five (8%) at a graduate level. Population-level internet search patterns may reflect patient behavior in seeking relevant online health information and may be influenced by new options for cancer therapy, including via clinical trials. However, low readability of available online resources may impede patient comprehension and negatively affect medical decision-making.

Physician Perceptions of the Use of Social Media for Recruitment of Patients in Cancer Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Social media campaigns have been successfully implemented in nontherapeutic trials. However, evidence to support their utility in cancer therapeutic trials is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To examine physician attitudes toward and perceptions of social media use for therapeutic trial recruitment of patients with cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study engaged 44 physicians (24 academic based and 20 community based) at the main academic and 6 affiliated community sites of City of Hope in Duarte, California. Semistructured interviews were conducted in person or by telephone from March to June 2018. An interview guide was developed to explore perceptions of social media use for accrual of cancer therapeutic trials. Responses were recorded digitally and transcribed. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Physicians' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of using social media for clinical trial recruitment, strategies to improve uptake of social media in clinical trials, and the barriers and facilitators to social media use for professional purposes in general.

RESULTS

Of the 44 participants, 16 (36%) were women, 30 (68%) had more than 10 years of practice experience, 24 (55%) practiced in academia, and 20 (45%) practiced in the community. Physicians most commonly cited increased trial awareness and visibility as an advantage of using social media for trial recruitment. Cited disadvantages were increased administrative burden and risk of misinformation. Physicians also reported a need for institutional-level interventions (eg, restructuring of clinical trial offices to include personnel with social media expertise), increased evidence-based approaches to social media use, and more physician training on the use of social media. Perceived facilitators to professional social media use were networking and education; barriers included lack of time and lack of evidence of benefit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this qualitative study, physicians recognized the benefits of using social media for clinical trial recruitment but noted that barriers, including increased administrative burden, increased time, and the risk of misinformation, remain. Future interventions to address these concerns are a required first step in increasing digital engagement for clinical trial accrual purposes.