Continuing to Broaden Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative and Inclusive: ASCO–Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement

Absolute neutrophil count clinical trial eligibility criteria for pediatric oncology phase I and phase I/II trials by sponsorship

Normal absolute neutrophil count (ANC) variations, as seen with Duffy-null associated neutrophil count (DANC), are not accounted for in trial eligibility, which may contribute to racial enrollment disparities. We describe ANC eligibility for pediatric oncology phase I/II clinical trials according to primary sponsorship from 2010 to 2023 using ClinicalTrials.gov. Out of 438 trials, 20% were industry-sponsored. Total 17% of trials required ANC ≥1500 cells/μL for enrollment; however, industry-sponsored trials were significantly more likely to require ANC ≥1500 cells/μL than non-industry-sponsored trials (odds ratio 2.53, 95% confidence interval: 1.39-4.62; p < .001). These data suggest laboratory exclusion criteria are one possible mechanism for pediatric clinical trial enrollment disparities.

Quantitative evaluation of the impact of relaxing eligibility criteria on the risk-benefit profile of drugs for lung cancer based on real-world data

INTRODUCTION

Restrictive eligibility criteria in cancer drug trials result in low enrollment rates and limited population diversity. Relaxed eligibility criteria (REC) based on solid evidence is becoming necessary for stakeholders worldwide. However, the absence of high-quality, favorable evidence remains a major challenge. This study presents a protocol to quantitatively evaluate the impact of relaxing eligibility criteria in common non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) protocols in China, on the risk-benefit profile. This involves a detailed explanation of the rationale, framework, and design of REC.

METHODS

To evaluate our REC in NSCLC drug trials, we will first construct a structured, cross-dimensional real-world NSCLC database using deep learning methods. We will then establish randomized virtual cohorts and perform benefit-risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation and propensity matching. Shapley value will be utilized to quantitatively measure the effect of the change of each eligibility criterion on patient volume, clinical efficacy and safety.

DISCUSSION

This study is one of the few that focuses on the problem of overly stringent eligibility criteria cancer drug clinical trials, providing quantitative evaluation of the effect of relaxing each NSCLC eligibility criterion. This study will not only provide scientific evidence for the rational design of population inclusion in lung cancer clinical trials, but also establish a data governance system, as well as a REC evaluation framework that can be generalized to other cancer studies.

Tumor-agnostic baskets to N-of-1 platform trials and real-world data: Transforming precision oncology clinical trial design

Choosing the right drug(s) for the right patient via advanced genomic sequencing and multi-omic interrogation is the sine qua non of precision cancer medicine. Traditional cancer clinical trial designs follow well-defined protocols to evaluate the efficacy of new therapies in patient groups, usually identified by their histology/tissue of origin of their malignancy. In contrast, precision medicine seeks to optimize benefit in individual patients, i.e., to define who benefits rather than determine whether the overall group benefits. Since cancer is a disease driven by molecular alterations, innovative trial designs, including biomarker-defined tumor-agnostic basket trials, are driving ground-breaking regulatory approvals and deployment of gene- and immune-targeted drugs. Molecular interrogation further reveals the disruptive reality that advanced cancers are extraordinarily complex and individually distinct. Therefore, optimized treatment often requires drug combinations and N-of-1 customization, addressed by a new generation of N-of-1 trials. Real-world data and structured master registry trials are also providing massive datasets that are further fueling a transformation in oncology. Finally, machine learning is facilitating rapid discovery, and it is plausible that high-throughput computing, in silico modeling, and 3-dimensional printing may be exploitable in the near future to discover and design customized drugs in real time.

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

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

Demographic reporting and language exclusion in gynecologic oncology clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Participation in clinical trials may help mitigate disparate cancer outcomes. Thus, ensuring equitable access to clinical trials is a major priority for national cancer organizations.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine clinical trial eligibility criteria that may adversely affect the enrollment of underrepresented groups and assess the availability of demographic information in published gynecologic oncology studies.

STUDY DESIGN

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for gynecologic oncology studies conducted between 1997 and 2021. Each study's inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed to determine whether demographic factors were used for enrollment screening. For published studies, demographic variables that were reported were identified. The expected clinical trial enrollment based on disease incidence and mortality was compared with the observed trial enrollment based on race.

RESULTS

There were 1597 gynecologic oncology studies: 883 (55%) from ovarian cancer studies, 336 (21%) from cervical cancer studies, 262 (17%) from uterine cancer studies, and 116 (7%) from multisite gynecologic oncology studies. Of the 581 published studies, 554 (95%) reported age, 363 (63%) reported race, and 171 (29%) reported ethnicities. Cervical cancer studies were most likely to report demographic information, including race (P=.026) and ethnicity (P<.001). During the study period, 189 studies (12%) excluded patients based on the language spoken. Industry-sponsored trials (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.30) and organization-sponsored trials (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.73) were less likely to exclude patients because of language than investigator-initiated trials. A minority of patients (37%) in cervical cancer trials were of White race, compared with 85% of patients in uterine cancer trials and 82% of patients in ovarian cancer trials.

CONCLUSION

Over the last 3 decades, 1 in 10 gynecologic oncology trials excluded patients because of language. Race and ethnicity were reported in more than half of the available studies. Initiatives to increase transparency in recruiting underrepresented patients and reporting demographic data are urgently needed.

Creating Equitable and Inclusive Clinical Trials for Multiple Myeloma

Black and Latino/Hispanic populations are disproportionately impacted by multiple myeloma (MM) in the United States and are underrepresented in many clinical trials. The Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation sponsored a 1-day workshop of 46 experts spanning the ecosystem of MM research and care, including government, academia, nonprofits, pharma/biotech, community partners, and retail pharmacy. Specific, tangible steps to overcome the well-documented barriers to improving the diversity and inclusivity of clinical trials were discussed, including broadening inclusion/exclusion criteria, reducing the financial and other burdens of trial participants, selecting diverse study sites, including implicit bias training, and taking steps to empower patients.

Molecular tumour boards - current and future considerations for precision oncology

Over the past 15 years, rapid progress has been made in developmental therapeutics, especially regarding the use of matched targeted therapies against specific oncogenic molecular alterations across cancer types. Molecular tumour boards (MTBs) are panels of expert physicians, scientists, health-care providers and patient advocates who review and interpret molecular-profiling results for individual patients with cancer and match each patient to available therapies, which can include investigational drugs. Interpretation of the molecular alterations found in each patient is a complicated task that requires an understanding of their contextual functional effects and their correlations with sensitivity or resistance to specific treatments. The criteria for determining the actionability of molecular alterations and selecting matched treatments are constantly evolving. Therefore, MTBs have an increasingly necessary role in optimizing the allocation of biomarker-directed therapies and the implementation of precision oncology. Ultimately, increased MTB availability, accessibility and performance are likely to improve patient care. The challenges faced by MTBs are increasing, owing to the plethora of identifiable molecular alterations and immune markers in tumours of individual patients and their evolving clinical significance as more and more data on patient outcomes and results from clinical trials become available. Beyond next-generation sequencing, broader biomarker analyses can provide useful information. However, greater funding, resources and expertise are needed to ensure the sustainability of MTBs and expand their outreach to underserved populations. Harmonization between practice and policy will be required to optimally implement precision oncology. Herein, we discuss the evolving role of MTBs and current and future considerations for their use in precision oncology.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Clinical Trial Enrollment Among Women With Gynecologic Cancer

Importance

Racial and ethnic disparities in clinical trial enrollment are unjust and hinder development of new cancer treatments.

Objective

To examine the association of race and ethnicity with clinical trial enrollment among women with endometrial, ovarian, or cervical cancer.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database, a hospital-based cancer registry, and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER), a population-based cancer registry. Population-based race and ethnicity-specific proportions for each cancer site were derived from SEER. Participants included women with an endometrial, ovarian, or cervical cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2019. Analyses were performed from February 2 to June 14, 2023.

Exposure

Race and ethnicity were categorized as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black, Hispanic (any race), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, White, and other (not defined in the National Cancer Database).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the odds of clinical trial enrollment and representation in clinical trials compared with the US population. Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for associations of race and ethnicity with clinical trial enrollment within the National Cancer Database sample. Participation-to-prevalence ratios (PPRs) according to diagnosis period (2004-2011 vs 2012-2019) were calculated by dividing the race and ethnicity-specific percentage of clinical trial participants in the study sample by the percentage of racial and ethnic groups in SEER.

Results

Among 562 592 patients with gynecologic cancer (mean [SD] age at diagnosis, 62.9 [11.3] years), 1903 were American Indian/Alaska Native, 18 680 were Asian, 56 421 were Black, 38 145 were Hispanic, 1453 were Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 442 869 were White, and 3121 were other race and ethnicity. Only 548 (<1%) were enrolled in clinical trials. Compared with White women, clinical trial enrollment was lower for Asian (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25-0.78), Black (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.50-0.99), and Hispanic (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.83) women. Compared with the US population, White women were adequately or overrepresented for all cancer types (PPRs ≥1.1), Black women were adequately or overrepresented for endometrial and cervical cancers (PPRs ≥1.1) but underrepresented for ovarian cancer (PPR ≤0.6), and Asian and Hispanic women were underrepresented among all 3 cancer types (PPRs ≤0.6).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort of patients with gynecologic cancer, clinical trial enrollment was lower among certain minoritized racial and ethnic groups. Continued efforts are needed to address disparate clinical trial enrollment among underrepresented groups.

Aiding the Adoption of Master Protocols by Optimizing Patient Engagement

Master protocols (MPs) are an important addition to the clinical trial repertoire. As defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), this term means "a protocol designed with multiple sub-studies, which may have different objectives (goals) and involve coordinated efforts to evaluate one or more investigational drugs in one or more disease subtypes within the overall trial structure." This means we now have a unique, scientifically based MP that describes how a clinical trial will be conducted using one or more potential candidate therapies to treat patients in one or more diseases. Patient engagement (PE) is also a critical factor that has been recognized by FDA through its Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) initiative, and by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which states on its website that it has been actively interacting with patients since the creation of the Agency in 1995. We propose that utilizing these PE principles in MPs can make them more successful for sponsors, providers, and patients. Potential benefits of MPs for patients awaiting treatment can include treatments that better fit a patient's needs; availability of more treatments; and faster access to treatments. These make it possible to develop innovative therapies (especially for rare diseases and/or unique subpopulations, e.g., pediatrics), to minimize untoward side effects through careful dose escalation practices and, by sharing a control arm, to lower the probability of being assigned to a placebo arm for clinical trial participants. This paper is authored by select members of the American Statistical Association (ASA)/DahShu Master Protocol Working Group (MPWG) People and Patient Engagement (PE) Subteam. DahShu is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, founded to promote research and education in data science. This manuscript does not include direct feedback from US or non-US regulators, though multiple regulatory-related references are cited to confirm our observation that improving patient engagement is supported by regulators. This manuscript represents the authors' independent perspective on the Master Protocol; it does not represent the official policy or viewpoint of FDA or any other regulatory organization or the views of the authors' employers. The objective of this manuscript is to provide drug developers, contract research organizations (CROs), third party capital investors, patient advocacy groups (PAGs), and biopharmaceutical executives with a better understanding of how including the patient voice throughout MP development and conduct creates more efficient clinical trials. The PE Subteam also plans to publish a Plain Language Summary (PLS) of this publication for clinical trial participants, patients, caregivers, and the public as they seek to understand the risks and benefits of MP clinical trial participation.

Enrollment Success, Factors, and Prediction Models in Cancer Trials (2008-2019)

PURPOSE

To investigate the enrollment success rate of cancer clinical trials conducted in 2008-2019 and various factors lowering the enrollment success rate.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study with clinical trial information from the largest registration database ClinicalTrials.gov. Enrollment success rate was defined as actual enrollment greater or equal to 85% of the estimated enrollment goal. The association between trial characteristics and enrollment success was evaluated using the multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 4,004 trials in breast, lung, and colorectal cancers were included. The overall enrollment success rate was 49.1%. Compared with 2008-2010 (51.5%) and 2011-2013 (52.1%), the enrollment success rate is lower in 2014-2016 (46.5%) and 2017-2019 (36.4%). Regression analyses found trial activation year, phase I, phase I/phase II, and phase II (v phase III), sponsor agency of government (v industry), not requiring healthy volunteers, and estimated enrollment of 50-100, 100-200, 200, and >500 (v 0-50) were associated with a lower enrollment success rate (P < .05). However, trials with placebo comparator, ≥5 locations (v 1 location), and a higher number of secondary end points (eg, ≥5 v 0) were associated with a higher enrollment success rate (P < .05). The AUC for prediction of the final logistic regression models for all trials and specific trial groups ranged from 0.69 to 0.76.

CONCLUSION

This large-scale study supports a lower enrollment success rate over years in cancer clinical trials. Identified factors for enrollment success can be used to develop and improve recruitment strategies for future cancer trials.

Comorbidities were associated with cancer clinical trial discussion and participation: findings from the Health Information National Trends Survey-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (2021)

OBJECTIVES

Oncology clinical trials are recommended to better reflect real-world cancer patient populations and to increase patient access to new treatments in trials. The influence of comorbidities on trial participation is unclear. This study examined the association of having comorbidities and patients' experiences with clinical trial discussion or actual participation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We included 958 cancer survivors from Health Information National Trends Survey-Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. Trial discussion was defined as whether their medical team discussed cancer clinical trials, and trial participation was defined as whether they participated. Comorbidities included diabetes, hypertension, heart condition, chronic lung disease, and depression/anxiety disorder. Design-based logistic regression results were conducted.

RESULTS

Seventy-five percent of patients had one or more comorbidities, commonly having hypertension (56%) and diabetes (26%). Only 15% of participants reported trial discussion and 8% reported trial participation. Having one or more comorbidities was significantly associated with lower rates of trial discussion in univariate analysis (22.9% vs. 12.1%, odds ratio = 0.46, P = 0.001), and such association was pertained in adjusted logistic regression (20.5% vs. 12.8%, adjusted odds ratio = 0.54, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest patients with comorbidities were underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, implying a potential lack of representativeness among trial participants.

Selection and Prejudice: Addressing Clinical Trial Disparities With a Review of Current Shortcomings and Future Directions

Growing evidence has demonstrated significant, persistent, and widespread disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment across myriad disease sites and target populations. Although mechanisms underlying such disparities are complex and multifactorial, clinical trial eligibility criteria may serve as a key structural barrier to equitable and diverse trial enrollment. In this review, we provide an overview of the data describing historical and current disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment and subsequently describe several patient-, institution-, and trial-related factors which appear to be key drivers of enrollment inequity, with specific discussion regarding the impact of eligibility criteria. We further describe the landscape of ongoing professional efforts aimed at eliminating clinical trial disparities through various medical, professional, and advocacy groups. The review concludes with a practical discussion of how modernization of eligibility criteria in clinical trials may decrease or eliminate trial disparities, including specific actionable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of future eligibility criteria.

Factors associated with clinical trial participation for patients with renal cell carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

Recruitment of a diverse and representative study population is critical to the external validity of oncology clinical trials. The primary objective of this study was to characterize the factors associated with clinical trial participation for patients with renal cell carcinoma and the secondary objective was to examine differences in survival outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a matched case-control design by querying the National Cancer Database for patients with renal cell carcinoma who were coded as having enrolled in a clinical trial. Trial patients were matched in a 1:5 ratio to the control cohort based on clinical stage and then sociodemographic variables were compared between the 2 groups. Multivariable conditional logistic regression models evaluated factors associated with clinical trial participation. The trial patient cohort was then matched again in a 1:10 ratio based on age, clinical stage, and comorbidities. Log-rank test was used to compare overall survival (OS) between these groups.

RESULTS

From 2004 to 2014, 681 patients enrolled in clinical trials were identified. Clinical trial patients were significantly younger and had a lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. On multivariate analysis, male patients and white patients were more likely to participate compared to their Black counterparts. Having Medicaid or Medicare negatively associated with trial participation. Median OS was greater among clinical trial participants.

CONCLUSION

Patient sociodemographic factors remain significantly associated with clinical trial participation and trial participants experienced superior OS to their matched counterparts.

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.

Target Trial Emulation: A Design Tool for Cancer Clinical Trials

PURPOSE

To apply target trial emulation to explore the potential impact of eligibility criteria on the primary outcome of a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Simulations of a real-world explanatory trial of transarterial radioembolization for advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion were performed to examine the effects of cohort specification on survival outcomes and patient sample size. Simulations comprised 24 different permutations of the trial varied on three disease nonspecific eligibility parameters. Treatment and control arms for these emulated trials were drawn from the National Cancer Database and matched by treatment propensity. Target trial emulation served as the causal framework for this analysis, allowing the architecture of a true controlled experiment to address forms of bias routinely encountered in comparative effectiveness studies involving real-world observational data.

RESULTS

Twenty-four propensity score-matched cohorts comprising a wider clinical spectrum of patients than specified by the original target trial were successfully generated using the National Cancer Database. The arms for each of the emulated trials demonstrated exchangeability across all eligibility criteria and other clinical covariates. Significant treatment benefits were associated with only a narrow range of eligibility criteria, indicating that the original target trial was well specified.

CONCLUSION

The impact of patient selection on treatment outcomes can be studied using target trial emulation. This analytical framework can furthermore serve to leverage existing real-world data to inform the task of cohort specification for a randomized controlled trial, facilitating a more data-driven approach for this important step in clinical trial design.

Through the Lens of Patient Partners: Challenges in Accrual of Older Adults to NCI Clinical Trials

The workshop "Engaging Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials Conducted in the NCI Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities" included a Patient Stakeholder Workgroup that explored the needs and concerns of older adults with cancer regarding clinical trials. To accomplish this, the workgroup conducted patient focus groups in which participants were interviewed, recorded conversations were analyzed and coded, and salient themes were identified. The focus groups identified general barriers to accrual such as complex consent forms, general communication, restrictive eligibility, nonreferrals, patient costs, cultural insensitivity, limited accessibility in community settings, and transportation issues. They also identified the influence of knowledgeable information presenters, improved care, family or caregiver support, and the desire to help others as drivers or reasons to participate in clinical trials. The workshop concluded that multi-level interventions could be used to increase the accrual of older adults to National Cancer Institute clinical trials as well as others.

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.

From Individuals to Systems and Contributions to Creations: Novel Framework for Mapping the Efforts of Individuals by Convening The Center of Health and Health Care

Background

People with lived health care experiences (often referred to as “patients”) are increasingly contributing to health care and are most effective when they are involved as partners who can contribute complementary knowledge alongside other stakeholders in health care.

Objective

Convening The Center aimed to bring together “people known as patients”—the center of health care—to address priorities as they defined them.

Methods

According to the original project design, an in-person gathering was to be conducted; however, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the in-person gathering was transformed into a series of digital gatherings, including an in-depth interview phase, small-group gatherings, and a collective convening of 25 participants (22 women and 3 men from the United States, India, Costa Rica, Sweden, and Pakistan). Each participant was interviewed on Zoom (Zoom Video Communications Inc), and the interview data were thematically analyzed to design a subsequent small group and then full cohort Zoom sessions. Visual note-taking was used to reinforce a shared understanding of each individual- and group-level conversation.

Results

The interviews and gatherings for Convening The Center offered unique perspectives on patient activities in research, health innovation, and problem-solving. This project further developed a novel, two-spectrum framework for assessing different experiences that patients may have or seek to gain, based on what patients actually do, and different levels of patients’ involvement, ranging from individual to community to systemic involvement.

Conclusions

The descriptors of patients in academic literature typically focus on what health care providers think patients “are” rather than on what patients “do.” The primary result of this project is a framework for mapping what patients “do” and “where” they do their work along two spectra: from creating their own projects to contributing to work initiated by others and from working at levels ranging from individual to community to systems. A better understanding of these spectra may enable researchers to more effectively engage and leverage patient expertise in health care research and innovation.

Ineligible, Unaware, or Uninterested? Associations Between Underrepresented Patient Populations and Retention in the Pathway to Cancer Clinical Trial Enrollment

PURPOSE

Cancer clinical trials can benefit current and future patients; however, Black patients, rural residents, and patients living in disadvantaged areas are often underrepresented. Using an adapted version of Unger and colleagues' model of the process of clinical trial enrollment, we evaluated the relationship between underrepresented patient populations and trial end points.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 512 patients with breast or ovarian cancer who were prescribed a therapeutic drug at the University of Alabama at Birmingham from January 2017 to February 2020. Patient eligibility was assessed using open clinical trials. We estimated odds ratios and 95% CIs using logistic regression models to examine the relationship between underrepresented patient populations and trial enrollment end points: eligibility, interest, offer, enrollment, and declining enrollment.

RESULTS

Of the patients in our sample, 27% were Black, 18% were rural residents, and 19% lived in higher disadvantaged neighborhoods. In adjusted models, each comparison group had similar odds of being eligible for a clinical trial. Black versus White patients had 0.40 times the odds of interest in clinical trials and 0.56 times the odds of enrollment. Patients living in areas of higher versus lower disadvantage had 0.46 times the odds of enrolling and 3.40 times the odds of declining enrollment when offered.

CONCLUSION

Eligibility did not drive clinical trial enrollment disparities in our sample; however, retention in the clinical trial enrollment process appears to vary by group. Additional work is needed to understand how interventions can be tailored to each population's specific needs.

Effect of sponsor on enrollment criteria in non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are used to mitigate the effects of confounding variables on study outcomes. In 2017 and 2021, ASCO and the Friends of Cancer Research published recommendations to loosen enrollment criteria in cancer clinical trials to improve generalizability. The purpose of this study is to determine if the source of funding influences the degree of transparency and selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

METHODS

Phase 2 and 3 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) drug trials on clinicaltrials.gov were grouped into one of three sponsor categories: industry, government/cooperative group, and academic. Strictness of specific criteria and the level of transparency in listing organ function requirements were analyzed using Fisher Exact tests. Independent sample t-tests were used to assess the variability in total number of criteria.

RESULTS

Organ function requirements listed on clinicaltrials.gov are more often vague or incomplete in industry sponsored trials compared to government/cooperative group (p = 2.3 × 10-10, α = 0.01) and academic (p = 1.8 × 10-4, α = 0.01) sponsored trials. Industry sponsored trials more often excluded patients with worse performance status scores compared to government/cooperative group sponsored trials (p = 5.7 × 10-6, α = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Industry sponsored NSCLC drug trials are more likely to exclude patients with worse performance status and are less transparent in listing complete study requirements on clinicaltrials.gov.

POLICY SUMMARY

Unnecessarily strict enrollment criteria are increasingly seen in clinical trials sponsored by industry. Regulators responsible for drug approvals should note when studies deviate from ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research framework and question the external validity of study findings with overly narrow enrollment criteria when making decisions on drug approvals.

Clinical trial design in the era of precision medicine

Recent rapid biotechnological breakthroughs have led to the identification of complex and unique molecular features that drive malignancies. Precision medicine has exploited next-generation sequencing and matched targeted therapy/immunotherapy deployment to successfully transform the outlook for several fatal cancers. Tumor and liquid biopsy genomic profiling and transcriptomic, immunomic, and proteomic interrogation can now all be leveraged to optimize therapy. Multiple new trial designs, including basket and umbrella trials, master platform trials, and N-of-1 patient-centric studies, are beginning to supplant standard phase I, II, and III protocols, allowing for accelerated drug evaluation and approval and molecular-based individualized treatment. Furthermore, real-world data, as well as exploitation of digital apps and structured observational registries, and the utilization of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence, may further accelerate knowledge acquisition. Overall, clinical trials have evolved, shifting from tumor type-centered to gene-directed and histology-agnostic trials, with innovative adaptive designs and personalized combination treatment strategies tailored to individual biomarker profiles. Some, but not all, novel trials now demonstrate that matched therapy correlates with superior outcomes compared to non-matched therapy across tumor types and in specific cancers. To further improve the precision medicine paradigm, the strategy of matching drugs to patients based on molecular features should be implemented earlier in the disease course, and cancers should have comprehensive multi-omic (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, immunomic) tumor profiling. To overcome cancer complexity, moving from drug-centric to patient-centric individualized combination therapy is critical. This review focuses on the design, advantages, limitations, and challenges of a spectrum of clinical trial designs in the era of precision oncology.

Evolving a national clinical trials learning health system

Clinical trials generate key evidence to inform decision making, and also benefit participants directly. However, clinical trials frequently fail, often struggle to enroll participants, and are expensive. Part of the problem with trial conduct may be the disconnected nature of clinical trials, preventing rapid data sharing, generation of insights and targeted improvement interventions, and identification of knowledge gaps. In other areas of healthcare, a learning health system (LHS) has been proposed as a model to facilitate continuous learning and improvement. We propose that an LHS approach could greatly benefit clinical trials, allowing for continuous improvements to trial conduct and efficiency. A robust trial data sharing system, continuous analysis of trial enrollment and other success metrics, and development of targeted trial improvement interventions are potentially key components of a Trials LHS reflecting the learning cycle and allowing for continuous trial improvement. Through the development and use of a Trials LHS, clinical trials could be treated as a system, producing benefits to patients, advancing care, and decreasing costs for stakeholders.

Gender profile of principal investigators in a large academic clinical trials group

Introduction

Gender equity in medicine has become a significant topic of discussion due to consistently low female representation in academia and leadership roles. Gender imbalance directly affects patient care. This study examined the gender and craft group of the Principal Investigators (PI) of clinical trials run by the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG)

Methods

Publicly available data was obtained from the AGITG website. Trials were divided into upper, lower gastrointestinal cancer, miscellaneous (neuroendocrine and gastrointestinal stromal tumours). Where multiple PIs were listed, all were counted. Craft group was assigned as surgical, medical, radiation oncology or other.

Results

There were 69 trials with 89 PI, where 52 trials were represented exclusively by male PIs. Of all PIs, 18 were women (20.2%); all were medical oncologists. Prior to 2005, all PIs were male. The craft group distribution of PIs was: 79% medical oncologists, 12% surgical oncologists, 8% radiation oncologist, 1% nuclear medicine physicians. Regarding trials with multiple PI's, there were 19 in total. Of these, 11 had only male PIs, which included 5 surgeons. Females were more likely to be a co-PI (42%) as opposed to sole PI (18%). There was no gender policy publicly available on the AGITG website.

Conclusions

There is a low percentage of female PIs in academic oncology trials in the portfolio of this large international trials group. No trial was led by a female surgical or radiation oncologist. There is a need to understand the reasons driving the disparity so that specific strategies can be put in place.

Evolution of eligibility criteria for non-transplant randomized controlled trials in adults with acute myeloid leukemia

Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are intended to select suitable study subjects but can limit trial participation and generalization of results. While reported for other cancers, non-enrollment rates and evolution of eligibility criteria over time have so far not been studied for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Among 3698 studies published between 2010 and 2020, including 447 involving prospective clinical trials, we identified 75 phase three RCTs testing non-transplant therapies for adults with AML. Only 31 studies (41%) provided information on non-enrollment; in these studies, the median non-enrollment rate was 23%, primarily attributed to restrictive eligibility criteria. In 95% of trials, eligibility criteria were reported with the total number per trial increasing over time (P < 0.001), particularly in industry-funded trials. A total of 27 eligibility criteria were used across trials, mostly concerning comorbidities or performance status, with eight of them becoming more common over time. The concordance with recent ASCO - Friends of Cancer Research eligibility criteria recommendations greatly varied, from 35% to 99%. Together, our analyses suggest that the ability to generalize results from non-transplant RCTs may be increasingly limited because of high non-enrollment rates and increasingly restrictive eligibility criteria.

Improving Cancer Care for Patients With CKD: The Need for Changes in Clinical Trials

Chemotherapeutic agents used to treat cancer generally have narrow therapeutic indices along with potentially serious adverse toxicities. Many cancer drugs are at least partially excreted through the kidney and, thus, the availability of accurate data on safe and effective dosing of these drugs in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is essential to guide treatment decisions. Typically, during drug development, initial clinical studies only include patients with normal or only mildly impaired kidney function. In subsequent preregistration studies, a limited number of patients with more severe kidney dysfunction are included. Data obtained from patients with either severe kidney dysfunction (here defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] < 30 ml/min or stage 4G CKD) or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) requiring kidney replacement treatment are particularly limited before drug registration and only a minority of new drug applications to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) include data from this population. Unfortunately, limited data and/or other safety concerns may result in a manufacturer statement that the drug is contraindicated in patients with advanced kidney disease, which hinders access to potentially beneficial drugs for these patients. This systemic exclusion of patients with CKD from cancer drug trials remains an unsolved problem, which prevents provision of optimal clinical care for these patients, raises questions of inclusion, diversity, and equity. In addition, with the aging of the population, there are increasing numbers of patients with CKD and cancer who face these issues. In this review, we evaluate the scientific basis to exclude patients with CKD from cancer trials and propose a comprehensive strategy to address this problem.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

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

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

Using Technology to Enhance Cancer Clinical Trial Participation

The COVID-19 pandemic presented many challenges to health care systems, including oncology clinical research programs. There were substantial negative effects on oncology clinical trial screening, enrollment, and study activities that forced institutions and regulatory bodies to develop innovative solutions to maintain robust and equitable participation in these trials. Digital pathology innovations at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center have streamlined the diagnostic life cycle for patients with cancer, and the seamless integration of digital pathology services with next-generation sequencing and other molecular pathology services have accelerated the time to diagnosis and receipt of molecular results. Timely access to these results, coupled with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's knowledge engine OncoKB, enhances patient clinical trial coordination precisely and efficiently. At the Sarah Cannon Research Institute, centralized remote clinical trial matching and screening, virtual molecular tumor boards, and centralized molecular interpretation support services have empowered clinic staff to identify more efficiently potential participants in clinical research, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence has been involved in several efforts to address challenges for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, including writing guidance documents and participating in efforts to modernize clinical trials. The enclosed personal experience of a patient with cancer currently participating in an oncology clinical trial emphasizes the need for continued decreasing of barriers to study participation. Clinical trial advances that were accelerated by the pandemic will ultimately help patients with cancer and the greater oncology health care community.

Strategies to Advance Equity in Cancer Clinical Trials

Cancer clinical trials are critical for testing new treatments, yet less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in these trials. Minority groups, elderly individuals, and rural populations are particularly underrepresented in cancer treatment trials. Strategies for advancing equity in cancer clinical trials for these populations include (1) optimizing clinical trial matching by broadening eligibility criteria, screening all patients for trial eligibility, expanding the number of trials against which patients are screened, and following up on all patient matches with an enrollment invitation; (2) conducting site self-assessments to identify clinical-, patient-, provider-, and system-level barriers that contribute to low rates of clinical trial screening and enrollment; (3) creating a quality improvement plan that addresses the barriers to enrollment and incorporates the use of tools and strategies such as clinical trial checklists; workforce development and trainings to improve cultural competence and reduce unconscious bias; guides to promote community education, outreach and engagement with cancer clinical trials; screening and accrual logs designed to measure participation by demographics; models of informed consent that improve understanding; clinical trial designs that reduce accessibility barriers; use of cancer clinical trial patient navigators; and programs to eliminate barriers to participation and out-of-pocket expenses; and (4) working with stakeholders to develop both protocols that are inclusive of diverse populations' geographic locations, and strategies to access those trials. These actions will support greater access for populations that have remained underrepresented in cancer clinical trials and thereby increase the generalizability and efficiency of cancer research.

Glioblastoma Clinical Trials: Current Landscape and Opportunities for Improvement

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

Patients' Perceptions at Diagnosis: Lung Cancer Discovery and Provider Relationships

BACKGROUND

In the United States, most lung cancer cases are diagnosed at advanced stages, limiting treatment options and impacting survival. This study presents patients' perspectives on the complexity of factors influencing a lung cancer diagnosis. Lung cancer awareness regarding risks, symptoms, smoking behaviors, family history, and environmental factors can lead to preventative and early detection measures.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore lung cancer patient perspectives on lung cancer awareness within the context of an earlier study to understand sleep-wake disturbances in adults with non-small cell lung cancer.

METHODS

A content analysis was used to analyze the original deidentified longitudinal interview data collected from 26 patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

RESULTS

Of the original 26 participants, 16 were included in this secondary data analysis. The participants were primarily females (n = 10) and Whites (n = 13), with ages ranging between 49 and 83 years. Half of the sample was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer and most of the sample was on chemotherapy (n = 10). Two key themes were identified: the lung cancer discovery and the patient-physician relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Unspecific initial symptoms, lack of knowledge and screening, as well as fear of the diagnosis delayed seeking medical care. Patient-physician relationships were hindered by smoking-associated stigma, inadequate sharing of information, and lack of coordinated, holistic care. Positive communication strategies are critical between patients and providers to meet patients' specific needs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Educational interventions that enhance lung cancer awareness may improve prevention and screening actions, improve timely healthcare intervention, and reduce incidence and mortality.

[Implication of bronchopulmonary cancer patients in thoracic oncology]

Changed relationships between patient and health care provider have given patients a greater role in their care. Nowadays, they have the opportunity to be involved in decision-making regarding any diagnostic, therapeutic or monitoring intervention related to their disease. Access to international scientific data through the web, the activity of different patient associations, and the information given by their referring physician can enrich their knowledge about their disease and its possible treatments. In addition to the objective criteria usually assessed, the role currently assumed by patient associations in clinical research helps to identify their expectations. In addition, a number of new tools allow the thoracic oncologist to better understand patients' wishes. Health authorities' use of patient-reported outcomes and patients' use of digital applications contribute to improved survival without any deleterious impact on quality of life. Web applications designed to monitor a patient's toxicities during treatment are now commercially available. To meet our patients' expectations, we are called upon to incorporate these different digital tools into our daily practice.

Using real-word data to evaluate the effects of broadening eligibility criteria in oncology trials

Eligibility criteria restrict patient enrollment in clinical trials. A Nature paper applied a machine-learning algorithm in a real-world database to show that relaxing some criteria may not jeopardize efficacy and safety. This may enable more patients to have earlier access to new therapies and make results more generalizable to clinical practice.

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

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