American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement update: the critical role of phase I trials in cancer research and treatment

The Benefits and Risks of Receiving Investigational Solid Tumor Drugs in Randomized Trials : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many patients participate in cancer trials to access new therapies. The extent to which new treatments produce clinical benefit for trial participants is unclear.

PURPOSE

To estimate the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) advantage of assignment to experimental groups in randomized trials for 6 solid tumors.

DATA SOURCES

ClinicalTrials.gov was searched for trials of investigational drugs with results posted between 2017 and 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Investigational drugs were defined as those not yet having full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the study indication. Trials were included if they were randomized and tested drugs or biologics.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction was completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The sample included 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of a new drug and a comparator. These comparisons included 47 050 patients. The pooled hazard ratio for PFS was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85), indicating statistically significant benefit for patients in experimental groups. This corresponded to a median PFS advantage of 1.25 months (CI, 0.80 to 1.68 months). The pooled hazard ratio for OS was 0.92 (CI, 0.88 to 0.95), corresponding to a survival gain of 1.18 months (CI, 0.72 to 1.71 months). The absolute risk for a serious adverse event for comparator group patients was 29.56% (CI, 26.64% to 32.65%), with an increase in risk of 7.40% (CI, 5.66% to 9.14%) for patients in experimental groups.

LIMITATIONS

Trials in this sample were heterogeneous. Comparator group interventions were assumed to reflect standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Assignment to experimental groups produces statistically significant survival gains. However, the absolute survival gain is small, and toxicity is statistically significantly greater. The findings of this review provide reassuring evidence that patients are not meaningfully disadvantaged by assignment to comparator groups.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Everolimus in combination with vandetanib in children, adolescents, and young adults: a phase I study

BACKGROUND

Combined use of inhibitors of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-2) receptors is a potential strategy to overcome resistance to either class of drugs when used alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We designed a phase 1 trial to test the drug combination of a multikinase VEGF receptor 2 inhibitor, vandetanib, and an mTOR inhibitor, everolimus, in a pediatric and young adult patient cohort with advanced cancers. Exceptional responders were probed for tumor mutational profile to explore possible molecular mechanisms of response.

RESULTS

Among 21 enrolled patients, clinical benefit was observed in 38% (one patient with partial response and eight patients with stable disease) with a median progression-free survival of 3.3 months. The most common treatment-related adverse event was rash (n = 13). Other treatment-related toxicities included diarrhea, fatigue, hypertension, QT prolongation, hypertriglyceridemia/hypercholesterolemia, transaminitis, thrombocytopenia, and weight loss. None of the patients experienced dose-limiting toxicities. Three exceptional responders were analyzed and were found to harbor genetic alterations including kinase insert domain receptor (KDR) Q472H mutation, EWSR1-CREB3L1, CDKN2A/B loss, and ASPL/ASPSCR1-TFE3 fusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of vandetanib and everolimus showed early activity and tolerable toxicity profile in pediatric patients with advanced cancers.

A pilot randomized study of a telephone-based cognitive-behavioral stress-management intervention to reduce distress in phase 1 oncology trial caregivers

OBJECTIVES

Caregivers of adult phase 1 oncology trial patients experience high levels of distress and face barriers to in-person supportive care. The Phase 1 Caregiver LifeLine (P1CaLL) pilot study assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and general impact of an individual telephone-based cognitive behavioral stress-management (CBSM) intervention for caregivers of phase I oncology trial patients.

METHODS

The pilot study involved 4 weekly adapted CBSM sessions followed by participant randomization to 4 weekly cognitive behavioral therapy sessions or metta-meditation sessions. A mixed-methods design used quantitative data from 23 caregivers and qualitative data from 5 caregivers to examine the feasibility and acceptability outcomes. Feasibility was determined using recruitment, retention, and assessment completion rates. Acceptability was assessed with self-reported satisfaction with program content and participation barriers. Baseline to post-intervention changes in caregiver distress and other psychosocial outcomes were assessed for the 8-session intervention.

RESULTS

The enrollment rate was 45.3%, which demonstrated limited feasibility based on an a priori criterion enrollment rate of 50%. Participants completed an average of 4.9 sessions, with 9/25 (36%) completing all sessions and an 84% assessment completion rate. Intervention acceptability was high, and participants found the sessions helpful in managing stress related to the phase 1 oncology trial patient experience. Participants showed reductions in worry and isolation and stress.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The P1CaLL study demonstrated adequate acceptability and limited feasibility and provided data on the general impact of the intervention on caregiver distress and other psychosocial outcomes. Caregivers of phase 1 oncology trial patients would benefit from supportive care services; a telephone-based intervention may have more utilization and thus make a larger impact.

Inequality factors in access to early-phase clinical trials in oncology in France: results of the EGALICAN-2 study

BACKGROUND

Investigation of the disparities in the access to experimental treatment in early-phase clinical trials is lacking. The objective of the EGALICAN-2 study was to identify the factors underpinning such inequalities.

METHODS

A national prospective survey was conducted in 11 early-phase clinical trial centers (CLIP2) certified by the French National Cancer Institute. Sociodemographic, socioeconomic and medical data were collected. Univariate logistic regression models were carried out to estimate odds ratios and 90% confidence intervals associated with the effect of each study variable. A multivariate logistic regression model was built to explore the independent factors associated with the administration of the experimental treatment (C1D1). A post hoc analysis was carried out excluding female cancer patients.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2016, 1355 patients referred from 11 CLIP2 centers in France were included in the study. Eight hundred and forty-eight patients received C1D1 (73%) and 320 patients (27%) were screening failure. Median age was 58 years (range 17-97 years) and 667 patients (54%) were female. Most patients had a metastatic disease (n = 751, 87%). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the significant independent factors associated with C1D1 were male sex, initial care received in a hospital with an early-phase unit and living in wealthy metropolitan areas (P values <0.05). In the post hoc analysis, the sex factor was no longer significant [odds ratio = 1.21 (95% confidence interval 0.86-1.70), P value = 0.271].

CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated the factors producing social inequalities in the context of early-phase clinical trials in oncology. Our research highlights factors of sex, care pathway and geographic location. Gynecological cancer was found to impact C1D1 significantly, unlike breast cancer. The results of this study should contribute to improve patient access to early-phase clinical trials.

Principal Investigators' Perceptions on Factors Associated with Successful Recruitment in Clinical Trials

Participant recruitment continues to be a challenge to the success of randomized controlled trials, resulting in increased costs, extended trial timelines and delayed treatment availability. Literature provides evidence that study design features (e.g., trial phase, study site involvement) and trial sponsor are significantly associated with recruitment success. Principal investigators oversee the conduct of clinical trials, including recruitment. Through a cross-sectional survey and a thematic analysis of free-text responses, we assessed the perceptions of sixteen principal investigators regarding success factors for participant recruitment. Study site involvement and funding source do not necessarily make recruitment easier or more challenging from the perspective of the principal investigators. The most commonly used recruitment strategies are also the most effort inefficient (e.g., in-person recruitment, reviewing the electronic medical records for prescreening). Finally, we recommended actionable steps, such as improving staff support and leveraging informatics-driven approaches, to allow clinical researchers to enhance participant recruitment.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

When research becomes practice: the concept of the therapeutic misconception and challenges to consent in clinical trials

Many factors influence patients' decisions to participate in clinical trials. For many, the primary motivation is the possibility that they might derive some benefit from participation. This is particularly true for patients with limited treatment options, such as patients with advanced cancer. While this is not surprising, it is potentially problematic if patients fail to recognise the distinction between research and clinical care (a phenomenon known as the 'therapeutic misconception'). This is becoming increasingly problematic as clinical trial designs become more complex, as clinical trials become more embedded in routine clinical care, and as trials are increasingly used by patients and clinicians to access new diagnostic platforms and therapies. We outline some of these recent trends, focusing on the cancer clinical trials landscape as this provides a good case study of the phenomenon. We conclude by making preliminary suggestions that changes to the consent process, perhaps using 'dynamic consent' platforms, might help to mitigate the therapeutic misconception and note the need for further research to guide strategies for improving communication and decision-making.

Participation of Patients From Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups in Phase 1 Early Cancer Drug Development Trials in the US, 2000-2018

IMPORTANCE

Despite federal initiatives encouraging the enrollment of individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups in US clinical trials, no studies to date have specifically examined demographic disparities among participants in phase 1 drug development trials for patients with metastatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To assess trends in the enrollment of patients from racial and ethnic minority groups in US phase 1 therapeutic drug trials for metastatic cancer from 2000 to 2018.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, ClinicalTrials.gov was queried in July 2021 to identify completed phase 1 drug trials for metastatic cancer in the US from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2018, with published results, yielding 221 phase 1 trials with 8309 participants aged 18 years or older with metastatic solid tumors. Proportions of each racial and ethnic group of trial participants were compared with that from the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries' Cancer in North America (CiNA) database. Statistical analysis was performed from July 12, 2021, to March 15, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For each racial and ethnic group, the difference between trial and CiNA proportions was examined using a 2-sample test for equality of proportions with continuity correction.

RESULTS

The 8309 phase 1 trial participants (4198 men [50.5%]; median age, 59 years) included 23 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (0.3%), 371 Asian or Pacific Islander participants (4.5%), 514 Black participants (6.2%), 401 of 5076 Hispanic or Latinx participants (7.9%), and 7154 White participants (86.1%). Industry funded 165 of the 221 trials (74.7%). White patients were overrepresented overall compared with the corresponding CiNA cohort (7154 of 8309 [86.1%] vs 4 113 096 of 4 891 486 [84.1%]; difference, 2.0 percentage points; P < .001). There was an increase in overrepresentation of White patients from 2000 to 2011 (trials, 2780 of 3245 [85.7%]; CiNA, 2 378 019 of 2 800 711 [84.9%]; difference, 0.8 percentage points; P = .23) to 2012-2018 (trials, 4374 of 5063 [86.4%]; CiNA, 1 735 077 of 2 090 775 [82.9%]; difference, 3.5 percentage points; P < .001) and corresponding worsening representation of American Indian or Alaska Native patients (2000-2011: trials, 10 of 3245 [0.3%]; CiNA, 10 905 of 2 800 711 [0.4%]; difference, -0.08 percentage points; 2012-2018: trials, 13 of 5063 [0.3%]; CiNA, 9484 of 2 090 775 [0.5%]; difference, -0.20 percentage points), Asian or Pacific Islander patients (2000-2011: trials, 121 of 3245 [3.7%]; CiNA, 75 033 of 2 800 711 [2.7%]; difference, 1.1 percentage points; 2012-2018: trials, 151 of 5063 [3.0%]; CiNA 70 535 of 2 090 775 [3.4%]; difference, -0.75 percentage points), Black patients (2000-2011: trials, 244 of 3245 [7.5%]; CiNA, 322 701 of 2 800 711 [11.5%]; difference, -4.0 percentage points; 2012-2018: trials, 270 of 5063 [5.3%]; CiNA, 255 625 of 2 090 775 [12.2%]; difference, -6.9 percentage points), and Hispanic or Latinx patients (2000-2011: trials, 161 of 1792 [9.0%]; CiNA, 169 297 of 2 800 711 [6.0%]; difference, 3.0 percentage points; 2012-2018: trials, 240 of 3295 [7.3%]; CiNA, 156 118 of 2 090 775 [7.5%]; difference, -0.2 percentage points). Similar disparities were observed when comparing industry-funded and academic center-sponsored trials.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study of participants in phase 1 clinical trials of drugs for metastatic cancer, worsening disparities were observed over time in the accrual of patients from racial and ethnic minority groups. These findings may represent widening inequalities in access to trial sites and worsening systemic biases. More efforts are needed to diversify phase 1 cancer drug trials to improve equity in access to new treatments and to ensure that safety and efficacy findings from early drug trials are generalizable across populations.

An Expanded Role for IRBs in the Oversight of Research Biopsies

Research biopsies included in cancer clinical trials have the goal of advancing scientific understanding of the biological bases of cancer and its treatments, but may offer no prospect of direct benefit to participants and often pose more than minimal risk. The research community is examining the ethics of research biopsies increasingly often, especially when they are mandatory for study participation but do not support primary study objectives and thus are "nonintegral" to the study. Ethical concerns center on the limited scientific justification supporting some biopsies, risks to research participants, and the potential for coercion and therapeutic misconception during the informed consent process. There is also a lack of comprehensive oversight of research biopsies by regulatory agencies and institutions. This paper reviews these ethical concerns, discusses the scope of federal oversight, and suggests that institutional review boards (IRBs) should assume a larger role in ensuring the ethical conduct of research biopsies. It concludes with guidance to IRBs on how to weigh the risks, benefits, and acceptability of such biopsies in different contexts that is based on a framework the American Society of Clinical Oncology developed for the inclusion of research biopsies in oncology clinical trials.

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients' decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials.

METHODS

Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients' common language about cancer and clinical trials.

RESULTS

Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one's fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one's fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature.

CONCLUSIONS

This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients' emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial.

The ‘false hope’ argument in discussions on expanded access to investigational drugs: a critical assessment

When seriously ill patients reach the end of the standard treatment trajectory for their condition, they may qualify for the use of unapproved, investigational drugs regulated via expanded access programs. In medical-ethical discourse, it is often argued that expanded access to investigational drugs raises ‘false hope’ among patients and is therefore undesirable. We set out to investigate what is meant by the false hope argument in this discourse. In this paper, we identify and analyze five versions of the false hope argument which we call: (1) the limited chance at benefit argument, (2) the side effects outweighing benefits argument, (3) the opportunity costs argument, (4) the impossibility of making informed decisions argument, and (5) the difficulty of gaining access argument. We argue that the majority of these five versions do not provide normative ground for disqualifying patients’ hopes as false. Only when hope is rooted in a mistaken belief, for example, about the likelihood of benefits or chances on medical risks, or when hope is directed at something that cannot possibly be obtained, should it be considered false. If patients are adequately informed about their odds of obtaining medical benefit, however small, and about the risks associated with an investigational treatment, it is unjustified to consider patients’ hopes to be false, and hence, to deny them access to investigational drug based on that argument.

Quantifying geographical accessibility to cancer clinical trials in different income landscapes

Background

Clinical trials are increasingly perceived as a therapeutic opportunity for cancer patients. Favoring their concentration in few high-expertise academic centers maximizes quality of data collection but poses an issue of access equality. Analytical tools to quantify trial accessibility are needed to rationalize resources.

Materials and methods

We constructed a distance-based accessibility index (dAI) using publicly available data on demographics, cancer incidence and trials. Multiple strategies were applied to mitigate or quantify clear sources of bias: reporting biases by text mining multiple registries; reliability of simple geographical distance by comparison with high-quality travel cost data for Italy; index inflation due to highly heterogeneous cancer incidence by log-transformation. We studied inequalities by Gini index and time trend significance by Mann–Kendall test. We simulated different resource allocation models in representative countries and identified locations where new studies would maximally improve the national index.

Results

The dAI approximated well a more realistic but not widely applicable travel cost-based index. Accessibility was unevenly distributed across and within countries (Gini index ∼0.75), with maximal inequalities in high- and upper-middle-income countries (China, United States, Russian Federation). Over time, accessibility increased but less than the total number of trials, most evidently in upper-middle-income countries. Simulations in representative countries (Italy and Serbia) identified ideal locations able to maximally raise the national index.

Conclusions

Access to clinical trials is highly uneven across and within countries and is not mitigated by simple increase in the number of trials; a rational algorithmic approach can be used to mitigate inequalities.

•

Accessibility to cancer clinical trials grew less than total number of trials over time in upper-middle-income countries.

•

Accessibility is unevenly distributed, with maximal inequalities in high- and upper-middle-income countries.

•

Simulation of resource allocation can identify ideal locations able to raise the national accessibility index.

Trends in Grade 5 Toxicity and Response in Phase I Trials in Hematologic Malignancy: 20-Year Experience From the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute

PURPOSE

Cancer drug development has largely shifted from cytotoxic chemotherapy to targeted treatment in the past two decades. Although previous studies have highlighted improvement in response rates in recent phase I trials, disease-focused reporting is limited.

METHODS

We integrated patient-level data for patients with hematologic malignancies who participated in phase I trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program between January 2000 and May 2019 and estimated the trend of grade 5 toxicity and response by disease subtype over time.

RESULTS

We analyzed 161 trials involving 3,308 patients, all of whom were assessed for toxicity and 2,404 of whom were evaluable for response to therapy. The overall rate of grade 5 toxicities was 1.81% (95% CI, 1.36 to 2.27), with no significant change in the rate over time. Baseline characteristics associated with higher risk of grade 5 toxicity were age and performance status ≥ 2 at enrollment. Overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate for all trials during the study period were 25.1% and 14.7%, respectively. A significant increase in both ORR and CR rate was observed over time (ORR: 18.5% in 2000-2005, 25.9% in 2006-2012, and 50.6% in 2013-2019, P < .001). ORR in phase I trials varied across disease subtypes: 20.2% in acute myeloid leukemia, 9.1% in myelodysplastic syndrome, 43.2% in lymphoma, 42.9% in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, 15.1% in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and 16.5% in myeloma.

CONCLUSION

Over time, the ORR and CR rates in phase I trials for hematologic malignancy have improved meaningfully, whereas the rate of toxicity-related death remains stable. This study provides broad experience that physicians can use when discussing the potential outcomes for patients with hematologic malignancy considering participation in phase I trials.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Consensus statement for treatment protocols in pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC)

Objectives

Safe implementation and thorough evaluation of new treatments require prospective data monitoring and standardization of treatments. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a promising alternative for the treatment of patients with peritoneal disease with an increasing number of suggested drug regimens. The aim was to reach expert consensus on current PIPAC treatment protocols and to define the most important research topics.

Methods

The expert panel included the most active PIPAC centers, organizers of PIPAC courses and principal investigators of prospective studies on PIPAC. A comprehensive literature review served as base for a two-day hybrid consensus meeting which was accompanied by a modified three-round Delphi process. Consensus bar was set at 70% for combined (strong and weak) positive or negative votes according to GRADE. Research questions were prioritized from 0 to 10 (highest importance).

Results

Twenty-two out of 26 invited experts completed the entire consensus process. Consensus was reached for 10/10 final questions. The combination of doxorubicin (2.1 mg/m²) and cisplatin (10.5 mg/m²) was endorsed by 20/22 experts (90.9%). 16/22 (72.7%) supported oxaliplatin at 120 with potential reduction to 90 mg/m² (frail patients), and 77.2% suggested PIPAC-Ox in combination with 5-FU. Mitomycin-C and Nab-paclitaxel were favoured as alternative regimens. The most important research questions concerned PIPAC conditions (n=3), standard (n=4) and alternative regimens (n=5) and efficacy of PIPAC treatment (n=2); 8/14 were given a priority of ≥8/10.

Conclusions

The current consensus should help to limit heterogeneity of treatment protocols but underlines the utmost importance of further research.

Therapeutic Misconception about Research Procedures: Does a Simple Information Chart Improve Understanding?

In phase I trials, some biospecimens are used both for research and patient care and some for research only. Some research participants have therapeutic misconception, assuming all biospecimens are for patient care. This study's aim was to test if a simple information chart would improve understanding of nontherapeutic research procedures. A two-arm study was conducted. Participants in the control group (C) were asked whether biospecimens were for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental group (E) was asked the same questions but provided with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of each biospecimen. One hundred one patients were interviewed. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment blood draws were for patient care and research was moderate (49% for C and 62% for E). Understanding that posttreatment blood draws were for research only was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% for C and 44% for E; p = 0.002). Providing a simple information chart may help alleviate this aspect of therapeutic misconception.

Do the Potential Medical Benefits of Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Trials Justify the Risks? Views of the United States Public

OBJECTIVES

To assess the US public's views on whether the potential medical benefits of phase 1 pediatric oncology trials justify the risks.

STUDY DESIGN

Online survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults. Participants were presented with a hypothetical scenario in which they have a 10-year-old child with advanced cancer. They were then offered the option of giving their child supportive care or trying one more potential treatment, in the research or clinical care setting, which has the same risks and potential medical benefits as the average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial. We assessed what percentage of respondents thought the potential medical benefits justify the risks.

RESULTS

In total, 1658 of the 2508 individuals who were sent the survey participated (response rate = 66.1%). Of those who passed all 3 test questions indicating understanding, 67.1% in the research scenario and 58.5% in the clinical care scenario regarded the potential medical benefits of an average phase 1 pediatric oncology trial as equal to or greater than the risks. In addition, 53.4% of respondents in the research scenario thought it was appropriate for researchers to conduct a study in children with these risks and potential medical benefits, and 46.9% stated they would enroll their own child in such a trial.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of the US public regards the potential medical benefits of average phase 1 pediatric oncology trials as justifying the risks. This finding suggests that these trials are ethically appropriate and approvable in patients who have no more effective treatment options. At the same time, a significant minority thought the potential medical benefits do not justify the risks, suggesting these trials should be approved only when they have significant social value. Moreover, approximately one-half of respondents regarded the trials as inappropriate and would not enroll their own child, underscoring the need for a rigorous informed consent process that accurately educates parents regarding the risks, potential medical benefits, and alternatives, so they can decide whether to enroll their child based on their own preferences and goals.

Revisiting Risk and Benefit in Early Oncology Trials in the Era of Precision Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Phase I Trials of Targeted Single-Agent Anticancer Therapies

PURPOSE

Phase I trials are a crucial step in the evaluation of new cancer therapies. Historically, low rates of response (5%) and comparably high rates of death from toxicities (0.5%) have contributed to debates on the ethics and orientation of these trials. With the introduction of novel targeted therapies, a contemporary estimate is needed.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for reports of phase I oncology trials of single-agent targeted immunomodulators, molecularly targeted therapies, and antiangiogenic agents, published between January 2015 and July 2018. Adult and pediatric trials of solid and hematological malignancies were eligible. Treatment-related adverse events (grades 3, 4, and 5) and response rates (objective, complete, and partial) were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-eight trial reports, covering 6,707 patients, were included. The rate of treatment-related deaths was 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0 to 0.1), while 13.2% of patients (9.5 to 17.3) experienced a grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxicity. The combined objective response rate was 6.4% (4.6 to 8.5). Among trials using tumor biomarkers as eligibility criteria, the objective response rate was higher (12.0% [7.3 to 17.6] compared to 4.9% [2.5 to 5.7], P value < .01). The same was true of trials focusing on a single tumor type (13.4% [8.2 to 19.4]) compared to multiple tumor types (3.8% [2.5 to 5.3], P value < .01).

CONCLUSION

Reduced grade 5 risk and improved benefit appears to exist in modern phase I oncology trials, particularly in trials that target single tumor types and integrate biomarkers as eligibility criteria. These findings provide information to support informed consent discussions, highlight the need for improved reporting of phase I oncology trials, and provide direction for optimizing their design.

Disparities in phase 1 cancer clinical trial enrollment

BACKGROUND

Phase 1 trials are increasingly important in the molecularly driven era of oncology, but few studies have examined phase 1 participation disparities. The authors of this study investigated factors associated with phase 1 versus phase 2/3 trial enrollment.

METHODS

They authors conducted a cross-sectional study using serial samples of patients age ≥18 years enrolling on cancer trials from October 2011 to November 2014 at an academic cancer center. They used univariable and multivariable logistic regression models to analyze sociodemographic and clinical associations with phase 1 versus phase 2/3 trial enrollment.

RESULTS

Among 3103 patients enrolled in cancer trials, 2657 unique patients participated in phase 1/2/3 trials. For patients enrolled in phase 1 (n = 1401) versus phase 2/3 (n = 1256) trials, we found no significant differences by age, insurance status, marital status, and income. Overall, 1216 (93%) White, 72 (6%) Asian, and 21 (2%) Black patients enrolled on phase 1 trials, whereas 1068 (93%) White, 40 (3%) Asian, and 43 (4%) Black patients enrolled on phase 2/3 trials. Adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, marital status, income, cancer type, disease status, travel distance, and trial year, compared with White patients, Black patients had lower phase 1 enrollment (odds ratio [OR], 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.82), as did Hispanic/Latino (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08-0.79) and male patients (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94). Asian patients had higher phase 1 enrollment (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.88-2.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in phase 1 versus phase 2/3 cancer clinical trial enrollment underscore the urgent need for interventions addressing inequities in early-phase trial participation.

LAY SUMMARY

Phase 1 trials are of increasing importance in oncology. The authors of the study analyzed all patients enrolling on cancer clinical trials at a large academic cancer center from October 2011 to November 2014. Among the 2657 trial participants, when age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, marital status, income, cancer type, disease status, travel distance, and trial year were taken into account, Black, Hispanic/Latino, and male patients were less likely to enroll on phase 1 trials versus phase 2/3 trials. These findings suggest a need for targeted interventions to improve access to and education about phase 1 trials for Black and Hispanic/Latino patients.

Pragmatic patient engagement in designing pragmatic oncology clinical trials

Oncology trials are the cornerstone of effective and safe therapeutic discoveries. However, there is increasing demand for pragmatism and patient engagement in the design, implementation and dissemination of oncology trials. Many researchers are uncertain about making trials more practical and even less knowledgeable about how to meaningfully engage patients without compromising scientific rigor to meet regulatory requirements. The present work provides practical guidance for addressing both pragmaticism and meaningful patient engagement. Applying evidence-based approaches like PRECIS-2-tool and the 10-Step Engagement Framework offer practical guidance to make future trials in oncology truly pragmatic and patient-centered. Consequently, such patient-centered trials have improved participation, faster recruitment and greater retention, and uptake of innovative technologies in community-based care.

Anxiety Shapes Expectations of Therapeutic Benefit in Phase I Trials for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Spousal Caregivers

PURPOSE

Advanced cancer patients (ACP) hope to receive significant therapeutic benefit from phase I trials despite terminal disease and presumed symptom burdens. We examined associations between symptom burdens and expectations of therapeutic benefit for ACP and spousal caregivers (SC) during phase I trials.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective cohort of ACP-SC enrolled in phase I trials was assessed at baseline and one month using symptom burden measures evaluating depression, state-trait anxiety, quality of life, global health, post-traumatic coping, and marital adjustment. Interviews evaluated expectations of benefit.

RESULTS

Fifty-two phase I ACP and 52 SC (N = 104) were separately assessed and interviewed at baseline and one month. Total population demographics included the following: median age 61 years (28-78), 50% male, 100% married, 90% White, and 46% ≥ college education. At T1, ACP reported symptoms of mild state anxiety, mild trait anxiety, poor global health, and quality of life. SC reported moderate state and mild trait anxiety and good global health with little disability at baseline. State anxiety was a significant predictor of ACP expectations for phase I producing the following therapeutic benefits: stabilization (P = .01), shrinkage (P < .01), and remission (P = .04). Regression analyses also revealed negative associations between SC expectation for stabilization and SC anxiety: state (P = .01) and trait (P = .02). ACP quality of life was also negatively associated with SC expectations for stabilization (P = .02) and shrinkage (P = .01).

CONCLUSION

Anxiety, both state and trait, impacts couples' beliefs regarding the likelihood of therapeutic benefit from phase I trial participation.

Parents' Insights into Pediatric Oncology Phase I Clinical Trials: Experiences from Their Child's Participation

OBJECTIVES

Phase 1 clinical trials are essential in the development of novel therapies for childhood cancers. Children with cancer can participate in phase 1 clinical trials when no known curative therapy remains. Understanding the experiences of children and their families in these clinical trials can help ensure that participation supports the children's and parents' well-being. This article explores the specific aspects of pediatric oncology phase 1 trials that parents found particularly challenging.

DATA SOURCES

This qualitative, empirical phenomenology study considered 11 parents' experiences during the time their child with cancer participated in a phase 1 clinical trial. The primary study results were previously reported. This article reports parents' insights into the processes and procedures that occurred as part of participation in a pediatric oncology phase 1 trial.

CONCLUSION

Parents' experiences during the phase 1 clinical trials were primarily positive. However, data analysis revealed five aspects of these trials that were challenging for families: learning about clinical trials, being referred to another institution, research-only procedures, adhering to trial requirements, and oral medications.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Although experiences during phase 1 clinical trials were positive overall, opportunities to enhance children's and parents' experiences warrant attention. Enhancing the education provided to families during recruitment and minimizing the logistical burdens associated with trial requirements through care coordination may alleviate challenges experienced by children and parents.

Race and ethnicity representation in clinical trials: findings from a literature review of Phase I oncology trials

Aim: To provide an assessment of published literature on the demographic representation in Phase I trials of biopharmaceutical oncology agents. Materials & methods: We conducted a rapid evidence assessment to identify demographic representation reported in Phase I clinical trials for biopharmaceutical oncology agents published in 2019. Results: Globally, the population was predominantly White/Caucasian (62.2%). In the USA, the distribution was heavily skewed toward White/Caucasian (84.2%), with minimal representation of Blacks/African-Americans (7.3%), Asians (3.4%), Hispanics/Latinos (2.8%) or other race/ethnicity groups. Conclusion: Our data highlight that Phase I oncology trials do not reflect the population at large, which may perpetuate health disparities. Further research is needed to understand and address barriers to participation, particularly among under-represented groups.

Proportion of Patients in Phase I Oncology Trials Receiving Treatments That Are Ultimately Approved

BACKGROUND

Phase I oncology trials are often regarded as a therapeutic option for patients. However, such claims have relied on surrogate measures of benefit, such as objective response.

METHODS

Using a systematic search of publications, we assessed the therapeutic value of phase I cancer trial participation by determining the probability that patients will receive active doses of treatments that eventually receive FDA approval or a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendation for their indication. ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, American Society of Clinical Oncology reports, NCCN guidelines, and Drugs@FDA were searched between May 1, 2018, and July 31, 2018. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

A total of 1000 phase I oncology trials initiated between 2005 and 2010 and enrolling 32 582 patients were randomly sampled from 3229 eligible trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. A total of 386 (1.2%) patients received a treatment that was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for their malignancy at a dose delivered in the trial; including NCCN guideline recommendations, the number and proportion are 1168 (3.6%). Meta-regression showed a statistically significantly greater proportion of patients receiving a drug that was ultimately FDA approved in biomarker trials (rate ratio = 4.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 13.23; P = .006) and single-indication trials (rate ratio = 3.32, 95% CI = 1.21 to 9.15; P  = .02); proportions were statistically significantly lower for combination vs monotherapy trials (rate ratio = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.68; P  = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

One in 83 patients in phase I cancer trials received a treatment that was approved for their indication at the doses received. Given published estimates of serious adverse event rates of 10%-19%, this represents low therapeutic value for phase I trial participation.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Phase I Oncology Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate patient-reported outcome (PRO) usage in phase I oncology clinical trials, including types of PRO measures and changes over time.

METHODS

We analyzed ClinicalTrials.gov records of phase I oncology clinical trials completed by December 2019.

RESULTS

Of all eligible trials, 2.3% (129/5,515) reported ≥1 PRO, totaling 181 instances of PRO usage. PRO usage increased over time, from 0.6% (trials initiated before 2000) to 3.4% (trials starting between 2015 and 2019). The most common PRO measures were unspecified (29%), tumor-specific (24%), and generic cancer (19%).

CONCLUSION

Although uncommon in phase I oncology clinical trials, PRO usage is increasing over time. PRO measures were often unspecified on ClinicalTrials.gov, suggesting that more precise reporting and standardization are needed.

End-of-Life Childhood Cancer Research: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Children with incurable cancer may participate in research studies at the end of life (EOL). These studies create knowledge that can improve the care of future patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe stakeholder perspectives regarding research studies involving children with cancer at the EOL by conduct of a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We used the following data sources: Ovid Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ProQuest (inception until August 2020).

STUDY SELECTION

We selected 24 articles published in English that examined perceptions or experiences of research participation for children with cancer at the EOL from the perspectives of children, parents, and health professionals (HPs).

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed study quality, and performed thematic analysis and synthesis.

RESULTS

Eight themes were identified: (1) seeking control; (2) faith, hope, and uncertainty; (3) being a good parent; (4) helping others; (5) barriers and facilitators; (6) information and understanding; (7) the role of HPs in consent and beyond; and (8) involvement of the child in decision-making.

LIMITATIONS

Study designs were heterogeneous. Only one study discussed palliative care research.

CONCLUSIONS

Some families participate in EOL research seeking to gain control and sustain hope, despite uncertainty. Other families choose against research, prioritizing quality of life. Parents may perceive research participation as the role of a "good parent" and hope to help others. HPs have positive views of EOL research but fear that parents lack understanding of the purpose of studies and the likelihood of benefit. We identified barriers to research participation and informed consent.

Therapeutic outcome of early-phase clinical trials in multiple myeloma: a meta-analysis

Great progress in the treatment of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) has been made due to the development of novel drugs. Patients with relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) can be enrolled in early-phase clinical trials, but their performance across the last decade is unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis on the overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for phase I and phase II trials investigating an experimental compound as a single agent or in combination with dexamethasone, published from January 1, 2010 to July 1, 2020. Eighty-eight articles were included, describing 61 phase I trials involving 1835 patients and 37 phase II trials involving 2644 patients. There was a high degree of heterogeneity. Using a random-effects model, the 95% CIs of the estimated ORR were 8-17% for phase I trials and 18-28% for phase II trials. There were significant subgroup differences in ORR between the years of publication in phase I trials and between drug classes in both phase I and phase II trials. The ORR in early-phase clinical trials in RRMM is substantial, especially in phase II trials, but due to high heterogeneity a general assessment of clinical benefit before participation is difficult to offer to patients.

Ethical Challenges in Pediatric Oncology Care and Clinical Trials

The care of pediatric cancer patients is a vast departure from cancer care of adults. While the available treatment modalities-chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery-are the same, the diseases, care-delivery, and outcomes differ greatly. And just as 'children are not just little adults,' pediatric bioethics occupies a distinct place within the broader field of bioethics. In this chapter, we will begin with an introduction to fundamental principles and frameworks for understanding ethical issues in pediatrics, highlighting the triadic nature of medical decision-making between a physician, the child-patient, and the child's parent as the surrogate decision-maker. We will then delve into further details of how these principles and frameworks shape the care of children with cancer, examining specific ethical challenges commonly encountered by pediatric oncologists. We will traverse this landscape by examining issues involving (a) informed consent; (b) research involving children; (c) end of life; (d) genetic and genomic testing; and (e) professionalism. We also examine ethical challenges in clinical research, in children and more broadly. While not an exhaustive exploration of the myriad ethical issues one might encounter in pediatric cancer medicine and clinical trials, this chapter provides readers with a foundation for further reading.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Ethics of Pharma Clinical Trials in the Era of Precision Oncology

Pharmaceutical industry clinical trials are ethically problematic: human research subjects are being used as a means to the end of demonstrating statistically significant efficacy of novel anticancer agents to achieve regulatory registration and marketing approval. Randomized controlled trial design is inequitable since control arm patients are denied access to the postulated best treatment. Most pharma studies do not provide clinically meaningful benefit of increased overall survival and enhanced quality of life (QOL) to cohorts and are not reliably generalizable to real-world patients. Precision oncology now enables prospective identification of patients expressing a specific cancer biomarker to determine their particular eligibility for evaluation of efficiency of molecular-targeted treatments. A patient-centered approach, collecting prospective real-world data in large populations, could provide real-world evidence of cost-effective, sustained clinical benefits of survival and QOL, while preserving the ethical beneficent compact between patient and doctor.

Fractional design: An alternative paradigm for late-onset toxicities in oncology dose-finding studies

Late-onset (LO) toxicities often arise in the new era of phase I oncology dose-finding trials with targeted agents or immunotherapies. The current LO toxicities modelling is often formulated in a weighted likelihood framework, where the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) is commonly used. The TITE-CRM uses the patient exposure time as a weight for the censored observation, while there is large uncertainty on which weight function to be used. As an alternative, the fractional scheme formulates an efficient and robust paradigm to address LO toxicity issues in dose finding. We review the fractional continual reassessment method (fCRM) and compare its operating characteristics with those of the TITE-CRM as well as other competitive designs via extensive simulation studies based on both the fixed and randomly generated scenarios. The fCRM is shown to possess desirable operating characteristics in identifying the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and deliver competitive performances in comparison with other designs. It provides an alternative efficient and robust paradigm for interpreting and addressing LO toxicities in the new era of phase I dose-finding trials in precision oncology. A real trial example is used to illustrate the practical use of the fCRM design.

The Potential of Immune Modulation in Therapeutic HIV-1 Vaccination

We discuss here some of the key immunological elements that are at the crossroads and need to be combined to develop a potent therapeutic HIV-1 vaccine. Therapeutic vaccines have been commonly used to enhance and/or recall pre-existing HIV-1-specific cell-mediated immune responses aiming to suppress virus replication. The current success of immune checkpoint blockers in cancer therapy renders them very attractive to use in HIV-1 infected individuals with the objective to preserve the function of HIV-1-specific T cells from exhaustion and presumably target the persistent cellular reservoir. The major latest advances in our understanding of the mechanisms responsible for virus reactivation during therapy-suppressed individuals provide the scientific basis for future combinatorial therapeutic vaccine development.

Evaluation of toxicities related to novel therapy in clinical trials for women with gynecologic cancer

BACKGROUND

Women with gynecologic cancer may be at increased risk for adverse events (AEs) due to peritoneal disease burden and prior treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, and pelvic radiotherapy). This study compared the toxicity profiles of patients with and without gynecologic cancer enrolled in phase 1 trials.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Institute phase 1 database for all trials enrolling 1 or more patients with gynecologic cancer over 2 decades (1995-2015). Clinical parameters collected included demographics, cancer history, trial information, AEs, and responses. AEs (according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were documented for each patient during treatment, and they were counted once and analyzed on the basis of the highest grade and drug attribution. Multiple regression models were used to compare AEs at the baseline and during treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 4269 patients enrolled in 150 trials were divided into 3 groups: 1) women with gynecologic cancer (n = 685), 2) women with nongynecologic cancer (n = 1698), and 3) men with cancer (n = 1886). The median age was 58 years. The mean number of total AEs reported during treatment was highest for women with gynecologic cancer (17.1 vs 14.7 vs 13.5; P < .001), even though they were similar at the baseline (7.0 vs 7.4 vs 7.0; P = .09). The mean number of drug-related AEs was also highest for women with gynecologic cancer (8.3 vs 6.9 vs 6.2; P < .001). Grade 3 to 5 AEs were similar (2.3 vs 2.3 vs 2.1); however, grade 2 AEs were more frequent in women with gynecologic cancer (4.6 vs 3.9 vs 3.5). Treatment discontinuations due to AEs were similar (9% vs 9% vs 10%).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with gynecologic cancer experienced more frequent low-grade AEs during treatment, and this warrants attention to support their symptom burden. Study dose management should be considered for recurrent grade 2 AEs, particularly during continuous therapy.

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

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

Discordant attitudes and beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation between physicians, research staff, and cancer patients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Essential to bringing innovative cancer treatments to patients is voluntary participation in clinical trials but approximately 8% of American cancer patients are enrolled onto a trial. We used a domain-oriented framework to assess barriers to cancer clinical trial enrollment.

METHODS

Physicians (MD, DO, fellows, residents) and research staff (physician assistants, nurse practitioners, staff and research nurses, clinical assistants, and program coordinators) involved in clinical research at a comprehensive cancer center completed an online survey in 2017; adult cancer patients not currently enrolled in a trial were interviewed in 2018. To inform the construct of our physician/staff and patient surveys and to assess barriers to clinical trial enrollment, we first conducted in-depth interviews among 14 key informants representing medical, hematologic, gynecologic, neurologic, radiation oncology, as well as members of the clinical research team (one clinical research coordinator, one research nurse practitioner). Perceived structural, provider- and patient-level barriers to clinical trial enrollment were assessed. Differences in perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward clinical trial enrollment between (1) physicians and staff, (2) patients by ethnicity, and (3) physicians/staff and patients were examined.

RESULTS

In total, 120 physicians/staff involved in clinical research (39.2% physicians, 60.8% staff; 48.0% overall response rate) and 150 cancer patients completed surveys. Nearly three-quarters of physician/staff respondents reported difficulty in keeping track of the eligibility criteria for open studies but was more often cited by physicians than staff (84.4% vs 64.3%, p = 0.02). Physicians more often reported lack of time to present clinical trial information than did staff(p < 0.001); 44.0% of staff versus 18.2% of physicians reported patient family interaction as a clinical trial enrollment barrier (p = 0.007). Hispanic patients more often stated they would join a trial, even if standard therapy was an option compared to non-Hispanic patients (47.7% vs 20.8%, p = 0.002). Comparing the beliefs and perceptions of physicians/staff to those of patients, patients more often reported negative beliefs about clinical trial enrollment (e.g. being in a trial does not help patients personally, 32.9% vs 1.8%, p < 0.001) but less often felt they had no other options when agreeing to join (38.1% vs 85.6%, p < 0.001), and less often refused clinical trial enrollment due to lack of understanding (9.1% vs 63.3%, p = 0.001) than reported by physicians/staff.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate a wide gap between physician/staff and patient attitudes and beliefs about clinical trial enrollment and highlight the importance of focusing future initiatives to raise awareness of this incongruency. Reconciling these differences will require tailored education to reduce implicit biases and dispel misperceptions. Strategies to improve the quality of patient-provider communication and address infrastructure and resource issues are also needed to improve patient enrollment onto cancer clinical trials.

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

PURPOSE

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Phase I trials as valid therapeutic options for patients with cancer

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

A Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Barriers to Enrolling Cancer Patients into Early Phase Clinical Trials: Challenges and Patient-centric Recommendations

Introduction: Early phase clinical trials are the first clinical research step to bringing new cancer therapeutics to patients. At this stage, a new drug's safety, dosing, and scheduling profiles are established as the main endpoints. However, excellent responses due to biomarker-guided and immune checkpoint trials in early phase have resulted in direct approvals of new anti-cancer drugs. Despite doubling of the success rate of new drug approvals, many barriers exist to expeditiously bring active new drugs to the clinic. Areas covered: This review covers roles of members of the early phase program and the challenges they face in enrolling advanced cancer patients to trials. Practical solutions are provided from the perspective of the investigators, regulatory, investigational pharmacy, research nurses, clinical research coordinators, budgets, contracts, and data management. Expert opinion: We are witnessing a burgeoning era in drug development with rapid approval of efficacious drugs. This is achieved by a strong collaboration between investigators, academic institutions, pharmaceutical sponsors, scientists, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and community practices. Herein, we discuss some of the challenges faced by early phase clinical trials programs and discuss methods of improvement.

Well-Being of Child and Family Participants in Phase 1 Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

Pediatric oncology phase 1 clinical trials (P1Ts) are essential to developing new anticancer therapies; however, they raise complex ethical concerns about balancing the need for this research with the well-being of participating children. The purpose of this integrative review was to synthesize and appraise the evidence of how P1T participation, which begins with consent and ends with the transition off the P1T, can affect the well-being (either positively or negatively) of children with cancer. The Resilience in Individuals and Families Affected by Cancer Framework, which has an outcome of well-being, was used to synthesize findings.

LITERATURE SEARCH

Articles on the experiences of child (n = 21) and adult (n = 31) P1T participants were identified through systematic searches.

DATA EVALUATION

Articles were evaluated on rigor and relevance to P1T participant experiences as high, medium, or low.

SYNTHESIS

Minimal empirical evidence was found regarding the effect of P1T participation on the well-being of children with cancer. Adult P1T participant experiences provide insights that could also be important to children's P1T experiences.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

To achieve a balanced approach in P1T consent discussions, nurses and healthcare providers who work with children considering participation in a P1T should share the potential effect of participation on participants' well-being.

Ethical issues in the care of adolescent and young adult oncology patients

The diagnosis and treatment of cancer leads to short-term and long-term challenges for every patient. This is especially true for adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer who strive to gain independence, autonomy, confidence, and social status while developing into adulthood. In this article, we review prominent ethical issues in AYA oncology that are related to autonomy, shared decision-making, care refusal or abandonment, end-of-life care, truth telling, and fertility preservation. Clinicians should recognize that AYA patients develop at their own pace; the onus lies with clinicians to determine the patient's interests, values, maturity, and desire to participate in decision-making.

Parental Experiences of Child Participation in a Phase I Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trial: "We Don't Have Time to Waste"

Children with cancer are only eligible for phase I clinical trials (P1Ts) when no known curative therapy remains. However, the primary aims of P1Ts are not focused on directly benefiting participants. This raises ethical concerns that can be best evaluated by exploring the experiences of participants. An empirical phenomenology study, using an adapted Colaizzi method, was conducted of 11 parents' lived experiences of their child's participation in a pediatric oncology P1T. Study findings were that parents' experiences reflected what it meant to have a child fighting to survive high-risk cancer. Although elements specific to P1T participation were identified, more pervasive was parents' sense of running out of time to find an effective treatment and needing to use time they had with their child well. Even though some problems were identified, overall parents did not regret their child's P1T participation and would recommend P1Ts to other parents of children with cancer.

Therapeutic HIV-1 vaccine: time for immunomodulation and combinatorial strategies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose is to recall some of the key immunological elements that are at the crossroad and need to be combined for developing a potent therapeutic HIV-1 vaccine.

RECENT FINDINGS

Therapeutic vaccines and cytokines have been commonly used to enhance and/or recall preexisting HIV-1 specific cell-mediated immune responses aiming to suppress virus replication. While the vaccine is important to stimulate HIV-1 specific T-cell responses, the cytokine may support the expansion of the stimulated virus-specific T cells. Moreover, the current success of immune checkpoint blockers in cancer therapy render them very attractive to use in HIV-1 infected individuals, with the objective to preserve the function of HIV-specific T cells from exhaustion and target directly HIV-1 cell reservoir. More recently, the development of passive immunotherapy using broad neutralizing HIV antibodies (bNAbs) and their potential capacity to elicit innate or adaptive HIV-cellular responses, beyond their neutralizing activity, offers a new opportunity to improve the efficiency of therapeutic vaccine. These major advances provide the scientific basis for developing potent combinatorial interventions in HIV-1 infected patients.

SUMMARY

Major advances in our immunological understanding resulting from basic science and clinical trials studies have paved the way and established a solid platform to jump over the stumbling blocks that prevent the field from developing a therapeutic HIV-1 vaccine. It is time for immuno-modulation and combinatorial strategies towards HIV-1 eradication.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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