Availability of data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to cancer clinical trials: Report from an ASCO-ACCC collaboration

6530

Background: Only a small fraction of patients with cancer participate in treatment trials. Patients identifying as members of racial and ethnic minority groups are consistently underrepresented in these trials. A recent systematic review reported that patients, regardless of race and ethnicity, are willing to enroll in trials if asked to participate by their treating clinician. Prospective and longitudinal data and metrics at the site- and clinician-level are necessary to understand whether patients are equitably considered for clinical trials. Methods: ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a self-assessment for trial sites to record and gauge the number of patients across races and ethnicities screened, offered, and enrolled into clinical trials. Research sites, from across the US, were recruited through an open call to apply to participate in the ASCO-ACCC Pilot Project. There were 65 sites assigned to this pilot study, which tested the feasibility and utility of the site assessment. Sites were asked to enter 2019 and 2020 aggregate data for each step along the clinical trial enrollment continuum by select races and ethnicities (Black, Hispanic/Latinx, White) and overall. Results: 62 of 65 sites completed the study and represented a range of settings and practice types (61% academic, 26% hospital/health system, 13% independent). Only 2 sites (3%) were able to provide the data requested at each enrollment step in the assessment (table). Sites that collected the data did not do so routinely (table) and most had to compile data through multiple sources and/or manual extraction (40-100% across enrollment steps). Sites with missing data reported they did not collect data at all (36-64% across enrollment steps), did not collect data in a systematic way (0-29% across enrollment steps), or stated it would be too burdensome to manually review charts to extract data (12-29% across enrollment steps). Conclusions: Data collection and routine evaluation of participation metrics, by race and ethnicity, are necessary to assess and monitor equity and diversity in clinical trials. Most sites in this study did not collect, or routinely collect, data for screening, offering, and consenting patients to clinical trials. Without these data, sites are unable to evaluate and monitor whether their patients have equitable access to clinical trials or establish strategies to address any inequities. ASCO and ACCC will continue to partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting such data in a systematic and automated way, such as through electronic health record systems. [Table: see text]

Lisinopril or carvedilol in prevention of trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity in patients with HER2-positive early stage breast cancer: Longitudinal changes of left ventricular ejection fraction below normal levels (LVEF <50%)

509

Background: Treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer patients with trastuzumab is highly effective. However, a trastuzumab-associated decline in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and clinical heart failure often prompt interruption and discontinuation of treatment. We therefore evaluated the preventive impact of an ACE inhibitor or beta blockers on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during treatment of trastuzumab and chemotherapy. Methods: In a prospective randomized study, women with early stage HER2 positive breast cancer undergoing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab were randomized to receive either once daily lisinopril (10mg), carvedilol (10mg) or placebo during treatment with trastuzumab and further stratified by anthracycline use (AC+T versus nonAC+T). In a follow up to the initially presented primary endpoint of overall cardiotoxicity, we measured the protective effects of lisinopril or carvedilol to prevent a trastuzumab induced LVEF decrease to less than 50% over the course of therapy as well as the impact on LVEF decrease by >10% within normal LVEF levels. Results: A total of 468 women (mean age was 51±10.7 years) with HER2 overexpressing early-stage breast cancer from 127 community-based oncology practices were enrolled, a prespecified minimum target of 189 (40%) patients were treated with AC+T and 279 (60%) with nonAC+T. Baseline cardiac risk factors of this study population included obesity and an elevated blood pressure. Patients in the anthracycline group were younger and without hypertension. A small, not clinically relevant decrease in LVEF was observed during trastuzumab therapy in all patients which was not significantly altered by any of the cardiac interventions. The rate of LVEF decline to <50% was much more frequent in patients treated with an anthracycline than those with a non-anthracycline containing regimen (21% vs 4.1%). Treatment with lisinopril averted the decline in LVEF in the AC+T group compared to placebo (10.8% vs 30.5%, p=0.045). A smaller but not significant effect was seen by carvedilol. The incidence of cardiotoxicity manifesting as LVEF decrease by ≥10% within the normal range was similar in both AC+T and the nonAC+T arms, and not affected by either lisinopril or carvedilol. Conclusions: In patients treated with trastuzumab without anthracyclines, the impact of trastuzumab on LVEF is small and infrequent. In contrast, patients treated with anthracyclines prior to trastuzumab, demonstrated a decrease in LVEF to below normal levels in a larger than previously reported number of women in this community based setting. The trastuzumab-anthracycline induced decline in LVEF could be prevented with concurrent treatment with lisinopril, which was tolerable even in patients without hypertension. Clinical trial information: NCT01009918.

Initial reporting from the prospective National Cancer Institute (NCI) COVID-19 in Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS)

6565

Background: Patients (pts) with cancer are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 disease. Longitudinal follow-up is needed to characterize the severity, sequelae and outcomes in pts with cancer who develop COVID-19. Methods: NCCAPS is a prospective, longitudinal study (NCT04387656) aiming to accrue 2,000 pts with cancer undergoing active treatment or prior stem cell transplant for hematologic or solid tumor malignancy. Adult patients are eligible to enroll within 14 days of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 test; pediatric patients may also enroll retrospectively. Clinical data, patient-reported outcomes, blood specimens, and imaging are collected for up to 2 years. This abstract provides initial baseline and 2-month follow-up data. Results: As of Jan 22, 2021, 585 pts (552 adults and 33 pediatric pts) had complete baseline data and of these pts, 215 adults had 2 months of complete follow-up data. 23.4% of adults and 42.4% of pediatric pts were of non-White race and/or Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. The most common cancer diagnoses were breast (19.6%), lung (9.9%) and multiple myeloma (8.9%) in adults and acute leukemia (AML/ALL; 63.6%) in children. The most recent treatment was chemotherapy in 38.2%, immunotherapy in 9.6%, and radiation in 5.4%. Median time from positive SARS-CoV-2 test to study enrollment was 10.5 days in adults and 18 days in pediatric pts. Preliminary analysis of plasma cytokines will be presented. At enrollment, 84.6% of adults had COVID-19 symptoms. 55.9% reported symptoms 2 weeks after their positive SARS-CoV-2 test; this fell to 39.0% at 1 month and 28.8% at 2 months (see Table). Of the 215 adults with complete data at 2 months, sequelae included pulmonary (n=22, 10%), cardiovascular (n=12, 6%) thromboembolic (n=9, 4%), bleeding (n=9, 4%) and gastrointestinal (n=11, 5%). 144 (67%) reported at least one cancer treatment disruption in the first 2 months, most commonly delayed therapy (n=98; 46%).Of the 348 adults with baseline data and SARS-CoV-2 test date prior to Nov 23, 2020, 6.3% had died (median time from SARS-CoV-2 test to death: 27 days), and 22.1% reported at least one hospitalization for COVID-19. No deaths were reported in the pediatric population. Conclusion: Cancer pts with COVID-19 report ongoing symptoms after acute infection and a substantial number develop sequelae. Cancer treatment disruptions are common in the initial months following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Longer follow-up will inform whether these treatment disruptions are associated with adverse outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT04387656. [Table: see text]

NCI’s national treatment trial networks: Experience and adaptations during COVID-19

1562

Background: The National Cancer Institute supports several national trial networks which responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic to overcome operational barriers to clinical cancer research. The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) focuses on late phase treatment trials, while the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) conducts early phase treatment trials. We report findings on the experience and adaptations of these networks during COVID-19. Methods: Using 2019 and 2020 accrual data, we analyzed changes in accrual levels and demographics. We also evaluated changes in trial activation numbers and timelines. In July 2020, we surveyed 255 investigators from academic and community sites to assess changes in research practices and get feedback on modified processes implemented by NCI to address trial conduct during the pandemic. Results: Accrual across the NCTN and ETCTN fell significantly in mid-March 2020, dropping from a weekly average of 307 patients in February to 169 the week of March 23-29. Accrual began to recover in June and July but did not return to pre-pandemic levels until September. Accrual in November and December 2020 followed the patterns seen in 2019, with short-term drops around major holidays. Non-White participants were enrolled to NCTN and ETCTN trials at similar monthly rates throughout 2019 and 2020, with slightly higher overall enrollment in 2020 (23.7% vs. 22.7%). New trials continued to be developed and activated throughout 2020. Between 2017 and 2019, an average of 71 trials were activated per year (NCTN = 46, ETCTN = 25), compared to 84 activated in 2020 (NCTN = 58, ETCTN = 26). The average time to trial activation was similar or slightly longer in 2020 compared to 2019. The investigator survey yielded 111 responses (43.5% response rate). 43% of respondents’ sites paused enrollment to phase 1 trials during the pandemic, compared to 18% for phase 3 trials. Many sites temporarily stopped opening new trials and processing specimens. Sites were more likely to keep enrolling to trials offering clear potential benefit and pause complex trials that required more patient contact. Respondents attributed some of the decline in accrual to a reduction in overall patient volume, increased patient concerns, and reduced research staff on site. Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of modified trial processes NCI put in place during the pandemic. Telehealth was rated most useful (avg. 4.6/5), followed by shipping oral IND agents to enrolled patients (4.5/5), remote informed consent (4.2/5), coordinating care with local providers (3.9/5), and remote auditing (3.7/5). Conclusions: The cancer trials community has an opportunity to learn from working through the challenges of COVID-19. NCI will seek to continue and expand on modifications to clinical trial processes that have the potential to improve operational efficiency, reduce cost, and help bring trials to more patients.

Evolution of Cancer Care Delivery Research in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program

Research seeking to improve patient engagement with decision-making, use of evidence-based guidelines, and coordination of multi-specialty care has made important contributions to the decades-long effort to improve cancer care. The National Cancer Institute expanded support for these efforts by including cancer care delivery research in the 2014 formation of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Cancer care delivery research is a multi-disciplinary effort to generate evidence-based practice change that improves clinical outcomes and patient well-being. NCORP scientists and community-based clinicians and organizations rapidly embraced the addition of this type of research into the network, resulting in a robust portfolio of observational studies and intervention studies within the first 5 years of funding. This commentary describes the initial considerations in conducting this type of research in a network previously focused on cancer prevention, control, and treatment studies; characterizes the protocols developed to date; and outlines future directions for cancer care delivery research in the second round of NCORP funding.

Patient-Reported Cognitive Impairment Among Women With Early Breast Cancer Randomly Assigned to Endocrine Therapy Alone Versus Chemoendocrine Therapy: Results From TAILORx

PURPOSE

Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is common during adjuvant chemotherapy and may persist. TAILORx provided a novel opportunity to prospectively assess patient-reported cognitive impairment among women with early breast cancer who were randomly assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (CT+E) versus endocrine therapy alone (E), allowing us to quantify the unique contribution of chemotherapy to CRCI.

METHODS

Women with a 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 enrolled in TAILORX were randomly assigned to CT+E or E. Cognitive impairment was assessed among a subgroup of 552 evaluable women using the 37-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, administered at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The FACT-Cog included the 20-item Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) scale, our primary end point. Clinically meaningful changes were defined a priori and linear regression was used to model PCI scores on baseline PCI, treatment, and other factors.

RESULTS

FACT-Cog PCI scores were significantly lower, indicating more impairment, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months compared with baseline for both groups. The magnitude of PCI change scores was greater for CT+E than E at 3 months, the prespecified primary trial end point, and at 6 months, but not at 12, 24, and 36 months. Tests of an interaction between menopausal status and treatment were nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION

Adjuvant CT+E is associated with significantly greater CRCI compared with E at 3 and 6 months. These differences abated over time, with no significant differences observed at 12 months and beyond. These findings indicate that chemotherapy produces early, but not sustained, cognitive impairment relative to E, providing reassurance to patients and clinicians in whom adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated to reduce recurrence risk.

Impact of comorbidity and age on treatment choice among men with localized prostate cancer

e16585

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among men in the United States. A substantial proportion of PCa patients has at least one comorbidity. Comorbidities have a meaningful impact on cancer treatment choice. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of comorbidity, as well as age, on treatment choice among men with localized PCa. Methods: From the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial, men with localized PCa diagnosed from 1994-2014 were selected (N = 10, 281). Comorbidity score was determined based on a modified Charlson index. Treatment was classified as curative, either radical prostatectomy (RP) or radiation therapy with curative intent (RT), or non-curative (all other modalities). We used multivariate logistic regression to assess the association of treatment choice with age and comorbidity score (including their interaction), controlling for D’Amico risk group, demographics and diagnosis year. Results: About half (48.3%) of patients had comorbidity score ≥ 1. Most men received curative treatment (75.2%); RT (55.2%) was more common than RP (44.8%). The likelihood of curative treatment decreased with increasing age; odds ratios (OR) for curative treatment were 0.63 (95%CI: 0.52-0.76), 0.36 (95%CI: 0.30-0.43) and 0.13 (95%CI: 0.11-0.16) for men aged 65-69, 70-74 and 75+, respectively, compared to men aged 55-64. Men with a comorbidity score of 2+ (OR = 0.84; 95%CI: 0.74-0.96) were less likely to receive curative treatment than men with a score of 0. Within curative treatment, older age was strongly associated with RT. Compared to men aged 55-64 years, men aged 65-69 years (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.72-2.3), 70-74 years (OR = 5.3; 95% CI: 4.5-6.3), and 75+ years (OR = 25.0; 95% CI: 17-33) were more likely to receive RT than RP. Men with a comorbidity score of 1 (OR = 1.16; 95%CI: 1.03-1.30) or 2+ (OR = 1.92; 95%CI: 1.6-2.3) were also more likely to receive RT. The interaction between age and comorbidity score was not significant. Conclusions: In this cohort, age was a strong independent predictor of treatment choice for localized PCa. Although comorbidity was not a strong predictor of curative treatment, it was associated with receipt of RT.

Oncologists’ perceived confidence in managing pre-existing chronic comorbidities during patients’ active cancer treatment

e18036

Background: Cancer frequently occurs with other chronic diseases, and this poses serious care coordination challenges during patients’ active cancer treatment (ACT). There is limited research addressing chronic comorbidity (CC) management during ACT. This study aimed to examine practicing oncologists’ perceived confidence in independently managing CC during ACT. Methods: Oncologists in the National Cancer Institute’s Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were surveyed about their perceived confidence in managing CC. The Likert scale survey was piloted-tested, IRB-approved, and administered to oncologists. In December 2018, NCORP network oncologists were sent an email invitation to complete the online survey. Pearson chi-square test was used to identify oncologists’ differences in perceived confidence in managing CC. Results: Among the 201 respondents of the ongoing survey, 48% were medical oncologists, 21.2% radiation or surgical oncologists, and 30.8% were of other specialties. Overall, 69% agreed (agree or strongly agree), 17.3% were neutral, and 13.4% disagreed (strongly disagree or disagree) that they were confident in managing all CC independently. While 69% of oncologists were confident when managing any CC, only 49% and 19.8% remained confident when managing CC previously managed by a primary care physician (PCP) and by a non-oncology subspecialist, respectively. Across oncologic subspecialties, 47.6%, 77.9% and 72.1% of radiation/surgical oncologists, medical oncologists, and those of other specialties, respectively, agreed that they were confident in independently managing CC (p = 0.003). Conclusions: Most oncologists are confident in managing all CC during patients’ ACT. However, they were less confident with CC previously managed by PCPs, and even less confident for CC previously managed by non-oncology subspecialists. These results indicate opportunities for greater collaboration between oncology and non-oncology specialists to ensure complete and coordinated care for cancer patients with comorbidities.

Use of a clinical trials screening tool in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to enhance accrual and promote disparities research

e14587

Background: Despite the identification of multiple patient, clinician, and health systems barriers, accrual to a new generation of cancer clinical trials continues to present challenges. It may be that barrier data is not sufficiently granular. A clinical trial screening tool was developed for use in NCORP to collect trial- and site-specific information as well as broadened demographic data to determine factors that may impact accrual. Methods: The tool was developed with stakeholder input and the NCI Oncology Patient Enrollment Network was used for data input and analyses. Results: From February 2016 to December 2019, 14,340 entries were made in the screening tool. Eighty-two percent of participants consented to participate. Participants screened were female (77%), married (64%) and Caucasian (85%). Fourteen percent of the participants were racial minorities (1% not reported) and 5% were Hispanic or Latino. The mean age was 60 (range 1-95). Thirty-six percent were employed, ≥ 32 hours per week followed by 35% retirees. Income did not vary significantly ( < $25,000(16%), $25,000 - $50,00 (20%), $51,000 - $10,000 (26%), and > $100,000 (19%), and 19% of participants refused to provide income data. Four percent of the participants were uninsured at diagnosis. Seventy-two percent (8,501) of participants screened enrolled in a clinical trial. Of those not enrolled, 49% were ineligible and 48% were eligible but declined to participate. The most common reasons for ineligibility included concurrent disease, abnormal lab or other tests, and patient could not comply with eligibility criteria. The most common reasons eligible participants declined to participate were perception that toxicities were too great and social issues (child care, transportation). Further analysis of the data will include correlation of race/ethnicity, age, income and co-morbidities with enrollment status. Conclusions: The majority of participants approached agreed to participate in the screening tool protocol. Approximately half of the participants were eligible for a trial but declined to participate. These issues will be addressed within the network to enhance accrual. The data collected will also provide opportunities for investigators within the network to develop research questions focused on disparities and clinical trial accrual.

Community and academic partnerships: Moving a new generation of clinical trials in NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) into community oncology practices

2551

Background: NCORP is a model program that bridges academic and community oncology practices and research. Over the past decade, community cancer investigators have adopted new technology, encountered new treatment sequalae, and faced rising cost of care with its financial toxicity imposed upon individuals seeking care. Opportunities are abundant for community investigators to assess feasibility and uptake of research advances into community practice settings, yet these opportunities are met with the challenges of dynamic changes in types of organizations delivering cancer care and diversity of populations within their catchment areas. Little information is shared about how and to what extent the health environment influences this partnership and the implementation of a broad cancer research portfolio. Methods: This abstract reports on the continued interest and participation of community oncologists in research which is demonstrated by 987 practices with over 4000 investigators in NCORP. Since 2014, over 30,000 individuals enrolled in symptom management, screening, surveillance, quality of life, and treatment trials. An additional 4500 patients and clinicians have enrolled in care delivery studies. Results: NCORP has been central in evaluating the most effective strategies for investigators to effectively communicate to patients the science of genomically-driven trials. It has also provided ways of bringing the pediatric and AYA patients access to the most up-to-date treatment strategies and new therapies in their community. This creates the least disruption on family structure/dynamics, diminished traveling requirements/costs, and reduced the financial burden. NCORP promotes involvement of treating oncologists in research activities. This also improves care for patients not enrolled in clinical trials. Therefore, NCORP serves as a laboratory to determine the most effective strategies for co-management of cancer patients and survivors. Conclusions: Several questions however remain to be addressed using this clinical trial model. These include: how to continue to reduce disparities in cancer care and clinical trial participation; and, what are the best strategies for fostering implementation of cancer care models in community practice.

NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project-1 Results: Decision Making in Breast Cancer Risk Reduction

Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) reduce breast cancer risk. Adoption of SERMs as prevention medication remains low. This is the first study to quantify social, cultural, and psychologic factors driving decision making regarding SERM use in women counseled on breast cancer prevention options. A survey study was conducted with women counseled by a health care provider (HCP) about SERMs. A statistical comparison of responses was performed between those who decided to use and those who decided not to use SERMs. Independent factors associated with the decision were determined using logistic regression. Of 1,023 participants, 726 made a decision: 324 (44.6%) decided to take a SERM and 402 (55.4%) decided not to. The most important factor for deciding on SERM use was the HCP recommendation. Other characteristics associated with the decision included attitudes and perceptions regarding medication intake, breast cancer worry, trust in HCP, family members with blood clots, and others' experiences with SERMs. The odds of SERM intake when HCP recommended were higher for participants with a positive attitude toward taking medications than for those with a negative attitude (P_interaction = 0.01). This study highlights the importance of social and cultural aspects for SERM decision making, most importantly personal beliefs and experiences. HCPs' recommendations play a statistically significant role in decision making and are more likely to be followed if in line with patients' attitudes. Results indicate the need for developing interventions for HCPs that not only focus on the presentation of medical information but, equally as important, on addressing patients' beliefs and experiences. Cancer Prev Res; 10(11); 625-34. ©2017 AACRSee related editorial by Crew, p. 609.

National coverage analyses for NCI clinical trials: A pilot project to reduce participation barriers

6542

Background: Since the implementation of the ACA, many insurers have followed Medicare’s lead in covering routine care costs associated with clinical trials (CTs). However, questions remain on how to distinguish routine care from non-billable research costs, and this has important financial implications for both sites and patients. As a result, many sites individually conduct coverage analyses (CAs) prior to opening CTs to determine billable routine costs. This is a significant duplication of effort for NCI network CTs that are open at hundreds of sites. A 2015 ASCO-NCI initiative identified the centralized creation of CAs for national CTs as a potential solution to reduce site burden, increase CT transparency and billing compliance, and ultimately reduce barriers to CT participation. We provide initial findings from the resulting NCI pilot program. Methods: NCI set up a Coverage Analysis Working Group (CAWG) made up of representatives from NCI’s Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU), network groups, NCI, and billing compliance consultants. CAWG created a CA template and development process for NCI network trials. CAWG will survey site users in April 2017 to evaluate the first year of the pilot project. Results: CAs for 7 CTs were first posted to the CTSU website on 4/20/16. As of January 2017, CAs have been posted for 22 CTs: 17 NCTN and 5 NCORP. This represents 14.6% of the 150 large, later-phase network trials available on the CTSU. These CAs had been posted for a mean of 219 days (median 238) as of 1/31/17. In this time, CAs were downloaded an average of 319 times (median 301), for a total of 7,007 downloads. An additional 26 CAs have been posted for MATCH (n = 20) and LUNG-MAP (n = 6) sub-studies and downloaded 7,035 times. Survey results evaluating this CA pilot will be presented in June 2017. Conclusions: Providing centralized CAs to NCI’s national network trials is feasible and well received with sites reporting that this pilot is reducing the time and effort of opening CTs and improving CT funding transparency. Collaboration is needed with CMS and third party payers to enhance clarity around CT coverage policy and billing compliance, along with continued feedback to make further improvements to reduce trial barriers.

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research.

Refining the clinical trials assessment of infrastructure matrix tool

230

Background: Many community cancer research programs aim to exceed Good Clinical Practices. To support such efforts, the National Cancer Institute and collaborators began developing the Clinical Trials Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix (CT AIM) Tool in 2008. CT AIM’s 3 levels of exemplary performance span 11 infrastructure attributes. 2013’s revisions focused on interpretability, usability, and measurability. Methods: Tool input was obtained at national research meetings. Also, 4 Principal Investigator-Program Administrator (PI/PA) pairs from NCI-funded community cancer programs with varied demographics (eg, size, population) underwent cognitive interviews. Aggregated responses and a major-themes summary led to tool revisions. Next a web-based version was piloted with 4 more PI/PA pairs. The frequency/distribution of responses within pairs was assessed. The revised tool was then field-tested with 9 more PIs and scoring method feedback was collected; the tool was further revised. Results: Per community input and cognitive interviews: (1) “best practice” designation was replaced with “assessment of infrastructure”, (2) attributes were reordered based on perceived importance, (3) terms and cumulativeness of levels were clarified. Receiving 0 “don’t understand”s indicated improvement in clarity. 64% of “don’t know” responses were from respondents at the same program and 5 were from the biospecimen research attribute, indicating the information is difficult for programs to obtain. PI/PA responses varied 36% of the time, of which 70% involved a 1-level difference in response, indicating variation in responses by program role. 2 questions generated inconsistent responses from all 4 pairs, indicating possible further revisions. Average scoring was more accurate and sensitive to incremental program improvements. Conclusions: Broad community input, cognitive interviews, and piloting improved the tool’s clarity. Program leaders are encouraged to use CT AIM with research team members to enhance site infrastructure. CT AIM is useful for quality improvement, benchmarking research performance, progress reporting, and communicating program needs with institutional leaders. NCI Contract No. HHSN261200800001E

A phase III clinical trial to compare trastuzumab (T) given concurrently with radiation therapy (RT) to RT alone for women with HER2+ DCIS resected by lumpectomy (Lx): NSABP B-43

TPS657

Background: Asignificant amount of DCIS is ER negative and/or overexpresses HER2. This provides an opportunity to test molecular therapy in DCIS. In xenograft models and cell lines, T boosts RT effectiveness. In T-treated HER2+ patients, apoptosis occurs within 1 wk of single agent T use, with T found in ductal aspirates. Ample safety evidence for T exists. T given during whole breast irradiation (WBI) may improve results for Lx-resected HER2+ DCIS. A trial to examine this question will enhance the understanding of breast tumor biology and the prevention of such tumors and could possibly extend breast-conserving surgery benefits for women with DCIS. Methods: After Lx for pure DCIS, each patient’s DCIS lesion is centrally tested for HER2 by IHC analysis. HER2 2+ tumors undergo FISH analysis. HER2 3+ or FISH+ patients can be randomly assigned to 2 doses of T, 3 weeks apart during WBI or to WBI alone. Women ≥18 yrs. with a margin-clear Lx for pure DCIS, with ECOG status 0/1 who are and clinically or pathologically node negative are eligible. Centrally tested DCIS must be HER2 +. ER and/or PR status must be known before randomization. Primary aims are to determine if T decreases ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence, ipsilateral skin cancer recurrence, or ipsilateral DCIS. Secondary aims are to determine the benefit of T in preventing regional or distant recurrence and contralateral invasive breast cancer or DCIS. B-43 will determine if DFS, recurrence-free interval, and OS can be improved with the use of T. 2000 patients will be accrued over 7.9 yrs, with a definitive analysis of primary endpoints performed at163 ipsilateral breast cancer events (7.5 - 8 yrs. after protocol initiation) with an 80% power to detect a hazard reduction of 36%, from 1.73 ipsilateral breast cancer events per 100 pt-yrs to 1.11 events per 100 pt-yrs. The 36% observed reduction in the hazard of IIBCR-SCR-DCIS on the T arm is based on a projection of 40% hazard reduction if the compliance were perfect, with a 10% noncompliance rate. As of 12-31-11, 763 patients have been randomized. NCT00769379 Grant support: PHS NCI-U10-CA-69651, -12027, and NCI P30-CA-14599 from the US NCI and Genentech, Inc.

Participation of minorities in cancer research: the influence of structural, cultural, and linguistic factors

Overall, participation rates in cancer clinical trials are very low, ranging from 3 to 20% of eligible participants. However, participation rates are especially low among the socially disadvantaged and racial/ethnic minority groups that have been historically underrepresented in clinical research. Structural factors such as study duration, treatment or intervention schedule, cost, time, followup visits, and side effects represent more of a barrier to participation among these groups compared with white, non-Hispanics. Attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and knowledge regarding clinical research, and cultural characteristics of underrepresented minorities pose additional barriers to participation. This article focuses on the structural, cultural, and linguistic factors that affect participation in clinical cancer research for each major U.S. racial/ethnic group. Low socioeconomic status, speaking a primary language other than English, differences in communication styles, mistrust of research and the medical system, fear, embarrassment, and lack of knowledge about the origin of cancer appear to have a negative impact on clinical cancer research participation rates. Much of the information about these factors comes from studies of cancer screening because little data is available on the factors that prevent and facilitate participation of minorities in clinical cancer trials specifically. Such research is needed, and, given the heterogeneity within and between minority populations, should occur in several different geographic settings and with as many different minority subpopulations as possible.

A phase I trial of recombinant human interleukin-11 (neumega rhIL-11 growth factor) in women with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy

We performed a phase I trial of recombinant human interleukin-11 (rhIL-11) in women with breast cancer. Cohorts of three to five women were accrued to five dosage levels of rhIL-11 (10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 micrograms/kg/d). rhIL-11 alone was administered by a daily subcutaneous injection for 14 days during a 28-day prechemotherapy "cycle 0." Patients (pts) subsequently received up to four 28-day cycles of cyclophosphamide (1,500 mg/m2) and doxorubicin (60 mg/m2) chemotherapy followed by rhIL-11 at their assigned dose (days 3 through 14). Sixteen pts (13 stage IV, 3 stage IIIB) were accrued to this study. Median age was 53 years and median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status was 0. A grade 3 neurologic event was seen in 1 pt at 100 micrograms/kg. Because of the degree of grade 2 constitutional symptoms (myalgias/arthralgias and fatigue) at 75 micrograms/kg, dose escalation was stopped and 75 micrograms/kg was the maximally tolerated dose. No other grade 3 or 4 adverse events related to rhIL-11 were seen. The administration of rhIL-11 was not associated with fever. Reversible grade 2 fatigue and myalgias/arthralgias were seen in all pts at 75 micrograms/kg. Weight gain of 3% to 5% associated with edema was seen at doses > 10 micrograms/kg but a capillary leak syndrome was not seen. rhIL-11 alone was associated with a mean 76%, 93%, 108%, and 185% increase in platelet counts at doses of 10, 25, 50, and 75 micrograms/kg, respectively. No significant changes in leukocytes were seen. A mean 19% decrease in hematocrit was observed. Acute-phase proteins increased with treatment at all doses. Compared with patients at the 10 micrograms/kg dose, patients receiving doses > or = 25 micrograms/kg experienced less thrombocytopenia in the first two cycles of chemotherapy. We conclude that rhIL-11 has thrombopoietic activity at all doses studied, is well tolerated at doses of 10, 25, and 50 micrograms/kg, and at doses > or = 25 micrograms/kg has the potential to reduce chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in this model.