A process to reanalyze clinical DNA sequencing data for biomarker matching in the Lung-MAP Master Protocol

For cancer clinical trials that require central confirmation of tumor genomic profiling, exhaustion of tissue from standard-of-care testing may prevent enrollment. For Lung-MAP, a master protocol that requires results from a defined centralized clinical trial assay to assign patients to a therapeutic substudy, we developed a process to repurpose existing commercial vendor raw genomic data for eligibility: genomic data reanalysis (GDR). Molecular results for substudy assignment were successfully generated for 369 of the first 374 patients (98.7%) using GDR for Lung-MAP, with a median time from request to result of 9 days. During the same period, 691 of 791 (87.4%) tissue samples received successfully yielded results, in a median of 14 days beyond sample acquisition. GDR is a scalable bioinformatic pipeline that expedites reanalysis of existing data for clinical trials in which validated integral biomarker testing is required for participation.

A Phase II Study of Telisotuzumab Vedotin in Patients With c-MET-positive Stage IV or Recurrent Squamous Cell Lung Cancer (LUNG-MAP Sub-study S1400K, NCT03574753)

INTRODUCTION

Lung-MAP S1400K was designed to evaluate the response to telisotuzumab vedotin, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting c-MET, in patients with c-MET-positive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously treated SCC with c-MET-positive tumors (H score ≥ 150, Ventana SP44 assay) were enrolled into 2 cohorts: Cohort 1 (immune checkpoint inhibitor-naive) and Cohort 2 (immune checkpoint inhibitor refractory). Telisotuzumab vedotin 2.7 mg/kg was administered intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Response assessments were performed every 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, response within cohort, duration of response, and toxicities. Interim analysis was planned after 20 evaluable patients, with ≥ 3 responses needed to continue enrollment.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients (14% of screened patients) were assigned to S1400K, 28 patients enrolled (15 in Cohort 1 and 13 in Cohort 2), and 23 were eligible. S1400K closed on December 21, 2018 owing to lack of efficacy. Two responses (response rate of 9%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-20%) were reported in cohort 1 (1 complete and 1 unconfirmed partial response), whereas 10 patients had stable disease, with a disease control rate of 52%. The median overall and progression-free survival was 5.6 and 2.4 months, respectively. There were 3 grade 5 events (2 pneumonitis, in Cohort 2, and 1 bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, in Cohort 1).

CONCLUSION

Telisotuzumab vedotin failed to meet the pre-specified response needed to justify continuing enrollment to S1400K. Pneumonitis was an unanticipated toxicity observed in patients with SCC.

Umbrella and basket trials in oncology: ethical challenges

BACKGROUND

Novel precision oncology trial designs, such as basket and umbrella trials, are designed to test new anticancer agents in more effective and affordable ways. However, they present some ethical concerns referred to scientific validity, risk-benefit balance and informed consent. Our aim is to discuss these issues in basket and umbrella trials, giving examples of two ongoing cancer trials: NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute - Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) and Lung-MAP (Lung Cancer Master Protocol) study.

MAIN BODY

We discuss three ethical requirements for clinical trials which may be challenged in basket and umbrella trial designs. Firstly, we consider scientific validity. Thanks to the new trial designs, patients with rare malignancies have the opportunity to be enrolled and benefit from the trial, but due to insufficient accrual, the trial may generate clinically insignificant findings. Inadequate sample size in study arms and the use of surrogate endpoints may result in a drug approval without confirmed efficacy. Moreover, complexity, limited quality and availability of tumor samples may not only introduce bias and result in unreliable and unrepresentative findings, but also can potentially harm patients and assign them to an inappropriate therapy arm. Secondly, we refer to benefits and risks. Novel clinical trials can gain important knowledge on the variety of tumors, which can be used in future trials to develop effective therapies. However, they offer limited direct benefits to patients. All potential participants must wait about 2 weeks for the results of the genetic screening, which may be stressful and produce anxiety. The enrollment of patients whose tumors harbor multiple mutations in treatments matching a single mutation may be controversial. As to informed consent - the third requirement we discuss, the excessive use of phrases like "personalized medicine", "tailored therapy" or "precision oncology" might be misleading and cause personal convictions that the study protocol is designed to fulfill the individual health-related needs of participants.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that further approaches should be implemented to enhance scientific validity, reduce misunderstandings and risks, thus maximizing the benefits to society and to trial participants.