North American Cancer Center Clinical Research Capacity and Benchmarking in the Postpandemic Era.

PURPOSE: Cancer center clinical trial offices (CCTOs) support trial development, activation, conduct, regulatory adherence, data integrity, and compliance. In 2018, the Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Research Innovation (CRI) Steering Committee conducted and published survey results to benchmark North American CCTOs, including trial volume, accrual, full time equivalents (FTEs), and budget. The survey was readministered in 2023 to assess contemporary CCTO performance and capacity with results presented here. METHODS: The 28 question 2023 survey was sent to directors of AACI's clinical member cancer centers. Survey participation was voluntary, no compensation was provided, and data requested covered operations during 2022. Definitions were consistent with National Cancer Institute (NCI) CCTO reporting requirements and AACI staff anonymously compiled results for descriptive statistical reporting. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 61% (60/99). The median annual CCTO budget was $11.5 million (M) US dollars (USD) versus $8.2M USD in 2018. These budgets support a median of 150 FTEs versus 104 previously, and a median total of 384 versus 280 interventional treatment trials and a median of 479 versus 531 interventional treatment accruals. Sources of support for CCTO annual budgets were primarily from industry revenue (45.3%) or institutional support (31.7%). Nearly 60% of centers reported activating NCI-sponsored studies within 90 days but only 9% reported meeting a 90-day activation timeline for industry sponsored studies. CONCLUSION: Contemporary benchmarks for CCTO operations through this survey demonstrate larger staff sizes, larger budgets, more trials supported, but fewer patients enrolled to interventional treatment trials in comparison with 2018. These data shine a critical light on the increasing complexity of cancer clinical trials, the importance of external funding sources, and necessary operational efficiency upgrades to provide cutting-edge cancer research and care.

The Glass Wall: Gendered Authorship Disparities in CD 19 and BCMA CAR-T Clinical Trials for Lymphoma and Myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: Existing literature suggests that women are significantly underrepresented in the field of hematology-oncology. Women make up 35.6% of hematologists and data on females as site investigators for pivotal trials and authors in publications of pivotal trials in hematologic malignancies, specifically in the novel niche of Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T), is sparse. METHODS: We examined the proportion of women in pivotal trials, screening a total of 2180 studies from PubMed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. 2180 initially searched records were filtered by date (2017-2023) and clinical trial status, yielding 149 records. Following a manual review, we included 15 studies that led to the approval of or anticipated approval of CD19 and BCMA CAR-T therapies in lymphoid and plasma cell malignancies. We examined overall number of female authors, number of lead female authors, and ratio of all authors to female authors in the 15 trials, which were all high impact, cited on average 1314 times. RESULTS: Of the 436 authors assessed, 132 were female, correlating to 29.5% female authorship. The only study with female authorship >50% was ELIANA, a 2017 pediatric study. 7 of the 15 studies had female lead authors; notably, 6 out of 7 of these studies were published in 2021 or later. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data suggests gender iniquities for female investigators exist in the field of immune effector cell therapy. We suggest further investigation and strategies to decrease gendered authorship disparities.

Evaluating the impact of delayed study startup on accrual in cancer studies.

Background: Drug development in cancer medicine depends on high-quality clinical trials, but these require large investments of time to design, operationalize, and complete; for oncology drugs, this can take 8-10 years. Long timelines are expensive and delay innovative therapies from reaching patients. Delays often arise from study startup, a process that can take 6 months or more. We assessed how study-specific factors affected the study startup duration and the resulting overall success of the study. Method: Data from The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) were used to analyze studies initiated from 2018 to 2022. Accrual percentage was computed based on the number of enrolled participants and the desired enrollment goal. Accrual success was determined by comparing the percentage of enrollments to predetermined threshold values (50%, 70%, or 90%). Results: Studies that achieve or surpass the 70% activation threshold typically exhibit a median activation time of 140.5 days. In contrast, studies that fall short of the accrual goal tend to have a median activation time of 187 days, demonstrating the shorter median activation times associated with successful studies. Wilcoxon rank-sum test conducted for the study phase (W=13607, p-value=0.001) indicates that late-phase projects took longer to activate compared to early-stage projects. We also conducted the study with 50% and 90% accrual thresholds; our findings remained consistent. Conclusions: Longer activation times are linked to reduced project success, and early-phase studies tend to have higher success than late-phase studies. Therefore, by reducing impediments to the approval process, we can facilitate quicker approvals, increasing the success of studies regardless of phase.

Using Bayesian hierarchical modeling for performance evaluation of clinical trial accrual for a cancer center.

Introduction: Slow patient accrual in cancer clinical trials is always a concern. In 2021, the University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center (KUCC), an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center, implemented the Curated Cancer Clinical Outcomes Database (C3OD) to perform trial feasibility analyses using real-time electronic medical record data. In this study, we proposed a Bayesian hierarchical model to evaluate annual cancer clinical trial accrual performance. Methods: The Bayesian hierarchical model uses Poisson models to describe the accrual performance of individual cancer clinical trials and a hierarchical component to describe the variation in performance across studies. Additionally, this model evaluates the impacts of the C3OD and the COVID-19 pandemic using posterior probabilities across evaluation years. The performance metric is the ratio of the observed accrual rate to the target accrual rate. Results: Posterior medians of the annual accrual performance at the KUCC from 2018 to 2023 are 0.233, 0.246, 0.197, 0.150, 0.254, and 0.340. The COVID-19 pandemic partly explains the drop in performance in 2020 and 2021. The posterior probability that annual accrual performance is better with C3OD in 2023 than pre-pandemic (2019) is 0.935. Conclusions: This study comprehensively evaluates the annual performance of clinical trial accrual at the KUCC, revealing a negative impact of COVID-19 and an ongoing positive impact of C3OD implementation. Two sensitivity analyses further validate the robustness of our model. Evaluating annual accrual performance across clinical trials is essential for a cancer center. The performance evaluation tools described in this paper are highly recommended for monitoring clinical trial accrual.

A randomized phase III study of standard versus high-dose cytarabine with or without vorinostat for AML.

Prior experience indicated that use of higher doses of cytarabine during induction for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with a histone deacetylase inhibitor resulted in high response rates. S1203 was a randomized multicenter trial for previously untreated patients aged 18-60 with AML which compared daunorubicin and cytarabine (DA), idarubicin with higher dose cytarabine (IA) and IA with vorinostat (IA + V). The primary endpoint was event free survival (EFS). 738 patients were randomized: 261 to each DA and IA arms and 216 to the IA + V arm. 96, 456, and 150 patients had favorable-, intermediate-, and unfavorable-risk cytogenetics, respectively. 152 were NPM1 and 158 FLT3 mutated. The overall remission rate was 77.5% including 62.5% CR and 15.0% CRi. No differences in remission, EFS, or overall survival were observed among the 3 arms except for the favorable cytogenetics subset who had improved outcomes with DA and postremission high dose cytarabine. A trend towards increased toxicity was observed with the IA and IA + V arms. The use of higher dose cytarabine during induction therapy in younger patients with AML, with or without vorinostat, does not result in improved outcomes. (Funded by the US National Institutes of Health and others, ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01802333.).

A study to assess the efficacy of enasidenib and risk-adapted addition of azacitidine in newly diagnosed IDH2-mutant AML.

ABSTRACT: Enasidenib (ENA) is an inhibitor of isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) approved for the treatment of patients with IDH2-mutant relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this phase 2/1b Beat AML substudy, we applied a risk-adapted approach to assess the efficacy of ENA monotherapy for patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed IDH2-mutant AML in whom genomic profiling demonstrated that mutant IDH2 was in the dominant leukemic clone. Patients for whom ENA monotherapy did not induce a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) enrolled in a phase 1b cohort with the addition of azacitidine. The phase 2 portion assessing the overall response to ENA alone demonstrated efficacy, with a composite complete response (cCR) rate (CR/CRi) of 46% in 60 evaluable patients. Seventeen patients subsequently transitioned to phase 1b combination therapy, with a cCR rate of 41% and 1 dose-limiting toxicity. Correlative studies highlight mechanisms of clonal elimination with differentiation therapy as well as therapeutic resistance. This study demonstrates both efficacy of ENA monotherapy in the upfront setting and feasibility and applicability of a risk-adapted approach to the upfront treatment of IDH2-mutant AML. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03013998.

The approach of HMA plus VEN with or without BMT for all patients with AML.

Treatment options for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have expanded over the last 5 years. New regimens are increasing the options for patients who previously may not have been offered any antineoplastic therapy. The use of the hypomethylating agent (HMA) decitabine or azacitidine combined with the BCL2 inhibitor venetoclax (HMA-VEN) has improved overall survival in an older and unfit population compared to HMA therapy alone. Delivering these regimens outside academic centers allows more patients with AML to be treated, though support and collaboration with allogeneic stem cell transplant (SCT) centers should still be considered to determine eligibility and promptly initiate a donor search for potential transplant candidates. Expanding the use of HMA-VEN to younger and fit patients who are also candidates for intensive chemotherapy (IC) is being studied prospectively and is not recommended at this time outside of a clinical trial. Retrospective studies suggest populations that may benefit from HMA-VEN over IC, but this is not yet confirmed prospectively. Utilizing HMA-VEN prior to allogeneic SCT is also under investigation, and some retrospective data show feasibility and the ability to achieve measurable residual disease negativity pretransplant. Upcoming prospective randomized clinical trials aim to answer the comparability or superiority of HMA-VEN vs IC in fit populations and its potential use as a standard pretransplant induction regimen.

Spliceosome mutations are associated with clinical response in a phase 1b/2 study of the PLK1 inhibitor onvansertib in combination with decitabine in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia.

PLK1 is overexpressed in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). A phase 1b trial of the PLK1 inhibitor onvansertib (ONV) combined with decitabine (DAC) demonstrated initial safety and efficacy in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML. The current study aimed to identify molecular predictors of response to ONV + DAC in R/R AML patients. A total of 44 R/R AML patients were treated with ONV + DAC and considered evaluable for efficacy. Bone marrow (BM) samples were collected at baseline for genomic and transcriptomic analysis (n = 32). A 10-gene expression signature, predictive of response to ONV + DAC, was derived from the leading-edge genes of gene set enrichment analyses (GSEA). The gene signature was evaluated in independent datasets and used to identify associated mutated genes. Twenty percent of the patients achieved complete remission, with or without hematologic count recovery (CR/CRi), and 32% exhibited a ≥50% reduction in bone marrow blasts. Patients who responded to treatment had elevated mitochondrial function and OXPHOS. The gene signature was not associated with response to DAC alone in an independent dataset. By applying the signature to the BeatAML cohort (n = 399), we identified a positive association between predicted ONV + DAC response and mutations in splicing factors (SF). In the phase 1b/2 trial, patients with SF mutations (SRSF2, SF3B1) had a higher CR/CRi rate (50%) compared to those without SF mutations (9%). PLK1 inhibition with ONV in combination with DAC could be a potential therapy in R/R AML patients, particularly those with high OXPHOS gene expression and SF mutations.

Multi-institutional analysis of outcomes in acute myeloid leukemia patients with central nervous system involvement.

We evaluated outcomes of AML patients with central nervous system (CNS) involvement at two academic institutions. Fifty-two adult patients were identified. Neurologic symptoms were reported in 69% of patients, with headache the most common (33%). 84% (n = 42) of patients cleared their cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), with a median number of one dose of intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy. Of these patients, 21% (n = 9) had a CSF relapse, with 67% (n = 6) of those experiencing CSF relapse also having concurrent bone marrow relapse. Of the 36 patients with baseline neurologic symptoms, 69% had improvement in symptoms post-IT therapy. The median overall survival was 9.3 months and 3.5 months for patients with CNS involvement diagnosed before/during induction and at relapse, respectively. In this study, IT therapy was rapidly effective in clearing CSF blasts and improving neurologic symptoms in most patients. Few patients experienced CSF relapse, which predominantly occurred in the setting of concomitant bone marrow relapse.

Standardising acute myeloid leukaemia classification systems: a perspective from a panel of international experts.

The existence of two acute myeloid leukaemia classification systems-one put forth by WHO and one by the International Consensus Classification in 2022-is concerning. Although both systems appropriately move towards genomic disease definitions and reduced emphasis on blast enumeration, there are consequential disagreements between the two systems on what constitutes a diagnosis of acute myeloid leukaemia. This fundamental problem threatens the ability of heath-care providers to diagnose acute myeloid leukaemia, communicate with patients and other health-care providers, and deliver appropriate and consistent management strategies for patients with the condition. Clinical trial eligibility, standardised response assessments, and eventual drug development and regulatory pathways might also be negatively affected by the discrepancies. In this Viewpoint, we review the merits and limitations of both classification systems and illustrate how the coexistence, as well as application of both systems is an undue challenge to patients, clinicians, hematopathologists, sponsors of research, and regulators. Lastly, we emphasise the urgency and propose a roadmap, by which the two divergent classification systems can be harmonised.

Quantifying the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer center clinical trial operations.

BACKGROUND: Oncology clinical trials are complex, and the COVID-19 pandemic caused major disruptions in 2020. METHODS: Using its networking and sharing of best practices, the Association of American Cancer Institutes, comprising 105 cancer centers, solicited a longitudinal series of voluntary surveys from members to assess how clinical trial office operations were affected. The surveys showed that centers were able to keep oncology trials available to patients while maintaining safety. Data were collected regarding interventional clinical trial accruals for the calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021. RESULTS: Data demonstrated a sizeable decrease in interventional treatment trial accruals in both 2020 and 2021 compared with prepandemic figures in 2019. No cancer center reported an increase in interventional treatment trial accruals in 2020 compared with 2019, with most centers reporting a moderate decrease. In mid-2022, 15% of respondents reported an increasing trend, 31% reported no significant change, and 54% continued to report a decrease. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic necessitated rapid adoption of trial operations, with the emergence of several best practices, including remote monitoring, remote consenting, electronic research charts, and work-from-home strategies for staff. The national infrastructure to conduct trials was significantly affected by the pandemic, with noteworthy resiliency, evidenced by improvements in efficiencies and patient-centered care delivery but with residual capacity challenges that will be evident for the foreseeable future.

Gilteritinib in Combination With Induction and Consolidation Chemotherapy and as Maintenance Therapy: A Phase IB Study in Patients With Newly Diagnosed AML.

PURPOSE: Gilteritinib is a type 1 FLT3 inhibitor active as monotherapy for relapsed or refractory FLT3-mutated AML. We investigated the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of gilteritinib incorporated into intensive induction and consolidation chemotherapy, and as maintenance therapy for adult patients with newly diagnosed, non-favorable-risk AML. METHODS: In this phase IB study (2215-CL-0103; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02236013), 103 participants were screened and 80 were allocated to treatment. The study was divided into four parts: dose escalation, dose expansion, investigation of alternate anthracycline and gilteritinib schedule, and continuous gilteritinib during consolidation. RESULTS: After dose escalation, 120 mg gilteritinib once daily was chosen for further study. There were 58 participants evaluable for response at this dose, 36 of whom harbored FLT3 mutations. For participants with FLT3-mutated AML, the composite complete response (CRc) rate was 89% (83% were conventional complete responses), all achieved after a single induction cycle. The median overall survival time was 46.1 months. Gilteritinib was well-tolerated in this context although the median time to count recovery during induction was approximately 40 days. Longer time-to-count recovery was associated with higher trough levels of gilteritinib, which, in turn, were associated with azole use. The recommended regimen is gilteritinib at a dose of 120 mg once daily from days 4 to 17 or 8 to 21 of a 7 + 3 induction with either idarubicin or daunorubicin and from day 1 continuously with high-dose cytarabine consolidation. Maintenance therapy with gilteritinib was well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrated the safety and tolerability of gilteritinib incorporated into an induction and consolidation chemotherapy regimen, and as single-agent maintenance therapy for patients with newly diagnosed FLT3-mutant AML. The data herein provide an important framework for the design of randomized trials comparing gilteritinib with other FLT3 inhibitors.

Entospletinib with decitabine in acute myeloid leukemia with mutant TP53 or complex karyotype: A phase 2 substudy of the Beat AML Master Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who have tumor protein p53 (TP53) mutations or a complex karyotype have a poor prognosis, and hypomethylating agents are often used. The authors evaluated the efficacy of entospletinib, an oral inhibitor of spleen tyrosine kinase, combined with decitabine in this patient population. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, phase 2 substudy of the Beat AML Master Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03013998) using a Simon two-stage design. Eligible patients aged 60 years or older who had newly diagnosed AML with mutations in TP53 with or without a complex karyotype (cohort A; n = 45) or had a complex karyotype without TP53 mutation (cohort B; n = 13) received entospletinib 400 mg twice daily with decitabine 20 mg/m2 on days 1-10 every 28 days for up to three induction cycles, followed by up to 11 consolidation cycles, in which decitabine was reduced to days 1-5. Entospletinib maintenance was given for up to 2 years. The primary end point was complete remission (CR) and CR with hematologic improvement by up to six cycles of therapy. RESULTS: The composite CR rates for cohorts A and B were 13.3% (95% confidence interval, 5.1%-26.8%) and 30.8% (95% confidence interval, 9.1%-61.4%), respectively. The median duration of response was 7.6 and 8.2 months, respectively, and the median overall survival was 6.5 and 11.5 months, respectively. The study was stopped because the futility boundary was crossed in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of entospletinib and decitabine demonstrated activity and was acceptably tolerated in this patient population; however, the CR rates were low, and overall survival was short. Novel treatment strategies for older patients with TP53 mutations and complex karyotype remain an urgent need.

Bolstering the complex study start-up process at NCI cancer centers using technology.

Background: The study startup process for interventional clinical trials is a complex process that involves the efforts of many different teams. Each team is responsible for their startup checklist in which they verify that the necessary tasks are done before a study can move on to the next team. This regulatory process provides quality assurance and is vital for ensuring patient safety [10]. However, without having this startup process centralized and optimized, study approval can take longer than necessary as time is lost when it passes through many different hands. Objective: This manuscript highlights the process and the systems that were developed at The University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center regarding the study startup process. To facilitate this process the regulatory management, site development, cancer center administration, and the Biostatistics & Informatics Shared Resources (BISR) teams came together to build a platform aimed at streamlining the startup process and providing a transparent view of where a study is in the startup process. Process: Ensuring the guidelines are clearly articulated for the review criteria of each of the three review boards, i.e., Disease Working Group (DWG), Executive Resourcing Committee (ERC), and Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) along with a system that can track every step and its history throughout the review process. Results: Well-defined processes and tracking methodologies have allowed the operations teams to track each study closely and ensure the 90-day and 120-day deadlines are met, this allows the operational team to dynamically prioritize their work daily. It also provides Principal investigators a transparent view of where their study stands within the study startup process and allows them to prepare for the next steps accordingly. Conclusion/future work: The current process and technology deployment has been a significant improvement to expedite the review process and minimize study startup delays. There are still a few opportunities to fine-tune the study startup process; an example of which includes automatically informing the operational managers or the study teams to act upon deadlines regarding study review rather than the current manual communication process which involves them looking it up in the system which can add delays.

Efficacy and safety of CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 chemotherapy by European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk subgroups in older adults with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML: post hoc analysis of a randomized, phase 3 trial.

CPX-351 (Europe: Vyxeos® liposomal; United States: Vyxeos®) is a dual-drug liposomal encapsulation of daunorubicin and cytarabine in a synergistic 1:5 molar ratio. In a phase 3 study in older adults with newly diagnosed, high-risk/secondary AML, CPX-351 improved the remission frequency, overall survival, and post-transplant survival versus 7 + 3. This post hoc analysis evaluated the final 5-year follow-up outcomes according to the European LeukemiaNet 2017 risk classification. CPX-351-treated patients had a higher remission frequency (adverse risk: 41% vs 26%; intermediate risk: 58% vs 39%) and longer median overall survival (adverse risk: 7.59 vs 5.52 months; intermediate risk: 11.86 vs 7.75 months) and post-transplant survival (adverse risk: 43.14 vs 7.08 months; intermediate risk: not reached vs 13.57 months) versus 7 + 3, with outcomes generally poorer among patients with adverse-risk AML. The safety profile of CPX-351 among patients with adverse-risk or intermediate-risk AML was consistent with that of the overall study population. Early mortality was lower, and hospitalization length of stay per patient-year was shorter with CPX-351 versus 7 + 3 within the adverse-risk and intermediate-risk subgroups. The favorable outcomes observed with CPX-351 in this post hoc analysis are consistent with results for the overall study population and further support the use of CPX-351 in these patients.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01696084.

Gender disparities in the National Institutes of Health funding for hematologic malignancies and cellular therapies.

We investigated gender inequality in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for hematologic malignancies and cellular therapies (HMCT). The data were retrieved from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). In 2018-2019, 1834 grants totaling $799 million were awarded (men 71% vs. women 29%) to 975 principal investigators (PIs), including 680 (70%) male PIs and 295 (30%) female PIs. There was no significant gender difference in the mean grant amount per PI. Male PIs as compared to female PIs had a higher h-index (44 vs 31, p < 0.001), a higher number of publications (159.5 vs 94, p < 0.001), and higher years of active research (26 vs 21, p < 0.001). In multivariate analyses, a higher h-index independently predicted a higher mean grant amount per PI (p = 0.010), and female PIs were independently less likely to have a higher h-index (p < 0.001). Our study shows significant gender disparity in the NIH funding for HMCT research.