Impact of Workforce Challenges and Funds Flow on Cancer Clinical Trial Development and Conduct.

The conduct of clinical cancer research has faced considerable challenges in recent years, and the situation has only been exacerbated by the global pandemic. The growing complexity of clinical trials and rising administrative burdens had been causing greater expense and difficulty in recruiting and retaining an appropriately trained workforce even before the well-publicized increase in turnover caused by the pandemic. Longstanding issues such as restrictive inclusion criteria and complicated trial designs have negatively affected already low clinical trial accrual rates, limited sites capable of opening studies and enrolling patients, and worsened disparities in trial participation. Opposing these elements are efforts by ASCO and other organizations to increase affordability, access, and equity in clinical trial enrollment. To provide diverse perspectives on how these challenges are affecting cancer research as we emerge from the pandemic, we asked a panel of experienced clinical research leaders from both academic and community cancer centers to answer questions they felt most pressing about the business of conducting clinical research today and where they felt the field was moving in the near future.

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.

Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. METHODS: An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. CONCLUSION: Centralized CAs for multisite trials-using standardized tools and templates-are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

Assessing Clinical Trial-Associated Workload in Community-Based Research Programs Using the ASCO Clinical Trial Workload Assessment Tool.

PURPOSE: Clinical research program managers are regularly faced with the quandary of determining how much of a workload research staff members can manage while they balance clinical practice and still achieve clinical trial accrual goals, maintain data quality and protocol compliance, and stay within budget. A tool was developed to measure clinical trial-associated workload, to apply objective metrics toward documentation of work, and to provide clearer insight to better meet clinical research program challenges and aid in balancing staff workloads. A project was conducted to assess the feasibility and utility of using this tool in diverse research settings. METHODS: Community-based research programs were recruited to collect and enter clinical trial-associated monthly workload data into a web-based tool for 6 consecutive months. Descriptive statistics were computed for self-reported program characteristics and workload data, including staff acuity scores and number of patient encounters. RESULTS: Fifty-one research programs that represented 30 states participated. Median staff acuity scores were highest for staff with patients enrolled in studies and receiving treatment, relative to staff with patients in follow-up status. Treatment trials typically resulted in higher median staff acuity, relative to cancer control, observational/registry, and prevention trials. Industry trials exhibited higher median staff acuity scores than trials sponsored by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, academic institutions, or others. CONCLUSION: The results from this project demonstrate that trial-specific acuity measurement is a better measure of workload than simply counting the number of patients. The tool was shown to be feasible and useable in diverse community-based research settings.

Factors associated with adherence to an end-of-study biopsy: lessons from the prostate cancer prevention trial (SWOG-Coordinated Intergroup Study S9217).

BACKGROUND: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) was a 7-year randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy of finasteride for the prevention of prostate cancer with a primary outcome of histologically determined prevalence of prostate cancer at the end of 7 years. METHODS: A systematic modeling process using logistic regression identified factors available at year 6 that are associated with end-of-study (EOS) biopsy adherence at year 7, stratified by whether participants were ever prompted for a prostate biopsy by year 6. Final models were evaluated for discrimination. At year 6, 13,590 men were available for analysis. RESULTS: Participants were more likely to have the EOS biopsy if they were adherent to study visit schedules and procedures and/or were in good health (P < 0.01). Participants at larger sites and/or sites that received retention and adherence grants were also more likely to have the EOS biopsy (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show good adherence to study requirements 1 year before the EOS biopsy was associated with greater odds that a participant would comply with the invasive EOS requirement. IMPACT: Monitoring adherence behaviors may identify participants at risk of nonadherence to more demanding study end points. Such information could help frame adherence intervention strategies in future trials.

Phase II trial to evaluate gemcitabine and etoposide for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Prior studies suggest that tumor cell lines harboring RAS mutations display remarkable sensitivity to gemcitabine and etoposide. In a phase II clinical trial of patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer, we evaluated the response rate to a combination of these drugs. Forty chemo-naïve patients with nonresectable and histologically confirmed pancreatic cancer were accrued. Patients received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) (days 1 and 8) and etoposide 80 mg/m(2) (days 8, 9, and 10; 21-day cycle). The primary end point was radiological response rate. Secondary objectives were determination of overall survival, response duration (time to progression), quality of life, toxicity, and CA 19-9 biomarker response. In 35 evaluable patients, 10 exhibited a radiological partial response and 12 had stable disease in response to treatment. Twenty patients exhibited a >20% decrease in CA 19-9 biomarker levels. Median overall survival was 6.7 months for all patients (40) and 7.2 months for evaluable patients (35). Notably, four patients survived for longer than 1 year, with two patients surviving for more than 2 years. Median time to progression for evaluable patients was 3.1 months. The median overall survival for locally advanced patients was 8.8 months and 6.75 months for metastatic patients. One-year survival was 10% for all patients and 11.4% for evaluable patients. Quality of life improved in 12 patients and remained stable in 3 of the evaluable patients. The primary dose-limiting toxicities were hematologic toxicity and fatigue. These results show that the gemcitabine and etoposide combination is generally well-tolerated and exhibits a response rate similar to other published studies.

The influence of finasteride on the development of prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Androgens are involved in the development of prostate cancer. Finasteride, an inhibitor of 5alpha-reductase, inhibits the conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone, the primary androgen in the prostate, and may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. METHODS: In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, we randomly assigned 18,882 men 55 years of age or older with a normal digital rectal examination and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of 3.0 ng per milliliter or lower to treatment with finasteride (5 mg per day) or placebo for seven years. Prostate biopsy was recommended if the annual PSA level, adjusted for the effect of finasteride, exceeded 4.0 ng per milliliter or if the digital rectal examination was abnormal. It was anticipated that 60 percent of participants would have prostate cancer diagnosed during the study or would undergo biopsy at the end of the study. The primary end point was the prevalence of prostate cancer during the seven years of the study. RESULTS: Prostate cancer was detected in 803 of the 4368 men in the finasteride group who had data for the final analysis (18.4 percent) and 1147 of the 4692 men in the placebo group who had such data (24.4 percent), for a 24.8 percent reduction in prevalence over the seven-year period (95 percent confidence interval, 18.6 to 30.6 percent; P<0.001). Tumors of Gleason grade 7, 8, 9, or 10 were more common in the finasteride group (280 of 757 tumors [37.0 percent], or 6.4 percent of the 4368 men included in the final analysis) than in the placebo group (237 of 1068 tumors [22.2 percent], P<0.001 for the comparison between groups; or 5.1 percent of the 4692 men included in the final analysis, P=0.005 for the comparison between groups). Sexual side effects were more common in finasteride-treated men, whereas urinary symptoms were more common in men receiving placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Finasteride prevents or delays the appearance of prostate cancer, but this possible benefit and a reduced risk of urinary problems must be weighed against sexual side effects and the increased risk of high-grade prostate cancer.