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.

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.