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.

Updates to the ASCO Patient-Centered Oncology Payment Model.

The past decade has seen considerable innovation in the delivery of care and payment in oncology. Key initiatives have included the development of oncology medical home care delivery standards, the Medicare Oncology Care Model, and multiple commercial payer initiatives. Looking forward, our next challenge is to reflect on lessons learned from these limited-scale demonstration projects and work toward models that are scalable and sustainable and reflect true collaboration between payers and providers sharing common objectives and methods to advance cancer care delivery. To this end, ASCO continues its work on care delivery standards, quality measurement, and alternative payment models. Over the past year, ASCO has received input from physicians, administrators, payers, and employers to update its Patient-Centered Oncology Payment (PCOP) model. PCOP incorporates current work on provider-payer collaboration, the oncology medical home, and the value of clinical pathways and recognizes the need for common quality measurement, performance methodology, and payment structure across multiple sources of payment. The following represents a summary of the entire model. The model includes chapters on PCOP communities, clinical practice transformation, payment methodology, consolidated payments for oncology care, performance methodology, and implementation considerations. In future work, ASCO will continue its support of the PCOP model, including further development of care delivery standards, quality measures, and technology solutions (eg, CancerLinQ).

Determining If a Somatic Tumor Mutation Is Targetable and Options for Accessing Targeted Therapies.

Targeted cancer therapies are drugs and biologics designed to affect cancer cell growth by blocking or interfering with specific molecular pathways in the cancer cell. Use of targeted agents usually requires verification through molecular testing that the patient's tumor harbors the molecular biomarker that is the target of the drug or is predictive of treatment benefit. Genomic mutations may be clinically actionable if they are associated with response or resistance to a potential therapy. If a genomic test reveals an actionable alteration, there are several options for accessing the targeted therapy. This article is intended to help clinicians determine if a tumor mutation is potentially treatable with a marketed or investigational drug or biologic product and to offer guidance on how to access the product of interest.

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) Made Simple for Medical and Radiation Oncologists: A Narrative Review.

IMPORTANCE: The Medicare Access and CHIP (Children's Health Insurance Program) Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) instituted significant changes in payment methods for many Medicare Part B billing providers (eg, clinicians and health care facilities). Fulfilling its measures satisfactorily and adhering to its reporting requirements will significantly affect reimbursement, yet previous surveys suggest that clinicians' understanding of MACRA is poor. This review provides fundamental background on MACRA for medical and radiation oncologists. OBSERVATIONS: The Congress.gov database, PubMed, and the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services website were searched for legislature and publications relevant to the history, structure, and predicted future for MACRA. MACRA originated from concerns of poor-quality care and from the failure of the traditional fee-for-service model and the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate method to control rising health care costs. The Quality Payment Program of MACRA started the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and the Alternative Payment Model (APM) system to move from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payment. The most recent legislation extended the transitional period for MIPS and removed drugs and biologics covered by Medicare Part B. Currently, the primary APM for medical oncology is the Oncology Care Model, and an APM for radiation oncology is awaiting approval. Despite recent calls from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission to end MIPS, there is no indication that either MIPS or APMs will be repealed in the near future. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: MACRA affects the methods of payment for many Medicare Part B billing providers; the included summary equips medical and radiation oncologists with an understanding of its structure and requirements.

Phase II study of carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab in advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death throughout the world. Despite new chemotherapeutic, immunomodulating and molecularly targeted agents, patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease still have a poor prognosis. This trial looked to combine antiangiogenic therapy with a first-line cytotoxic chemotherapy doublet, hoping to extend median progression-free survival (PFS) while minimizing toxicity in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In this single institution, single-arm study, 51 patients (age >18 yo) were followed from 2007 to 2012. Patients with stage IV nonsquamous NSCLC and patients with recurrent unresectable disease (nonradiation candidates) were eligible. Treatment consisted of carboplatin AUC 5 IV 30-60 minutes, pemetrexed 500/mg2 IV 10 minutes, bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV (90 minutes 1st dose, 60 minutes 2nd dose, 30 minutes subsequent doses). Treatment was administered every 21 days and planned for 6 cycles, in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicities. Growth factor support was not permitted prophylactically but allowed for toxicities, as were dose reductions. Maintenance treatment for those with stable disease or better consisted of Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to 1 year. Between November 2007 and March 2012, 51 patients were followed in the phase II trial of carboplatin, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab. Patients were enrolled over a 24-month period. After the end of treatment visits, subjects were followed at least every 3 months for survival data. The median follow-up period was 49 weeks (6 weeks to 178), and the median number of treatment cycles was 6 (range, 1-6). Among the 50 patients assessable for response, median overall survival was 49 weeks (95% CI, 0-62.7) with median PFS of 28 weeks (95% CI, 0-132.4). A complete or partial response was seen in 28 (59.5%) patients. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 9 (17.6%) of 51 patients; the most common were thrombocytopenia (4 [7.8%]) and neutropenia (3 [5.9%]). Three (5.8%) of 51 patients were discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events (grade 3 diarrhea, thrombocytopenia, dehydration, fatigue, and grade 4 respiratory distress), and 1 patient (1.9%) was found to be ineligible due to anticoagulation use. A novel 3-drug combination for advanced nonsquamous NSCLC shows promising efficacy with modest toxicity.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Monthly Zoledronic Acid, Zoledronic Acid Every 3 Months, and Monthly Denosumab in Women With Breast Cancer and Skeletal Metastases: CALGB 70604 (Alliance).

Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.

Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Zoledronic acid, a third-generation aminobisphosphonate, reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and pain in patients with bone metastases. The optimal dosing interval for zoledronic acid is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether zoledronic acid administered every 12 weeks is noninferior to zoledronic acid administered every 4 weeks. Design, Setting, Participants: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted at 269 academic and community sites in the United States. Patients (n = 1822) with metastatic breast cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma who had at least 1 site of bone involvement were enrolled between May 2009 and April 2012; follow-up concluded in April 2014. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid administered intravenously every 4 weeks (n = 911) vs every 12 weeks (n = 911) for 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients having at least 1 skeletal-related event (defined as clinical fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, or surgery involving bone) within 2 years after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event by disease type, pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher scores indicate worse pain), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (range, 0-4; higher scores indicate worse disability), incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, kidney dysfunction, skeletal morbidity rate (mean number of skeletal-related events per year), and, in a subset of 553 patients, suppression of bone turnover (assessed by C-terminal telopeptide levels). Results: Among 1822 patients who were randomized (median age, 65 years; 980 [53.8%] women; 855 with breast cancer, 689 with prostate cancer, and 278 with multiple myeloma), 795 completed the study at 2 years. A total of 260 patients (29.5%) in the zoledronic acid every 4-week dosing group and 253 patients (28.6%) in the every 12-week dosing group experienced at least 1 skeletal-related event within 2 years of randomization (risk difference of -0.3% [1-sided 95% CI, -4% to ∞]; P < .001 for noninferiority). The proportions of skeletal-related events did not differ significantly between the every 4-week dosing group vs the every 12-week dosing group for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma. Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw osteonecrosis, and kidney dysfunction did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Skeletal morbidity rates were numerically identical in both groups, but bone turnover was greater (C-terminal telopeptide levels were higher) among patients who received zoledronic acid every 12 weeks. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, the use of zoledronic acid every 12 weeks compared with the standard dosing interval of every 4 weeks did not result in an increased risk of skeletal events over 2 years. This longer interval may be an acceptable treatment option. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00869206.

Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix Tool to Improve the Quality of Research Conduct in the Community.

PURPOSE: Several publications have described minimum standards and exemplary attributes for clinical trial sites to improve research quality. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the clinical trial Best Practice Matrix tool to facilitate research program improvements through annual self-assessments and benchmarking. The tool identified nine attributes, each with three progressive levels, to score clinical trial infrastructural elements from less to more exemplary. The NCCCP sites correlated tool use with research program improvements, and the NCI pursued a formative evaluation to refine the interpretability and measurability of the tool. METHODS: From 2011 to 2013, 21 NCCCP sites self-assessed their programs with the tool annually. During 2013 to 2014, NCI collaborators conducted a five-step formative evaluation of the matrix tool. RESULTS: Sites reported significant increases in level-three scores across the original nine attributes combined (P<.001). Two specific attributes exhibited significant change: clinical trial portfolio diversity and management (P=.0228) and clinical trial communication (P=.0281). The formative evaluation led to revisions, including renaming the Best Practice Matrix as the Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix (CT AIM), expanding infrastructural attributes from nine to 11, clarifying metrics, and developing a new scoring tool. CONCLUSION: Broad community input, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing improved the usability and functionality of the tool. Research programs are encouraged to use the CT AIM to assess and improve site infrastructure. Experience within the NCCCP suggests that the CT AIM is useful for improving quality, benchmarking research performance, reporting progress, and communicating program needs with institutional leaders. The tool model may also be useful in disciplines beyond oncology.

Glucocorticoids suppress renal cell carcinoma progression by enhancing Na,K-ATPase beta-1 subunit expression.

Glucocorticoids are commonly used as palliative or chemotherapeutic clinical agents for treatment of a variety of cancers. Although steroid treatment is beneficial, the mechanisms by which steroids improve outcome in cancer patients are not well understood. Na,K-ATPase beta-subunit isoform 1 (NaK-ß1) is a cell-cell adhesion molecule, and its expression is down-regulated in cancer cells undergoing epithelial-to mesenchymal-transition (EMT), a key event associated with cancer progression to metastatic disease. In this study, we performed high-throughput screening to identify small molecules that could up-regulate NaK-ß1 expression in cancer cells. Compounds related to the glucocorticoids were identified as drug candidates enhancing NaK-ß1 expression. Of these compounds, triamcinolone, dexamethasone, and fluorometholone were validated to increase NaK-ß1 expression at the cell surface, enhance cell-cell adhesion, attenuate motility and invasiveness and induce mesenchymal to epithelial like transition of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cells in vitro. Treatment of NaK-ß1 knockdown cells with these drug candidates confirmed that these compounds mediate their effects through up-regulating NaK-ß1. Furthermore, we demonstrated that these compounds attenuate tumor growth in subcutaneous RCC xenografts and reduce local invasiveness in orthotopically-implanted tumors. Our results strongly indicate that the addition of glucocorticoids in the treatment of RCC may improve outcome for RCC patients by augmenting NaK-ß1 cell-cell adhesion function.

Managing cumulative expectations in oncology: challenges and potential solutions.

The dedication of oncologists to their patients is undeniable. Patients given what can be a devastating diagnosis look to their physician for hope, guidance, and answers. The physician, in turn, must assimilate information from a staggering amount of resources and outlets and then form a plan that satisfies current practices and guidelines while still being consistent with the most current regulations set by a multitude of sources for oversight. Do all this for every patient in a time in which the number of new and continuing patients is ever increasing, and it is hardly surprising that the shocking overload can lead to physician burnout and, quite possibly, poorer patient care. Overload, be it information, task, knowledge, or expectation, is real, and to avoid succumbing, cancer care providers need to acknowledge that the problem exists by identifying the sources and admit that the problem of overload is out of control. Only then can providers begin to realize what can and can not be done, so that they can focus attention on what they are doing when they are doing it-an application of mindfulness. To take control of the avalanche of incoming information, providers need to make good use of filters, set time aside to evaluate inbound intelligence, and identify and (importantly) rely on a narrow set of trusted resources. Although strategies on coping with overloads abound, the physician needs to be diligent in applying the available options to keep burnout at bay.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual.

PURPOSE: Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility. RESULTS: Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers. CONCLUSION: Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.

Ethical considerations for the clinical oncologist in an era of oncology drug shortages.

Shortages of injectable drugs affect many cancer patients and providers in the U.S. today. Scholars and policymakers have recently begun to devote increased attention to these issues, but only a few tangible resources exist to guide clinical oncologists in developing strategies for dealing with drug shortages on a recurring basis. This article discusses existing information from the scholarly literature, policy analyses, and other relevant sources and seeks to provide practical ethical guidance to the broad audience of oncology professionals who are increasingly confronted with such cases in their practice. We begin by providing a brief overview of the history, causes, and regulatory context of oncology drug shortages in the U.S., followed by a discussion of ethical frameworks that have been proposed in this setting. We conclude with practical recommendations for ethical professional behavior in these increasingly common and challenging situations.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS: Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.