Pediatric Cancer Drug Development: Leveraging Insights in Cancer Biology and the Evolving Regulatory Landscape to Address Challenges and Guide Further Progress.

The discovery and development of anticancer drugs for pediatric patients have historically languished when compared to both past and recent activity in drug development for adult patients, notably the dramatic spike of targeted and immune-oncology therapies. The reasons for this difference are multifactorial. Recent changes in the regulatory landscape surrounding pediatric cancer drug development and the understanding that some pediatric cancers are driven by genetic perturbations that also drive disparate adult cancers afford new opportunities. The unique cancer-initiating events and dependencies of many pediatric cancers, however, require additional pediatric-specific strategies. Research efforts to unravel the underlying biology of pediatric cancers, innovative clinical trial designs, model-informed drug development, extrapolation from adult data, addressing the unique considerations in pediatric patients, and use of pediatric appropriate formulations, should all be considered for efficient development and dosage optimization of anticancer drugs for pediatric patients.

Review of Racial and Ethnic Representation of Participants Enrolled in Pediatric Clinical Trials of Oncology Drugs Conducted Through FDA Written Requests.

Importance: The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act states that in issuing a written request (WR), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shall consider the adequate representation (eg, proportionate to the disease population) of children from racial and ethnic minority populations. If the terms of the WR are fulfilled, the FDA may grant an additional 6 months of exclusivity for any unexpired patents and exclusivities attached to approved indications. Objective: To report on the race and ethnicity of participants enrolled in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs for which pediatric exclusivity was granted between 2001 and 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review examines pediatric exclusivity request submissions for oncologic drugs that received pediatric exclusivity between December 2001 and January 2021 based on fulfillment of the requirements of a WR that were identified using the FDA's Document Archiving Reporting and Regulatory Tracking System. Demographic data were manually abstracted from supporting study reports, and data were pooled across submissions for the analysis. Data were analyzed throughout 2022 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Representation by race, sex, and ethnicity in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs. Results: A total of 22 pediatric exclusivity requests were identified, comprising 40 studies and 2025 patients. Most trials (26 [65%]) in the analysis were cooperative group studies. Representation by race was as follows: American Indian/Alaska Native (13 [0.6%]), African American/Black (228 [11.3%]), Asian (92 [4.6%]), Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (33 [1.6%]), White (1303 [64.3%]), other (194 [9.6%]), and unknown/not reported (162 [8.0%]). Representation by sex was female individuals (41.2%) and male individuals (58.8%). Ethnicity was as follows: Hispanic (226 [5.7%]), non-Hispanic (910 [22.5%]), unknown/not reported ethnicity (2800 [69.1%]), and other ethnicity (114 [2.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that overall, representation of participants of racial and ethnic minority groups in studies supporting pediatric exclusivity requests appear comparable with the racial distribution of childhood cancers in the US based on data from the National Childhood Cancer Registry Explorer. However, fewer Hispanic participants were enrolled in the trials we reviewed (8%) compared with the representation of Hispanic patients in the National Childhood Cancer Registry (28%). This discrepancy may be partially explained by the large proportion of participants with unknown information regarding ethnicity. Further research into the reasons for the large proportion of participants with missing ethnicity information is needed.

Impact of ACCELERATE Paediatric Strategy Forums: a review of the value of multi-stakeholder meetings in oncology drug development.

In a landscape of an increasing number of products and histology and age agnostic trials for rare patient cancer, prioritization of products is required. Paediatric Strategy Forums, organized by ACCELERATE and the European Medicines Agency with participation of the US Food and Drug Administration, are multi-stakeholder meetings that share information to best inform pediatric drug development strategies and subsequent clinical trial decisions. Academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates are equal members, with patient advocates highlighting unmet needs of children and adolescents with cancer. The 11 Paediatric Strategy Forums since 2017 have made specific and general conclusions to accelerate drug development. Conclusions on product prioritization meetings, as well as global master protocols, have been outputs of these meetings. Forums have provided information for regulatory discussions and decisions by industry to facilitate development of high-priority products; for example, 62% of high-priority assets (agreed at a Forum) in contrast to 5% of those assets not considered high priority have been the subject of a Paediatric Investigational Plan or Written Request. Where there are multiple products of the same class, Forums have recommended a focused and sequential approach. Class prioritization resulted in an increase in waivers for non-prioritized B-cell products (44% to 75%) and a decrease in monotherapy trials, proposed in Paediatric Investigation Plans (PIP) submissions of checkpoint inhibitors from 53% to 19%. Strategy Forums could play a role in defining unmet medical needs. Multi-stakeholder forums, such as the Paediatric Strategy Forum, serve as a model to improve collaboration in the oncology drug development paradigm.

Childhood cancer data initiative: Status report.

In March 2023, over 800 researchers, clinicians, patients, survivors, and advocates from the pediatric oncology community met to discuss the progress of the National Cancer Institute's Childhood Cancer Data Initiative. We present here the status of the initiative's efforts in building its data ecosystem and updates on key programs, especially the Molecular Characterization Initiative and the planned Coordinated National Initiative for Rare Cancers in Children and Young Adults. These activities aim to improve access to childhood cancer data, foster collaborations, facilitate integrative data analysis, and expand access to molecular characterization, ultimately leading to the development of innovative therapeutic approaches.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of DNA damage response pathway inhibitors in children and adolescents with cancer: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

DNA damage response inhibitors have a potentially important therapeutic role in paediatric cancers; however, their optimal use, including patient selection and combination strategy, remains unknown. Moreover, there is an imbalance between the number of drugs with diverse mechanisms of action and the limited number of paediatric patients available to be enrolled in early-phase trials, so prioritisation and a strategy are essential. While PARP inhibitors targeting homologous recombination-deficient tumours have been used primarily in the treatment of adult cancers with BRCA1/2 mutations, BRCA1/2 mutations occur infrequently in childhood tumours, and therefore, a specific response hypothesis is required. Combinations with targeted radiotherapy, ATR inhibitors, or antibody drug conjugates with DNA topoisomerase I inhibitor-related warheads warrant evaluation. Additional monotherapy trials of PARP inhibitors with the same mechanism of action are not recommended. PARP1-specific inhibitors and PARP inhibitors with very good central nervous system penetration also deserve evaluation. ATR, ATM, DNA-PK, CHK1, WEE1, DNA polymerase theta and PKMYT1 inhibitors are early in paediatric development. There should be an overall coordinated strategy for their development. Therefore, an academia/industry consensus of the relevant biomarkers will be established and a focused meeting on ATR inhibitors (as proof of principle) held. CHK1 inhibitors have demonstrated activity in desmoplastic small round cell tumours and have a potential role in the treatment of other paediatric malignancies, such as neuroblastoma and Ewing sarcoma. Access to CHK1 inhibitors for paediatric clinical trials is a high priority. The three key elements in evaluating these inhibitors in children are (1) innovative trial design (design driven by a clear hypothesis with the intent to further investigate responders and non-responders with detailed retrospective molecular analyses to generate a revised or new hypothesis); (2) biomarker selection and (3) rational combination therapy, which is limited by overlapping toxicity. To maximally benefit children with cancer, investigators should work collaboratively to learn the lessons from the past and apply them to future studies. Plans should be based on the relevant biology, with a focus on simultaneous and parallel research in preclinical and clinical settings, and an overall integrated and collaborative strategy.

Assessing Information Gaps Associated with Initial Pediatric Study Plans for New Oncology Drug and Biological Products.

The Research Acceleration for Cure and Equity (RACE) for Children Act requires sponsors to submit a Pediatric Study Plan (PSP) with a proposed pediatric investigation of new molecularly targeted drugs and biologics that are intended for treatment of adult cancers, and whose target is relevant to pediatric cancer or provide a justification for a plan to request a deferral or waiver of the required investigation. A landscape analysis was performed to identify trends in information gaps associated with a sponsor's first initial PSP (iPSP) submission for oncologic new molecular entities received in 2021. Comments sent to sponsors by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the review process of each evaluated iPSP were categorized using nine flags relating to different portions of the PSP. For iPSPs that included a plan for a full waiver request, the most common information gap was inadequate justification based on molecular target relevance. All other sponsor proposed plans (deferral and/or partial waiver or investigation) were found to have information gaps related to clinical study features, clinical pharmacology, and/or missing clinical or nonclinical data. This landscape analysis of iPSPs shows the trends in comments that often occur during initial review and may help to provide sponsors with more direction for preparing an adequate iPSP to fulfill statutory requirements aimed at ensuring pediatric patients are considered in the development of new molecularly targeted drugs.

The Childhood Cancer Data Initiative: Using the Power of Data to Learn From and Improve Outcomes for Every Child and Young Adult With Pediatric Cancer.

Data-driven basic, translational, and clinical research has resulted in improved outcomes for children, adolescents, and young adults (AYAs) with pediatric cancers. However, challenges in sharing data between institutions, particularly in research, prevent addressing substantial unmet needs in children and AYA patients diagnosed with certain pediatric cancers. Systematically collecting and sharing data from every child and AYA can enable greater understanding of pediatric cancers, improve survivorship, and accelerate development of new and more effective therapies. To accomplish this goal, the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI) was launched in 2019 at the National Cancer Institute. CCDI is a collaborative community endeavor supported by a 10-year, $50-million (in US dollars) annual federal investment. CCDI aims to learn from every patient diagnosed with a pediatric cancer by designing and building a data ecosystem that facilitates data collection, sharing, and analysis for researchers, clinicians, and patients across the cancer community. For example, CCDI's Molecular Characterization Initiative provides comprehensive clinical molecular characterization for children and AYAs with newly diagnosed cancers. Through these efforts, the CCDI strives to provide clinical benefit to patients and improvements in diagnosis and care through data-focused research support and to build expandable, sustainable data resources and workflows to advance research well past the planned 10 years of the initiative. Importantly, if CCDI demonstrates the success of this model for pediatric cancers, similar approaches can be applied to adults, transforming both clinical research and treatment to improve outcomes for all patients with cancer.

Clinical development of new drugs for adults and children with cancer, 2010-2020.

BACKGROUND: Many new molecular entities enter clinical development to evaluate potential therapeutic benefits for oncology patients. We characterized adult and pediatric development of the set of new molecular entities that started clinical testing in 2010-2015 worldwide. METHODS: We extracted data from AdisInsight, an extensive database of global pharmaceutical development, and the FDA.gov website. We followed the cohort of new molecular entities initiating first-in-human phase I clinical trials in 2010-2015 to the end of 2020. For each new molecular entity, we determined whether it was granted US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, studied in a trial open to pediatric enrollment, or stalled during development. We characterized the cumulative incidence of these endpoints using statistical methods for censored data. RESULTS: The 572 new molecular entities starting first-in-human studies in 2010-2015 were studied in 6142 trials by the end of 2020. Most new molecular entities were small molecules (n = 316, 55.2%), antibodies (n = 148, 25.9%), or antibody-drug conjugates (n = 44, 7.7%). After a mean follow-up of 8.0 years, 173 new molecular entities did not advance beyond first-in-human trials, and 39 were approved by the FDA. New molecular entities had a 10.4% estimated probability (95% confidence interval = 6.6% to 14.1%) of being approved by the FDA within 10 years of first-in-human trials. After a median of 4.6 years since start of first-in-human trials, 67 (11.7%) new molecular entities were tested in trials open to pediatric patients, and 5 (0.9%) were approved for pediatric indications. CONCLUSIONS: More efficient clinical development strategies are needed to evaluate new cancer therapies, especially for children, and incorporate approaches to ensure knowledge gain from investigational products that stall in development.

Combination Early-Phase Trials of Anticancer Agents in Children and Adolescents.

PURPOSE: There is an increasing need to evaluate innovative drugs for childhood cancer using combination strategies. Strong biological rationale and clinical experience suggest that multiple agents will be more efficacious than monotherapy for most diseases and may overcome resistance mechanisms and increase synergy. The process to evaluate these combination trials needs to maximize efficiency and should be agreed by all stakeholders. METHODS: After a review of existing combination trial methodologies, regulatory requirements, and current results, a consensus among stakeholders was achieved. RESULTS: Combinations of anticancer therapies should be developed on the basis of mechanism of action and robust preclinical evaluation, and may include data from adult clinical trials. The general principle for combination early-phase studies is that, when possible, clinical trials should be dose- and schedule-confirmatory rather than dose-exploratory, and every effort should be made to optimize doses early. Efficient early-phase combination trials should be seamless, including dose confirmation and randomized expansion. Dose evaluation designs for combinations depend on the extent of previous knowledge. If not previously evaluated, limited evaluation of monotherapy should be included in the same clinical trial as the combination. Randomized evaluation of a new agent plus standard therapy versus standard therapy is the most effective approach to isolate the effect and toxicity of the novel agent. Platform trials may be valuable in the evaluation of combination studies. Patient advocates and regulators should be engaged with investigators early in a proposed clinical development pathway and trial design must consider regulatory requirements. CONCLUSION: An optimized, agreed approach to the design and evaluation of early-phase pediatric combination trials will accelerate drug development and benefit all stakeholders, most importantly children and adolescents with cancer.

Clinical trial considerations for pediatric cancer drug development.

Oncology has been one of the most active therapeutic areas in medicinal products development. Despite this fact, few drugs have been approved for use in pediatric cancer patients when compared to the number approved for adults with cancer. This disparity could be attributed to the fact that many oncology drugs have had orphan drug designation and were exempt from Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) requirements. On August 18, 2017, the RACE for Children Act, i.e. Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity Act, was signed into law as Title V of the 2017 FDA Reauthorization Act (FDARA) to amend the PREA. Pediatric investigation is now required if the drug or biological product is intended for the treatment of an adult cancer and directed at a molecular target that FDA determines to be "substantially relevant to the growth or progression of a pediatric cancer." This paper discusses the specific considerations in clinical trial designs and statistical methodologies to be implemented in oncology pediatric clinical programs.

Utility of propensity score-based Bayesian borrowing of external adult data in pediatric trials: A pragmatic evaluation through a case study in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

A fully powered randomized controlled cancer trial can be challenging to conduct in children because of difficulties in enrollment of pediatric patients due to low disease incidence. One way to improve the feasibility of trials in pediatric patients, when clinically appropriate, is through borrowing information from comparable external adult trials in the same disease. Bayesian analysis of a pediatric trial provides a way of seamlessly augmenting pediatric trial efficacy data with data from external adult trials. However, not all external adult trial subjects may be equally clinically relevant with respect to the baseline disease severity, prognostic factors, co-morbidities, and prior therapy observed in the pediatric trial of interest. The propensity score matching method provides a way of matching the external adult subjects to the pediatric trial subjects on a set of clinically determined baseline covariates, such as baseline disease severity, prognostic factors and prior therapy. The matching then allows Bayesian information borrowing from only the most clinically relevant external adult subjects. Through a case study in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), we examine the utility of propensity score matched mixture and power priors in bringing appropriate external adult efficacy information into pediatric trial efficacy assessment, and present considerations for scaling fixed borrowing from external adult data.

Fine-Tuning the Relevance of Molecular Targets to Pediatric Cancer: Addressing Additional Layers of Complexity.

The Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity (RACE) for Children Act requires an assessment of molecular targets relevant to pediatric cancer. Due to the biological complexity, candidate molecular targets have been primarily evaluated based on single features such as the presence of mutations or deregulated expression. As the understanding of tumor biology evolves, the relevance of certain molecular targets may need to be assessed at isoform and/or mutation variant level to optimize tailored therapeutic interventions.

Rare FGFR Oncogenic Alterations in Sequenced Pediatric Solid and Brain Tumors Suggest FGFR Is a Relevant Molecular Target in Childhood Cancer.

PURPOSE: Multiple FGFR inhibitors are currently in clinical trials enrolling adults with different solid tumors, while very few enroll pediatric patients. We determined the types and frequency of FGFR alterations (FGFR1-4) in pediatric cancers to inform future clinical trial design. METHODS: Tumors with FGFR alterations were identified from two large cohorts of pediatric solid tumors subjected to targeted DNA sequencing: The Dana-Farber/Boston Children's Profile Study (n = 888) and the multi-institution GAIN/iCAT2 (Genomic Assessment Improves Novel Therapy) Study (n = 571). Data from the combined patient population of 1,395 cases (64 patients were enrolled in both studies) were reviewed and cases in which an FGFR alteration was identified by OncoPanel sequencing were further assessed. RESULTS: We identified 41 patients with tumors harboring an oncogenic FGFR alteration. Median age at diagnosis was 8 years (range, 6 months-26 years). Diagnoses included 11 rhabdomyosarcomas, nine low-grade gliomas, and 17 other tumor types. Alterations included gain-of-function sequence variants (n = 19), amplifications (n = 10), oncogenic fusions (FGFR3::TACC3 [n = 3], FGFR1::TACC1 [n = 1], FGFR1::EBF2 [n = 1], FGFR1::CLIP2 [n = 1], and FGFR2::CTNNA3 [n = 1]), pathogenic-leaning variants of uncertain significance (n = 4), and amplification in combination with a pathogenic-leaning variant of uncertain significance (n = 1). Two novel FGFR1 fusions in two different patients were identified in this cohort, one of whom showed a response to an FGFR inhibitor. CONCLUSION: In summary, activating FGFR alterations were found in approximately 3% (41/1,395) of pediatric solid tumors, identifying a population of children with cancer who may be eligible and good candidates for trials evaluating FGFR-targeted therapy. Importantly, the genomic and clinical data from this study can help inform drug development in accordance with the Research to Accelerate Cures and Equity for Children Act.

A mouse pancreatic organoid model to compare PD-L1 blocking antibodies.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have changed the therapeutic landscape for cancer patients, but diabetes, a rare, severe immune-related endocrinopathy, is linked to ICI therapy. It is unclear whether glycosylation of ICIs may play a role in the development of this adverse event and how the physiological effects of different ICIs on pancreatic cells should be evaluated. We used a mouse pancreatic organoid model to compare three PD-L1 blocking antibodies in the presence or absence of IFNγ using a metabolic bioanalyzer. Modulation of ICI glycosylation altered its metabolic effects on mouse pancreatic organoids, suggesting that this model could be used to monitor and compare ICIs and to study the mechanisms underlying the development of IC-mediated diabetes.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development in mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibitors: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

As the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signalling pathway is activated in many paediatric cancers, it is an important therapeutic target. Currently, a range of targeted MAPK pathway inhibitors are being developed in adults. However, MAPK signals through many cascades and feedback loops and perturbing the MAPK pathway may have substantial influence on other pathways as well as normal development. In view of these issues, the ninth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on MAPK inhibitors. Development of MAPK pathway inhibitors to date has been predominantly driven by adult indications such as malignant melanoma. However, these inhibitors may also target unmet needs in paediatric low-grade gliomas, high-grade gliomas, Langerhans cell histiocytosis, juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia and several other paediatric conditions. Although MAPK inhibitors have demonstrated activity in paediatric cancer, the response rates and duration of responses needs improvement and better documentation. The rapid development and evaluation of combination approaches, based on a deep understanding of biology, is required to optimise responses and to avoid paradoxical tumour growth and other unintended consequences including severe toxicity. Better inhibitors with higher central nervous systempenetration for primary brain tumours and cancers with a propensity for central nervous system metastases need to be studied to determine if they are more effective than agents currently being used, and the optimum duration of therapy with MAPK inhibition needs to be determined. Systematic and coordinated clinical investigations to inform future treatment strategies with MAPK inhibitors, rather than use outside of clinical trials, are needed to fully assess the risks and benefits of these single agents and combination strategies in both front-line and in the refractory/relapse settings. Platform trials could address the investigation of multiple similar products and combinations. Accelerating the introduction of MAPK inhibitors into front-line paediatric studies is a priority, as is ensuring that these studies generate data appropriate for scientific and regulatory purposes. Early discussions with regulators are crucial, particularly if external controls are considered as randomised control trials in small patient populations can be challenging. Functional end-points specific to the populations in which they are studied, such as visual acuity, motor and neuro psychological function are important, as these outcomes are often more reflective of benefit for lower grade tumours (such as paediatric low-grade glioma and plexiform neurofibroma) and should be included in initial study designs for paediatric low-grade glioma. Early prospective discussions and agreements with regulators are necessary. Long-term follow-up of patients receiving MAPK inhibitors is crucial in view of their prolonged administration and the important involvement of this pathway in normal development. Further rational development, with a detailed understanding of biology of this class of products, is crucial to ensure they provide optimal benefit while minimising toxicity to children and adolescents with cancer.

The Critical Role of Academic Clinical Trials in Pediatric Cancer Drug Approvals: Design, Conduct, and Fit for Purpose Data for Positive Regulatory Decisions.

PURPOSE: For decades, academic clinical trials consortia have collaborated to optimize outcomes for childhood cancers through evaluating incremental improvements in conventional mutimodality treatment regimes. There are now increasing opportunities to partner with industry to test new medicines in academic-sponsored trials, but these collaborative studies rarely contribute to marketing authorizations. We addressed why this is the case and sought solutions to enable academic-sponsored trials to directly contribute to the licensing of new medicines. METHODS: Under the auspices of the multistakeholder platform ACCELERATE, we convened a working group of representatives from clinical academia, pharmaceutical industry, European Medicines Agency, US Food and Drug Administration, and patient advocacy to define the challenges and propose recommendations to facilitate academic-sponsored trial design and conduct to be aligned to both the needs of the pharmaceutical company who own the asset and the expectations of the regulatory (licensing) authorities. RESULTS: We identified that although academic consortia have long-standing expertise to conduct robust clinical trials, there were critical gaps in knowledge, standard procedures, and resources that hindered the trial data directly contributing to marketing authorization applications. We propose a suite of recommendations focused on (1) essential documents, (2) essential data, (3) data management, and (4) trial resources, specifically aimed at enabling academic-industry partnerships to deliver an academic-sponsored trial that meets the requirements for a marketing authorization submission. These recommendations pivot around transparency in academic-industry partnerships and early engagement with regulators. CONCLUSION: Academic sponsors and industry partners need to prospectively recognize when the planned collaborative trial could contribute to an application to marketing authorization and plan accordingly. Transparent collaboration and knowledge sharing between the partners opens an important pathway for accelerating new treatments into clinical practice for children with cancer.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development of multi-targeted kinase inhibitors in bone sarcomas: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

The eighth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on multi-targeted kinase inhibitors (mTKIs) in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. The development of curative, innovative products in these tumours is a high priority and addresses unmet needs in children, adolescents and adults. Despite clinical and investigational use of mTKIs, efficacy in patients with bone tumours has not been definitively demonstrated. Randomised studies, currently being planned or in progress, in front-line and relapse settings will inform the further development of this class of product. It is crucial that these are rapidly initiated to generate robust data to support international collaborative efforts. The experience to date has generally indicated that the safety profile of mTKIs as monotherapy, and in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted therapy, is consistent with that of adults and that toxicity is manageable. Increasing understanding of relevant predictive biomarkers and tumour biology is absolutely critical to further develop this class of products. Biospecimen samples for correlative studies and biomarker development should be shared, and a joint academic-industry consortium created. This would result in an integrated collection of serial tumour tissues and a systematic retrospective and prospective analyses of these samples to ensure robust assessment of biologic effect of mTKIs. To support access for children to benefit from these novel therapies, clinical trials should be designed with sufficient scientific rationale to support regulatory and payer requirements. To achieve this, early dialogue between academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates is essential. Evaluating feasibility of combination strategies and then undertaking a randomised trial in the same protocol accelerates drug development. Where possible, clinical trials and development should include children, adolescents, and adults less than 40 years. To respond to emerging science, in approximately 12 months, a multi-stakeholder group will meet and review available data to determine future directions and priorities.