Eligibility criteria and enrollment of a diverse racial and ethnic population in multiple myeloma clinical trials.

The narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter global clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2019 to support the approval of the use of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies that analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility based on race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per Office of Management and Budget standards. Patients flagged as having screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as the percentage of patients who were ineligible compared with the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories to analyze the reasons for trial ineligibility. Black patients (24%) and other (23%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates than White patients (17%). The Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rate (12%) among all racial subgroups. Failure to meet the hematologic laboratory criteria (19%) and treatment-related criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Black patients and were more common in Black patients than in other races. Failure to meet disease-related criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in the underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

Researcher Experience and Comfort With Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring in Cancer Treatment Trials.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM. METHODS: Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site. RESULTS: There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research.

Impact of an evolving regulatory landscape on skin cancer drug development in the U.S.

BACKGROUND: There has been a rapid proliferation of FDA-approved medications with labeled indications for skin cancer over the last decade, with particular growth over the last 5 years. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the impact of an evolving U.S. regulatory framework on drug development programs to better understand current trends and regulatory considerations when adjudicating drug approvals for patients with skin cancer. METHODS: We reviewed publicly-available regulatory documents of all systemic medications with a labeled indication for skin cancer. RESULTS: We identified 130 FDA approvals that resulted in a unique indication, usage, formulation, or dosage change in skin cancer since 1949. LIMITATIONS: Publicly available data from the mid-to-late 20th century is limited. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic landscape in skin cancer has changed greatly since the first approval in 1949. In concert, regulatory medicine has also evolved over the last 70 years with the aim of ensuring safe and effective medicines for a diverse array of patients.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib.

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

Benefit-Risk Summary of Nivolumab for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Advanced, Recurrent, or Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Prior Fluoropyrimidine- and Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

On June 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved nivolumab (OPDIVO; Bristol Myers Squibb, New York, NY) for the treatment of patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was based on the results of a single, randomized, active-control study (ATTRACTION-3) that randomized patients to receive nivolumab or investigator's choice of taxane chemotherapy (docetaxel or paclitaxel). The study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS; hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.62-0.96; p = .0189) with an estimated median OS of 10.9 months in the nivolumab arm compared with 8.4 months in the chemotherapy arm. Overall, fewer patients in the nivolumab arm experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) of any grade, grade 3-4 TEAEs, and serious adverse events compared with the control arm. The safety profile of nivolumab in patients with ESCC was generally similar to the known safety profile of nivolumab in other cancer types with the following exception: esophageal fistula was identified as a new, clinically significant risk in patients with ESCC treated with nivolumab. Additionally, the incidence of pneumonitis was higher in the ESCC population than in patients with other cancer types who are treated with nivolumab. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab for the treatment of ESCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The approval of nivolumab for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy was based on an overall survival (OS) benefit from a randomized, open-label, active-controlled study called ATTRACTION-3. Prior to this study, no drug or combination regimen had demonstrated an OS benefit in a randomized study for patients with ESCC after prior fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-based chemotherapy.

Systematic Review of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors in Oncology: From Personalized Medicine to Public Health.

BACKGROUND: To review and summarize all U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death (PD)-1 and PD-ligand 1 blocking antibodies (collectively referred to as PD-[L]1 inhibitors) over a 6-year period and corresponding companion/complementary diagnostic assays. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To determine the indications and pivotal trials eligible for inclusion, approval letters and package inserts available on Drugs@FDA were evaluated for approved PD-[L]1 inhibitors to identify all new indications granted from the first approval of a PD-[L]1 inhibitor on September 4, 2014, through September 3, 2020. The corresponding FDA drug and device reviews from the marketing applications for the approved indications were identified through FDA internal records. Two reviewers independently extracted information for the endpoints, efficacy data, basis for approval, type of regulatory approval, and corresponding in vitro diagnostic device test. The results were organized by organ system and tumor type. RESULTS: Of 70 Biologic Licensing Application or supplement approvals that resulted in new indications, 32 (46%) were granted based on response rate (ORR) and durability of response, 26 (37%) on overall survival, 9 (13%) on progression-free survival, 2 (3%) on recurrence-free survival, and 1 (1%) on complete response rate. Most ORR-based approvals were granted under the accelerated approval provisions and were supported with prolonged duration of response. Overall, 21% of approvals were granted with a companion diagnostic. Efficacy results according to tumor type are discussed. CONCLUSION: PD-[L]1 inhibitors are an effective anticancer therapy in a subset of patients. This class of drugs has provided new treatment options for patients with unmet need across a wide variety of cancer types. Yet, the modest response rates in several tumor types signal a lack of understanding of the biology of these diseases. Further preclinical and clinical investigation may be required to identify a more appropriate patient population, particularly as drug development continues and additional treatment alternatives become available. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The number of PD-[L]1 inhibitors in drug development and the associated companion and complementary diagnostics have led to regulatory challenges and questions regarding generalizability of trial results. The interchangeability of PD-L1 immunohistochemical assays between PD-1/PD-L1 drugs is unclear. Furthermore, robust responses in some patients with low levels of PD-L1 expression have limited the use of PD-L1 as a predictive biomarker across all cancers, particularly in the setting of diseases with few alternative treatment options. This review summarizes the biomarker thresholds and assays approved as complementary and companion diagnostics and provides regulatory perspective on the role of biomarkers in oncology drug development.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for Recurrent Locally Advanced or Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Expressing PD-L1.

On September 22, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) for the treatment of patients with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic, gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma with disease progression on or after two or more systemic therapies, including fluoropyrimidine- and platinum-containing chemotherapy and, if appropriate, HER2/neu-targeted therapy, and whose tumors express programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), as determined by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on demonstration of durable overall response rate (ORR) in a multicenter, open-label, multicohort trial (KEYNOTE-059/Cohort 1) that enrolled 259 patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Among the 55% (n = 143) of patients whose tumors expressed PD-L1 based on a combined positive score ≥1 and either were microsatellite stable or had undetermined microsatellite instability or mismatch repair status, the confirmed ORR as determined by blinded independent central review was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2-20.0); 1.4% had complete responses. Response durations ranged from 2.8+ to 19.4+ months; 11 patients (58%) had response durations of 6 months or longer, and 5 patients (26%) had response durations of 12 months or longer. The most common (≥20%) adverse reactions of pembrolizumab observed in KEYNOTE-059/Cohort 1 were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse drug reactions were pleural effusion, pneumonia, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonitis. Pembrolizumab was approved concurrently with the PD-L1 immunohistochemistry 22C3 pharmDx test (Dako, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA) for selection of patients with gastric cancer for treatment with pembrolizumab based on PD-L1 tumor expression. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report presents key information on the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD-L1. The report discusses the basis for limiting the indication to patients with PD-L1-expressing tumors and the basis for recommending that PD-L1 status be assessed using a fresh tumor specimen if PD-L1 expression is not detected in an archival gastric or GEJ cancer specimen.

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.

FDA Approval Summary: Tremelimumab in Combination with Durvalumab for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

On October 21, 2022, the FDA approved tremelimumab (Imjudo) in combination with durvalumab for adult patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The approval was based on the results from the HIMALAYA study, in which patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who were naïve to previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three study arms: tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The primary objective of improvement in overall survival (OS) for tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab compared with sorafenib met statistical significance with a stratified HR of 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.92; P = 0.0035]. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI, 14.2-19.6) with tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab and 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.3-16.1) with sorafenib. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥20% of patients receiving tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab were rash, fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, musculoskeletal pain, and abdominal pain. The recommended tremelimumab dose for patients weighing 30 kg or more is 300 mg, i.v., as a single dose in combination with durvalumab 1,500 mg at cycle 1/day 1, followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg, i.v., every 4 weeks. For those weighing less than 30 kg, the recommended tremelimumab dose is 4 mg/kg, i.v., as a single dose in combination with durvalumab 20 mg/kg, i.v., followed by durvalumab 20 mg/kg, i.v., every 4 weeks.

FDA Approval Summary: Durvalumab and Pembrolizumab, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for the Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancer.

On September 2, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved durvalumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancers (BTC). On October 31, 2023, the FDA approved pembrolizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine for the same indication. Approvals were based on two randomized, multiregional, placebo-controlled trials that randomly allocated patients to receive durvalumab (TOPAZ-1) or pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-966) in combination with chemotherapy or placebo in combination with chemotherapy. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint in both studies. In both studies, a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in OS was demonstrated. In the TOPAZ-1 trial, the median OS of patients receiving durvalumab was 12.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.1-14.0] and 11.5 months (95% CI, 10.1-12.5) in patients receiving placebo [hazard ratio (HR), 0.80 (95% CI, 0.66-0.97)]. In the KEYNOTE-966 trial, the median OS of patients receiving pembrolizumab was 12.7 months (95% CI, 11.5-13.6) and 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.9-11.6) in patients receiving placebo [HR, 0.83 (95% CI, 0.72-0.95)]. The addition of checkpoint inhibitors to standard of care chemotherapy for this indication did not reveal any new adverse event signals, and the safety profile was generally consistent with the known clinical experience with durvalumab, pembrolizumab, and the backbone chemotherapy regimen. The approvals of durvalumab and pembrolizumab in combination with standard of care cisplatin and gemcitabine for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic BTC add two new therapeutic options for these patients.

Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

Remote Monitoring and Data Collection for Decentralized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in a clinical trial, partly due to financial and logistic burdens, especially among underserved populations. The COVID-19 pandemic marked a substantial shift in the adoption of decentralized trial operations by pharmaceutical companies. Objective: To assess the current global state of adoption of decentralized trial technologies, understand factors that may be driving or preventing adoption, and highlight aspirations and direction for industry to enable more patient-centric trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition, composed of patient advocacy, industry, government regulator, and academic medical center representatives, developed a survey directed to global biopharmaceutical companies of the coalition from October 1 through December 31, 2022, with a focus on registrational clinical trials. The data for this survey study were analyzed between January 1 and 31, 2023. Exposure: Adoption of decentralized clinical trial technologies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey measured (1) outcomes of different remote monitoring and data collection technologies on patient centricity, (2) adoption of these technologies in oncology and all therapeutic areas, and (3) barriers and facilitators to adoption using descriptive statistics. Results: All 8 invited coalition companies completed the survey, representing 33% of the oncology market by revenues in 2021. Across nearly all technologies, adoption in oncology trials lags that of all trials. In the current state, electronic diaries and electronic clinical outcome assessments are the most used technology, with a mean (SD) of 56% (19%) and 51% (29%) adoption for all trials and oncology trials, respectively, whereas visits within local physician networks is the least adopted at a mean (SD) of 12% (18%) and 7% (9%), respectively. Looking forward, the difference between the current and aspired adoption rate in 5 years for oncology is large, with respondents expecting a 40% or greater absolute adoption increase in 8 of the 11 technologies surveyed. Furthermore, digitally enabled recruitment, local imaging capabilities, and local physician networks were identified as technologies that could be most effective for improving patient centricity in the long term. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings may help to galvanize momentum toward greater adoption of enabling technologies to support a new paradigm of trials that are more accessible, less burdensome, and more inclusive.

FDA Approval Summary: Fruquintinib for the Treatment of Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

On November 8, 2023, the FDA approved fruquintinib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3, for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, an anti-EGFR therapy. Approval was based on Study FRESCO-2, a globally conducted, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The key secondary endpoint was progression-free survival. A total of 691 patients were randomly assigned (461 and 230 into the fruquintinib and placebo arms, respectively). Fruquintinib provided a statistically significant improvement in OS with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55, 0.80; P < 0.001]. The median OS was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.7, 8.2) in the fruquintinib arm and 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.0, 5.8) for the placebo arm. Adverse events observed were generally consistent with the known safety profile associated with the inhibition of VEGFR. The results of FRESCO-2 were supported by the FRESCO study, a double-blind, single-country, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in patients with refractory mCRC who have been previously treated with fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy. In FRESCO, the OS HR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51, 0.83; P < 0.001). FDA concluded that the totality of the evidence from FRESCO-2 and FRESCO supported an indication for patients with mCRC with prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-VEGF biological therapy, and if RAS wild-type and medically appropriate, an anti-EGFR therapy.

Equitable Access to Clinical Trials: How Do We Achieve It?

The mismatch between the study populations participating in oncology clinical trials and the composition of the targeted cancer population requires urgent amelioration. Regulatory requirements can mandate that trial sponsors enroll diverse study populations and ensure that regulatory revue prioritizes equity and inclusivity. A variety of projects directed at increasing accrual of underserved populations to oncology clinical trials emphasize best practices: broadened eligibility requirements for trials, simplification of trial procedures, community outreach through patient navigators, decentralization of clinical trial procedures and institution of telehealth, and funding to offset costs of travel and lodging. Substantial improvement will require major changes in culture in the educational and professional practice, research, and regulatory communities and will require major increases in public, corporate, and philanthropic funding.

Driving Diversity and Inclusion in Cancer Drug Development - Industry and Regulatory Perspectives, Current Practices, Opportunities, and Challenges.

In April 2022, the FDA issued draft guidance to help industry develop strategies to improve diversity in clinical trials. Historically, clinical trial sponsors have not systematically incorporated efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly during the early design stages of clinical development plans and operational strategies. Unfortunately, a retrospective approach to DEI often results in clinical trial participants not being reflective of the diversity of patients intended to be treated with new therapies. A shift to prospective, intentional DEI strategies for clinical trials, including long-term engagement with diverse patients and communities throughout the development life cycle, is necessary to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of new drugs and devices for all patients. Sponsors' current practices and opportunities for improving DEI address four major topics: institutional commitment, culture change, and governance; clinical development strategy; setting enrollment goals to ensure trial participant diversity; and development and implementation of the operational strategy. As DEI practices gain wider adoption in clinical trials, shared learning and collaboration among stakeholders on an ongoing and noncompetitive basis will lead to sustainable change. Prioritization of enrollment of diverse populations as an integral part of study start-up planning, clinical trial design, and recruitment capabilities will enhance the clinical development process for oncology therapies. Importantly, these efforts will help provide equitable access to clinical trials and innovative cancer therapies.

FDA Approval Summary: Ripretinib for Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor.

On May 15, 2020, the FDA approved ripretinib for adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. The approval was based on results from INVICTUS (NCT03353753), an international, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either ripretinib 150 mg once daily (n = 85) or matching placebo (n = 44). The trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by modified RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review for patients randomized to ripretinib, with a median PFS of 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-6.9] compared with 1.0 month (95% CI: 0.9-1.7) for placebo [HR: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.25); P < 0.0001, stratified log-rank test]. There was no statistically significant difference in objective response rate in the ripretinib arm, 9% (95% CI: 4.2-18) compared with placebo 0% [(95% CI: 0-8); P = 0.0504, Fisher exact test]. The median overall survival (OS) in the ripretinib arm was 15.1 months (95% CI: 12.3-15.1) compared with 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.1-11.6) in the placebo arm. A formal statistical comparison of OS was not made due to the prespecified hierarchical analysis plan. The most common (≥20%) adverse events with ripretinib, in order of decreasing frequency, were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and vomiting. Other important risks of ripretinib include new primary cutaneous malignancies, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction.

FDA Analysis of Ineligibility for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical Trials by Race and Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Patients of certain racial and ethnic groups have been underrepresented in clinical trials for treatment of malignancy. One potential barrier to participation is entry requirements that lead to patients in various racial and ethnic groups not meeting eligibility criteria for studies (ie, "screen failure"). The objective of this study was to analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility by race and ethnicity in trials of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, global clinical trials submitted to the FDA to support AML drugs and biologics. We examined the rate of ineligibility among participants screened for studies of AML therapies submitted to the FDA from 2016 to 2019. Data were extracted from 13 trials used in approval evaluations, including race, screen status, and reason for ineligibility. RESULTS: Overall, patients in historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were less likely to meet entry criteria for studies compared to White patients, with 26.7% of White patients, 29.4% of Black patients, and 35.9% of Asian patients not meeting entry criteria. Lack of relevant disease mutation was the reason for ineligibility more frequently among Black and Asian patients. The findings were limited by the small number of underrepresented patients screened for participation. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that entry requirements for studies may put underrepresented patients at a disadvantage, leading to less eligible patients and thus lower participation in clinical trials.

Assessing the Needs of Those Who Serve the Underserved: A Qualitative Study among US Oncology Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the 'Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved' (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. METHODS: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

State of Cancer Care in America: Achieving Cancer Health Equity Among Sexual and Gender Minority Communities.

In 2017, ASCO issued the position statement, Strategies for Reducing Cancer Health Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Populations, outlining five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both sexual and gender minority (SGM, eg, LGBTQ+) populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In 2019, ASCO convened the SGM Task Force to help actualize the recommendations of the 2017 position statement. The percentage of the US population who publicly identify as SGM has increased dramatically over the past few years. Although increased national interest in SGM health equity has accompanied a general interest in research, policy change, and education around diversity, equity, and inclusion, resulting from public concern over discrimination in health care against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, this has been accompanied by a surge in discriminatory legislation directly impacting the SGM community. Although much progress has been made in advancing SGM cancer health equity since 2017, more progress is needed to reduce disparities and advance equity. The five focus areas outlined in the 2017 ASCO position statement remain relevant, as we must continue to promote and advance equity in quality improvement, workforce development, patient care, research, and SGM-affirming policies. This article reports on the progress toward reducing SGM cancer disparities and achieving equity across these five areas and identifies future directions for the work that still remains.