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

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

Retrospective Assessment of a Serum Proteomic Test in a Phase III Study Comparing Erlotinib plus Placebo with Erlotinib plus Tivantinib (MARQUEE) in Previously Treated Patients with Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The VeriStrat test provides accurate predictions of outcomes in all lines of therapy for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We investigated the predictive and prognostic role of VeriStrat in patients enrolled on the MARQUEE phase III trial of tivantinib plus erlotinib (T+E) versus placebo plus erlotinib (P+E) in previously treated patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: Pretreatment plasma samples were available for 996 patients and were analyzed by matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight mass spectrometry to generate VeriStrat labels (good, VS-G, or poor, VS-P). RESULTS: Overall, no significant benefit in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were observed for the addition of tivantinib to erlotinib. Regardless of treatment arm, patients who were classified as VS-G had significantly longer PFS (3.8 mo for T+E arm, 2.0 mo for P+E arm) and OS (11.6 mo for T+E, 10.2 mo for P+E arm) than patients classified as VS-P (PFS: 1.9 mo for both arms, hazard ratio [HR], 0.584; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.468-0.733; p < .0001 for T+E, HR, 0.686; 95% CI, 0.546-0.870; p = .0015 for P+E; OS: 4.0 mo for both arms, HR, 0.333; 95% CI, 0.264-0.422; p < .0001 for T+E; HR, 0.449; 95% CI, 0.353-0.576; p < .0001 for P+E). The VS-G population had higher OS than the VS-P population within Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score (PS) categories. VS-G patients on the T+E arm had longer PFS, but not OS, than VS-G patients on the P+E arm (p = .0108). Among EGFR mutation-positive patients, those with VS-G status had a median OS more than twice that of any other group (OS: 31.6 mo for T+E and 22.8 mo for P+E), whereas VS-P patients had similar survival rates as VS-G, EGFR-wild type patients (OS: 13.7 mo for T+E and 6.5 mo for P+E). CONCLUSION: In these analyses, VeriStrat showed a prognostic role within EGOC PS categories and regardless of treatment arm and EGFR status, suggesting that VeriStrat could be used to identify EGFR mutation-positive patients who will have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study suggests that VeriStrat testing could enhance the prognostic role of performance status and smoking status and replicates findings from other trials that showed that the VeriStrat test identifies EGFR mutation-positive patients likely to have a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Although these findings should be confirmed in other populations, VeriStrat use could be considered in EGFR mutation-positive patients as an additional prognostic tool, and these results suggest that EGFR mutation-positive patients with VeriStrat "poor" classification could benefit from other therapeutic agents given in conjunction with TKI monotherapy.

Evaluation of health-related quality of life and symptoms in patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer treated with nivolumab or docetaxel in CheckMate 057.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab, a programmed death-1 inhibitor, prolonged overall survival and had a favourable safety profile versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the phase III CheckMate 057 trial. AIM: To evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Disease-related symptoms and general health status were assessed using two validated patient-reported instruments, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and the European Quality of Life Five Dimensions (EQ-5D), respectively. The proportion of patients with disease-related symptom improvement at 12 weeks on the LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI) was a secondary end-point. LCSS 3-item global index (3-IGI), EQ-5D utility index and EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were also determined. Mixed-effects model repeated measures (MMRM) and time to first deterioration analyses assessed longitudinal changes. RESULTS: Mean baseline LCSS ASBI scores were similar in both arms. By week 12, rates of disease-related improvement (95% confidence interval) were similar between nivolumab (17.8% [13.6-22.7]) and docetaxel (19.7% [15.2-24.7]); however, numerical differences in LCSS ASBI mean change from baseline favoured nivolumab. Subsequently, LCSS ASBI scores improved with nivolumab and worsened with docetaxel, with statistically significant between-arm differences at weeks 12, 24, 30 and 42. HRQoL improvements with nivolumab versus docetaxel were also supported by the LCSS 3-IGI, EQ-5D VAS and MMRM analysis. Time to first HRQoL deterioration was longer with nivolumab than with docetaxel. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab improved disease-related symptoms and overall health status versus docetaxel for second-line treatment of advanced non-squamous NSCLC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01673867.

Assessment of EGFR Mutation Status in Matched Plasma and Tumor Tissue of NSCLC Patients from a Phase I Study of Rociletinib (CO-1686).

PURPOSE: The evaluation of plasma testing for the EGFR resistance mutation T790M in NSCLC patients has not been broadly explored. We investigated the detection of EGFR activating and T790M mutations in matched tumor tissue and plasma, mostly from patients with acquired resistance to first-generation EGFR inhibitors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Samples were obtained from two studies, an observational study and a phase I trial of rociletinib, a mutant-selective inhibitor of EGFR that targets both activating mutations and T790M. Plasma testing was performed with the cobas EGFR plasma test and BEAMing. RESULTS: The positive percent agreement (PPA) between cobas plasma and tumor results was 73% (55/75) for activating mutations and 64% (21/33) for T790M. The PPA between BEAMing plasma and tumor results was 82% (49/60) for activating mutations and 73% (33/45) for T790M. Presence of extrathoracic (M1b) versus intrathoracic (M1a/M0) disease was found to be strongly associated with ability to identify EGFR mutations in plasma (P < 0.001). Rociletinib objective response rates (ORR) were 52% [95% confidence interval (CI), 31 - 74%] for cobas tumor T790M-positive and 44% (95% CI, 25 - 63%) for BEAMing plasma T790M-positive patients. A drop in plasma-mutant EGFR levels to ≤10 molecules/mL was seen by day 21 of treatment in 7 of 8 patients with documented partial response. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest the cobas and BEAMing plasma tests can be useful tools for noninvasive assessment and monitoring of the T790M resistance mutation in NSCLC, and could complement tumor testing by identifying T790M mutations missed because of tumor heterogeneity or biopsy inadequacy. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2386-95. ©2016 AACR.