Sponsors' and investigative staffs' perceptions of the current investigational new drug safety reporting process in oncology trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Food and Drug Administration's final rule on investigational new drug application safety reporting, effective from 28 March 2011, clarified the reporting requirements for serious and unexpected suspected adverse reactions occurring in clinical trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative released recommendations in 2013 to assist implementation of the final rule; however, anecdotal reports and data from a Food and Drug Administration audit indicated that a majority of reports being submitted were still uninformative and did not result in actionable changes. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative investigated remaining barriers and potential solutions to full implementation of the final rule by polling and interviewing investigators, clinical research staff, and sponsors. METHODS: In an opinion-gathering effort, two discrete online surveys designed to assess challenges and motivations related to management of expedited (7- to 15-day) investigational new drug safety reporting processes in oncology trials were developed and distributed to two populations: investigators/clinical research staff and sponsors. Data were collected for approximately 1 year. Twenty-hour-long interviews were also conducted with Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative-nominated interview participants who were considered as having extensive knowledge of and experience with the topic. Interviewees included 13 principal investigators/study managers/research team members and 7 directors/vice presidents of pharmacovigilance operations from 5 large global pharmaceutical companies. RESULTS: The investigative site's responses indicate that too many individual reports are still being submitted, which are time-consuming to process and provide little value for patient safety assessments or for informing actionable changes. Fewer but higher quality reports would be more useful, and the investigator and staff would benefit from sponsors'"filtering" of reports and increased sponsor communication. Sponsors replied that their greatest challenges include (1) lack of global harmonization in reporting rules, (2) determining causality, and (3) fear of regulatory repercussions. Interaction with the Food and Drug Administration has helped improve sponsors' adherence to the final rule, and sponsors would benefit from increased communication with the Food and Drug Administration and educational materials. CONCLUSION: The goal of the final rule is to minimize uninformative safety reports so that important safety signals can be captured and communicated early enough in a clinical program to make changes that help ensure patient safety. Investigative staff and sponsors acknowledge that the rule has not been fully implemented although they agree with the intention. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative will use the results from the surveys and interviews to develop new recommendations and educational materials that will be available to sponsors to increase compliance with the final rule and facilitate discussion between sponsors, investigators, and Food and Drug Administration representatives.

Enhancing clinical evidence by proactively building quality into clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholders across the clinical trial enterprise have expressed concern that the current clinical trial enterprise is unsustainable. The cost and complexity of trials have continued to increase, threatening our ability to generate reliable evidence essential for making appropriate decisions concerning the benefits and harms associated with clinical interventions. Overcoming this inefficiency rests on improving protocol design, trial planning, and quality oversight. METHODS: The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative convened a project to evaluate methods to prospectively build quality into the scientific and operational design of clinical trials ("quality-by-design"), such that trials are feasible to conduct and important errors are prevented rather than remediated. A working group evaluated aspects of trial design and oversight and developed the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative quality-by-design principles document, outlining a series of factors generally relevant to the reliability of trial conclusions and to patient safety. These principles were then applied and further refined during a series of hands-on workshops to evaluate their utility in facilitating proactive, cross-functional dialogue, and decision-making about trial design and planning. Following these workshops, independent qualitative interviews were conducted with 19 workshop attendees to explore the potential challenges for implementing a quality-by-design approach to clinical trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative project team subsequently developed recommendations and an online resource guide to support implementation of this approach. CONCLUSION: The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative quality-by-design principles provide a framework for assuring that clinical trials adequately safeguard participants and provide reliable information on which to make decisions on the effects of treatments. The quality-by-design workshops highlighted the value of active discussions incorporating the different perspectives within and external to an organization (e.g. clinical investigators, research site staff, and trial participants) in improving trial design. Workshop participants also recognized the value of focusing oversight on those aspects of the trial where errors would have a major impact on participant safety and reliability of results. Applying the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative quality-by-design recommendations and principles should enable organizations to prioritize the most critical determinants of a trial's quality, identify non-essential activities that can be eliminated to streamline trial conduct and oversight, and formulate appropriate plans to define, avoid, mitigate, monitor, and address important errors.

Bevacizumab exposure beyond first disease progression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: analyses of the ARIES observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: This analysis from Avastin® Registries: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) examined the association between exposure to bevacizumab after disease progression (PD) and postprogression survival (PPS) in bevacizumab-exposed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through the application of time-dependent and time-fixed analytical methods. METHODS: Patients with mCRC who were treated with first-line bevacizumab and who survived first PD (PD1) were included. A time-dependent Cox regression model was fitted to assess the effect of cumulative bevacizumab exposure on PPS, while controlling for potential confounders. In addition to support findings from previous studies, a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) analysis compared PPS in patients who received bevacizumab beyond disease progression (BBP) with those who did not (No-BBP). RESULTS: Of 1550 patients, 1199 survived PD1 and had a median PPS of 13.4 months. Cumulative bevacizumab exposure was associated with improved PPS (p = 0.0040). After adjusting for confounders, the hazard ratios (HRs) for PPS decreased, on average, by 1.2% (range, 1.1-1.3%) with each additional dose of bevacizumab. In the mITT analysis, the median PPS for BBP (n = 438) was 14.4 months vs 10.6 months with for No-BBP (n = 667). BBP was found to be independently associated with longer PPS in a multivariable Cox regression analysis (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.97). Protocol-specified adverse events suspected to be associated with bevacizumab occurred in 13.0% of patients with BBP. CONCLUSION: This analysis supports the observation that bevacizumab exposure after PD1 is associated with longer PPS in mCRC.

Treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer initially treated with FOLFOX-bevacizumab or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab: results from ARIES, a bevacizumab observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Avastin Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration. METHODS: The ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: In total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX-bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX-bevacizumab and FOLFIRI-bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI-bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78-1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX-bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX-bevacizumab and FOLFIRI-bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.

KRAS and colorectal cancer: ethical and pragmatic issues in effecting real-time change in oncology clinical trials and practice.

Systemic therapy has led to a median survival time for patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) almost fourfold longer than that expected with best supportive care, an outcome achieved through combining chemotherapeutic and targeted biologic agents. Although the latter can include anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies, such as cetuximab and panitumumab, we now have strong evidence that patients whose tumors harbor mutated KRAS will not benefit from this class of agent. Acceptance of the reliability and importance of the KRAS data took several years to evolve, however, for a variety of reasons. The timeline from the presentation and publication of small, retrospective phase II studies to widespread acceptance of the KRAS predictive value and changes in behavior-specifically, modifications of ongoing national trials in advanced/metastatic CRC, changes in national guidelines and practice patterns, and adjustments to the labeled indications for the monoclonal antibodies-was lengthy. In this commentary, we discuss whether or not the process of data disclosure regarding KRAS status and treatment of advanced CRC patients was effective in permitting timely decisions regarding ongoing publicly funded clinical trials and whether or not such decisions were rational and ethical. The overall goals are to highlight lessons learned regarding early disclosure of clinical trial results, as well as vetting and adoption of new scientific data, and to propose modifications for handling similar situations in the future.

Ethical Framework for Including Research Biopsies in Oncology Clinical Trials: American Society of Clinical Oncology Research Statement.

In contrast to clinical biopsies, where tissue is collected to inform patient care, research biopsies are performed for scientific purposes to potentially enhance understanding of the biologic bases of cancer and drug action, thereby improving diagnosis and treatment, but they may offer no direct benefit to participants and have known risks. The widespread use of research biopsies that do not have the potential to directly benefit participants has come under scrutiny, with critics raising ethical concerns related to the adequacy of participant protections, informed consent, and participant understanding of the risks and benefits, as well as the scientific impact of research biopsies on drug development and treatment. This manuscript presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) ethical framework for incorporation of research biopsies in trials. The framework provides guidance on the circumstances to include optional and mandatory biopsies, as well as provides recommendations to stakeholders on necessary steps for improving the conduct of research biopsies overall.

Factors affecting the communication experiences of newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed patient-centered communication (PCC) among newly diagnosed colorectal cancer patients. PCC, a key part of patient-centered care, contributes directly and indirectly to health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, and other outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a survey of patients in North Carolina, using a theoretically-based and validated measure that provides an overall PCC score and subscale scores for six PCC functions. RESULTS: A total of 501 patients participated. The highest scores were for the PCC functions of Fostering Healing Relationships, Exchanging Information, and Making Decisions. The lowest scores were for the functions of Managing Uncertainty and Enabling Self-Management, yet these were functions respondents rated as most important. Respondents who thought about more than one health professional (versus oncologist) reported better communication. PCC also varied by treatment type, mental and physical health status, age, race, and education. CONCLUSION: Most patients reported good communication overall, however patients in poor physical health and mental health reported worse communication. The quality of communication varied across the PCC functions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Health professionals need to use a PCC approach that builds trust, respects the patient, provides salient information that patients can understand, provides emotional support, and facilitates the patient's engagement in care.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology-Friends of Cancer Research Organ Dysfunction, Prior or Concurrent Malignancy, and Comorbidities Working Group.

Purpose Patients with organ dysfunction, prior or concurrent malignancies, and comorbidities are often excluded from clinical trials. Excluding patients on the basis of these factors results in clinical trial participants who are healthier and younger than the overall population of patients with cancer. Methods ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research established a multidisciplinary working group that included experts in trial design and conduct to examine how eligibility criteria could be more inclusive. The group analyzed current eligibility criteria; conducted original data analysis; considered safety concerns, potential benefits, research, and potential hurdles of this approach through discussion; and reached consensus on recommendations regarding updated eligibility criteria that prioritize inclusiveness without compromising patient safety. Results If renal toxicity and clearance are not of direct treatment-related concern, then patients with lower creatinine clearance values of > 30 mL/min should be included in trials. Inclusion of patients with mild to moderate hepatic dysfunction may be possible when the totality of the available nonclinical and clinical data indicates that inclusion is safe. Ejection fraction values should be used with investigator assessment of a patient's risk for heart failure to determine eligibility. Patients with laboratory parameters out of normal range as a result of hematologic disease should be included in trials. Measures of patient functional status should be included in trials to better assess fit versus frail patients. Conclusion Expanding inclusion of these patients will increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and result in a more appropriate population of patients.

Engaging Patient Advocates and Other Stakeholders to Design Measures of Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered communication (PCC) is an essential component of patient-centered care and contributes to patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, and other important patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and test survey questions to assess patients' experiences with PCC in cancer care. METHODS: We used a conceptual model developed by the National Cancer Institute as our framework. The survey questions align with the six core functions of PCC defined in the model: Exchanging Information, Managing Uncertainty, Enabling Patient Self-Management, Fostering Healing Relationships, Making Decisions, and Responding to Emotions. The study focused on colorectal cancer patients. We conducted two rounds of cognitive interviewing to evaluate patients' ability to understand and provide valid answers to the PCC questions. Interviews were conducted in Maryland and North Carolina in 2014. We involved a patient advocacy group, Fight Colorectal Cancer, and a multidisciplinary panel of stakeholders throughout the measurement development process to ensure that the survey questions capture aspects of PCC that are important to patients and meet the needs of potential end users, including researchers, healthcare organizations, and health professionals. RESULTS: Patient and other stakeholder input informed revisions of draft survey questions, including changes to survey instructions, frame of reference for questions, response scales, and language. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the feasibility and value of engaging patients and other stakeholders in a measurement development study. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) conceptual model of patient-centered outcomes research provides a useful guide for patient engagement in research. Research funders should call for meaningful roles for patients and other stakeholders in health research, including in the development of patient-centered outcomes.

Psychometric evaluation and design of patient-centered communication measures for cancer care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of questions that assess patient perceptions of patient-provider communication and design measures of patient-centered communication (PCC). METHODS: Participants (adults with colon or rectal cancer living in North Carolina) completed a survey at 2 to 3 months post-diagnosis. The survey included 87 questions in six PCC Functions: Exchanging Information, Fostering Health Relationships, Making Decisions, Responding to Emotions, Enabling Patient Self-Management, and Managing Uncertainty. For each Function we conducted factor analyses, item response theory modeling, and tests for differential item functioning, and assessed reliability and construct validity. RESULTS: Participants included 501 respondents; 46% had a high school education or less. Reliability within each Function ranged from 0.90 to 0.96. The PCC-Ca-36 (36-question survey; reliability=0.94) and PCC-Ca-6 (6-question survey; reliability=0.92) measures differentiated between individuals with poor and good health (i.e., known-groups validity) and were highly correlated with the HINTS communication scale (i.e., convergent validity). CONCLUSION: This study provides theory-grounded PCC measures found to be reliable and valid in colorectal cancer patients in North Carolina. Future work should evaluate measure validity over time and in other cancer populations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PCC-Ca-36 and PCC-Ca-6 measures may be used for surveillance, intervention research, and quality improvement initiatives.

A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the National Cancer Institute's Original and Revised Consent Form Templates.

Since 1998, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has mandated that researchers use its consent form template in developing consent forms for their NCI-funded clinical trials. The template was substantially revised in 2013 to aid in the development of simpler, more concise consent forms. The NCI conducted a randomized controlled trial with cancer survivors (N = 153) to assess the revised template's effect on individuals' knowledge, satisfaction, clarity, and likelihood of joining a trial in the future. We found that the revised template resulted in equally high knowledge and satisfaction scores as the original template, but with fewer words and pages. The likelihood that an individual would participate in a trial diminished after he or she reviewed either the original or revised consent form, yet having knowledge about trials before reviewing the consent forms resulted in increased satisfaction. To ensure an informed decision-making process, we recommend using the revised NCI consent form template along with using educational interventions aimed at increasing the understanding potential participants have of a trial before they receive a consent form.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement.

Purpose The primary purposes of eligibility criteria are to protect the safety of trial participants and define the trial population. Excessive or overly restrictive eligibility criteria can slow trial accrual, jeopardize the generalizability of results, and limit understanding of the intervention's benefit-risk profile. Methods ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration examined specific eligibility criteria (ie, brain metastases, minimum age, HIV infection, and organ dysfunction and prior and concurrent malignancies) to determine whether to modify definitions to extend trials to a broader population. Working groups developed consensus recommendations based on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research community. Results Patients with treated or clinically stable brain metastases should be routinely included in trials and only excluded if there is compelling rationale. In initial dose-finding trials, pediatric-specific cohorts should be included based on strong scientific rationale for benefit. Later phase trials in diseases that span adult and pediatric populations should include patients older than age 12 years. HIV-infected patients who are healthy and have low risk of AIDS-related outcomes should be included absent specific rationale for exclusion. Renal function criteria should enable liberal creatinine clearance, unless the investigational agent involves renal excretion. Patients with prior or concurrent malignancies should be included, especially when the risk of the malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Conclusion To maximize generalizability of results, trial enrollment criteria should strive for inclusiveness. Rationale for excluding patients should be clearly articulated and reflect expected toxicities associated with the therapy under investigation.

A Blueprint to Advance Colorectal Cancer Immunotherapies.

Immunotherapy is rapidly becoming a standard of care for many cancers. However, colorectal cancer had been generally resistant to immunotherapy, despite features in common with sensitive tumors. Observations of substantial clinical activity for checkpoint blockade in colorectal cancers with defective mismatch repair (microsatellite instability-high tumors) have reignited interest in the search for immunotherapies that could be extended to the larger microsatellite stable (MSS) population. The Cancer Research Institute and Fight Colorectal Cancer convened a group of scientists, clinicians, advocates, and industry experts in colorectal cancer and immunotherapy to compile ongoing research efforts, identify gaps in translational and clinical research, and provide a blueprint to advance immunotherapy. We identified lack of a T-cell inflamed phenotype (due to inadequate T-cell infiltration, inadequate T-cell activation, or T-cell suppression) as a broad potential explanation for failure of checkpoint blockade in MSS. The specific cellular and molecular underpinnings for these various mechanisms are unclear. Whether biomarkers with prognostic value, such as the immunoscores and IFN signatures, would also predict benefit for immunotherapies in MSS colon cancer is unknown, but if so, these and other biomarkers for measuring the potential for an immune response in patients with colorectal cancer will need to be incorporated into clinical guidelines. We have proposed a framework for research to identify immunologic factors that may be modulated to improve immunotherapy for colorectal cancer patients, with the goal that the biomarkers and treatment strategies identified will become part of the routine management of colorectal cancer. Cancer Immunol Res; 5(11); 942-9. ©2017 AACR.

Extended RAS Gene Mutation Testing in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma to Predict Response to Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Monoclonal Antibody Therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion Update 2015.

PURPOSE: An American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction after publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO update addresses the utility of extended RAS gene mutation testing in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to detect resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (MoAb) therapy. CLINICAL CONTEXT: Recent results from phase II and III clinical trials in mCRC demonstrate that patients whose tumors harbor RAS mutations in exons 2 (codons 12 and 13), 3 (codons 59 and 61), and 4 (codons 117 and 146) are unlikely to benefit from therapy with MoAbs directed against EGFR, when used as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy. RECENT DATA: In addition to the evidence reviewed in the original PCO, 11 systematic reviews with meta-analyses, two retrospective analyses, and two health technology assessments based on a systematic review were obtained. These evaluated the outcomes for patients with mCRC with no mutation detected or presence of mutation in additional exons in KRAS and NRAS. PCO: All patients with mCRC who are candidates for anti-EGFR antibody therapy should have their tumor tested in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified laboratory for mutations in both KRAS and NRAS exons 2 (codons 12 and 13), 3 (codons 59 and 61), and 4 (codons 117 and 146). The weight of current evidence indicates that anti-EGFR MoAb therapy should only be considered for treatment of patients whose tumor is determined to not have mutations detected after such extended RAS testing.

Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention to Address Barriers to Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes have been identified as barriers to participation in clinical trials by patients with cancer. We developed Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials (PRE-ACT), a theory-guided, Web-based, interactive computer program, to deliver tailored video educational content to patients in an effort to overcome barriers to considering clinical trials as a treatment option. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized clinical trial compared PRE-ACT with a control condition that provided general clinical trials information produced by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in text format. One thousand two hundred fifty-five patients with cancer were randomly allocated before their initial visit with an oncologist to PRE-ACT (n = 623) or control (n = 632). PRE-ACT had three main components: assessment of clinical trials knowledge and attitudinal barriers, values assessment with clarification back to patients, and provision of a video library tailored to address each patient's barriers. Outcomes included knowledge and attitudes and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. RESULTS: Both PRE-ACT and control interventions improved knowledge and attitudes (all P < .001) compared with baseline. Patients randomly allocated to PRE-ACT showed a significantly greater increase in knowledge (P < .001) and a significantly greater decrease in attitudinal barriers (P < .001) than did their control (text-only) counterparts. Participants in both arms significantly increased their preparedness to consider clinical trials (P < .001), and there was a trend favoring the PRE-ACT group (P < .09). PRE-ACT was also associated with greater patient satisfaction than was NCI text alone. CONCLUSION: These data show that patient education before the first oncologist visit improves knowledge, attitudes, and preparation for decision making about clinical trials. Both text and tailored video were effective. The PRE-ACT interactive video program was more effective than NCI text in improving knowledge and reducing attitudinal barriers.

Financial Concerns About Participation in Clinical Trials Among Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The decision to enroll in a clinical trial is complex given the uncertain risks and benefits of new approaches. Many patients also have financial concerns. We sought to characterize the association between financial concerns and the quality of decision making about clinical trials. METHODS: We conducted a secondary data analysis of a randomized trial of a Web-based educational tool (Preparatory Education About Clinical Trials) designed to improve the preparation of patients with cancer for making decisions about clinical trial enrollment. Patients completed a baseline questionnaire that included three questions related to financial concerns (five-point Likert scales): "How much of a burden on you is the cost of your medical care?," "I'm afraid that my health insurance won't pay for a clinical trial," and "I'm worried that I wouldn't be able to afford the costs of treatment on a clinical trial." Results were summed, with higher scores indicating greater concerns. We used multiple linear regressions to measure the association between concerns and self-reported measures of self-efficacy, preparation for decision making, distress, and decisional conflict in separate models, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: One thousand two hundred eleven patients completed at least one financial concern question. Of these, 27% were 65 years or older, 58% were female, and 24% had a high school education or less. Greater financial concern was associated with lower self-efficacy and preparation for decision making, as well as with greater decisional conflict and distress, even after adjustment for age, race, sex, education, employment, and hospital location (P < .001 for all models). CONCLUSION: Financial concerns are associated with several psychological constructs that may negatively influence decision quality regarding clinical trials. Greater attention to patients' financial needs and concerns may reduce distress and improve patient decision making.

Involving Advocates in Cancer Research.

Advocates can play an important role in cancer research. In 2010, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Advocate in Research Working Group (ARWG) defined a "research advocate" as an individual who brings and can convey a nonscientific viewpoint to the research process and can communicate a collective patient perspective through knowledge of multiple disease experiences. Experiences cited in this review are related to publically funded research. They, exemplify challenges and successes of advocate engagement and involvement in the cancer research process.

Hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline endorsement of the familial risk-colorectal cancer: European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

PURPOSE: To provide recommendations on prevention, screening, genetics, treatment, and management for people at risk for hereditary colorectal cancer (CRC) syndromes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has a policy and set of procedures for endorsing clinical practice guidelines that have been developed by other professional organizations. METHODS: The Familial Risk-Colorectal Cancer: European Society for Medical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline published in 2013 on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Guidelines Working Group in Annals of Oncology was reviewed for developmental rigor by methodologists, with content and recommendations reviewed by an ASCO endorsement panel. RESULTS: The ASCO endorsement panel determined that the recommendations of the ESMO guidelines are clear, thorough, and based on the most relevant scientific evidence. The ASCO panel endorsed the ESMO guidelines and added a few qualifying statements. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approximately 5% to 6% of patient cases of CRC are associated with germline mutations that confer an inherited predisposition for cancer. The possibility of a hereditary cancer syndrome should be assessed for every patient at the time of CRC diagnosis. A diagnosis of Lynch syndrome, familial adenomatous polyposis, or another genetic syndrome can influence clinical management for patients with CRC and their family members. Screening for hereditary cancer syndromes in patients with CRC should include review of personal and family histories and testing of tumors for DNA mismatch repair deficiency and/or microsatellite instability. Formal genetic evaluation is recommended for individuals who meet defined criteria.