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.

Measuring ovarian toxicity in clinical trials: an American Society of Clinical Oncology research statement.

Anticancer agents can impair ovarian function, resulting in premature menopause and associated long-term health effects. Ovarian toxicity is not usually adequately assessed in trials of anticancer agents, leaving an important information gap for patients facing therapy choices. This American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) statement provides information about the incorporation of ovarian toxicity measures in trial design. ASCO recommends: (1) measurement of ovarian toxicity in relevant clinical trials of anticancer agents that enrol post-pubertal, pre-menopausal patients; (2) collection of ovarian function measures at baseline and at 12-24 months after anticancer agent cessation, as a minimum, and later in line with the trial schedule; and (3) assessment of both clinical measures and biomarkers of ovarian function. ASCO recognises that routine measurement of ovarian toxicity and function in cancer clinical trials will add additional complexity and burden to trial resources but asserts that this issue is of such importance to patients that it cannot continue to be overlooked.

Rate of COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2: Analysis of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry.

BACKGROUND: The availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has enabled protections against serious COVID-19 outcomes, which are particularly important for patients with cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry enabled the study of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in patients with cancer who were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2. METHODS: Medical oncology practices entered data on patients who were in cancer treatment. The cohort included patients who had severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection in 2020 and had visits and vaccine data after December 31, 2020. The primary end point was the time to first vaccination from January 1, 2021. Cumulative incidence estimates and Cox regression with death as a competing risk were used to describe the time to vaccine uptake and factors associated with vaccine receipt. RESULTS: The cohort included 1155 patients from 56 practices. Among 690 patients who received the first vaccine dose, 92% received the second dose. The median time to vaccine was 99 days. After adjustment, older patients were associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination compared with patients younger than 50 years in January through March 2021, and age exhibited a linear effect, with older patients showing higher rates of vaccination. Metastatic solid tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98) or non-B-cell hematologic malignancies (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) compared with nonmetastatic solid tumors, and any comorbidity (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) compared with no comorbidity, were associated with lower vaccination rates. Area-level social determinants of health (lower education attainment and higher unemployment rates) were associated with lower vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, cancer type, comorbidity, area-level education attainment, and unemployment rates were associated with differential vaccine uptake rates. These findings should inform strategies to communicate about vaccine safety and efficacy to patients with cancer.

Understanding the role of advanced practice providers in oncology in the United States.

PURPOSE: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include NPs and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all APPs in oncology and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. METHODS: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. RESULTS: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577 out of 3,055, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is about $10,000 higher than average pay for APPs not in oncology. CONCLUSION: We identified 5,350 APPs in oncology and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Insurance denials for cancer clinical trial participation after the Affordable Care Act mandate.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes a mandate requiring most private health insurers to cover routine patient care costs for cancer clinical trial participation; however, the impact of this provision on cancer centers' efforts to accrue patients to clinical trials has not been well described. METHODS: First, members of cancer research centers and community-based institutions (n = 252) were surveyed to assess the status of insurance denials, and then, a focused survey (n = 77) collected denial details. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine associations between the receipt of denials and site characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 62.7% of the initial survey respondents reported at least 1 insurance denial during 2014. Sites using a precertification process were 3.04 times more likely to experience denials (95% confidence interval, 1.55-5.99; P ≤ .001), and similar rates of denials were reported from sites located in states with preexisting clinical trial coverage laws versus states without them (82.3% vs 85.1%; χ = 50.7; P ≤ .001). Among the focused survey sites, academic centers reported denials more often than community sites (71.4% vs 46.4%). The failure of plans to cover trial participation was cited as the most common reason provided for denials (n = 33 [80.5%]), with nearly 80% of sites (n = 61) not receiving a coverage response from the insurer within 72 hours. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the ACA's mandate for most insurers to cover routine care costs for cancer clinical trial participation, denials and delays continue. Denials may continue because some insurers remain exempt from the law, or they may signal an implementation failure. Delays in coverage may affect patient participation in trials. Additional efforts to eliminate this barrier will be needed to achieve federal initiatives to double the pace of cancer research over the next 5 years. Future work should assess the law's effectiveness at the patient level to inform these efforts. Cancer 2017;123:2893-900. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

State of Geographic Access to Cancer Treatment Trials in the United States: Are Studies Located Where Patients Live?

PURPOSE: In this study, we describe the geographic distribution of US cancer treatment trials to identify disparities and opportunities for targeted improvements in access to research for people with cancer. METHODS: US-based phase I-III cancer treatment trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov were tabulated for the years they were open to enrollment (2017-2022), overall and by county, and supplemented with data from the US Census Bureau, National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and US Department of Agriculture. We evaluated geographic differences in trial availability. We assessed 5-year trends in trials per capita and mapped 1-hour drive time areas around sites. RESULTS: A total of 6,710 trials were open to enrollment in 2022 across 1,836 sites. Trials increased by 4%, whereas sites decreased by 3% annually per capita from 2017. Seventy percent of US counties had no reported active trials in 2022 (2,211/3,143), representing 19% of people age ≥55 years. Eighty-six percent of nonmetropolitan counties had no trials versus 44% of metropolitan counties. Trial availability varied by county-level cancer mortality and social vulnerability (an index derived from demographic and socioeconomic data from the US Census). Eighteen percent of counties without trials had oncologist care sites (n = 618). Notably, 26% of people age ≥55 years lived beyond an hour drive of a site with ≥100 trials. CONCLUSION: Most US counties have limited to no trial offerings, a disparity magnified in counties that are nonmetropolitan, with high social vulnerability, and with high cancer mortality. Effort to facilitate diverse site participation is needed to promote equitable access to trials and to ensure patients participating in trials match the characteristics of patients who will receive interventions once approved. Counties with oncology care sites but no trials provide potential expansion areas.

Improving Access to Patient-Focused, Decentralized Clinical Trials Requires Streamlined Regulatory Requirements: An ASCO Research Statement.

Strategies to bring clinical trials closer to patients gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling more participants to receive treatment and/or testing in their local communities. Incorporation of decentralized trial elements presents both opportunities and challenges, spanning regulatory, technical, and operational aspects. This ASCO research statement includes timely consensus-driven recommendations and a call for engagement of all research stakeholders. ASCO held multistakeholder meetings with leaders in oncology research and concluded that research-related regulatory and administrative requirements and burdens present critical barriers to decentralizing trials. One example is sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Statement of Investigator (Form 1572), which was found to exceed FDA's stated intent and used in conservative ways disproportionate to potential risks to participants and scientific integrity. As a result, research sites experience an avalanche of downstream administrative and regulatory activities that consume considerable resources. This statement recommends four key solutions to address such barriers and recalibrate regulatory and administrative expectations for decentralizing trials: (1) FDA should engage the research community in a public-private partnership to modernize standards and enable local access to trials; (2) sponsors and CROs should develop standards and protocols that accommodate flexible approaches, enable local participation, provide clarity around roles and requirements, and promote consistency; (3) research centers, networks, and sites should update policies and procedures to implement decentralized trial elements; and (4) research community should develop a streamlined, uniform mechanism to simplify regulatory data collection and documentation and use it consistently across trials. We can and must prioritize a concerted commitment to simplify and streamline regulatory requirements and practices to broaden access to and participation in cancer clinical trials.

Impact of COVID-19 on Management and Outcomes of Oncology Patients: Results of MENA COVID-19 and Cancer Registry (MCCR).

Introduction: Despite extensive studies of the impact of COVID-19 on patients with cancer, there is a dearth of information from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Our study aimed to report pertinent MENA COVID-19 and Cancer Registry (MCCR) findings on patient management and outcomes. Methods: MCCR was adapted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology COVID-19 Registry to collect data specifically from patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection from 12 centers in eight countries including Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, United Arab Emirates, and Morocco. The Registry included data on patients and disease characteristics, treatment, and patient outcomes. Logistic regression was used to assess associations with mortality. Results: Between November 29, 2020, and June 8, 2021, data were captured on 2008 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from the beginning of the pandemic. Median age was 56 years (16-98), 56.4% were females, and 26% were current or ex-smokers. Breast cancer (28.5%) was the leading diagnosis and 50.5% had metastatic disease. Delays of planned treatment (>14 days) occurred in 80.3% for surgery, 48.8% for radiation therapy, and 32.9% for systemic therapy. Significant reduction in the delays of all three treatment modalities occurred after June 1, 2020. All-cause mortality rates at 30 and 90 days were 17.1% and 23.4%, respectively. All-cause mortality rates at 30 days did not change significantly after June 1, 2020; however, 90-day mortality increased from 33.4% to 42.9% before and after that date (p = 0.015). Multivariable regression analysis showed the following predictors of higher 30- and 90-day mortality: age older than 70 years, having metastatic disease, disease progression, and being off chemotherapy. Conclusion: Patients with cancer in the MENA region experienced similar risks and outcome of COVID-19 as reported in other populations. Although there were fewer treatment delays after June 1, 2020, 90-day mortality increased, which may be attributed to other risk factors such as disease progression or new patients who presented with more advanced disease.

Molecular profiling of 888 pediatric tumors informs future precision trials and data-sharing initiatives in pediatric cancer.

To inform clinical trial design and real-world precision pediatric oncology practice, we classified diagnoses, assessed the landscape of mutations, and identified genomic variants matching trials in a large unselected institutional cohort of solid tumors patients sequenced at Dana-Farber / Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center. Tumors were sequenced with OncoPanel, a targeted next-generation DNA sequencing panel. Diagnoses were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases for Oncology (ICD-O-3.2). Over 6.5 years, 888 pediatric cancer patients with 95 distinct diagnoses had successful tumor sequencing. Overall, 33% (n = 289/888) of patients had at least 1 variant matching a precision oncology trial protocol, and 14% (41/289) were treated with molecularly targeted therapy. This study highlights opportunities to use genomic data from hospital-based sequencing performed either for research or clinical care to inform ongoing and future precision oncology clinical trials. Furthermore, the study results emphasize the importance of data sharing to define the genomic landscape and targeted treatment opportunities for the large group of rare pediatric cancers we encounter in clinical practice.

An Assessment of the Feasibility and Utility of an ACCC-ASCO Implicit Bias Training Program to Enhance Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Cancer trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity in the population of people with cancer in the United States. As a result of multiple system-, patient-, and provider-level factors, including implicit bias, cancer clinical trials are not consistently offered to all potentially eligible patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ASCO and ACCC evaluated the utility (pre- and post-test knowledge changes) and feasibility (completion rates, curriculum satisfaction metrics, survey questions, and interviews) of a customized online training program combined with facilitated peer-to-peer discussion designed to help research teams identify their own implicit biases and develop strategies to mitigate them. Discussion focused on (1) specific elements of the training modules; (2) how to apply lessons learned; and (3) key considerations for developing a facilitation guide to support peer-to-peer discussions in cancer clinical research settings. We evaluated discussion via a qualitative assessment. RESULTS: Participant completion rate was high: 49 of 50 participating cancer programs completed training; 126 of 129 participating individuals completed the training (98% response rate); and 119 completed the training and evaluations (92% response rate). Training increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 19%-45% across key concepts (eg, causes of health disparities) and increased the mean percentage change in knowledge scores by 10%-31% about strategies/actions to address implicit bias and diversity concerns in cancer clinical trials. Knowledge increases were sustained at 6 weeks. Qualitative evaluation validated the utility and feasibility of facilitated peer-to-peer discussion. CONCLUSION: The pilot implementation of the training program demonstrated excellent utility and feasibility. Our evaluation affirms that an online training designed to raise awareness about implicit bias and develop strategies to mitigate biases among cancer research teams is feasible and can be readily implemented in cancer research settings.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment.

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Sponsor Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Cancer Clinical Trial Protocols and Data Quality.

PURPOSE: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifications to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct. METHODS: This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified. RESULTS: Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n = 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the pre-pandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n = 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n = 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n = 14) or no impact (n = 1) on overall data integrity. CONCLUSION: Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Individualizing Dose Selection for Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Treatment goals for patients with metastatic cancer include prolongation and maintenance of quality of life. Patients and oncologists have questioned the current paradigm of initial dose selection for systemic therapy; however, data on oncologists' dose selection strategies and beliefs are lacking. METHODS: We conducted an electronic international survey of medical oncologists who treat patients with breast and/or gastrointestinal cancers. Survey questions addressed experiences with, and attitudes toward, dose reduction at initiation (DRI) of a new systemic therapy for patients with metastatic cancer. RESULTS: Among 3,099 eligible oncologists, 367 responded (response rate 12%). Most (52%) reported using DRI at least 10% of the time to minimize toxicities. Gastrointestinal specialists were more likely to report DRI ≥ 10% of the time (72% v 50% of generalists and 51% of breast specialists, P < .005). Of those who dose reduced ≥ 10% of the time, 89% reported discussing potential tradeoffs between efficacy and toxicity with patients. Overall, 65% agreed it is acceptable to lower starting doses to reduce side effects even if it compromises efficacy; younger clinicians were more likely to agree (P < .005). There was strong support (89%) for future trials to determine optimal effective, rather than maximum tolerated, dose. CONCLUSION: Oncology practice varies with regard to discussion and individualized selection of starting doses in the metastatic setting. This study demonstrates a need for consideration of shared decision making regarding initial dose selection and strong support among oncologists for clinical studies to define optimal dosing and best practices for individualizing care.

Defining comprehensive biomarker-related testing and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results of a survey of U.S. oncologists.

BACKGROUND: An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists' biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. METHODS: We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. RESULTS: We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non-squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non-targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents <5 years out of training were more likely to cite their concerns about waiting for results as a reason for not ordering biomarker testing (42%, vs. 19% with ≥6 years of experience). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents reported high biomarker testing rates in patients with NSCLC. Treatment decisions were impacted by test turnaround time and associated with practice setting and physician specialization and experience.

Changes Over Time in COVID-19 Severity and Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cancer Treatment in the United States: Initial Report From the ASCO Registry.

PURPOSE: People with cancer are at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. ASCO's COVID-19 registry promotes systematic data collection across US oncology practices. METHODS: Participating practices enter data on patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer treatment. In this analysis, we focus on all patients with hematologic or regional or metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Primary outcomes are 30- and 90-day mortality rates and change over time. RESULTS: Thirty-eight practices provided data for 453 patients from April to October 2020. Sixty-two percent had regional or metastatic solid tumors. Median age was 64 years. Forty-three percent were current or previous cigarette users. Patients with B-cell malignancies age 61-70 years had twice mortality risk (hazard ratio = 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3]) and those age > 70 years had 4.5 times mortality risk (95% CI, 1.8 to 11.1) compared with patients age ≤ 60 years. Association between survival and age was not significant in patients with metastatic solid tumors (P = .12). Tobacco users had 30-day mortality estimate of 21% compared with 11% for never users (log-rank P = .005). Patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 before June 2020 had 30-day mortality rate of 20% (95% CI, 14% to 25%) compared with 13% (8% to 18%) for those diagnosed in or after June 2020 (P = .08). The 90-day mortality rate for pre-June patients was 28% (21% to 34%) compared with 21% (13% to 28%; P = .20). CONCLUSION: Older patients with B-cell malignancies were at increased risk for death (unlike older patients with metastatic solid tumors), as were all patients with cancer who smoke tobacco. Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 later in 2020 was associated with more favorable 30- and 90-day mortality, likely related to more asymptomatic cases and improved clinical management.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Cancer Clinical Trials: An American Society of Clinical Oncology and Association of Community Cancer Centers Joint Research Statement.

A concerted commitment across research stakeholders is necessary to increase equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) and address barriers to cancer clinical trial recruitment and participation. Racial and ethnic diversity among trial participants is key to understanding intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may affect patient response to cancer treatments. This ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Research Statement presents specific recommendations and strategies for the research community to improve EDI in cancer clinical trials. There are six overarching recommendations: (1) clinical trials are an integral component of high-quality cancer care, and every person with cancer should have the opportunity to participate; (2) trial sponsors and investigators should design and implement trials with a focus on reducing barriers and enhancing EDI, and work with sites to conduct trials in ways that increase participation of under-represented populations; (3) trial sponsors, researchers, and sites should form long-standing partnerships with patients, patient advocacy groups, and community leaders and groups; (4) anyone designing or conducting trials should complete recurring education, training, and evaluation to demonstrate and maintain cross-cultural competencies, mitigation of bias, effective communication, and a commitment to achieving EDI; (5) research stakeholders should invest in programs and policies that increase EDI in trials and in the research workforce; and (6) research stakeholders should collect and publish aggregate data on racial and ethnic diversity of trial participants when reporting results of trials, programs, and interventions to increase EDI. The recommendations are intended to serve as a guide for the research community to improve participation rates among people from racial and ethnic minority populations historically under-represented in cancer clinical trials. ASCO and ACCC will work at all levels to advance the recommendations in this publication.

The Friends of Cancer Research Real-World Data Collaboration Pilot 2.0: Methodological Recommendations from Oncology Case Studies.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential collective opportunities and challenges of transforming real-world data (RWD) to real-world evidence for clinical effectiveness by focusing on aligning analytic definitions of oncology end points. Patients treated with a qualifying therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the frontline setting meeting broad eligibility criteria were included to reflect the real-world population. Although a trend toward improved outcomes in patients receiving PD-(L)1 therapy over standard chemotherapy was observed in RWD analyses, the magnitude and consistency of treatment effect was more heterogeneous than previously observed in controlled clinical trials. The study design and analysis process highlighted the identification of pertinent methodological issues and potential innovative approaches that could inform the development of high-quality RWD studies.

Identification of Transgender People With Cancer in Electronic Health Records: Recommendations Based on CancerLinQ Observations.

PURPOSE: Cancer prevalence and outcomes data, necessary to understand disparities in transgender populations, are significantly hampered because gender identity data are not routinely collected. A database of clinical data on people with cancer, CancerLinQ, is operated by the ASCO and collected from practices across the United States and multiple electronic health records. METHODS: To attempt to identify transgender people with cancer within CancerLinQ, we used three criteria: (1) International Classification of Diseases 9/10 diagnosis (Dx) code suggestive of transgender identity; (2) male gender and Dx of cervical, endometrial, ovarian, fallopian tube, or other related cancer; and (3) female gender and Dx of prostate, testicular, penile, or other related cancer. Charts were abstracted to confirm transgender identity. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-seven cases matched inclusion criteria and two hundred and forty-two were abstracted. Seventy-six percent of patients with Dx codes suggestive of transgender identity were transgender. Only 2% and 3% of the people identified by criteria 2 and 3 had evidence of transgender identity, respectively. Extrapolating to nonabstracted data, we would expect to identify an additional four individuals in category 2 and an additional three individuals in category 3, or a total of 44. The total population in CancerLinQ is approximately 1,300,000. Thus, our methods could identify 0.003% of the total population as transgender. CONCLUSION: Given the need for data regarding transgender people with cancer and the deficiencies of current data resources, a national concerted effort is needed to prospectively collect gender identity data. These efforts will require systemic efforts to create safe healthcare environments for transgender people.

Accessing Targeted Therapies: A Potential Roadblock to Implementing Precision Oncology?

PURPOSE: Advances in genomic techniques have led to increased use of next-generation sequencing (NGS). We evaluated the extent to which these tests guide treatment decisions. METHODS: We developed and distributed a survey assessing NGS use and outcomes to a survey pool of ASCO members. Comparisons between groups were performed with Wilcoxon two-sample, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Among 178 respondents, 62% were male, 54% White, and 67% affiliated with academic centers. More than half (56%) indicated that NGS provided actionable information to a moderate or great extent. Use was highest (median ≥ 70% of cases) for lung and gastric cancer, and lowest (median < 25% of cases) in head and neck and genitourinary cancers. Approximately one third of respondents reported that, despite identification of an actionable molecular variant, patients were sometimes or often unable to access the relevant US Food and Drug Administration-approved therapy. When NGS did not provide actionable results, individuals reporting great or moderate guidance overall from NGS in treatment recommendations were more likely to request the compassionate use of an unapproved drug (P < .001), enroll on a clinical trial (P < .01), or treat off-label with a drug approved for another indication (P = .02). CONCLUSION: When NGS identifies an actionable result, a substantial proportion of clinicians reported encountering challenges obtaining approved therapies on the basis of these results. Perceived overall impact of NGS appears associated with clinical behavior unrelated to actionable NGS test results, including pursuing off-label or compassionate use of unapproved therapies or referring to a clinical trial.