Liquid biopsy for molecular characterization of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and early assessment of minimal residual disease.

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) allows genotyping and minimal residual disease (MRD) detection in lymphomas. Using a next-generation sequencing (NGS) approach (EuroClonality-NDC), we evaluated the clinical and prognostic value of ctDNA in a series of R-CHOP-treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients at baseline (n = 68) and after two cycles (n = 59), monitored by metabolic imaging (positron emission tomography combined with computed tomography [PET/CT]). A molecular marker was identified in 61/68 (90%) ctDNA samples at diagnosis. Pretreatment high ctDNA levels significantly correlated with elevated lactate dehydrogenase, advanced stage, high-risk International Prognostic Index and a trend to shorter 2-year progression-free survival (PFS). Valuable NGS data after two cycles of treatment were obtained in 44 cases, and 38 achieved major molecular response (MMR; 2.5-log drop in ctDNA). PFS curves displayed statistically significant differences among those achieving MMR versus those not achieving MMR (2-year PFS of 76% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Similarly, more than 66% reduction in ΔSUVmax by PET/CT identified two subgroups with different prognosis (2-year PFS of 83% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). Combining both approaches MMR and ΔSUVmax reduction, a better stratification was observed (2-year PFS of 84% vs. 17% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). EuroClonality-NDC panel allows the detection of a molecular marker in the ctDNA in 90% of DLBCL. ctDNA reduction at two cycles and its combination with interim PET results improve patient prognosis stratification.

Redefining feasibility in clinical trials: Collaborative approaches for improved site selection.

Background: This Site Feasibility Task Force convened to assess the complex and burdensome process of site feasibility in clinical trials. The objective was to create mutual understanding of challenges and provide suggestions for improving collaboration among sponsors, contract research organizations (CROs), and sites. Methods: The task force was composed of representatives from sponsors, CROs and sites (43 % Sites, 20 % Site Networks, 10 % Small/mid-size sponsors, 10 % Small/mid-size CROs, 10 % Large sponsors, 7 % Large CROs). The group collaborated to define the scope of the problem, identify challenges in the current process, and provide suggestions for improving the process. Results: The group found there is a need for better differentiation between the three main stages of feasibility, and the four sub-phases of Site Feasibility. The discussion brought to light emerging trends like early initiation of Site Feasibility and premature engagement of sites by CROs. To fully explain these challenges, the group analyzed the current practices and documented their downstream impact on clinical trial execution for all stakeholders. A list of best practices emerged naturally from this analysis. These findings are aggregated into short and actionable best practice guides. Conclusion: The task force suggests practical changes for the feasibility process and raises awareness of emerging trends and their associated risks. This awareness can begin to drive change in the site feasibility process, although industry-wide transformation will require new levels of collaboration, data standardization and automation tools. The potential benefits of evolving this process are significant and meaningful for more efficient and successful clinical trials.