Core Clinical Data Elements for Cancer Genomic Repositories: A Multi-stakeholder Consensus.

The Center for Medical Technology Policy and the Molecular Evidence Development Consortium gathered a diverse group of more than 50 stakeholders to develop consensus on a core set of data elements and values essential to understanding the clinical utility of molecularly targeted therapies in oncology.

Drug development for major chronic health conditions-aligning with growing public health needs: Proceedings from a multistakeholder think tank.

The global pharmaceutical industry portfolio is skewed towards cancer and rare diseases due to more predictable development pathways and financial incentives. In contrast, drug development for major chronic health conditions that are responsible for a large part of mortality and disability worldwide is stalled. To examine the processes of novel drug development for common chronic health conditions, a multistakeholder Think Tank meeting, including thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, non-profit healthcare organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payors as well as investors, was convened in July 2022. Herein, we summarize the proceedings of this meeting, including an overview of the current state of drug development for chronic health conditions and key barriers that were identified. Six major action items were formulated to accelerate drug development for chronic diseases, with a focus on improving the efficiency of clinical trials and rapid implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study: A pragmatic clinical trial.

The conceptual framework of pragmatism in clinical trials is explored using the American Society of Clinical Oncology's pragmatic, non-randomized, phase II, multi-center basket clinical trial, the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study (NCT02693535) as a model. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study aims to identify signals of drug activity when Food and Drug Administration approved drugs are matched to pre-specified genomic targets in patients with advanced cancer outside of their approved indication(s). The objectives of the study are to generate evidence of potential signals of activity in targeted therapies prescribed in an off-label setting as well as to expose and educate community cancer centers to genomic testing and precision medicine through the study protocol. The principles of pragmatic trial design can be applied across a broad spectrum of evidence-generation strategies, from explanatory trials to real-world evidence studies, and are briefly discussed. American Society of Clinical Oncology's Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study falls closer to the pragmatic end of this spectrum as it seeks to assess the efficacy of Food and Drug Administration approved drugs used outside their approved indications under usual care conditions, yielding results generalizable to the population that would likely receive the intervention in practice, while still adhering to rigorous data quality standards. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study's pragmatic objectives, characteristics, strengths, and limitations in its implementation are discussed and demonstrate that a large, multi-center, precision medicine basket trial can be mounted in the context of community practice and can generate clinically useful information with minimal burden to patients and clinical trial sites.

What can heart failure trialists learn from oncology trialists?

Globally, there has been little change in mortality rates from cardiovascular (CV) diseases or cancers over the past two decades (1997-2018). This is especially true for heart failure (HF) where 5-year mortality rates remain as high as 45-55%. In the same timeframe, the proportion of drug revenue, and regulatory drug approvals for cancer drugs, far out paces those for CV drugs. In 2018, while cancer drugs made 27% of Food and Drug Administration drug approvals, only 1% of drug approvals was for a CV drug, and over this entire 20 year span, only four drugs were approved for HF in the USA. Cardiovascular trialists need to reassess the design, execution, and purpose of CV clinical trials. In the area of oncology research, trials are much smaller, follow-up is shorter, and targeted therapies are common. Cardiovascular diseases and cancer are the two most common causes of death globally, and although they differ substantially, this review evaluates whether some elements of oncology research may be applicable in the CV arena. As one of the most underserved CV diseases, the review focuses on aspects of cancer research that may be applicable to HF research with the aim of streamlining the clinical trial process and decreasing the time and cost required to bring safe, effective, treatments to patients who need them. The paper is based on discussions among clinical trialists, industry representatives, regulatory authorities, and patients, which took place at the Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists Workshop in Washington, DC, on 8 December 2019 (https://www.globalcvctforum.com/2019 (14 September 2020)).

The International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research.

Gaps in the translation of research findings to clinical management have been recognized for decades. They exist for the diagnosis as well as the management of cancer. The international standards for cancer diagnosis are contained within the World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours, published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and known worldwide as the WHO Blue Books. In addition to their relevance to individual patients, these volumes provide a valuable contribution to cancer research and surveillance, fulfilling an important role in scientific evidence synthesis and international standard setting. However, the multidimensional nature of cancer classification, the way in which the WHO Classification of Tumours is constructed, and the scientific information overload in the field pose important challenges for the translation of research findings to tumour classification and hence cancer diagnosis. To help address these challenges, we have established the International Collaboration for Cancer Classification and Research (IC3 R) to provide a forum for the coordination of efforts in evidence generation, standard setting and best practice recommendations in the field of tumour classification. The first IC3 R meeting, held in Lyon, France, in February 2019, gathered representatives of major institutions involved in tumour classification and related fields to identify and discuss translational challenges in data comparability, standard setting, quality management, evidence evaluation and copyright, as well as to develop a collaborative plan for addressing these challenges.

Challenges and Opportunities to Updating Prescribing Information for Longstanding Oncology Drugs.

A number of important drugs used to treat cancer-many of which serve as the backbone of modern chemotherapy regimens-have outdated prescribing information in their drug labeling. The Food and Drug Administration is undertaking a pilot project to develop a process and criteria for updating prescribing information for longstanding oncology drugs, based on the breadth of knowledge the cancer community has accumulated with the use of these drugs over time. This article highlights a number of considerations for labeling updates, including selecting priorities for updating; data sources and evidentiary criteria; as well as the risks, challenges, and opportunities for iterative review to ensure prescribing information for oncology drugs remains relevant to current clinical practice.

Improving Cancer Diagnosis and Care: Patient Access to High-Quality Oncologic Pathology.

Drawing on discussions at a workshop hosted by the National Cancer Policy Forum, current challenges in pathology are reviewed and practical steps to facilitate high­quality cancer diagnosis and care through improved patient access to expertise in oncologic pathology are highlighted.

Clinical trials in the era of personalized oncology.

The rapid pace of discoveries in tumor biology, imaging technology, and human genetics hold promise for an era of personalized oncology care. The successful development of a handful of new targeted agents has generated much hope and hype about the delivery of safer and more effective new treatments for cancer. The design and conduct of clinical trials has not yet adjusted to a new era of personalized oncology and so we are more in transition to that era than in it. With the development of treatments for breast cancer as a model, we review the approaches to clinical trials and the development of novel therapeutics in the prior era of population oncology, the current transitional era, and the future era of personalized oncology.

Effect of First-Line Chemotherapy Combined With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab on Overall Survival in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Combining biologic monoclonal antibodies with chemotherapeutic cytotoxic drugs provides clinical benefit to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, but the optimal choice of the initial biologic therapy in previously untreated patients is unknown. Objective: To determine if the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) regimen or the combination of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) regimen is superior as first-line therapy in advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type (wt) colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients (≥18 years) enrolled at community and academic centers throughout the National Clinical Trials Network in the United States and Canada (November 2005-March 2012) with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors were KRAS wt chose to take either the mFOLFOX6 regimen or the FOLFIRI regimen as chemotherapy and were randomized to receive either cetuximab (n = 578) or bevacizumab (n = 559). The last date of follow-up was December 15, 2015. Interventions: Cetuximab vs bevacizumab combined with either mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI chemotherapy regimen chosen by the treating physician and patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival and overall response rate, site-reported confirmed or unconfirmed complete or partial response. Results: Among 1137 patients (median age, 59 years; 440 [39%] women), 1074 (94%) of patients met eligibility criteria. As of December 15, 2015, median follow-up for 263 surviving patients was 47.4 months (range, 0-110.7 months), and 82% of patients (938 of 1137) experienced disease progression. The median overall survival was 30.0 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 29.0 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified hazard ratio (HR) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-1.01; P = .08). The median progression-free survival was 10.5 months in the cetuximab-chemotherapy group and 10.6 months in the bevacizumab-chemotherapy group with a stratified HR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = .45). Response rates were not significantly different, 59.6% vs 55.2% for cetuximab and bevacizumab, respectively (difference, 4.4%, 95% CI, 1.0%-9.0%, P = .13). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with KRAS wt untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the addition of cetuximab vs bevacizumab to chemotherapy as initial biologic treatment. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00265850.

First-in-human, phase I study of elisidepsin (PM02734) administered as a 30-min or as a 3-hour intravenous infusion every three weeks in patients with advanced solid tumors.

This first-in-human, phase I clinical trial was designed to determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the dose for phase II trials (P2D) of elisidepsin (PM02734) administered as a 30-min or as a 3-h intravenous infusion every 3 weeks (q3wk). Between March 2006 and April 2011, 53 patients with advanced malignant solid tumors were enrolled and treated with elisidepsin on the two different q3wk infusion schedules: 22 (30-min) and 31 (3-h), respectively. Doses evaluated ranged from 0.1 to 1.6 mg/m(2) (30-min q3wk) and from 2.0 to 11.0 mg flat dose (FD) (3-h q3wk). In the 30-min q3wk schedule, transient grade 3/4 increases in hepatic transaminases were the DLT, which appeared at the highest doses tested (from 1.1 to 1.6 mg/m(2)). No DLTs were observed on the 3-h schedule at doses up to 11.0 mg q3wk. Common adverse events were grade 1/2 pruritus, nausea, fatigue and hypersensitivity. Of note, myelotoxicity was not observed. Plasma maximum concentration and total drug exposure increased linearly with dose. Prolonged (≥3 months) disease stabilization was observed in pretreated patients with pleural mesothelioma (n = 1) in the 30-min q3wk arm, and with colorectal adenocarcinoma (n = 3), esophagus adenocarcinoma, endometrium adenocarcinoma, pleural mesothelioma, and head and neck carcinoma (n = 1 each) in the 3-h q3wk arm. In conclusion, elisidepsin doses of 1.1 mg/m(2) (equivalent to a FD of 2.0 mg) and 11.0 mg FD are the dose levels achieved for further phase II trials testing the 30-min q3wk and 3-h q3wk schedules, respectively.

Circadian variation in plasma 5-fluorouracil concentrations during a 24 hour constant-rate infusion.

BACKGROUND: Varying the rate of continuous intravenous infusions of 5-fluorouracil (5FU) chemotherapy over a 24-hour period has been reported to improve patient outcomes. It has been hypothesized that circadian variation in drug disposition is a contributing factor. We analyzed 5-FU concentrations during a 24-hour continuous 5-FU infusion. METHODS: Sixty-four subjects with advanced malignancies including pancreatic, hepatocellular, colorectal as well as other epithelial malignancies and either abnormal hepatic or renal function were treated on a phase I and pharmacokinetic study of weekly 24-hour intravenous infusions of 5-FU and leucovorin. No other concomitant anticancer therapy was administered. Blood samples were collected every three hours from 61 subjects for measurement of plasma 5-FU during the first two weekly infusions. RESULTS: After adjusting for differences in dose, elapsed time from start of infusion and infusion number (2 versus 1), mean 5-FU concentration was highest at 6 am and lowest at 3 pm, with an overall change in the mean from 3 pm to 6 am of +20 percent (95% CI = 12-28%). However, this variation in mean concentration associated with time of day was comparable in magnitude to the between-patient differences, within-patient differences between infusions, and the residual variation within infusion (coefficient of variation = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: Our data show systematic variation by time of day in plasma concentrations of 5-FU administered at a constant rate over 24 hours, but it is small compared to the total variation in plasma concentration contributed by other sources. Circadian variation in men was more pronounced than in women.

Concordance in Molecular Tumor Board Case Reviews in the ASCO TAPUR Study.

PURPOSE: With the advent of precision medicine, molecular tumor boards (MTBs) were established to interpret genomic results and guide decision making for targeted therapy in oncology patients. There are currently no universal guidelines for how MTBs should operate and thus variance can be seen depending on which MTB is reviewing the case. This study assesses the concordance of MTB recommendations when a participant case is reviewed by two different MTBs, establishes potential reasons for discordance, and advocates for the establishment of standard MTB operating guidelines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with advanced cancer, who had exhausted all standard treatment options were screened for the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study. Cases were submitted for MTB review if the treatment proposal was outside the protocol genomic matching rules, or if multiple treatment options were identified. Of the 306 cases submitted for review by the TAPUR MTB from 2016 to 2018, 107 were randomly selected for secondary review by a different MTB group. Recommendations from the original review were not disclosed. Concordance between MTB group recommendations was assessed. Concordance was defined as agreement between MTB reviews on the genomic alteration and study drug match proposed by the clinical site. Thematic qualitative analysis was conducted for the discordant cases to assess reasons for discordance. RESULTS: Complete or partial concordance was observed in 79% of cases (95% CI, 70 to 86; one-sided P = .25). Most discordant analyses were due to disagreements on the strength of evidence regarding efficacy of the proposed treatment (32%). CONCLUSION: When presented with identical participant cases, different MTB review groups make the same or similar treatment recommendations approximately 80% of the time.

Talazoparib in Patients With Solid Tumors With BRCA1/2 Mutation: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study.

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with various solid tumors with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations treated with talazoparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, measurable disease (RECIST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Patients with germline BRCA-mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were not eligible for this study. Primary end point was disease control (DC) determined by investigator assessment of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power = 0.82; α = .10). Secondary end points were OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (20 cancer types) with BRCA1/2 mutations were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2021 and collapsed into a single histology pooled cohort for analysis. All patients were evaluable for efficacy. One complete response, nine partial response, and six SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 57% (one-sided 90% CI, 43 to 100) and 36% (95% CI, 19 to 56), respectively. The null hypothesis of a 15% DC rate was rejected (P < .001). Patients with OR had the following tumor types: breast (2), nonmelanoma skin, mesothelioma, stomach, uterus, non-small cell lung cancer, ovary, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreas. Thirteen patients had at least one grade 3-5 adverse event (AE) or serious AE at least possibly related to talazoparib. All were consistent with the drug label except bilirubin increase and hyponatremia (both grade 3 AEs). CONCLUSION: Talazoparib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRCA1/2 mutations, including cancer types for which poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors are not yet US Food and Drug Administration-approved.

Regorafenib in Patients With Solid Tumors With BRAF Alterations: Results From the Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study.

PURPOSE: Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with solid tumors with BRAF alterations treated with regorafenib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had measurable disease (RECIST v.1.1), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. The primary end point was disease control (DC), defined as investigator assessment of patients with complete or partial response (PR) or stable disease of at least 16-weeks duration (SD16+). Low accruing histology-specific cohorts with BRAF alterations treated with regorafenib were collapsed into a single histology-pooled cohort for this analysis. The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power, 0.84; α, .10). Secondary end points were objective response (OR), progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of stable disease, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with 12 tumor types with BRAF alterations were enrolled from June 2016 to June 2021. All patients were evaluable for efficacy. Two patients with PR and four with SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 21% (90% CI, 12 to 100) and 7% (95% CI, 1 to 24), respectively. The null hypothesis of 15% DC rate was not rejected (P = .24). Eight patients had at least one grade 3 adverse event or serious adverse event at least possibly related to regorafenib. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib did not meet prespecified criteria to declare a signal of activity in patients with solid tumors with BRAF alterations.