Race and Ethnicity Representation in Phase 2/3 Oncology Clinical Trial Publications: A Systematic Review.

Importance: The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity. Objective: To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings: Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC). Conclusions and Relevance: While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.

Pyramidal Decision Support Framework Leverages Subspecialty Expertise across Enterprise to Achieve Superior Cancer Outcomes and Personalized, Precision Care Plans.

The complexity of cancer care requires integrated and continuous support to deliver appropriate care. An expert network with complementary expertise and the capability of multidisciplinary care is an integral part of contemporary oncology care. Appropriate infrastructure is necessary to empower this network to deliver personalized precision care to their patients. Providing decision support as cancer care becomes exponentially more complex with new diagnostic and therapeutic choices remains challenging. City of Hope has developed a Pyramidal Decision Support Framework to address these challenges, which were exacerbated by the COVID pandemic, health plan restrictions, and growing geographic site diversity. Optimizing efficient and targeted decision support backed by multidisciplinary cancer expertise can improve individual patient treatment plans to achieve improved care and survival wherever patients are treated.

Genomic Markers of CDK 4/6 Inhibitor Resistance in Hormone Receptor Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors are the standard of care for hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. This retrospective study reports on genomic biomarkers of CDK 4/6i resistance utilizing genomic data acquired through routine clinical practice. Patients with HR+ MBC treated with palbociclib, ribociclib, or abemaciclib and antiestrogen therapy were identified. Patients were grouped into early (<6 months); intermediate (6−24 months for 0−1 lines; 6−9 months for ≥2 lines); or late progressors (>24 months for 0−1 lines; >9 months PFS for ≥2 lines). NGS and RNA sequencing data were analyzed in association with PFS, and survival analysis was stratified by prior lines of chemotherapy. A total of 795 patients with HR+ MBC treated with CDK 4/6i were identified. Of these, 144 (18%) patients had genomic data and 29 (3.6%) had RNA data. Among the 109 patients who received CDK4/6i as 1st- or 2nd-line therapy, 17 genes showed associations with PFS (p-value ≤ 0.15 and HR ≥ 1.5 or HR < 0.5). Whole transcriptome RNAseq was analyzed for 24/109 (22%) patients with 0−1 prior lines of therapy and 56 genes associated with PFS (HR ≥ 4 or HR ≤ 0.25 and FDR ≤ 0.15). In this retrospective analysis, genomic biomarkers including FGFR1 amplification, PTEN loss, and DNA repair pathway gene mutations showed significant associations with shorter PFS for patients receiving CDK4/6 inhibitor therapy.

Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Importance: To date, oncologist and model prognostic performance have been assessed independently and mostly retrospectively; however, how model prognostic performance compares with oncologist prognostic performance prospectively remains unknown. Objective: To compare oncologist performance with a model in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with metastatic solid tumors in an outpatient setting. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study evaluated prospective predictions for a cohort of patients with metastatic solid tumors seen in outpatient oncology clinics at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center and associated satellites between December 6, 2019, and August 6, 2021. Oncologists (57 physicians and 17 advanced practice clinicians) answered a 3-month surprise question (3MSQ) within clinical pathways. A model was trained with electronic health record data from January 1, 2013, to April 24, 2019, to identify patients at high risk of 3-month mortality and deployed silently in October 2019. Analysis was limited to oncologist prognostications with a model prediction within the preceding 30 days. Exposures: Three-month surprise question and gradient-boosting binary classifier. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was performance comparison between oncologists and the model to predict 3-month mortality. The primary performance metric was the positive predictive value (PPV) at the sensitivity achieved by the medical oncologists with their 3MSQ answers. Results: A total of 74 oncologists answered 3099 3MSQs for 2041 patients with advanced cancer (median age, 62.6 [range, 18-96] years; 1271 women [62.3%]). In this cohort with a 15% prevalence of 3-month mortality and 30% sensitivity for both oncologists and the model, the PPV of oncologists was 34.8% (95% CI, 30.1%-39.5%) and the PPV of the model was 60.0% (95% CI, 53.6%-66.3%). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the model was 81.2% (95% CI, 79.1%-83.3%). The model significantly outperformed the oncologists in short-term mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study, the model outperformed oncologists overall and within the breast and gastrointestinal cancer cohorts in predicting 3-month mortality for patients with advanced cancer. These findings suggest that further studies may be useful to examine how model predictions could improve oncologists' prognostic confidence and patient-centered goal-concordant care at the end of life.

Integrating Academic and Community Cancer Care and Research through Multidisciplinary Oncology Pathways for Value-Based Care: A Review and the City of Hope Experience.

As the US transitions from volume- to value-based cancer care, many cancer centers and community groups have joined to share resources to deliver measurable, high-quality cancer care and clinical research with the associated high patient satisfaction, provider satisfaction, and practice health at optimal costs that are the hallmarks of value-based care. Multidisciplinary oncology care pathways are essential components of value-based care and their payment metrics. Oncology pathways are evidence-based, standardized but personalizable care plans to guide cancer care. Pathways have been developed and studied for the major medical, surgical, radiation, and supportive oncology disciplines to support decision-making, streamline care, and optimize outcomes. Implementing multidisciplinary oncology pathways can facilitate comprehensive care plans for each cancer patient throughout their cancer journey and across large multisite delivery systems. Outcomes from the delivered pathway-based care can then be evaluated against individual and population benchmarks. The complexity of adoption, implementation, and assessment of multidisciplinary oncology pathways, however, presents many challenges. We review the development and components of value-based cancer care and detail City of Hope's (COH) academic and community-team-based approaches for implementing multidisciplinary pathways. We also describe supportive components with available results towards enterprise-wide value-based care delivery.

Pathologic and molecular responses to neoadjuvant trastuzumab and/or lapatinib from a phase II randomized trial in HER2-positive breast cancer (TRIO-US B07).

In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II investigator-sponsored neoadjuvant trial with funding provided by Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline (TRIO-US B07, Clinical Trials NCT00769470), participants with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (N = 128) were recruited from 13 United States oncology centers throughout the Translational Research in Oncology network. Participants were randomized to receive trastuzumab (T; N = 34), lapatinib (L; N = 36), or both (TL; N = 58) as HER2-targeted therapy, with each participant given one cycle of this designated anti-HER2 therapy alone followed by six cycles of standard combination chemotherapy with the same anti-HER2 therapy. The primary objective was to estimate the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) at the time of surgery in each of the three arms. In the intent-to-treat population, we observed similar pCR rates between T (47%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 30-65%) and TL (52%, 95% CI 38-65%), and a lower pCR rate with L (25%, 95% CI 13-43%). In the T arm, 100% of participants completed all protocol-specified treatment prior to surgery, as compared to 69% in the L arm and 74% in the TL arm. Tumor or tumor bed tissue was collected whenever possible pre-treatment (N = 110), after one cycle of HER2-targeted therapy alone (N = 89), and at time of surgery (N = 59). Higher-level amplification of HER2 and hormone receptor (HR)-negative status were associated with a higher pCR rate. Large shifts in the tumor, immune, and stromal gene expression occurred after one cycle of HER2-targeted therapy. In contrast to pCR rates, the L-containing arms exhibited greater proliferation reduction than T at this timepoint. Immune expression signatures increased in all arms after one cycle of HER2-targeted therapy, decreasing again by the time of surgery. Our results inform approaches to early assessment of sensitivity to anti-HER2 therapy and shed light on the role of the immune microenvironment in response to HER2-targeted agents.

Strategies to Improve Participation of Older Adults in Cancer Research.

Cancer is a disease associated with aging. As the US population ages, the number of older adults with cancer is projected to dramatically increase. Despite this, older adults remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments and, consequently, clinicians struggle with how to interpret data from clinical trials and apply them to older adults in practice. A combination of system, clinician, and patient barriers bar opportunities for trial participation for many older patients, and strategies are needed to address these barriers at multiple fronts, five of which are offered here. This review highlights the need to (1) broaden eligibility criteria, (2) measure relevant end points, (3) expand standard trial designs, (4) increase resources (e.g., institutional support, interdisciplinary care, and telehealth), and (5) develop targeted interventions (e.g., behavioral interventions to promote patient enrollment). Implementing these solutions requires a substantial investment in engaging and collaborating with community-based practices, where the majority of older patients with cancer receive their care. Multifaceted strategies are needed to ensure that older patients with cancer, across diverse healthcare settings, receive the highest-quality, evidence-based care.

A Call to Action: Ethics Committee Roundtable Recommendations for Addressing Burnout and Moral Distress in Oncology.

Oncologist well-being is critical to initiating and maintaining the physician-patient relationship, yet many oncologists suffer from symptoms of burnout. Burnout has been linked to poor physical and mental health, as well as increased medical errors, patient dissatisfaction, and workforce attrition. In this Call to Action article, we discuss causes of and interventions for burnout and moral distress in oncology, highlight existing interventions, and provide recommendations for addressing burnout and improving well-being at the individual and organizational levels to deliver ethical, quality cancer care.

The characterization, management, and future considerations for ErbB-family TKI-associated diarrhea.

PURPOSE: Diarrhea is recognized as a common adverse event associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with those targeting the ErbB family of receptors being associated with the highest rate of diarrhea. METHODS: This paper reviews data on the incidence, timing, and duration of diarrhea associated with US Food and Drug Administration-approved ErbB family-targeted TKIs from the published literature, and sets forth recommendations for management. RESULTS: In the absence of anti-diarrheal prophylaxis the incidence of any-grade diarrhea varies and typically occurs early during the course of treatment. Although it is difficult to determine if the incidence and severity of diarrhea is related to inhibition of a particular kinase target because of the multi-targeted and overlapping activity of many agents, evidence suggests that second-generation TKIs with broader target profiles (i.e., afatinib, lapatinib, neratinib) result in a higher incidence of diarrhea compared with highly specific first- (erlotinib, gefitinib) or third- (osimertinib) generation agents. The mechanisms responsible for TKI-associated diarrhea are not fully understood and are likely multi-factorial, involving dysregulated ion transport, inflammation, and mucosal injury. Management strategies have been developed-and continue to be refined-to prevent and reduce the severity and duration of TKI-associated diarrhea. For agents associated with more significant symptoms, anti-diarrheal prophylaxis reduces the incidence and severity of diarrhea, and ongoing studies are evaluating specific strategies to further reduce incidence and duration of TKI-associated diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Continued investigations into risk factors and pharmacogenomic markers for diarrhea may further improve management of this common toxicity.