The NCI-MATCH trial: lessons for precision oncology.

The NCI-MATCH (Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) trial ( NCT02465060 ) was launched in 2015 as a genomically driven, signal-seeking precision medicine platform trial-largely for patients with treatment-refractory, malignant solid tumors. Having completed in 2023, it remains one of the largest tumor-agnostic, precision oncology trials undertaken to date. Nearly 6,000 patients underwent screening and molecular testing, with a total of 1,593 patients (inclusive of continued accrual from standard next-generation sequencing) being assigned to one of 38 substudies. Each substudy was a phase 2 trial of a therapy matched to a genomic alteration, with a primary endpoint of objective tumor response by RECIST criteria. In this Perspective, we summarize the outcomes of the initial 27 substudies in NCI-MATCH, which met its signal-seeking objective with 7/27 positive substudies (25.9%). We discuss key aspects of the design and operational conduct of the trial, highlighting important lessons for future precision medicine studies.

Tumor Genomic Profiling Practices and Perceptions: A Survey of Physicians Participating in the NCI-MATCH Trial.

PURPOSE: To identify factors that may influence physician participation in tumor profiling studies and to assess the routine use of tumor profiling in clinical practice. METHODS: Physicians in the National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) were invited to participate in an electronic survey consisting of 73 questions related to participation in genomic profiling studies, tumor profiling practices and education during usual patient care, and physician background and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 8.9% (171 surveys returned of 1,931 sent). A majority of respondents practiced in academic medical centers (AMCs). Participation in NCI-MATCH increased workload and cost but resulted in increased professional satisfaction, confidence in treatment recommendation, and subsequent use of tumor profiling. Barriers to patient participation included length of wait time for results and lack of a therapeutic option from the testing. Physicians who worked in AMCs reported a higher use of tumor profiling than did those who worked in non-AMC settings (43% v 18%; P = .0009). Access to a molecular tumor board was perceived as valuable by 56%. The study identified a need for educational materials to guide both physicians and patients in the field of genomic profiling. CONCLUSION: Physicians who participate in NCI-MATCH perceive value to patient treatment that outweighs the additional effort required; survey results help identify barriers that may limit participation. The current findings have implications for the design of future genomic and other profiling studies.

Patient familiarity with, understanding of, and preferences for clinical trial endpoints and terminology.

BACKGROUND: Although there is increased attention to designing and explaining clinical trials in ways that are clinically meaningful for patients, there is limited information on patient preferences, understanding, and perceptions of this content. METHODS: Maximum difference scaling (MaxDiff) methodology was used to develop a survey for assessing patients' understanding of 19 clinical terms and perceived importance of 9 endpoint surrogate phrases used in clinical trials and consent forms. The survey was administered electronically to individuals with metastatic breast cancer affiliated with the Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance. Analyses were performed using Bayesian P values with statistical software. RESULTS: Among 503 respondents, 77% had a college degree, 70% were diagnosed with metastatic disease ≥2 years before survey completion, and 77% had received ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Less than 35% of respondents reported understanding "fairly well" the terms symptomatic progression, duration of disease control, time to treatment cessation, and endpoints. Income level and time since onset of metastatic disease correlated with comprehension. Patients who had received ≥6 lines of therapy perceived that time until serious side effects (P < .001) and time on therapy (P < .001) were more important compared with those who had received only 1 line of therapy. Positively phrased parameters were associated with increased perceived importance. CONCLUSIONS: Even among educated, heavily pretreated patients, many commonly used clinical research terms are poorly understood. Comprehension and the perceived importance of trial endpoints vary over the course of disease. These observations may inform the design, discussion, and reporting of clinical trials.

The Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) Trial: Lessons for Genomic Trial Design.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. METHODS: Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA-targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. RESULTS: At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). CONCLUSIONS: The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes by age in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sufficient data are currently unavailable to assist in defining suitable regimens for patients ≥ 70 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1; the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) on day 1; or paclitaxel 225mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were every 21 days up to 6. Efficacy and toxicity results were compared by age groups. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) between patients <70 years (8.6 months, 95% CI: 7.9, 9.5) and ≥ 70 years (7.9 months, 95% CI: 7.1, 9.5) was similar. OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 10.3) among patients 70-74 years, 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6, 9.3) among patients 75-79 years, and 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.3, 10.3) among patients ≥ 80 years. OS was lower among patients 75-79 years compared with patients 70-74 years (P=0.04). Compared with patients <70 years, patients ≥ 70 years experienced similar rates of myelosuppresion, but younger patients experienced more vomiting and nausea. There was no clear pattern with respect to differences in efficacy by treatments across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the similarity of patient outcomes across age groups, doublet chemotherapy is feasible among carefully selected elderly patients with good PS.

A Comparison of white and African American outcomes from a three-arm, randomized, phase III multicenter trial of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of race on the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy doublet regimens in African American patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1; arm B: the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1; or arm C: paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 on day 1 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6. A site selection tool identified institutions with potential to recruit a minority population. Outcome and toxicity data of white and African American patients were compared. RESULTS: Of 1135 total patients, 972 were white (85.6%) and 138 were African American (12.2%). Median survival was 8.3 months for white patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-9.3) and 9.1 months for African American patients (95% CI: 8.2-11.1). Response rates were 29.1 and 29.0%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 or 4 toxicities were comparable. Among African Americans, median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.1-10.1) for gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 47), 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.1-15.4) for gemcitabine-paclitaxel (n = 42), and 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.5-13.2) for paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 49). CONCLUSION: Whites and African Americans had similar outcomes, although there was some variability in survival among African Americans across the three treatment groups.

Development of clinical trials in a cooperative group setting: the eastern cooperative oncology group.

PURPOSE: We examine the processes and document the calendar time required to activate phase II and III clinical trials by an oncology group: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). METHODS: Setup steps were documented by (a) interviewing ECOG headquarters and statistical center staff, and committee chairs, (b) reviewing standard operating procedure manuals, and (c) inspecting study records, documents, and e-mails to identify additional steps. Calendar time was collected for each major process for each study in this set. RESULTS: Twenty-eight phase III studies were activated by ECOG during the January 2000 to July 2006 study period. We examined a sample from 16 of those studies in detail. More than 481 distinct processes were required for study activation: 420 working steps, 61 major decision points, 26 processing loops, and 13 stopping points. Median calendar days to activate a trial in the phase III subset was 783 days (range, 285-1,542 days) from executive approval and 808 days (range, 435-1,604 days) from initial conception of the study. Data were collected for all phase II and phase III trials activated and completed during this time period (n = 52) for which development time represented 43.9% and 54.1% of the total trial time, respectively. CONCLUSION: The steps required to develop and activate a clinical trial may require as much or more time than the actual completion of a trial. The data shows that to improve the activation process, research should to be directed toward streamlining both internal and external groups and processes.