COVID-19 severity by vaccination status in the NCI COVID-19 and Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS).

We investigated the association of SARS CoV-2 vaccination with COVID-19 severity in a longitudinal study of adult cancer patients with COVID-19. A total of 1610 patients who were within 14 days of an initial positive SARS CoV-2 test and had received recent anticancer treatment or had a history of stem cell transplant or CAR-T cell therapy were enrolled between May 21, 2020, and February 1, 2022. Patients were considered fully vaccinated if they were 2 weeks past their second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) or a single dose of adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) at the time of positive SARS CoV-2 test. We defined severe COVID-19 disease as hospitalization for COVID-19 or death within 30 days. Vaccinated patients were significantly less likely to develop severe disease compared with those who were unvaccinated (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.72, P < .001). These results support COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients receiving active immunosuppressive treatment.

Update on Enrollment of Older Adults Onto National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network Trials.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are a large and growing proportion of cancer cases in the United States, but concerns persist about whether older adults are adequately represented in the cancer clinical trials that test new options for treatment and cancer care. METHODS: This paper describes adult patient enrollments by age group to the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from 2016 to 2021, compares patient enrollment by age with the estimated incident cancer population across cancer types, and explores possible associations between patient age and patient race, ethnicity, and sex. RESULTS: This analysis found that patients aged 18 to 69 years were overrepresented in NCTN trials, whereas patients aged 70 years and older were underrepresented compared with the estimated incident cancer population. Underrepresentation of older patients was seen across cancer types. Older patients who enrolled to NCTN trials were more likely to be non-Hispanic White than the estimated incident cancer population. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with earlier analyses, NCTN trials are enrolling greater proportions of older adults, primarily driven by higher enrollment among patients aged 65 to 74 years. There is still significant room for improvement, however, especially among patients aged 75 years and older. Additionally, patient demographics should not be viewed in isolation: older Hispanic patients, for instance, were particularly underrepresented among patients enrolled to NCTN trials. The intersection between trial enrollment and age, race, and ethnicity warrants further study so that more targeted enrollment enhancement efforts can be developed that enhance trial diversity across demographic groups.

Biomarker Development: Bedside to Bench.

This commentary complements the report from Nixon and colleagues by addressing the critical definitions, assay and analytical quality control and interpretation, and resources available to advance similar fit-for-purpose biomarker development. See related articles by Nixon et al., p. 2771 and 2779.

Reporting of health-related quality of life endpoints in National Cancer Institute-supported cancer treatment trials.

BACKGROUND: The importance of capturing and reporting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in clinical trials has been increasingly recognized in the oncology field. As a result, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) began to provide support for correlative HRQOL studies in cancer treatment trials. The current study was conducted to assess the publication rate of HRQOL correlative studies in NCI-supported treatment trials and to identify potential factors positively or negatively associated with publication rates. METHODS: The NCI conducted a retrospective review of existing NCI databases to identify cancer treatment trials that had obtained additional NCI funding for the assessment of HRQOL and to determine the extent to which funded HRQOL studies have been completed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: Of the 108 included trials, 58 (54%) had a parent trial (PT) publication; of these, 36 trials (62%) had a published HRQOL result: 20 as an independent publication and 16 that were included and/or reported in the PT publication. The length of time between trial activation and closure, as well as the specific cancer, appeared to be associated with the publication rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that approximately 45% of the PT publications were followed by a HRQOL publication within 1 year, to allow the knowledge to be used in patient treatment decision making. The authors believe the current analysis is an important first step toward a better understand of the challenges that researchers face when reporting HRQOL endpoints.

Transforming the Early Drug Development Paradigm at the National Cancer Institute: The Formation of NCI's Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN).

Early drug development for cancer requires broad collaboration and skilled clinical investigators to enable enrollment of patients whose tumors have defined molecular profiles. To respond to these challenges, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) transformed its 60-year-old early-phase drug development program in 2014 into the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN). The ETCTN is a consolidated, national network of 40+ academic institutions responsible for conducting more than 100 early-phase clinical trials. It promotes team science coordinated among basic, translational, and clinical investigators, emphasizing the inclusion of early career trialists. This perspective provides a brief overview of the ETCTN, summarizes its successes and challenges over its first grant funding cycle, and discusses the program's future directions. Measures indicated strong connectivity across the institutions, significant increases in investigator approval of the ETCTN scientific portfolio from years 1 to 4, and substantial research activity over 5 years, with 334 letters of intent submitted, 102 trials activated, and 3,570 patients accrued. The ETCTN's successful adoption relied heavily on the inclusion of senior investigators who have long-standing interactions with the NCI and a willingness to participate in a team science approach and to mentor early career investigators. In addition, NCI invested substantial resources in a centralized infrastructure to conduct trials and to support the inclusion of biomarkers in its studies. The ETCTN provides evidence that a collaborative national clinical trial network for early drug development is feasible and can address the demands of precision medicine approaches to oncologic clinical trials.

Meeting the Challenge: The National Cancer Institute's Central Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a new policy that requires a single institutional review board (IRB) of record be used for all protocols funded by the NIH that are carried out at more than one site in the United States, effective January 2018. This policy affects several hundred clinical trials opened annually across the NIH. Limited data exist to compare the use of a single IRB to that of multiple local IRBs, so some institutions are resistant to or distrustful of single IRBs. Since 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has funded a central IRB (CIRB) that provides human patient reviews for its extensive national cancer clinical trials program. This paper presents data to show the adoption, efficiencies gained, and satisfaction of the CIRB among NCI trial networks and reviews key lessons gleaned from 16 years of experience that may be informative for others charged with implementation of the new NIH single-IRB policy.

Raising Public Awareness of Clinical Trials: Development of Messages for a National Health Communication Campaign.

Clinical trials are essential for developing new and effective treatments and improving patient quality of life; however, many trials cannot answer their primary research questions because they fall short of their recruitment goals. This article reports the results of formative research conducted in two populations, the public and primary care physicians, to identify messages that may raise awareness and increase interest in clinical trials and be used in a national communication campaign. Results suggested that participants were primarily motivated to participate in clinical trials out of a self-interest to help themselves first. Messages illustrated that current treatments were tested via clinical trials, helped normalize trials as routine practices, and reduced concerns over trying something new first. Participants wanted messages that portray trials as state-of-the-art choices that offer some hope, show people like themselves, and are described in a clear, concise manner with actionable steps for them to take. The study revealed some differences in message salience, with healthy audiences exhibiting lower levels of interest. Our results suggest that targeted messages are needed, and that communication with primary health-care providers is an important and necessary component in raising patient awareness of the importance of clinical trials.

A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the National Cancer Institute's Original and Revised Consent Form Templates.

Since 1998, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has mandated that researchers use its consent form template in developing consent forms for their NCI-funded clinical trials. The template was substantially revised in 2013 to aid in the development of simpler, more concise consent forms. The NCI conducted a randomized controlled trial with cancer survivors (N = 153) to assess the revised template's effect on individuals' knowledge, satisfaction, clarity, and likelihood of joining a trial in the future. We found that the revised template resulted in equally high knowledge and satisfaction scores as the original template, but with fewer words and pages. The likelihood that an individual would participate in a trial diminished after he or she reviewed either the original or revised consent form, yet having knowledge about trials before reviewing the consent forms resulted in increased satisfaction. To ensure an informed decision-making process, we recommend using the revised NCI consent form template along with using educational interventions aimed at increasing the understanding potential participants have of a trial before they receive a consent form.

The generalizability of NCI-sponsored clinical trials accrual among women with gynecologic malignancies.

OBJECTIVES: Enrollment of a representative population to cancer clinical trials ensures scientific reliability and generalizability of results. This study evaluated the similarity of patients enrolled in NCI-supported group gynecologic cancer trials to the incident US population. METHODS: Accrual to NCI-sponsored ovarian, uterine, and cervical cancer treatment trials between 2003 and 2012 were examined. Race, ethnicity, age, and insurance status were compared to the analogous US patient population estimated using adjusted SEER incidence data. RESULTS: There were 18,913 accruals to 156 NCI-sponsored gynecologic cancer treatment trials, ovarian (56%), uterine (32%), and cervical cancers (12%). Ovarian cancer trials included the least racial, ethnic and age diversity. Black women were notably underrepresented in ovarian trials (4% versus 11%). Hispanic patients were underrepresented in ovarian and uterine trials (4% and 5% versus 18% and 19%, respectively), but not in cervical cancer trials (14 versus 11%). Elderly patients were underrepresented in each disease area, with the greatest underrepresentation seen in ovarian cancer patients over the age of 75 (7% versus 29%). Privately insured women were overrepresented among accrued ovarian cancer patients (87% versus 76%), and the uninsured were overrepresented among women with uterine or cervical cancers. These patterns did not change over time. CONCLUSIONS: Several notable differences were observed between the patients accrued to NCI funded trials and the incident population. Improving representation of racial and ethnic minorities and elderly patients on cancer clinical trials continues to be a challenge and priority.

Challenges Facing Early Phase Trials Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute: An Analysis of Corrective Action Plans to Improve Accrual.

Accruing patients in a timely manner represents a significant challenge to early phase cancer clinical trials. The NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program analyzed 19 months of corrective action plans (CAP) received for slow-accruing phase I and II trials to identify slow accrual reasons, evaluate whether proposed corrective actions matched these reasons, and assess the CAP impact on trial accrual, duration, and likelihood of meeting primary scientific objectives. Of the 135 CAPs analyzed, 69 were for phase I trials and 66 for phase II trials. Primary reasons cited for slow accrual were safety/toxicity (phase I: 48%), design/protocol concerns (phase I: 42%, phase II: 33%), and eligibility criteria (phase I: 41%, phase II: 35%). The most commonly proposed corrective actions were adding institutions (phase I: 43%, phase II: 85%) and amending the trial to change eligibility or design (phase I: 55%, phase II: 44%). Only 40% of CAPs provided proposed corrective actions that matched the reasons given for slow accrual. Seventy percent of trials were closed to accrual at time of analysis (phase I = 48; phase II = 46). Of these, 67% of phase I and 70% of phase II trials met their primary objectives, but they were active three times longer than projected. Among closed trials, 24% had an accrual rate increase associated with a greater likelihood of meeting their primary scientific objectives. Ultimately, trials receiving CAPs saw improved accrual rates. Future trials may benefit from implementing CAPs early in trial life cycles, but it may be more beneficial to invest in earlier accrual planning. Clin Cancer Res; 22(22); 5408-16. ©2016 AACRSee related commentary by Mileham and Kim, p. 5397.