Treatment Access for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor in Predominantly Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Importance: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is a rare cancer treated with the tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib mesylate or sunitinib malate. In general, in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), access to these treatments is limited. Objective: To describe the demographic characteristics, treatment duration, and survival of patients with GIST in LMICs treated with imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective database cohort analysis included patients in 2 access programs administered by The Max Foundation: the Glivec International Patient Assistance Program (GIPAP), from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, and the Max Access Solutions (MAS) program, January 1, 2017, to October 12, 2020. Sixty-six countries in which The Max Foundation facilitates access to imatinib and sunitinib were included. Participants consisted of patients with approved indications for imatinib, including adjuvant therapy in high-risk GIST by pathologic evaluation of resected tumor or biopsy-proven unresectable or metastatic GIST. All patients were reported to have tumors positive for CD117(c-kit) by treating physicians. A total of 9866 patients received treatment for metastatic and/or unresectable disease; 2100 received adjuvant imatinib; 49 received imatinib from another source and were only included in the sunitinib analysis; and 53 received both imatinib and sunitinib through The Max Foundation programs. Data were analyzed from October 13, 2020, to January 30, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic and clinical information was reported by treating physicians. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS). An imputation-based informed censoring model estimated events for patients lost to follow-up after treatment with adjuvant imatinib. Patients who were lost to follow-up with metastatic or unresectable disease were presumed deceased. Results: A total of 12 015 unique patients were included in the analysis (6890 male [57.6%]; median age, 54 [range, 0-100] years). Of these, 2100 patients were treated with imatinib in the adjuvant setting (median age, 54 [range 8-88] years) and 9866 were treated with imatinib for metastatic or unresectable disease (median age, 55 [range, 0-100] years). Male patients comprised 5867 of 9866 patients (59.5%) with metastatic or unresectable disease and 1023 of 2100 patients (48.7%) receiving adjuvant therapy. The median OS with imatinib for unresectable or metastatic disease was 5.8 (95% CI, 5.6-6.1) years, and the median TTD was 4.2 (95% CI, 4.1-4.4) years. The median OS with sunitinib for patients with metastatic or unresectable GIST was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.5) years; the median TTD was 1.5 (95% CI, 1.0-2.1) years. The 10-year OS rate in the adjuvant setting was 73.8% (95% CI, 67.2%-81.1%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with GIST who were predominantly from LMICs and received orally administered therapy through the GIPAP or MAS programs, outcomes were similar to those observed in high-resource countries. These findings underscore the feasibility and relevance of administering oral anticancer therapy to a molecularly defined population in LMICs, addressing a critical gap in cancer care.

Efficacy and safety of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: pooled analysis of four single-arm studies.

Pooled analyses of four single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies (NCT01816971, NCT02405364, NCT01029054, NCT01402284) investigated the clinical effectiveness of carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRd) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). Patients who did (Cohort 1; n = 122) and did not (Cohort 2; n = 99) undergo autologous stem cell transplant (high-dose melphalan [HDM]-ASCT) were included. Patients received a 28-day cycle of induction KRd. The rate of very good partial response or better, the primary endpoint, was 93% in Cohort 1 and 90% in Cohort 2. Two-year progression-free survival and overall survival rates were 88% and 96% for Cohort 1, and 85% and 97% for Cohort 2. At least 90% of patients in each cohort reported ≥1 grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events. Subgroup analyses by age, International Staging System stage, and cytogenetic risk were consistent with the overall population. KRd is an effective and tolerable treatment option for patients with NDMM regardless of HDM-ASCT eligibility.

Joint modeling tumor burden and time to event data in oncology trials.

The tumor burden (TB) process is postulated to be the primary mechanism through which most anticancer treatments provide benefit. In phase II oncology trials, the biologic effects of a therapeutic agent are often analyzed using conventional endpoints for best response, such as objective response rate and progression-free survival, both of which causes loss of information. On the other hand, graphical methods including spider plot and waterfall plot lack any statistical inference when there is more than one treatment arm. Therefore, longitudinal analysis of TB data is well recognized as a better approach for treatment evaluation. However, longitudinal TB process suffers from informative missingness because of progression or death. We propose to analyze the treatment effect on tumor growth kinetics using a joint modeling framework accounting for the informative missing mechanism. Our approach is illustrated by multisetting simulation studies and an application to a nonsmall-cell lung cancer data set. The proposed analyses can be performed in early-phase clinical trials to better characterize treatment effect and thereby inform decision-making.

Making the investigational oncology pipeline more efficient and effective: are we headed in the right direction?

Advances in our knowledge of the molecular mechanisms involved in cancer biology have contributed to an increase in novel target-specific oncology therapeutics. Unfortunately, clinical development of new drugs is an expensive and slow process, and the patient and financial resources needed to study the vast number of potential therapies are limited, requiring novel approaches to clinical trial design and patient recruitment. In addition, traditional efficacy endpoints may not be adequate to fully determine the therapeutic worth of the new classes of targeted agents. In this new era of drug development, it has become increasingly clear that new clinical trial design paradigms that examine nontraditional endpoints have become necessary to assist in prioritizing the development of the most promising agents. It is also vital that individual patient management be considered, and the subpopulations of patients most likely to derive benefit or experience harm from a new therapy be identified as early as possible. Phase I and II clinical trials allow investigators doing clinical research the opportunity to define these critical endpoints and subpopulations early on, before conducting large-scale randomized phase III clinical trials, which require an abundance of financial and patient resources.

Improved endpoints for cancer immunotherapy trials.

Unlike chemotherapy, which acts directly on the tumor, cancer immunotherapies exert their effects on the immune system and demonstrate new kinetics that involve building a cellular immune response, followed by changes in tumor burden or patient survival. Thus, adequate design and evaluation of some immunotherapy clinical trials require a new development paradigm that includes reconsideration of established endpoints. Between 2004 and 2009, several initiatives facilitated by the Cancer Immunotherapy Consortium of the Cancer Research Institute and partner organizations systematically evaluated an immunotherapy-focused clinical development paradigm and created the principles for redefining trial endpoints. On this basis, a body of clinical and laboratory data was generated that supports three novel endpoint recommendations. First, cellular immune response assays generate highly variable results. Assay harmonization in multicenter trials may minimize variability and help to establish cellular immune response as a reproducible biomarker, thus allowing investigation of its relationship with clinical outcomes. Second, immunotherapy may induce novel patterns of antitumor response not captured by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors or World Health Organization criteria. New immune-related response criteria were defined to more comprehensively capture all response patterns. Third, delayed separation of Kaplan-Meier curves in randomized immunotherapy trials can affect results. Altered statistical models describing hazard ratios as a function of time and recognizing differences before and after separation of curves may allow improved planning of phase III trials. These recommendations may improve our tools for cancer immunotherapy trials and may offer a more realistic and useful model for clinical investigation.