Remote Monitoring and Data Collection for Decentralized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Less than 5% of patients with cancer enroll in a clinical trial, partly due to financial and logistic burdens, especially among underserved populations. The COVID-19 pandemic marked a substantial shift in the adoption of decentralized trial operations by pharmaceutical companies. Objective: To assess the current global state of adoption of decentralized trial technologies, understand factors that may be driving or preventing adoption, and highlight aspirations and direction for industry to enable more patient-centric trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bloomberg New Economy International Cancer Coalition, composed of patient advocacy, industry, government regulator, and academic medical center representatives, developed a survey directed to global biopharmaceutical companies of the coalition from October 1 through December 31, 2022, with a focus on registrational clinical trials. The data for this survey study were analyzed between January 1 and 31, 2023. Exposure: Adoption of decentralized clinical trial technologies. Main Outcomes and Measures: The survey measured (1) outcomes of different remote monitoring and data collection technologies on patient centricity, (2) adoption of these technologies in oncology and all therapeutic areas, and (3) barriers and facilitators to adoption using descriptive statistics. Results: All 8 invited coalition companies completed the survey, representing 33% of the oncology market by revenues in 2021. Across nearly all technologies, adoption in oncology trials lags that of all trials. In the current state, electronic diaries and electronic clinical outcome assessments are the most used technology, with a mean (SD) of 56% (19%) and 51% (29%) adoption for all trials and oncology trials, respectively, whereas visits within local physician networks is the least adopted at a mean (SD) of 12% (18%) and 7% (9%), respectively. Looking forward, the difference between the current and aspired adoption rate in 5 years for oncology is large, with respondents expecting a 40% or greater absolute adoption increase in 8 of the 11 technologies surveyed. Furthermore, digitally enabled recruitment, local imaging capabilities, and local physician networks were identified as technologies that could be most effective for improving patient centricity in the long term. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings may help to galvanize momentum toward greater adoption of enabling technologies to support a new paradigm of trials that are more accessible, less burdensome, and more inclusive.

Challenges and Solutions to Support Oncology Professionals Serving Underserved Populations With Cancer in the United States: Results From the ASCO Serving the Underserved Task Force.

PURPOSE: Little data exist regarding approaches to support oncology professionals who deliver cancer care for underserved populations. In response, ASCO developed the Serving the Underserved Task Force to learn from and support oncology professionals serving underserved populations. METHODS: The Task Force developed a 28-question survey to assess oncology professionals' experiences and strategies to support their work caring for underserved populations. The survey was deployed via an online link to 600 oncology professionals and assessed respondent and patient demographic characteristics, clinic-based processes to coordinate health-related social services, and strategies for professional society support and engagement. We used chi-square tests to evaluate whether there were associations between percent full-time equivalent (FTE) effort serving underserved populations (<50% FTE v ≥50% FTE) with responses. RESULTS: Of 462 respondents who completed the survey (77% response rate), 79 (17.1%) were Asian; 30 (6.5%) Black; 43 (9.3%) Hispanic or Latino/Latina; and 277 (60%) White. The majority (n = 366, 79.2%) had a medical doctor degree (MD). A total of 174 (37.7%) had <25% FTE, 151 (32.7%) had 25%-50% FTE, and 121 (26.2%) had ≥50% FTE effort serving underserved populations. Most best guessed patients' sociodemographic characteristics (n = 388; 84%), while 42 (9.2%) used data collected by the clinic. Social workers coordinated most health-related social services. However, in clinical settings with high proportions of underserved patients, there was greater reliance on nonclinical personnel, such as navigators (odds ratio [OR], 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07 to 4.33]) or no individual (OR, 2.55 [95% CI, 1.14 to 5.72]) for addressing mental health needs and greater reliance on physicians or advance practice practitioners (OR, 2.54 [95% CI, 1.11 to 5.81]) or no individual (OR, 1.91 [95% CI, 1.09 to 3.35]) for addressing childcare or eldercare needs compared with social workers. Prioritization of solutions, which did not differ by FTE effort serving underserved populations, included a return-on-investment model to support personnel, integrated health-related social needs screening, and collaboration with the professional society on advocacy and policy. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight crucial strategies that professional societies can implement to support oncology clinicians serving underserved populations with cancer.

Review of Racial and Ethnic Representation of Participants Enrolled in Pediatric Clinical Trials of Oncology Drugs Conducted Through FDA Written Requests.

Importance: The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act states that in issuing a written request (WR), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shall consider the adequate representation (eg, proportionate to the disease population) of children from racial and ethnic minority populations. If the terms of the WR are fulfilled, the FDA may grant an additional 6 months of exclusivity for any unexpired patents and exclusivities attached to approved indications. Objective: To report on the race and ethnicity of participants enrolled in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs for which pediatric exclusivity was granted between 2001 and 2021. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective review examines pediatric exclusivity request submissions for oncologic drugs that received pediatric exclusivity between December 2001 and January 2021 based on fulfillment of the requirements of a WR that were identified using the FDA's Document Archiving Reporting and Regulatory Tracking System. Demographic data were manually abstracted from supporting study reports, and data were pooled across submissions for the analysis. Data were analyzed throughout 2022 and 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Representation by race, sex, and ethnicity in pediatric studies conducted in response to WRs. Results: A total of 22 pediatric exclusivity requests were identified, comprising 40 studies and 2025 patients. Most trials (26 [65%]) in the analysis were cooperative group studies. Representation by race was as follows: American Indian/Alaska Native (13 [0.6%]), African American/Black (228 [11.3%]), Asian (92 [4.6%]), Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander (33 [1.6%]), White (1303 [64.3%]), other (194 [9.6%]), and unknown/not reported (162 [8.0%]). Representation by sex was female individuals (41.2%) and male individuals (58.8%). Ethnicity was as follows: Hispanic (226 [5.7%]), non-Hispanic (910 [22.5%]), unknown/not reported ethnicity (2800 [69.1%]), and other ethnicity (114 [2.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: The study results suggest that overall, representation of participants of racial and ethnic minority groups in studies supporting pediatric exclusivity requests appear comparable with the racial distribution of childhood cancers in the US based on data from the National Childhood Cancer Registry Explorer. However, fewer Hispanic participants were enrolled in the trials we reviewed (8%) compared with the representation of Hispanic patients in the National Childhood Cancer Registry (28%). This discrepancy may be partially explained by the large proportion of participants with unknown information regarding ethnicity. Further research into the reasons for the large proportion of participants with missing ethnicity information is needed.

FDA Approval Summary: Tremelimumab in Combination with Durvalumab for the Treatment of Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

On October 21, 2022, the FDA approved tremelimumab (Imjudo) in combination with durvalumab for adult patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The approval was based on the results from the HIMALAYA study, in which patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who were naïve to previous systemic treatment were randomly assigned to receive one of three study arms: tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The primary objective of improvement in overall survival (OS) for tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab compared with sorafenib met statistical significance with a stratified HR of 0.78 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66-0.92; P = 0.0035]. The median OS was 16.4 months (95% CI, 14.2-19.6) with tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab and 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.3-16.1) with sorafenib. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥20% of patients receiving tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab were rash, fatigue, diarrhea, pruritus, musculoskeletal pain, and abdominal pain. The recommended tremelimumab dose for patients weighing 30 kg or more is 300 mg, i.v., as a single dose in combination with durvalumab 1,500 mg at cycle 1/day 1, followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg, i.v., every 4 weeks. For those weighing less than 30 kg, the recommended tremelimumab dose is 4 mg/kg, i.v., as a single dose in combination with durvalumab 20 mg/kg, i.v., followed by durvalumab 20 mg/kg, i.v., every 4 weeks.

Highlights of FDA Oncology Approvals in 2023: Bispecific T-cell Engagers, Pediatric Indications, and Inclusive Drug Development.

SUMMARY: Cancer drug development remained robust in 2023. Highlights of U.S. drug approvals this year include new immunotherapies and targeted drug development in adult and pediatric patients as well as patients with rare diseases.

State of Cancer Care in America: Achieving Cancer Health Equity Among Sexual and Gender Minority Communities.

In 2017, ASCO issued the position statement, Strategies for Reducing Cancer Health Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Populations, outlining five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both sexual and gender minority (SGM, eg, LGBTQ+) populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In 2019, ASCO convened the SGM Task Force to help actualize the recommendations of the 2017 position statement. The percentage of the US population who publicly identify as SGM has increased dramatically over the past few years. Although increased national interest in SGM health equity has accompanied a general interest in research, policy change, and education around diversity, equity, and inclusion, resulting from public concern over discrimination in health care against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, this has been accompanied by a surge in discriminatory legislation directly impacting the SGM community. Although much progress has been made in advancing SGM cancer health equity since 2017, more progress is needed to reduce disparities and advance equity. The five focus areas outlined in the 2017 ASCO position statement remain relevant, as we must continue to promote and advance equity in quality improvement, workforce development, patient care, research, and SGM-affirming policies. This article reports on the progress toward reducing SGM cancer disparities and achieving equity across these five areas and identifies future directions for the work that still remains.

Researcher Experience and Comfort With Telemedicine and Remote Patient Monitoring in Cancer Treatment Trials.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM. METHODS: Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site. RESULTS: There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research.

Assessing the Needs of Those Who Serve the Underserved: A Qualitative Study among US Oncology Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Clinical Oncology established the 'Supporting Providers Serving the Underserved' (SUS) Task Force with a goal to develop recommendations to support cancer clinicians who deliver care for populations at risk for cancer disparities. As a first step, the Task Force explored barriers and facilitators to equitable cancer care delivery. METHODS: Clinicians across the United States who deliver care predominantly for low-income and racially and ethnically minoritized populations were identified based on lists generated by the Task Force and the Health Equity Committee. Through purposive sampling based on geographical location, clinicians were invited to participate in 30-60 min semi-structured interviews to explore experiences, barriers, and facilitators in their delivery of cancer care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, imported into qualitative data management software, and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed three major themes regarding barriers (lack of executive leadership recognition of resources; patient-related socio-economic needs; clinician burnout) and two major themes regarding facilitators (provider commitment, experiential training). CONCLUSIONS: Findings reveal modifiable barriers and potential solutions to facilitate equitable cancer care delivery for populations at risk for cancer disparities.

Driving Diversity and Inclusion in Cancer Drug Development - Industry and Regulatory Perspectives, Current Practices, Opportunities, and Challenges.

In April 2022, the FDA issued draft guidance to help industry develop strategies to improve diversity in clinical trials. Historically, clinical trial sponsors have not systematically incorporated efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), particularly during the early design stages of clinical development plans and operational strategies. Unfortunately, a retrospective approach to DEI often results in clinical trial participants not being reflective of the diversity of patients intended to be treated with new therapies. A shift to prospective, intentional DEI strategies for clinical trials, including long-term engagement with diverse patients and communities throughout the development life cycle, is necessary to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of new drugs and devices for all patients. Sponsors' current practices and opportunities for improving DEI address four major topics: institutional commitment, culture change, and governance; clinical development strategy; setting enrollment goals to ensure trial participant diversity; and development and implementation of the operational strategy. As DEI practices gain wider adoption in clinical trials, shared learning and collaboration among stakeholders on an ongoing and noncompetitive basis will lead to sustainable change. Prioritization of enrollment of diverse populations as an integral part of study start-up planning, clinical trial design, and recruitment capabilities will enhance the clinical development process for oncology therapies. Importantly, these efforts will help provide equitable access to clinical trials and innovative cancer therapies.

FDA Approval Summary: Tucatinib with Trastuzumab for Advanced Unresectable or Metastatic, Chemotherapy Refractory, HER2-Positive RAS Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer.

On January 19, 2023, the FDA granted accelerated approval to tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic RAS wild-type, HER2-positive colorectal cancer who have received prior treatment with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. Approval was based on the pooled analysis of patients receiving tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab in MOUNTAINEER (NCT03043313), an open-label, multicenter trial. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) by RECIST 1.1 as per blinded central review committee (BIRC) assessment. The main secondary endpoint was duration of response (DOR) per BIRC assessment. Eighty-four eligible patients received the combination tucatinib and trastuzumab. With a median follow-up of 16 months, the ORR was 38% [95% confidence interval (CI): 28-49] and median DOR was 12.4 months (95% CI: 8.5-20.5); 81% of responders had a response lasting more than 6 months. The most common adverse reactions observed in at least 20% of patients receiving tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab were diarrhea, fatigue, rash, nausea, abdominal pain, infusion-related reactions, and fever. FDA concluded that the magnitude of ORR and durable responses observed in patients treated with tucatinib in combination with trastuzumab in the MOUNTAINEER trial are clinically meaningful, particularly in the context of a disease with estimated survival of 6-7 months with available therapy. This is the first approval for the subset of patients with HER2-positive colorectal cancer. This article summarizes the FDA's thought process and review of the data supporting this accelerated approval.

FDA Approval Summary: Futibatinib for Unresectable Advanced or Metastatic, Chemotherapy Refractory Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 Fusions or Other Rearrangements.

On September 30, 2022, the FDA granted accelerated approval to futibatinib for the treatment of adult patients with previously treated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) with FGFR2 fusions or other rearrangements. Approval was based on Study TAS-120-101, a multicenter open-label, single-arm trial. Patients received futibatinib 20-mg orally once daily. The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DoR) as determined by an independent review committee (IRC) according to RECIST v1.1. ORR was 42% (95% confidence interval, 32%-52%). Median DoR was 9.7 months. Adverse reactions occurring in ≥30% patients were nail toxicity, musculoskeletal pain, constipation, diarrhea, fatigue, dry mouth, alopecia, stomatitis, and abdominal pain. The most common laboratory abnormalities (≥50%) were increased phosphate, increased creatinine, decreased hemoglobin, and increased glucose. Ocular toxicity (including dry eye, keratitis, and retinal epithelial detachment) and hyperphosphatemia are important risks of futibatinib, which are listed under Warnings and Precautions. This article summarizes the FDA's thought process and data supporting the approval of futibatinib.

Eligibility criteria and enrollment of a diverse racial and ethnic population in multiple myeloma clinical trials.

The narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter global clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration between 2006 and 2019 to support the approval of the use of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies that analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility based on race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per Office of Management and Budget standards. Patients flagged as having screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as the percentage of patients who were ineligible compared with the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories to analyze the reasons for trial ineligibility. Black patients (24%) and other (23%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates than White patients (17%). The Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rate (12%) among all racial subgroups. Failure to meet the hematologic laboratory criteria (19%) and treatment-related criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Black patients and were more common in Black patients than in other races. Failure to meet disease-related criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in the underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

Equitable Access to Clinical Trials: How Do We Achieve It?

The mismatch between the study populations participating in oncology clinical trials and the composition of the targeted cancer population requires urgent amelioration. Regulatory requirements can mandate that trial sponsors enroll diverse study populations and ensure that regulatory revue prioritizes equity and inclusivity. A variety of projects directed at increasing accrual of underserved populations to oncology clinical trials emphasize best practices: broadened eligibility requirements for trials, simplification of trial procedures, community outreach through patient navigators, decentralization of clinical trial procedures and institution of telehealth, and funding to offset costs of travel and lodging. Substantial improvement will require major changes in culture in the educational and professional practice, research, and regulatory communities and will require major increases in public, corporate, and philanthropic funding.

Association between antibiotics and adverse oncological outcomes in patients receiving targeted or immune-based therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & Aims: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) alone or in combination with other ICIs or vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors are therapeutic options in unresectable/metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether antibiotic (ATB) exposure affects outcome remains unclear. Methods: This study retrospectively analysed an FDA database including 4,098 patients receiving ICI (n = 842) either as monotherapy (n = 258) or in combination (n = 584), tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) (n = 1,968), vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors (n = 480), or placebo (n = 808) as part of nine international clinical trials. Exposure to ATB within 30 days before or after treatment initiation was correlated with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) across therapeutic modality before and after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: Of 4,098 patients with unresectable/metastatic HCC, of which 39% were of hepatitis B aetiology and 21% were of hepatitis C aetiology, 83% were males with a median age of 64 years (range 18-88), a European Collaborative Oncology Group performance status of 0 (60%), and Child-Pugh A class (98%). Overall, ATB exposure (n = 620, 15%) was associated with shorter median PFS (3.6 months in ATB-exposed vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR] 1.29; 95% CI 1.22, 1.36) and OS (8.7 months in ATB-exposed vs. 10.6 months; HR 1.36; 95% CI 1.29, 1.43). In IPTW analyses, ATB was associated with shorter PFS in patients treated with ICI (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.34, 1.73), TKI (HR 1.29; 95% CI 1.19, 1.39), and placebo (HR 1.23; 95% CI 1.11, 1.37). Similar results were observed in IPTW analyses of OS in patients treated with ICI (HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08, 1.38), TKI (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.30, 1.52), and placebo (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.25, 1.57). Conclusions: Unlike other malignancies where the detrimental effect of ATB may be more prominent in ICI recipients, ATB is associated with worse outcomes in this study across different therapies for HCC including placebo. Whether ATB is causally linked to worse outcomes through disruption of the gut-liver axis remains to be demonstrated in translational studies. Impact and Implications: A growing body of evidence suggests the host microbiome, frequently altered by antibiotic treatment, as an important outcome predictor in the context of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. In this study, we analysed the effects of early antibiotic exposure on outcomes in almost 4,100 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated within nine multicentre clinical trials. Interestingly, early exposure to antibiotic treatment was associated with worse outcomes not only in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors but also in those treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors and placebo. This is in contrast to data published in other malignancies, where the detrimental effect of antibiotic treatment may be more prominent in immune checkpoint inhibitor recipients, highlighting the uniqueness of hepatocellular carcinoma given the complex interplay between cirrhosis, cancer, risk of infection, and the pleiotropic effect of molecular therapies for this disease.

FDA Analysis of Ineligibility for Acute Myeloid Leukemia Clinical Trials by Race and Ethnicity.

BACKGROUND: Patients of certain racial and ethnic groups have been underrepresented in clinical trials for treatment of malignancy. One potential barrier to participation is entry requirements that lead to patients in various racial and ethnic groups not meeting eligibility criteria for studies (ie, "screen failure"). The objective of this study was to analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility by race and ethnicity in trials of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2016 and 2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Multicenter, global clinical trials submitted to the FDA to support AML drugs and biologics. We examined the rate of ineligibility among participants screened for studies of AML therapies submitted to the FDA from 2016 to 2019. Data were extracted from 13 trials used in approval evaluations, including race, screen status, and reason for ineligibility. RESULTS: Overall, patients in historically underrepresented racial and ethnic groups were less likely to meet entry criteria for studies compared to White patients, with 26.7% of White patients, 29.4% of Black patients, and 35.9% of Asian patients not meeting entry criteria. Lack of relevant disease mutation was the reason for ineligibility more frequently among Black and Asian patients. The findings were limited by the small number of underrepresented patients screened for participation. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that entry requirements for studies may put underrepresented patients at a disadvantage, leading to less eligible patients and thus lower participation in clinical trials.

Transcriptomic analysis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma specimens obtained from Black and White patients.

In pancreatic cancer clinical trials, Black patients are under-represented while having higher morbidity and mortality rates as compared to other racial groups. Multiple factors, including socioeconomic and lifestyle factors may contribute to this disparity, but genomic contributions remain unclear. In an exploratory project to identify genes that may contribute to differences in survival between Black (n = 8) and White (n = 20) patients with pancreatic cancer, transcriptomic sequencing of over 24,900 genes was performed in human pancreatic tumor and non-tumor tissue obtained from Black and White patients. Over 4,400 genes were differentially expressed in tumor and non-tumor tissue, irrespective of race. To validate these results, the expression of four genes (AGR2, POSTN, TFF1, and CP) reported to be up-regulated in pancreatic tumor tissue as compared to non-tumor tissue were confirmed using quantitative PCR. Transcriptomic analysis that compared pancreatic tumor tissue from Black and White patients revealed differential expression in 1,200 genes, while a comparison of the non-tumor and tumor gene expression differences within each race revealed over 1,500 tumor-specific differentially expressed genes in pancreatic tumor and non-tumor tissue from Black patients. We identified TSPAN8 as a potential tumor-specific gene significantly overexpressed in pancreatic tumor tissue in Black patients as compared to White patients. Using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis software to compare the race-associated gene expression profiles, over 40 canonical pathways were identified to be potentially impacted by the gene expression differences between the races. Heightened expression of TSPAN8 was associated with poor overall survival, suggesting TSPAN8 as one potential genetic factor contributing to the differential outcomes in Black patients with pancreatic cancer, supporting the potential utility of larger genomic studies to further explore the role of TSPAN8 in pancreatic cancer.

Increasing Racial and Ethnic Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in Cancer Treatment Trials: Evaluation of an ASCO-Association of Community Cancer Centers Site Self-Assessment.

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

FDA Approval Summary: Pemigatinib for Previously Treated, Unresectable Locally Advanced or Metastatic Cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 Fusion or Other Rearrangement.

On April 17, 2020, the FDA granted accelerated approval to pemigatinib (PEMAZYRE, Incyte Corporation) for the treatment of adults with previously treated, unresectable locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with an FGFR2 fusion or other rearrangement as detected by an FDA-approved test. Approval was based on FIGHT-202 (NCT02924376), a multicenter open-label single-arm trial. Efficacy was based on 107 patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma whose disease had progressed on or after at least one prior therapy and had an FGFR2 gene fusion or rearrangement. Patients received pemigatinib, 13.5 mg orally, once daily for 14 consecutive days, followed by 7 days off therapy. Safety was based on a total of 466 patients, 146 of whom had cholangiocarcinoma and received the recommended dose. Efficacy endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) determined by an independent review committee using RECIST 1.1. ORR was 36% (95% confidence interval: 27-45). Median DOR was 9.1 months. The most common adverse reactions were hyperphosphatemia, alopecia, diarrhea, nail toxicity, fatigue, dysgeusia, nausea, constipation, stomatitis, dry eye, dry mouth, decreased appetite, vomiting, arthralgia, abdominal pain, hypophosphatemia, back pain, and dry skin. Ocular toxicity and hyperphosphatemia are important risks of pemigatinib. The recommended dosage is 13.5 mg orally once daily for 14 consecutive days followed by 7 days off therapy in 21-day cycles. FDA also approved the FoundationOne CDX (Foundation Medicine, Inc.) as a companion diagnostic for patient selection.

Use of Single-Arm Trials for US Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval in Oncology, 2002-2021.

Importance: Single-arm trials have allowed for transformative therapies to be made available to patients expeditiously. However, using single-arm trials to support drug approval presents several challenges that must be carefully considered. Observations: Between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration granted 176 new malignant hematology and oncology indications based on single-arm trials, including 116 accelerated approvals (AAs) and 60 traditional approvals. Overall, 87 approvals (49%) were for new molecular entities or original biologics and 89 (51%) were supplemental indications. Response rate (RR) was the most common end point used to support approval in these single-arm trials (173 of 176 [98%]). Of the 116 AAs based on single-arm trials, 45 (38%) fulfilled their postmarketing requirement to verify clinical benefit, 61 (52%) are pending verification of benefit, and 10 (9%) were withdrawn from the market as of December 31, 2021. Most (56 of 61 [92%]) AAs based on single-arm trials pending verification of benefit occurred during the previous 5 years and have ongoing confirmatory trials as of December 2021. Conclusions and Relevance: Single-arm trials have been a common development strategy to support regulatory approval as early-stage expansion cohorts with promising durable RRs have become more prevalent. In the appropriate context, single-arm trials using durable RRs can allow patients expedited access to novel therapies and will continue to serve a role in advancing drug development in oncology. However, single-arm trials have a smaller noncomparative safety data set, inability to use time-to-event end points, and other limitations that require careful consideration within the context of the disease and available therapies. The randomized clinical trial remains the preferred approach in clinical investigation.

FDA Approval Summary: Ripretinib for Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor.

On May 15, 2020, the FDA approved ripretinib for adult patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor who have received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. The approval was based on results from INVICTUS (NCT03353753), an international, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either ripretinib 150 mg once daily (n = 85) or matching placebo (n = 44). The trial demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by modified RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review for patients randomized to ripretinib, with a median PFS of 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.6-6.9] compared with 1.0 month (95% CI: 0.9-1.7) for placebo [HR: 0.15 (95% CI: 0.09-0.25); P < 0.0001, stratified log-rank test]. There was no statistically significant difference in objective response rate in the ripretinib arm, 9% (95% CI: 4.2-18) compared with placebo 0% [(95% CI: 0-8); P = 0.0504, Fisher exact test]. The median overall survival (OS) in the ripretinib arm was 15.1 months (95% CI: 12.3-15.1) compared with 6.6 months (95% CI: 4.1-11.6) in the placebo arm. A formal statistical comparison of OS was not made due to the prespecified hierarchical analysis plan. The most common (≥20%) adverse events with ripretinib, in order of decreasing frequency, were alopecia, fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, and vomiting. Other important risks of ripretinib include new primary cutaneous malignancies, hypertension, and cardiac dysfunction.