Sponsor Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Interventional Cancer Clinical Trial Protocols and Data Quality.

PURPOSE: The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic created major disruptions in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In response, regulators and sponsors allowed modifications to traditional trial processes to enable clinical research and care to continue. We systematically evaluated how these mitigation strategies affected data quality and overall trial conduct. METHODS: This study used surveys and live interviews. Forty-one major industry and National Cancer Institute Network groups (sponsors) overseeing anticancer treatment trials open in the United States from January 2015 to May 2022 were invited to participate. Descriptive statistics were used for survey data summaries. Key themes from interviews were identified. RESULTS: Twenty sponsors (48.8%; 15 industry and five Network groups) completed the survey; 11/20 (55.0%) participated in interviews. Sponsors predominantly (n = 12; 60.0%) reported large (≥11 trials) portfolios of phase II and/or phase III trials. The proportion of sponsors reporting a moderate (9) or substantial (8) increase in protocol deviations in the initial pandemic wave versus the pre-pandemic period was 89.5% (17/19); the proportion reporting a substantial increased dropped from 42.1% (n = 8/19) in the initial wave to 15.8% (n = 3/19) thereafter. The most commonly adopted mitigation strategies were remote distribution of oral anticancer therapies (70.0%), remote adverse event monitoring (65.0%), and remote consenting (65.0%). Most respondents (15/18; 83.3%) reported that the pandemic had minimal (n = 14) or no impact (n = 1) on overall data integrity. CONCLUSION: Despite nearly all sponsors observing a temporary increase in protocol deviations, most reported the pandemic had minimal/no impact on overall data integrity. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated an emerging trend toward greater flexibility in trial conduct, with potential benefits of reduced burden on trial participants and sites and improved patient access to research.

Long-term Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Population-Based Cohort Following Radiotherapy vs Surgery for Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Importance: Oncologic outcomes are similar for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) treated with primary surgery or radiotherapy. However, comparative differences in long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between modalities are less well established. Objective: To determine the association between primary surgery or radiotherapy and long-term PROs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used the Texas Cancer Registry to identify survivors of OPSCC treated definitively with primary radiotherapy or surgery between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2016. Patients were surveyed in October 2020 and April 2021. Exposures: Primary radiotherapy and surgery for OPSCC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients completed a questionnaire that included demographic and treatment information, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) module, the Neck Dissection Impairment Index (NDII), and the Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) scale. Multivariable linear regression models were performed to evaluate the association of treatment (surgery vs radiotherapy) with PROs while controlling for additional variables. Results: Questionnaires were mailed to 1600 survivors of OPSCC identified from the Texas Cancer Registry, with 400 responding (25% response rate), of whom 183 (46.2%) were 8 to 15 years from their initial diagnosis. The final analysis included 396 patients (aged ≤57 years, 190 [48.0%]; aged >57 years, 206 [52.0%]; female, 72 [18.2%]; male, 324 [81.8%]). After multivariable adjustment, no significant differences were found between surgery and radiotherapy outcomes as measured by the MDASI-HN (ß, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.7 to 0.6), NDII (ß, -1.7; 95% CI, -6.7 to 3.4), and EAR (ß, -0.9; 95% CI -7.7 to 5.8). In contrast, less education, lower household income, and feeding tube use were associated with significantly worse MDASI-HN, NDII, and EAR scores, while concurrent chemotherapy with radiotherapy was associated with worse MDASI-HN and EAR scores. Conclusions and Relevance: This population-based cohort study found no associations between long-term PROs and primary radiotherapy or surgery for OPSCC. Lower socioeconomic status, feeding tube use, and concurrent chemotherapy were associated with worse long-term PROs. Further efforts should focus on the mechanism, prevention, and rehabilitation of these long-term treatment toxicities. The long-term outcomes of concurrent chemotherapy should be validated and may inform treatment decision making.

Biosimilar Use Among 38 ASCO PracticeNET Practices, 2019-2021.

PURPOSE: Biosimilars offer increased patient choice and potential cost-savings, compared with originator biologics. We studied 3 years of prescribed biologics among US physician practices to determine the relationship of practice type and payment source to oncology biosimilar use. METHODS: We acquired biologic utilization data from 38 practices participating in PracticeNET. We focused on six biologics (bevacizumab, epoetin alfa, filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab) for the period from 2019 to 2021. We complemented our quantitative analysis with a survey of PracticeNET participants (prescribers and practice leaders) to reveal potential motivators and barriers to biosimilar use. We implemented logistic regression to evaluate the biosimilar use for each biologic, with covariates including time, practice type, and payment source, and accounted for clusters of practices. RESULTS: Use of biosimilars increased over the 3-year period, reaching between 51% and 80% of administered doses by the fourth quarter of 2021, depending on the biologic. Biosimilar use varied by practice, with independent physician practices having higher use of biosimilars for epoetin alfa, filgrastim, rituximab, and trastuzumab. Compared with commercial health plans, Medicaid plans had lower biosimilar use for four biologics; traditional Medicare had lower use for five biologics. The average cost per dose decreased between 24% and 41%, dependent on the biologic. CONCLUSION: Biosimilars have, through increased use, lowered the average cost per dose of the studied biologics. Biosimilar use differed by originator biologic, practice type, and payment source. There remains further opportunity for increases in biosimilar use among certain practices and payers.

Rate of COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2: Analysis of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry.

BACKGROUND: The availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has enabled protections against serious COVID-19 outcomes, which are particularly important for patients with cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry enabled the study of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in patients with cancer who were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2. METHODS: Medical oncology practices entered data on patients who were in cancer treatment. The cohort included patients who had severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection in 2020 and had visits and vaccine data after December 31, 2020. The primary end point was the time to first vaccination from January 1, 2021. Cumulative incidence estimates and Cox regression with death as a competing risk were used to describe the time to vaccine uptake and factors associated with vaccine receipt. RESULTS: The cohort included 1155 patients from 56 practices. Among 690 patients who received the first vaccine dose, 92% received the second dose. The median time to vaccine was 99 days. After adjustment, older patients were associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination compared with patients younger than 50 years in January through March 2021, and age exhibited a linear effect, with older patients showing higher rates of vaccination. Metastatic solid tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98) or non-B-cell hematologic malignancies (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) compared with nonmetastatic solid tumors, and any comorbidity (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) compared with no comorbidity, were associated with lower vaccination rates. Area-level social determinants of health (lower education attainment and higher unemployment rates) were associated with lower vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, cancer type, comorbidity, area-level education attainment, and unemployment rates were associated with differential vaccine uptake rates. These findings should inform strategies to communicate about vaccine safety and efficacy to patients with cancer.

Oncologists' Perspectives on Individualizing Dose Selection for Patients With Metastatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Treatment goals for patients with metastatic cancer include prolongation and maintenance of quality of life. Patients and oncologists have questioned the current paradigm of initial dose selection for systemic therapy; however, data on oncologists' dose selection strategies and beliefs are lacking. METHODS: We conducted an electronic international survey of medical oncologists who treat patients with breast and/or gastrointestinal cancers. Survey questions addressed experiences with, and attitudes toward, dose reduction at initiation (DRI) of a new systemic therapy for patients with metastatic cancer. RESULTS: Among 3,099 eligible oncologists, 367 responded (response rate 12%). Most (52%) reported using DRI at least 10% of the time to minimize toxicities. Gastrointestinal specialists were more likely to report DRI ≥ 10% of the time (72% v 50% of generalists and 51% of breast specialists, P < .005). Of those who dose reduced ≥ 10% of the time, 89% reported discussing potential tradeoffs between efficacy and toxicity with patients. Overall, 65% agreed it is acceptable to lower starting doses to reduce side effects even if it compromises efficacy; younger clinicians were more likely to agree (P < .005). There was strong support (89%) for future trials to determine optimal effective, rather than maximum tolerated, dose. CONCLUSION: Oncology practice varies with regard to discussion and individualized selection of starting doses in the metastatic setting. This study demonstrates a need for consideration of shared decision making regarding initial dose selection and strong support among oncologists for clinical studies to define optimal dosing and best practices for individualizing care.