Changes in Circulating Tumor DNA Reflect Clinical Benefit Across Multiple Studies of Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

PURPOSE: As immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) become increasingly used in frontline settings, identifying early indicators of response is needed. Recent studies suggest a role for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in monitoring response to ICI, but uncertainty exists in the generalizability of these studies. Here, the role of ctDNA for monitoring response to ICI is assessed through a standardized approach by assessing clinical trial data from five independent studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient-level clinical and ctDNA data were pooled and harmonized from 200 patients across five independent clinical trials investigating the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-directed monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. CtDNA levels were measured using different ctDNA assays across the studies. Maximum variant allele frequencies were calculated using all somatic tumor-derived variants in each unique patient sample to correlate ctDNA changes with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: We observed strong associations between reductions in ctDNA levels from on-treatment liquid biopsies with improved OS (OS; hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.20; P < .001) and PFS (PFS; hazard ratio 1.76; 95% CI, 1.31 to 2.36; P < .001). Changes in the maximum variant allele frequencies ctDNA values showed strong association across different outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis of five independent clinical trials, consistent and robust associations between reductions in ctDNA and outcomes were found across multiple end points assessed in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with an ICI. Additional tumor types, stages, and drug classes should be included in future analyses to further validate this. CtDNA may serve as an important tool in clinical development and an early indicator of treatment benefit.

Patient, Family Member and Physician Perspectives and Experiences with AML Treatment Decision-Making.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment decisions in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are challenging, particularly for those who are not candidates for intensive chemotherapy (IC), and the trade-offs patients, their families and physicians consider when choosing a treatment option are not well understood. This qualitative research explored the value of extending survival and the treatment decision-making process from a multi-stakeholder perspective. METHODS: Overall, 28 patients with AML (≥ 65 years old, unsuitable for IC), 25 of their relatives and 10 independent physicians from the US, UK and Canada took part in one-on-one, 60-minute qualitative interviews. RESULTS: Across all stakeholders, improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL), extended survival and relief of AML symptoms were recognized as most important in AML treatment decision-making. However, extending survival in 'good health' was more important than extending survival alone, particularly because of the extra time it gives patients and their relatives together, and allows patients to achieve important goals. Patients' limited understanding of available treatment options, paired with incorrect perceptions of treatment side effects, impacted their involvement in the treatment decision-making process. Patients and physicians perceived physicians to have the most influence in the decision-making process despite their priorities not always aligning. CONCLUSION: These findings illustrate the importance of having structured discussions which explicitly assess patients' goals and their understanding and expectations of treatments and also the need for patient friendly resources about the lived experience of AML and available treatment options. These measures will help to ensure that patients are fully involved in the shared decision-making process.

Continuing to Broaden Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative and Inclusive: ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement.

PURPOSE: Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria (EC) limit the number of patients who can enroll and potentially benefit from protocol-driven, investigational treatment plans and reduce the generalizability of trial results to the broader population. Following publication of expert stakeholder recommendations for broadening EC in 2017, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) convened working groups to produce additional recommendations and analyze the potential impact on clinical trials using real-world data. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Multistakeholder working groups were appointed by an ASCO-Friends leadership group to propose recommendations for more inclusive EC related to: washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory reference ranges and test intervals, and performance status. RESULTS: The four working groups, ASCO Board of Directors, and Friends leadership support the recommendations included in this statement to modernize EC related to washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory references ranges and test intervals, and performance status to make trial populations more inclusive and representative of cancer patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the recommendations is intended to result in greater ease of determining patient eligibility. Increased opportunities for patient participation in research will help address longstanding underrepresentation of certain groups in clinical trials and produce evidence that is more informative for a broader patient population. More patients eligible will also likely speed clinical trial accrual.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Modernizing Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Prior Therapies Work Group.

PURPOSE: Restrictive eligibility criteria induce differences between clinical trial and "real-world" treatment populations. Restrictions based on prior therapies are common; minimizing them when appropriate may increase patient participation in clinical trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A multi-stakeholder working group developed a conceptual framework to guide evaluation of prevailing practices with respect to using prior treatment as selection criteria for clinical trials. The working group made recommendations to minimize restrictions based on prior therapies within the boundaries of scientific validity, patient centeredness, distributive justice, and beneficence. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) Patients are eligible for clinical trials regardless of the number or type of prior therapies and without requiring a specific therapy prior to enrollment unless a scientific or clinically based rationale is provided as justification. (ii) Prior therapy (either limits on number and type of prior therapies or requirements for specific therapies before enrollment) could be used to determine eligibility in the following cases: a) the agents being studied target a specific mechanism or pathway that could potentially interact with a prior therapy; b) the study design requires that all patients begin protocol-specified treatment at the same point in the disease trajectory; and c) in randomized clinical studies, if the therapy in the control arm is not appropriate for the patient due to previous therapies received. (iii) Trial designers should consider conducting evaluation separately from the primary endpoint analysis for participants who have received prior therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial sponsors and regulators should thoughtfully reexamine the use of prior therapy exposure as selection criteria to maximize clinical trial participation.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

A National Assessment of Diagnostic Test Use for Patients with Advanced NSCLC and Factors Influencing Physician Decision-Making.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tests, including US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved tests and laboratory-developed tests, are frequently used to guide care for patients with cancer, and, recently, have been the subject of several policy discussions and insurance coverage determinations. As the use of diagnostic testing has evolved, stakeholders have raised questions about the lack of standardized test performance metrics and the risk this poses to patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of diagnostic testing for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to analyze the utilization of FDA-approved versus laboratory-developed diagnostic tests, and to evaluate the impact of existing regulatory and coverage frameworks on diagnostic test ordering and physician treatment decision-making for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHODS: We conducted a 2-part study consisting of an online survey and patient chart review from March 1, 2019, to March 25, 2019, of physicians managing patients with advanced NSCLC. Respondents qualified for this study if they managed at least 5 patients with advanced NSCLC per month and had diagnosed at least 1 patient with advanced NSCLC in the 12 months before the survey. A total of 150 physicians completed the survey; before completing the survey, they were instructed to review between 4 and 8 charts of patients with stage IV NSCLC from their list of active patients. RESULTS: A total of 150 practicing oncologists who manage patients with advanced NSCLC responded to the survey and reviewed a total of 815 patient charts. Of these 815 patients, 812 (99.6%) were tested for at least 1 biomarker, including 73% of patients who were tested for EGFR, 70% tested for ALK, 58% tested for BRAF V600E, and 38% of patients tested for ROS1, by FDA-approved diagnostic tests. In all, 185 (83%) patients who tested positive for EGFR and 60 (83%) patients who tested positive for ALK received an FDA-approved targeted therapy for their biomarker. A total of 98 (65%) physicians responded that the patient's insurance coverage factored into their decision to order diagnostic tests and 69 (45%) physicians responded that cost or the patient's insurance coverage could influence them not to prescribe an indicated targeted therapy. CONCLUSION: The survey results indicate that diagnostic testing has become routine in the treatment of patients with advanced NSCLC, the use of FDA-approved diagnostic tests has increased, and insurance coverage and cost influence patient access to diagnostic testing as well as to targeted treatment options.