Primary care physicians and laypersons' perceptions of multicancer detection clinical trial designs.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute Cancer Screening Research Network is launching a pilot study (Vanguard) to determine feasibility of successful completion of a clinical trial of multicancer detection tests. This focus group study reports perceptions of primary care physicians and laypersons of different clinical trial designs and willingness to participate in a multicancer detection clinical trial. METHODS: We undertook 14 focus groups with 88 laypersons and 6 focus groups with 45 primary care physicians. Participants were shown graphics of clinical trial designs and asked for their reactions. Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, and thematic analysis of the transcripts were conducted to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Primary care physician and layperson participants recognized the importance of conducting clinical trials to determine the clinical utility of multicancer detection tests. Primary care physicians expressed reluctance to participate in trials because of workload burden, and laypersons expressed hesitancy about enrolling in the control group. Primary care physicians and laypersons expressed concern about a study design in which multicancer detection test results would not be returned to the control group (intended effect), but they respectively indicated a willingness to refer patients to, or participate in, a multicancer detection test clinical trial given transparent and clear communication on collection and use of biospecimens and data, particularly if a multicancer detection test would eventually be run and results eventually returned. CONCLUSION: This study yielded important insights to guide trial design in planning prospective evaluation of multicancer detection testing. Maintaining transparency and trust while possibly withholding multicancer detection test results to maximize trial feasibility and efficiency is of particular concern.

Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues Surrounding Biospecimen Research Conducted or Supported in the USA.

Rapid and dramatic advances in molecular sequencing technology, as well as medical discoveries from genome-wide association and other precision medicine studies, have highlighted the longstanding ethical and legal challenges research biobanks consistently face. Whose authority is needed to conduct research with excised tissue, and how that authority may be exercised with respect and transparency, are central questions. This review article explores how scholars have addressed ethical and legal controversies such as the proper breadth and scope of consent for collection and future research use of biological specimens and data, the importance of disclosing individual research results and secondary findings, and collecting cadaver tissue from deceased persons. This article focuses on the legal and regulatory environment for conducting and/or supporting biospecimen research in the United States of America. It takes the position that proper biobank governance strategies, which ensure accountability and model respect toward biospecimen contributors, as well as transparency in communications between participants and researchers, reduce the likelihood of downstream legal disputes.

Study design considerations for trials to evaluate multicancer early detection assays for clinical utility.

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness. This was the consensus of experts at a National Cancer Institute-hosted workshop to discuss initial design concepts for such a trial. Using these assays to screen simultaneously for multiple cancers poses novel uncertainties for patient care compared with conventional screening tests for single cancers, such as establishing the diagnostic workup to confirm the presence of cancer at any organ site; clarifying appropriate follow-up for a positive assay for which there is no definitive diagnosis; identifying potential harms such as overdiagnosis of indolent disease; determining clinically effective and efficient strategies for disseminating MCED screening in real-world practice; and understanding the ethical implications, such as potentially alleviating or exacerbating existing health disparities. These assays present new and complex challenges for designing an RCT. Issues that emerged from the meeting centered around the need for a flexibly designed, clinical utility RCT to rigorously capture the evidence required to fully understand the net benefit of this promising technology. Specific topic areas were endpoints, screening protocols, recruitment, diagnostic pathway, pilot phase, data elements, specimen collection, and ethical considerations.

The Exceptional Responders Initiative: Feasibility of a National Cancer Institute Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Tumor molecular profiling from patients experiencing exceptional responses to systemic therapy may provide insights into cancer biology and improve treatment tailoring. This pilot study evaluates the feasibility of identifying exceptional responders retrospectively, obtaining pre-exceptional response treatment tumor tissues, and analyzing them with state-of-the-art molecular analysis tools to identify potential molecular explanations for responses. METHODS: Exceptional response was defined as partial (PR) or complete (CR) response to a systemic treatment with population PR or CR rate less than 10% or an unusually long response (eg, duration >3 times published median). Cases proposed by patients' clinicians were reviewed by clinical and translational experts. Tumor and normal tissue (if possible) were profiled with whole exome sequencing and, if possible, targeted deep sequencing, RNA sequencing, methylation arrays, and immunohistochemistry. Potential germline mutations were tracked for relevance to disease. RESULTS: Cases reflected a variety of tumors and standard and investigational treatments. Of 520 cases, 476 (91.5%) were accepted for further review, and 222 of 476 (46.6%) proposed cases met requirements as exceptional responders. Clinical data were obtained from 168 of 222 cases (75.7%). Tumor was provided from 130 of 168 cases (77.4%). Of 117 of the 130 (90.0%) cases with sufficient nucleic acids, 109 (93.2%) were successfully analyzed; 6 patients had potentially actionable germline mutations. CONCLUSION: Exceptional responses occur with standard and investigational treatment. Retrospective identification of exceptional responders, accessioning, and sequencing of pretreatment archived tissue is feasible. Data from molecular analyses of tumors, particularly when combining results from patients who received similar treatments, may elucidate molecular bases for exceptional responses.

Molecular Features of Cancers Exhibiting Exceptional Responses to Treatment.

A small fraction of cancer patients with advanced disease survive significantly longer than patients with clinically comparable tumors. Molecular mechanisms for exceptional responses to therapy have been identified by genomic analysis of tumor biopsies from individual patients. Here, we analyzed tumor biopsies from an unbiased cohort of 111 exceptional responder patients using multiple platforms to profile genetic and epigenetic aberrations as well as the tumor microenvironment. Integrative analysis uncovered plausible mechanisms for the therapeutic response in nearly a quarter of the patients. The mechanisms were assigned to four broad categories-DNA damage response, intracellular signaling, immune engagement, and genetic alterations characteristic of favorable prognosis-with many tumors falling into multiple categories. These analyses revealed synthetic lethal relationships that may be exploited therapeutically and rare genetic lesions that favor therapeutic success, while also providing a wealth of testable hypotheses regarding oncogenic mechanisms that may influence the response to cancer therapy.

The Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) Trial: Lessons for Genomic Trial Design.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. METHODS: Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA-targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. RESULTS: At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). CONCLUSIONS: The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Toward Improving Practices for Submission of Diagnostic Tissue Blocks for National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) National Clinical Trials Network performs phase II and III clinical trials, which increasingly rely on the submission of diagnostic formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks for biomarker assessment. Simultaneously, advances in precision oncology require that clinical centers maintain diagnostic specimens for ancillary, standard-of-care diagnostics. This has caused tissue blocks to become a limited resource for advancing the NCI clinical trial enterprise and the practice of modern molecular pathology. METHODS: The NCI convened a 1-day workshop of multidisciplined experts to discuss barriers and strategic solutions to facilitate diagnostic block submission for clinical trial science, from the perspective of patient advocates, legal experts, pathologists, and clinical oncologists. RESULTS: The expert views and opinions were carefully noted and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations were proposed to reduce institutional barriers and to assist organizations in developing clear policies regarding diagnostic block submission for clinical trials.

Racial/Ethnic Differences in Comprehension of Biospecimen Collection: a Nationwide University of Rochester Cancer Center NCI Community Oncology Research Program Study.

To examine whether (a) non-minority participants differed from racial minority participants in the understanding of biospecimens collected for research purposes, (b) patients differed from comparison group in their understanding of the ways their biospecimens could be used by researchers, and (c) participants received adequate information before consenting to donate blood for research studies. We analyzed cross-sectional data from female breast cancer patients scheduled to receive chemotherapy at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) clinical sites and a healthy comparison group. After reading a consent form related to biospecimens and consenting to participate in a clinical trial, participants' understanding of biospecimen collection was evaluated. Linear models were used to compare scores between non-minority and racial minority participants as well as cancer and non-cancer comparisons adjusting for possible confounding factors. A total of 650 participants provided evaluable data; 592 were non-minority (Caucasian) and 58 participants were a racial minority (71% Black and 29% other). There were 427 cancer patients and 223 comparisons. Non-minority participants scored higher than racial minorities on relevance-to-care items (diff. = 0.48, CI 0.13-0.80, p = 0.001). Comparison group scored higher than cancer patients on relevance-to-care items (diff. = 0.58, CI 0.37-0.78). A moderate number of the participants exhibited a poor understanding of biospecimen collection across all racial/ethnic backgrounds, but racial minority participants' scores remained lower in the relevance-to-care subscale even after adjusting for education and reading level. Differences were also noted among the patients and comparison group. Researchers should facilitate comprehension of biospecimen collection for all study participants, especially racial minority participants.

Development of a consensus approach for return of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project.

The active debate about the return of incidental or secondary findings in research has primarily focused on return to research participants, or in some cases, family members. Particular attention has been paid to return of genomic findings. Yet, research may generate other types of findings that warrant consideration for return, including findings related to the pathology of donated biospecimens. In the case of deceased biospecimen donors who are also organ and/or tissue transplant donors, pathology incidental findings may be relevant not to family members, but to potential organ or tissue transplant recipients. This paper will describe the ethical implications of pathology incidental findings in the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project, the process for developing a consensus approach as to if/when such findings should be returned, possible implications for other research projects collecting postmortem tissues and how the scenario encountered in GTEx fits into the larger return of results/incidental findings debate.

Broad Consent for Research on Biospecimens: The Views of Actual Donors at Four U.S. Medical Centers.

Commentators are concerned that broad consent may not provide biospecimen donors with sufficient information regarding possible future research uses of their tissue. We surveyed with interviews 302 cancer patients who had recently provided broad consent at four diverse academic medical centers. The majority of donors believed that the consent form provided them with sufficient information regarding future possible uses of their biospecimens. Donors expressed very positive views regarding tissue donation in general and endorsed the use of their biospecimens in future research across a wide range of contexts. Concerns regarding future uses were limited to for-profit research and research by investigators in other countries. These results support the use of broad consent to store and use biological samples in future research.

Broad Consent for Research With Biological Samples: Workshop Conclusions.

Different types of consent are used to obtain human biospecimens for future research. This variation has resulted in confusion regarding what research is permitted, inadvertent constraints on future research, and research proceeding without consent. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center's Department of Bioethics held a workshop to consider the ethical acceptability of addressing these concerns by using broad consent for future research on stored biospecimens. Multiple bioethics scholars, who have written on these issues, discussed the reasons for consent, the range of consent strategies, and gaps in our understanding, and concluded with a proposal for broad initial consent coupled with oversight and, when feasible, ongoing provision of information to donors. This article describes areas of agreement and areas that need more research and dialogue. Given recent proposed changes to the Common Rule, and new guidance regarding storing and sharing data and samples, this is an important and timely topic.

NCI think tank concerning the identifiability of biospecimens and "omic" data.

PURPOSE: On 11 and 12 June 2012, the National Cancer Institute hosted a think tank concerning the identifiability of biospecimens and "omic" data in order to explore challenges surrounding this complex and multifaceted topic. METHODS: The think tank brought together 46 leaders from several fields, including cancer genomics, bioinformatics, human subject protection, patient advocacy, and commercial genetics. RESULTS: The first day involved presentations regarding the state of the science of reidentification; current and proposed regulatory frameworks for assessing identifiability; developments in law, industry, and biotechnology; and the expectations of patients and research participants. The second day was spent by think tank participants in small breakout groups designed to address specific subtopics under the umbrella issue of identifiability, including considerations for the development of best practices for data sharing and consent, and targeted opportunities for further empirical research. CONCLUSION: We describe the outcomes of this 2-day meeting, including two complementary themes that emerged from moderated discussions following the presentations on day 1, and ideas presented for further empirical research to discern the preferences and concerns of research participants about data sharing and individual identifiability.

Intersection of biobanking and clinical care: should discrepant diagnoses and pathological findings be returned to research participants?

Diagnostic discrepancies occur when the diagnosis made on a biospecimen during the course of review at a biobank differs from the original clinical diagnosis. These diagnostic discrepancies detected during biobanking present unique challenges that are distinct from other types of research results or incidental findings. The proposed process for reporting diagnostic discrepancies or pathological incidental findings identified through a quality assurance evaluation at the biobank includes verification of the biospecimen identity, verification of the diagnosis within the biobank, and re-review of the case by the pathologist at the biospecimen collection site. If the pathologist at the biobank and the original pathologist do not reach agreement, an impartial and knowledgeable third party is consulted. The decision as to whether and how to notify research participants of any confirmed changes in diagnosis would be determined by institutional procedures. Implementation of this proposed process will require clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties in order to promote excellence in patient care and ensure that researchers have access to biospecimens of requisite quality.Genet Med 2012:14(4):417-423.