Use of External Control Cohorts in Pediatric Brain Tumor Clinical Trials.

Why, when, and how to consider external control cohorts in pediatric brain tumor clinical trials.

Defining interventions and metrics to improve diversity in CNS clinical trial participation: A SNO and RANO effort.

Despite major strides in cancer research and therapy, these advances have not been equitable across race and ethnicity. Historically marginalized groups (HMG) are more likely to have inadequate preventive screening, increased delays in diagnosis, and poor representation in clinical trials. Notably, Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous people represent 30% of the population but only 9% of oncology clinical trial participants. As a result, HMGs lack equitable access to novel therapies, contradicting the principle of distributive justice, as enshrined in the Belmont report, which demands the equitable selection of subjects in research involving human subjects. The lack of clinical trial diversity also leads to low generalizability and potentially harmful medical practices. Specifically, patients with brain cancer face unique barriers to clinical trial enrollment and completion due to disease-specific neurologic and treatment-induced conditions. Collectively, the intersection of these disease-specific conditions with social determinants of health fosters a lack of diversity in clinical trials. To ameliorate this disparity in neuro-oncology clinical trial participation, we present interventions focused on improving engagement of HMGs. Proposals range from inclusive trial design, decreasing barriers to care, expanding trial eligibility, access to tumor profiling for personalized medical trials, setting reasonable metrics and goals for accrual, working with patient community stakeholders, diversifying the neuro-oncology workforce, and development of tools to overcome biases with options to incentivize equity. The diversification of participation amongst neuro-oncology clinical trials is imperative. Equitable access and inclusion of HMG patients with brain tumors will not only enhance research discoveries but will also improve patient care.

The Childhood Cancer Data Initiative: Using the Power of Data to Learn From and Improve Outcomes for Every Child and Young Adult With Pediatric Cancer.

Data-driven basic, translational, and clinical research has resulted in improved outcomes for children, adolescents, and young adults (AYAs) with pediatric cancers. However, challenges in sharing data between institutions, particularly in research, prevent addressing substantial unmet needs in children and AYA patients diagnosed with certain pediatric cancers. Systematically collecting and sharing data from every child and AYA can enable greater understanding of pediatric cancers, improve survivorship, and accelerate development of new and more effective therapies. To accomplish this goal, the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative (CCDI) was launched in 2019 at the National Cancer Institute. CCDI is a collaborative community endeavor supported by a 10-year, $50-million (in US dollars) annual federal investment. CCDI aims to learn from every patient diagnosed with a pediatric cancer by designing and building a data ecosystem that facilitates data collection, sharing, and analysis for researchers, clinicians, and patients across the cancer community. For example, CCDI's Molecular Characterization Initiative provides comprehensive clinical molecular characterization for children and AYAs with newly diagnosed cancers. Through these efforts, the CCDI strives to provide clinical benefit to patients and improvements in diagnosis and care through data-focused research support and to build expandable, sustainable data resources and workflows to advance research well past the planned 10 years of the initiative. Importantly, if CCDI demonstrates the success of this model for pediatric cancers, similar approaches can be applied to adults, transforming both clinical research and treatment to improve outcomes for all patients with cancer.

Proceedings of the Survivorship Care in Neuro-Oncology Workshop sponsored by the Comprehensive Oncology Network Evaluating Rare CNS Tumors (NCI-CONNECT).

Background: Survivorship for those living with primary CNS cancers begins at diagnosis, continues throughout a person's life, and includes caregivers. Opportunities and challenges exist to advance survivorship care for those living with primary CNS cancers that necessitate stakeholder involvement. Methods: In June 2021, NCI-CONNECT convened a two-day virtual workshop about survivorship care in neuro-oncology. Two expert panels provided key recommendations and five working groups considered critical questions to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats to the advancement of survivorship care and developed recommendations and action items. Results: The following action items emanated from the workshop: seek endorsement of meeting report from stakeholder organizations; address barriers in access to survivorship care and provider reimbursement; advance survivorship research through NIH and private grant support; develop a survivorship tool kit for providers, people living with primary CNS cancers and their caregivers; provide accessible educational content for neuro-oncology, neurology, and oncology community providers about survivorship care in neuro-oncology; and establish core competencies for survivorship care for neuro-oncology providers to be included in training and standardized exams. Conclusions: Action items aim to address access and reimbursement barriers, expand patient and provider education, develop core competencies, and support survivorship research through funding and other supports.

Hypothetical generalized framework for a new imaging endpoint of therapeutic activity in early phase clinical trials in brain tumors.

Imaging response assessment is a cornerstone of patient care and drug development in oncology. Clinicians/clinical researchers rely on tumor imaging to estimate the impact of new treatments and guide decision making for patients and candidate therapies. This is important in brain cancer, where associations between tumor size/growth and emerging neurological deficits are strong. Accurately measuring the impact of a new therapy on tumor growth early in clinical development, where patient numbers are small, would be valuable for decision making regarding late-stage development activation. Current attempts to measure the impact of a new therapy have limited influence on clinical development, as determination of progression, stability or response does not currently account for individual tumor growth kinetics prior to the initiation of experimental therapies. Therefore, we posit that imaging-based response assessment, often used as a tool for estimating clinical effect, is incomplete as it does not adequately account for growth trajectories or biological characteristics of tumors prior to the introduction of an investigational agent. Here, we propose modifications to the existing framework for evaluating imaging assessment in primary brain tumors that will provide a more reliable understanding of treatment effects. Measuring tumor growth trajectories prior to a given intervention may allow us to more confidently conclude whether there is an anti-tumor effect. This updated approach to imaging-based tumor response assessment is intended to improve our ability to select candidate therapies for later-stage development, including those that may not meet currently sought thresholds for "response" and ultimately lead to identification of effective treatments.

Leveraging external data in the design and analysis of clinical trials in neuro-oncology.

Integration of external control data, with patient-level information, in clinical trials has the potential to accelerate the development of new treatments in neuro-oncology by contextualising single-arm studies and improving decision making (eg, early stopping decisions). Based on a series of presentations at the 2020 Clinical Trials Think Tank hosted by the Society of Neuro-Oncology, we provide an overview on the use of external control data representative of the standard of care in the design and analysis of clinical trials. High-quality patient-level records, rigorous methods, and validation analyses are necessary to effectively leverage external data. We review study designs, statistical methods, risks, and potential distortions in using external data from completed trials and real-world data, as well as data sources, data sharing models, ongoing work, and applications in glioblastoma.

Systematic review on the use of patient-reported outcome measures in brain tumor studies: part of the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. METHODS: A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. RESULTS: A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). CONCLUSION: Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

Report of National Brain Tumor Society roundtable workshop on innovating brain tumor clinical trials: building on lessons learned from COVID-19 experience.

On July 24, 2020, a workshop sponsored by the National Brain Tumor Society was held on innovating brain tumor clinical trials based on lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience. Various stakeholders from the brain tumor community participated including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), academic and community clinicians, researchers, industry, clinical research organizations, patients and patient advocates, and representatives from the Society for Neuro-Oncology and the National Cancer Institute. This report summarizes the workshop and proposes ways to incorporate lessons learned from COVID-19 to brain tumor clinical trials including the increased use of telemedicine and decentralized trial models as opportunities for practical innovation with potential long-term impact on clinical trial design and implementation.

Glioma patient-reported outcome assessment in clinical care and research: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology collaborative report.

Clinical trials of treatments for high-grade gliomas have traditionally relied on measures of response or time-dependent metrics; however, these endpoints have limitations because they do not characterise the functional or symptomatic effect of the condition on the person. Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy is needed because of the substantial burden of symptoms and impaired functioning in this patient population. The US National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to review previous recommendations and existing PRO measures of symptoms and function that can be applied to current trials and clinical practice for high-grade gliomas. Measures were assessed for relevance, relationship to disease and therapy, sensitivity to change, psychometric properties, response format, patient acceptability, and use of self-report. The group also relied on patient input including the results of an online survey, a literature review on available clinical outcomes, expert opinion, and alignment with work done by other organisations. A core set of priority constructs was proposed that allows more comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances efforts to improve the measurement of these core clinical outcomes. The proposed set of constructs was then presented to the Society for Neuro-Oncology Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group and feedback was solicited.

Barriers to accrual and enrollment in brain tumor trials.

Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.