The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study.

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Initial Steps in Creating a Patient-Centric Addendum to Clinical Trial Informed Consent Forms.

Introduction: The purpose of the informed consent form (ICF) is to outline the risks and benefits of an interventional clinical trial to potential participants. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of a short addendum to the ICF, summarizing key points most relevant to potential participants. Methods: A sample of 20 ICFs was reviewed against the requirements of the U.S. federal regulation documents and assessed for readability. Alongside the ICF review, we conducted focus groups and one-on-one interviews with people with lung cancer (n = 9) to learn what information was most important when considering participation in a clinical trial using a hypothetical phase 3 ICF. Results: The 20 ICFs reviewed were from phases 1 to 3, expanded-access, and single-patient trials covering predominantly NSCLC; 60% were global. The mean length of the ICFs was 21 (range: 15-34) pages. The average reading level was tenth grade whereas the average U.S. reading level was eighth grade. Readability varied by section, the "purpose of the study" section had the highest reading level. In the qualitative research component, participants were "overwhelmed" by the hypothetical ICF. Participants were also asked to list information for the addendum; their suggestions broadly map to federal regulations. An addendum with reference to sections in the ICF for additional details was well received. Conclusions: The variations in ICF architecture and readability make it difficult for patients to make an informed decision to participate in a clinical trial. Implications extend beyond lung cancer, highlighting key areas for ICF improvements and providing a roadmap for developing a patient-centric addendum.

A New Approach to Simplifying and Harmonizing Cancer Clinical Trials-Standardizing Eligibility Criteria.

Importance: Clinical trial sponsors rely on eligibility criteria to control the characteristics of patients in their studies, promote the safety of participants, and optimize the interpretation of results. However, in recent years, complex and often overly restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria have created substantial barriers to patient access to novel therapies, hindered trial recruitment and completion, and limited generalizability of trial results. A LUNGevity Foundation working group developed a framework for lung cancer clinical trial eligibility criteria. The goals of this framework are to (1) simplify eligibility criteria, (2) facilitate stakeholders' (patients, clinicians, and sponsors) search for appropriate trials, and (3) harmonize trial populations to support intertrial comparisons of treatment effects. Observations: Clinicians and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry, the National Cancer Institute, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency, and the LUNGevity Foundation undertook a process to identify and prioritize key items for inclusion in trial eligibility criteria. The group generated a prioritized library of terms to guide investigators and sponsors in the design of first-line, advanced non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials intended to support marketing application. These recommendations address disease stage and histologic features, enrollment biomarkers, performance status, organ function, brain metastases, and comorbidities. This effort forms the basis for a forthcoming FDA draft guidance for industry. Conclusions and Relevance: As an initial step, the recommended cross-trial standardization of eligibility criteria may harmonize trial populations. Going forward, by connecting diverse stakeholders and providing formal opportunity for public input, the emerging FDA draft guidance may also provide an opportunity to revise and simplify long-standing approaches to trial eligibility. This work serves as a prototype for similar efforts now underway for other cancers.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of lung cancer and mesothelioma.

Immunotherapy has transformed lung cancer care in recent years. In addition to providing durable responses and prolonged survival outcomes for a subset of patients with heavily pretreated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)- either as monotherapy or in combination with other ICIs or chemotherapy-have demonstrated benefits in first-line therapy for advanced disease, the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, as well as in additional thoracic malignancies such as small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and mesothelioma. Challenging questions remain, however, on topics including therapy selection, appropriate biomarker-based identification of patients who may derive benefit, the use of immunotherapy in special populations such as people with autoimmune disorders, and toxicity management. Patient and caregiver education and support for quality of life (QOL) is also important to attain maximal benefit with immunotherapy. To provide guidance to the oncology community on these and other important concerns, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). This CPG represents an update to SITC's 2018 publication on immunotherapy for the treatment of NSCLC, and is expanded to include recommendations on SCLC and mesothelioma. The Expert Panel drew on the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for lung cancer and mesothelioma, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events, and patient QOL considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers using immunotherapy to treat patients with lung cancer or mesothelioma.

Advancing Inclusive Research: Establishing Collaborative Strategies to Improve Diversity in Clinical Trials.

Well-characterized disparities in clinical research have disproportionately affected patients of color, particularly in underserved communities. To tackle these barriers, Genentech formed the External Council for Advancing Inclusive Research, a 14-person committee dedicated to developing strategies to increase clinical research participation. To help improve the recruitment and retention of patients of color, this article chronicles our efforts to tangibly address the clinical research barriers at the system, study, and patient levels over the last four years. These efforts are one of the initial steps to fully realize the promise of personalized health care and provide increased patient benefit at less cost to society. Instead of simply acknowledging the problem, here we illuminate the collaborative and multilevel strategies that have been effective in delivering meaningful progress for patients.

Downregulation of Grem1 expression in the distal limb mesoderm is a necessary precondition for phalanx development.

BACKGROUND: The phalanges are the final skeletal elements to form in the vertebrate limb and their identity is regulated by signaling at the phalanx forming region (PFR) located at the tip of the developing digit ray. Here, we seek to explore the relationship between PFR activity and phalanx morphogenesis, which define the most distal limb skeletal elements, and signals associated with termination of limb outgrowth. RESULTS: As Grem1 is extinguished in the distal chick limb mesoderm, the chondrogenesis marker Aggrecan is up-regulated in the metatarsals and phalanges. Fate mapping confirms that subridge mesoderm cells contribute to the metatarsal and phalanges when subridge Grem1 is down-regulated. Grem1 overexpression specifically blocks chick phalanx development by inhibiting PFR activity. PFR activity and digit development are also disrupted following overexpression of a Gli3 repressor, which results in Grem1 expression in the distal limb and downregulation of Bmpr1b. CONCLUSIONS: Based on expression and fate mapping studies, we propose that downregulation of Grem1 in the distal limb marks the transition from metatarsal to phalanx development. This suggests that downregulation of Grem1 in the distal limb mesoderm is necessary for phalanx development. Grem1 downregulation allows for full PFR activity and phalanx progenitor cell commitment to digit fate.

A Combination of Amino Acid Mutations Leads to Resistance to Multiple Nucleoside Analogs in Reverse Transcriptases from HIV-1 Subtypes B and C.

Resistance to anti-HIV drugs has been a problem from the beginning of antiviral drug treatments. The recent expansion of combination antiretroviral therapy worldwide has led to an increase in resistance to antiretrovirals; understanding the mechanisms of resistance is increasingly important. In this study, we analyzed reverse transcriptase (RT) variants based on sequences derived from an individual who had low-level rebound viremia while undergoing therapy with abacavir, azidothymidine (AZT) (zidovudine), and (-)-l-2',3'-dideoxy-3'-thiacytidine (3TC) (lamivudine). The RT had mutations at positions 64, 67, 70, 184, and 219 and a threonine insertion after amino acid 69 in RT. The virus remained partially susceptible to the nucleoside RT inhibitor (NRTI) regimen. We show how these mutations affect the ability of NRTIs to inhibit DNA synthesis by RT. The presence of the inserted threonine reduced the susceptibility of the RT mutant to inhibition by tenofovir.

INSTIs and NNRTIs Potently Inhibit HIV-1 Polypurine Tract Mutants in a Single Round Infection Assay.

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are a class of antiretroviral compounds that prevent the insertion of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the host genome by targeting the viral enzyme integrase (IN). Dolutegravir (DTG) is a leading INSTI that is given, usually in combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), to treat HIV-1 infections. The emergence of resistance to DTG and other leading INSTIs is rare. However, there are recent reports suggesting that drug resistance mutations can occur at positions outside the integrase gene either in the HIV-1 polypurine tract (PPT) or in the envelope gene (env). Here, we used single round infectivity assays to measure the antiviral potencies of several FDA-approved INSTIs and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) against a panel of HIV-1 PPT mutants. We also tested several of our promising INSTIs and NNRTIs in these assays. No measurable loss in potency was observed for either INSTIs or NNRTIs against the HIV-1 PPT mutants. This suggests that HIV-1 PPT mutants are not able, by themselves, to confer resistance to INSTIs or NNRTIs.

The Impasse on Overall Survival in Oncology Reimbursement Decision-Making: How Can We Resolve This?

Mature overall survival (OS) data are often unavailable at the time of regulatory and reimbursement decisions for a new cancer treatment. For patients with early-stage cancers treated with potentially curative treatments, demonstrating an OS benefit may take years and may be confounded by subsequent lines of therapy or crossover to the investigational treatment. For patients with advanced-stage cancers, mature OS data may be available but difficult to interpret for similar reasons. There are strong opinions about approval and reimbursement in the absence of mature OS data, with concerns over delay in patient access set against concerns about uncertainty in long-term benefit. This position paper reflects our individual views as patient advocate, clinician or health economist on one aspect of this debate. We look at payer decisions in the absence of mature OS data, considering when and how non-OS trial outcomes could inform decision-making and how uncertainty can be addressed beyond the trial, supporting these views with evidence from the literature. We consider when it is reasonable for payers to expect or not expect mature OS data at the initial reimbursement decision (based on criteria such as cancer stage and treatment efficacy) acknowledging that there are settings in which mature OS data are expected. We propose flexible strategies for generating and appraising patient-relevant evidence, including context-relevant endpoints and quality of life measures, when survival rates are good and mature OS data are not expected. We note that fair reimbursement is important; this means valuing patient benefit as shown through prespecified endpoints and reappraising if there is ongoing uncertainty or failure to show a sustained benefit. We suggest that reimbursement systems continue to evolve to align with scientific advances, because innovation is only meaningful if readily accessible to patients. The proposed strategies have the potential to promote thorough assessment of potential benefit to patients and lead to timely access to effective medicines.

Line of therapy and patient preferences regarding lung cancer treatment: a discrete-choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: A growing literature on patient preferences informs decisions in research, regulatory science, and value assessment, but few studies have explored how preferences vary across patients with differing treatment experience. We sought to quantify patient preferences for the benefits and risks of lung cancer treatment and test how preferences differed by line of therapy (LOT). METHODS: Preferences were elicited using a discrete choice experiment (DCE) following rigorous patient and stakeholder engagement. The DCE spanned five attributes (each with three levels): progression-free survival (PFS), short-term side effects, long-term side effects, risk of developing late-onset side effects, and mode of administration (MOA) - each defined across 3 relevant levels. A D-efficient design was used to generate 3 survey blocks of 9 paired-profile choice tasks each and respondents were asked which profile they preferred and then if they preferred to have no treatment (opt-out). A mixed logit model, controlling for opt-out, was used to estimate preferences. Preferences and trade-offs between PFS and other attributes were compared across two groups: those receiving ≤1 LOT and those receiving ≥2 LOT. RESULTS: Of the 466 participants, 42% received ≤1 LOT and 58% received ≥2 LOT. Stated preferences differed between the groups overall (p<.001) and specifically for 18 months of PFS (p<.001), moderate short-term side effects (p<.001), no long-term side effects (p=.03), and 30% chance of late-onset side effects (p=.02). Those receiving differing amounts of LOT were willing to trade different amounts of PFS to change from moderate to mild short-term side effects (p<.001), moderate to no (p<.001) and mild to no (p<.001) long-term side effects. There were also differing amounts of tradeoff acceptable between the groups for a 10% decrease in risk of late-onset side effects (p=.016), a decrease in MOA from infusion every 3 weeks to pills taken daily at any time (p=.005) and from pills taken daily without food to pills taken daily at any time (p<.001). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate differences in preferences based on experience with LOT, suggesting that patient treatment experience may have an impact on their preferences. As patient preference data become an important component of treatment decision making, preference differences should be considered when recommending therapies at different stages in the treatment journey. Understanding patient preferences regarding treatment decisions is essential to informing shared decision-making and ensuring treatment plans are consistent with patients' goals.

Reducing Uninformative IND Safety Reports: A List of Serious Adverse Events anticipated to Occur in Patients with Lung Cancer.

Expedited reporting of unexpected serious adverse reactions that occur during clinical trials conducted under an IND is a critical component of the clinical trial process designed to protect patients by identifying potential safety issues with new agents. However, in recent years, the US FDA has presented extensive data about the problem of uninformative IND safety reporting. Despite published guidance documents aimed at clarifying requirements for submission of IND safety reports for individual events, there continues to be significant over-reporting of these events by many sponsors. This leads to excessive burden for the sponsors, the investigators who conduct clinical trials, and the FDA reviewers, who must evaluate each individual report submitted by the sponsor. This trend has the potential to endanger patients by obscuring true safety signals. To address this problem, LUNGevity Foundation empaneled a multi-sector working group of its Scientific and Clinical Research Roundtable (SCRT) charged with identifying ways to reduce unnecessary distribution of serious adverse events (SAEs) reports. This paper outlines the working group's activities, including a brief list of serious adverse events "anticipated" to occur within the lung cancer population that are either related to the underlying disease or condition being studied, concomitant or background therapy, or events associated with a demographic parameter such as age. These "anticipated" events, while required to be reported by investigators to sponsors, in general, should not then be individually reported by sponsors to FDA and to individual investigators in an IND safety report because these events require aggregate analysis across the development program to determine if they occur more frequently in treated versus untreated patients. This paper also includes discussion of how the use of background threshold values, generated from real-world data, could serve as one potential tool to guide sponsors in making causality assessments. If sponsors and other key stakeholders within the clinical research ecosystem embrace this type of approach and refrain from reporting "anticipated" events as single IND safety reports to the FDA staff and to each participating investigator, it could significantly reduce the amount of unnecessary reporting and serve as a model for other disease areas.

Expanding Access to Lung Cancer Clinical Trials by Reducing the Use of Restrictive Exclusion Criteria: Perspectives of a Multistakeholder Working Group.

Low rates of adult patient participation have been a persistent problem in cancer clinical trials and have continued to be a barrier to efficient drug development. The routine use of significant exclusion criteria has contributed to this problem by limiting participation in studies and creating significant clinical differences between the study cohorts and the real-world cancer patient populations. These routine exclusions also unnecessarily restrict opportunities for many patients to access potentially promising new therapies during clinical development. Multiple efforts are underway to broaden eligibility criteria, allowing more patients to enroll in studies and generating more robust data regarding the effect of novel therapies in the population at large. Focusing specifically on lung cancer as an example, a multistakeholder working group empaneled by the LUNGevity Foundation identified 14 restrictive and potentially outdated exclusion criteria that appear frequently in lung cancer clinical trials. As a part of the project, the group evaluated data from multiple recent lung cancer studies to ascertain the extent to which these 14 criteria appeared in study protocols and played a role in excluding patients (screen failures). The present report describes the working group's efforts to limit the use of these routine exclusions and presents clinical justifications for reducing the use of 14 criteria as routine exclusions in lung cancer studies, potentially expanding trial eligibility and improving the generalizability of the results from lung cancer trials.

Clonal expansion of SIV-infected cells in macaques on antiretroviral therapy is similar to that of HIV-infected cells in humans.

Clonal expansion of HIV infected cells plays an important role in the formation and persistence of the reservoir that allows the virus to persist, in DNA form, despite effective antiretroviral therapy. We used integration site analysis to ask if there is a similar clonal expansion of SIV infected cells in macaques. We show that the distribution of HIV and SIV integration sites in vitro is similar and that both viruses preferentially integrate in many of the same genes. We obtained approximately 8000 integration sites from blood samples taken from SIV-infected macaques prior to the initiation of ART, and from blood, spleen, and lymph node samples taken at necropsy. Seven clones were identified in the pre-ART samples; one persisted for a year on ART. An additional 100 clones were found only in on-ART samples; a number of these clones were found in more than one tissue. The timing and extent of clonal expansion of SIV-infected cells in macaques and HIV-infected cells in humans is quite similar. This suggests that SIV-infected macaques represent a useful model of the clonal expansion of HIV infected cells in humans that can be used to evaluate strategies intended to control or eradicate the viral reservoir.

The promise of Immuno-oncology: implications for defining the value of cancer treatment.

The rapid development of immuno-oncology (I-O) therapies for multiple types of cancer has transformed the cancer treatment landscape and brightened the long-term outlook for many patients with advanced cancer. Responding to ongoing efforts to generate value assessments for novel therapies, multiple stakeholders have been considering the question of "What makes I-O transformative?" Evaluating the distinct features and attributes of these therapies, and better characterizing how patients experience them, will inform such assessments. This paper defines ways in which treatment with I-O is different from other therapies. It also proposes key aspects and attributes of I-O therapies that should be considered in any assessment of their value and seeks to address evidence gaps in existing value frameworks given the unique properties of patient outcomes with I-O therapy. The paper concludes with a "data needs catalogue" (DNC) predicated on the belief that multiple key, unique elements that are necessary to fully characterize the value of I-O therapies are not routinely or robustly measured in current clinical practice or reimbursement databases and are infrequently captured in existing research studies. A better characterization of the benefit of I-O treatment will allow a more thorough assessment of its benefits and provide a template for the design and prioritization of future clinical trials and a roadmap for healthcare insurers to optimize coverage for patients with cancers eligible for I-O therapy.

The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer consensus statement on immunotherapy for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) accounting for over 85% of all cases. Until recently, chemotherapy - characterized by some benefit but only rare durable responses - was the only treatment option for patients with NSCLC whose tumors lacked targetable mutations. By contrast, immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated distinctly durable responses and represent the advent of a new treatment approach for patients with NSCLC. Three immune checkpoint inhibitors, pembrolizumab, nivolumab and atezolizumab, are now approved for use in first- and/or second-line settings for selected patients with advanced NSCLC, with promising benefit also seen in patients with stage III NSCLC. Additionally, durvalumab following chemoradiation has been approved for use in patients with locally advanced disease. Due to the distinct features of cancer immunotherapy, and rapid progress in the field, clinical guidance is needed on the use of these agents, including appropriate patient selection, sequencing of therapies, response monitoring, adverse event management, and biomarker testing. The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened an expert Task Force charged with developing consensus recommendations on these key issues. Following a systematic process as outlined by the National Academy of Medicine, a literature search and panel voting were used to rate the strength of evidence for each recommendation. This consensus statement provides evidence-based recommendations to help clinicians integrate immune checkpoint inhibitors into the treatment plan for patients with NSCLC. This guidance will be updated following relevant advances in the field.

Reprogramming human T cell function and specificity with non-viral genome targeting.

Decades of work have aimed to genetically reprogram T cells for therapeutic purposes1,2 using recombinant viral vectors, which do not target transgenes to specific genomic sites3,4. The need for viral vectors has slowed down research and clinical use as their manufacturing and testing is lengthy and expensive. Genome editing brought the promise of specific and efficient insertion of large transgenes into target cells using homology-directed repair5,6. Here we developed a CRISPR-Cas9 genome-targeting system that does not require viral vectors, allowing rapid and efficient insertion of large DNA sequences (greater than one kilobase) at specific sites in the genomes of primary human T cells, while preserving cell viability and function. This permits individual or multiplexed modification of endogenous genes. First, we applied this strategy to correct a pathogenic IL2RA mutation in cells from patients with monogenic autoimmune disease, and demonstrate improved signalling function. Second, we replaced the endogenous T cell receptor (TCR) locus with a new TCR that redirected T cells to a cancer antigen. The resulting TCR-engineered T cells specifically recognized tumour antigens and mounted productive anti-tumour cell responses in vitro and in vivo. Together, these studies provide preclinical evidence that non-viral genome targeting can enable rapid and flexible experimental manipulation and therapeutic engineering of primary human immune cells.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement: Biosimilars in Oncology.

As many biosimilars come to market in the next several years, their use in oncology will play an important role in the future care of patients with cancer. ASCO is committed to providing education and guidance to the oncology community on the use of biosimilars in the cancer setting; therefore, ASCO has developed this statement to offer guidance in the following areas: (1) naming, labeling, and other regulatory considerations, (2) safety and efficacy of biosimilars, (3) interchangeability, switching, and substitution, (4) value of biosimilars, and (5) prescriber and patient education.