Kurbegov, Dax

LBA10509 Background: The MCED test (Galleri) detects a shared cancer signal from cell-free DNA in blood and predicts a cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic (dx) workup. PF2 (NCT05155605) is a large, prospective, multicenter, interventional study of the MCED test’s performance and safety in a diverse US intended-use population. Methods: PF2 enrolled participants aged ≥50y without clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3y of enrollment. Primary objectives were MCED performance and safety in terms of dx testing triggered by a positive (cancer signal detected) MCED test result. Participants with a positive MCED test underwent targeted dx workup guided by the predicted CSO(s). Participant-reported anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: PF2 enrolled 35,878 participants; 32,007 with a 12m cancer assessment were analyzable for performance. Of 287 (0.9%) with a positive MCED test, 173 were diagnosed with cancer within 12m, for a cancer detection rate of 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) and positive predictive value of 60.3% (54.5-65.8%). Specificity was 99.6% (99.6-99.7%). 12m episode sensitivity was 69.8% (62.8-76.0%) in a prespecified subgroup of 12 cancers responsible for ⅔ of US cancer deaths, 66.2% (55.1-75.8%) in a subgroup of 6 aggressive cancers with low 5y survival, and 39.3% (34.9-44.0%) across all cancers. Overall CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3% (86.2-94.7%) across all cancers. The MCED test detected 151 new primary and 22 recurrent cancers; additional cancers detected by screening were those with USPSTF A/B (n=31) and C (n=60) recommended screening. Of 151 MCED-detected new primaries, 80 (53.0%) were clinical stage I-II; 107 (70.9%) were stage I-III. Of 80 MCED-detected stage I-II cancers, 71.2% had no USPSTF A/B screening recommendation. Of 35,335 participants analyzable for safety, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) to evaluate a positive MCED test result, of which 90% were nonsurgical and 1.8x more likely for participants with vs without cancer diagnosis. Most (87.6%) had a CSO-guided dx evaluation. There were 5 study-related adverse events during the time of dx workup; none were serious. Anxiety temporarily increased for participants with a positive MCED test and cancer diagnosed, and returned to baseline by 12m. Of participants with a positive MCED test, median time from test result to dx resolution was 48d (95% CI 43-56). Few participants (7/63 [11.1%]) had cancer found by dx PET/CT after a targeted dx workup that did not reveal cancer. Conclusion: The MCED test demonstrated robust performance with a favorable safety profile. When MCED testing was added to USPSTF A/B screening, 6.5x more cancers were detected by screening, most at early stages. The diverse, representative PF2 participant population supports the generalizability of these findings to the US intended-use population. Clinical trial information: NCT05155605 .

Abstract A blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test has demonstrated feasibility as a screening tool in large-scale clinical trials. The PATHFINDER 2 (PF2) study (NCT05155605) evaluates safety and performance of the MCED test in a diverse intended-use population. To gauge generalizability of study results, we assessed participant (ppt) baseline characteristics vs general US population data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). PF2, a prospective, multicenter, interventional study, enrolled ppts aged ≥50 y from diverse clinical settings in North America. Enrollment targets for sex and race/ethnicity were established from the 2019 American Community Survey (US Census Bureau). Recruitment strategies were implemented to maximize enrollment for groups historically underrepresented in clinical studies. Exclusion criteria included clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3 y. Data on baseline characteristics and key cancer risk factors were collected at enrollment. We compared the PF2 study population to a nationally representative sample of US adults aged ≥50 y from 2017-2020 NHANES data. NHANES data were weighted using complex, multistage probability sampling to generate a nationally representative sample. There were 35,878 ppts enrolled in PF2; 35,307 clinically eligible and evaluable ppts were included in this analysis. Mean age was 64 y for both PF2 and NHANES; 56.2% were females in PF2 vs 53.6% (95% CI 52.0-55.3%) in NHANES. Race/ethnicity distribution for PF2 vs NHANES was 7.4 vs 11.0% (8.9-13.1%) Hispanic, 74.6 vs 69.7% (65.0-74.5%) non-Hispanic (NH) White, 8.6 vs 10.3% (7.6-13.1%) NH Black, and 5.8 vs 5.1% (3.5-6.8%) NH Asian. In terms of lifestyle characteristics for PF2 vs NHANES, 58.9 vs 29.2% (25.8-32.7%) had at least a bachelor’s degree, 74.8 vs 63.8% (60.6-67.0%) were married/living with a partner, 69.3 vs 53.8% (50.9-56.7%) had never smoked, 66.5 vs 70.4% (68.0-72.8%) were overweight/obese, and 24.2 vs 28.4% (26.4-30.3%) reported never using alcohol. PF2 enrolled a diverse ppt population that is reasonably reflective of the demographics of the US population aged ≥50 y. As is typical for clinical trials, a higher percentage of PF2 vs NHANES ppts reported lifestyle characteristics associated with better health. As the study population largely reflects the MCED test intended-use population, safety and performance results from PF2 are expected to reflect real-world clinical experience. Citation Format: Shirish Gadgeel, Nima Nabavizadeh, Dax Kurbegov, Charles McDonnell, III, James W. Lillard, Jr., Marc Matrana, Alan Roth, Andrea Johnston, Sami Tahhan, Rami Owera, Matthew Margolis, Anuraag Kansal, Margarita Lopatin, Margaret McCusker, Karthik V. Giridhar. Baseline participant characteristics from PATHFINDER 2, a prospective interventional study of a multi-cancer early detection test in a population setting [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 18th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities; 2025 Sep 18-21; Baltimore, MD. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2025;34(9 Suppl):Abstract nr C145.

Abstract Background: Multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are being established as a novel approach to screen for multiple cancer types with one test. A blood-based MCED test using cell-free DNA targeted methylation patterns to detect a shared cancer signal and predict a cancer signal origin (CSO) has demonstrated feasibility. An initial return of results study (PATHFINDER; NCT04241796) reported performance of a refined version of the MCED test, including a 43.1% positive predictive value (PPV), 98.5% negative predictive value (NPV), 99.5% specificity, and 88.0% CSO accuracy. To build on this work, the PATHFINDER 2 study (NCT05155605) will evaluate safety and performance of the MCED test in larger, more diverse populations. Methods: PATHFINDER 2 is a prospective, multicenter, interventional study. Participants ≥50 years of age will be enrolled, with specific targets to improve diversity (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and few exclusions due to comorbid conditions. Exclusion criteria include current clinical suspicion of cancer or recent cancer/treatment (within 3 years). Participants will undergo blood draw for MCED testing, followed by return of results (cancer signal detection and CSO) to the investigator and diagnostic evaluations if a cancer signal is detected. A confirmatory PET-CT scan will be performed when CSO-directed workups do not result in a cancer diagnosis. Participants will be followed for approximately 3 years. Primary endpoints include 1) MCED test safety in terms of diagnostic testing triggered by a positive result (number/type of procedures and adverse events) and 2) test performance (PPV, NPV, specificity, sensitivity, CSO accuracy, cancer detection rate and number needed to screen). Secondary endpoints include participant reported outcomes (eg, anxiety), utilization of guideline-recommended cancer screening, and cancer detection rate of confirmatory PET-CT, amongst others. The study plans to enroll approximately 35,000 participants across North America. Sites were selected based on geographic location, catchment area demographics, and practice setting (academic vs non-academic). Enrollment targets for age, sex and race/ethnicity (White [non-Hispanic] 72%; Hispanic or Latino 11%; African American or Black 11%; Asian, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 6%; American Indian/Alaska Native 1%) were derived from US Census data. Strategies to promote diverse recruitment include translation of participant-facing documents across multiple languages, participant and healthcare provider educational material, and site-led community outreach campaigns. MCED testing is an emerging, potentially paradigm-changing strategy in cancer screening, and PATHFINDER 2 is designed to characterize the safety, performance, and clinical implementation of the MCED test as a screening tool in a broad and representative population. Citation Format: Karthik V. Giridhar, Michael J. Demeure, Raymond H. Kim, Justin A. Chen, Shirish Gadgeel, Dax Kurbegov, Margarita Lopatin, Roland Matthews, Marc Matrana, Charles McDonnell, Donald Richards, Benjamin Rybicki, Gretchen Stipec, Nima Nabavizadeh. PATHFINDER 2: A prospective study to evaluate safety and performance of a multi-cancer early detection test in a population setting [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 4784.

PURPOSE: Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. METHODS: An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. RESULTS: Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.

300 Background: Current methods to assess site feasibility for industry-funded clinical trials are onerous and delay patient access to novel treatment options and high-quality clinical trials. Industry sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) often probe for unnecessary and/or duplicative information. These burdens prolong trial start-up times and are a barrier to site participation in oncology trials. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Research Community Forum convened a task force to identify ways to improve the site feasibility assessment process. Methods: Data were collected in 3 steps: 1) survey to assess site burdens, 2) collation of sample feasibility questionnaires (FQs), and 3) stakeholder meeting to discuss potential solutions. The task force then developed recommendations for process improvements and obtained stakeholder feedback through a survey. Results: 113 oncology practices (66 community, 47 academic) reported completing a median 5 FQs and 2 pre-study site visits (PSSVs) per month. FQs took a median 2 hours to complete whereas PSSVs took a median 4 hours to complete. Most considered FQ (81%) and PSSV (91%) content redundant to information previously provided, and FQs similar between different sponsors (86%). The median time from first contact to first patient enrolled was 6 months. The 40 respondents to the stakeholder survey represented 19 academic- and 9 community-based sites, 8 industry sponsors, and 4 CROs. Most preferred a model with a short FQ plus a PSSV when there was not a prior relationship. If there was a prior relationship, either a PSSV or teleconference was preferred. All stakeholders identified time savings, expedited start-up, fewer staff resources, and cost savings as the greatest benefits. The greatest barriers to adoption were buy-in from sponsors and CROs, and insufficient information about site capabilities. Conclusions: Site feasibility assessments for industry-sponsored trials are important to ensure patient safety and access to high quality clinical trials. However, current methods are inefficient and time and resource intensive. This initiative provided insights about challenges for sites and the viability of a fundamental change to site feasibility assessments. ASCO recommendations are forthcoming on improving processes, standardizing and minimizing questions, and using portals that are effective across all trials and clinical research scenarios.

e14092 Background: Current methods to assess trial sites for clinical trial participation are onerous, with unnecessary redundancies and no-value steps that impact research site resources and clinical trial participation. This project sought stakeholder feedback on recommendations to transform industry sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) processes for evaluating sites for trials. Methods: An ASCO task force developed recommendations to improve the feasibility assessment process and standardize and centralize questions and forms. A survey was conducted with sites, industry trial sponsors, and CROs to obtain feedback and assess buy-in for the recommendations. Results: Respondents were from 28 oncology research sites (19 academic, 9 community-based), 8 sponsors, and 4 CROs. All stakeholders agreed that the current process is burdensome (93% sites, 90% sponsors, 100% CROs), standardization will improve the process (86% sites, 87% sponsors, 75% CROs). All agreed a centralized portal will reduce burdens (93% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs) and expedite trial start-up (89% sites, 100% sponsors, 75% CROs). Site certification was a viable option for sites (86%) and CROs (75%), but less so for sponsors (57%). Most respondents preferred a two-tier model: 1) a short site questionnaire followed by a pre-study visit for new interactions, and 2) only a pre-study site visit or a teleconference if there is an existing relationship. The greatest benefits were time savings, expedited start-up, reduction in personnel resources, and cost savings. The greatest barriers to adoption were buy-in and alignment from sponsors/CROs and insufficient information about site or protocol. Top predictors of a site’s success on a trial were physician engagement, available patients, and site experience. Conclusions: Site feasibility assessments are important for all stakeholders to establish trial suitability. However, current methods impose tremendous burdens on site resources (reported by authors elsewhere). While this sample is limited, the proposed process and standardization changes show promise to reduce burdens and costs for all stakeholders and expedite patient enrollment onto clinical trials.

299 Background: In 2011, ASCO launched a forum for the oncology research community to facilitate and promote the implementation of quality clinical research. The ASCO Research Community Forum (RCF) was created to provide a solution-oriented venue for research sites to address common challenges with conducting clinical trials. It offers in-person and virtual forums and resources to learn and share best practices with peers on a variety of topics, including site quality assessment and improvement, research site operations, and clinical trial access and accrual. Methods: An assessment was performed to measure the ASCO RCF output and to gather information on its potential impact on the cancer community. Results: The ASCO RCF has provided an in-person venue for physicians and research administrators with a steady increase in attendance, from 52 attendees in 2012 to 159 in 2018. Multi-stakeholder meetings and manuscripts have promoted best practices and solutions to address challenges with implementing quality clinical trials. Tools and resources to facilitate best practices and quality improvement at trial sites have been accessed by a range of types of research sites from across the U.S. and internationally. Its web-based library of resources was accessed over 27,000 times in 2018, alone. An online forum was launched in 2019 to provide a new opportunity to connect and impact the research community. Conclusions: The ASCO RCF is a productive and esteemed resource for the cancer research community. In-person and virtual forums, along with practical tools, promote access and accrual to clinical trials by facilitating networking, developing solutions, and providing education and resources. The ASCO RCF impact has extended from community-based oncology practices to larger research networks and academic centers across the U.S. and internationally. Its efforts to promote and facilitate access to quality clinical trials align with the vision and mission of ASCO to conquer cancer through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality patient care.