Fritsche, Angela Hazel

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

PURPOSE Cancer center clinical trial offices (CCTOs) support trial development, activation, conduct, regulatory adherence, data integrity, and compliance. In 2018, the Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI) Clinical Research Innovation (CRI) Steering Committee conducted and published survey results to benchmark North American CCTOs, including trial volume, accrual, full time equivalents (FTEs), and budget. The survey was readministered in 2023 to assess contemporary CCTO performance and capacity with results presented here. METHODS The 28 question 2023 survey was sent to directors of AACI's clinical member cancer centers. Survey participation was voluntary, no compensation was provided, and data requested covered operations during 2022. Definitions were consistent with National Cancer Institute (NCI) CCTO reporting requirements and AACI staff anonymously compiled results for descriptive statistical reporting. RESULTS The survey response rate was 61% (60/99). The median annual CCTO budget was $11.5 million (M) US dollars (USD) versus $8.2M USD in 2018. These budgets support a median of 150 FTEs versus 104 previously, and a median total of 384 versus 280 interventional treatment trials and a median of 479 versus 531 interventional treatment accruals. Sources of support for CCTO annual budgets were primarily from industry revenue (45.3%) or institutional support (31.7%). Nearly 60% of centers reported activating NCI-sponsored studies within 90 days but only 9% reported meeting a 90-day activation timeline for industry sponsored studies. CONCLUSION Contemporary benchmarks for CCTO operations through this survey demonstrate larger staff sizes, larger budgets, more trials supported, but fewer patients enrolled to interventional treatment trials in comparison with 2018. These data shine a critical light on the increasing complexity of cancer clinical trials, the importance of external funding sources, and necessary operational efficiency upgrades to provide cutting-edge cancer research and care.