Harvey, R Donald

PURPOSE Oncology pharmacists (OPs) play a crucial role in cancer care, treatment, survivorship, and multidisciplinary teams (MDTs). OPs have specialized training in designing, administering, monitoring, and modifying oncology chemotherapy; managing adverse events; and evaluating clinical trials and investigational drugs. Yet, the state of OP has remained largely unknown in the clinical oncology workforce of the West African region. Therefore, this study aimed to understand who reconstitutes chemotherapy and to explain the OP educational and practice needs, challenges, and solutions in Nigeria. MATERIALS AND METHODS Using a concurrent embedded mixed method design, 35 OPs completed a questionnaire, and 12 others responded to a semistructured interview. The data were then subjected to inductive thematic and descriptive analyses. RESULTS The findings showed that 54% of the OPs were responsible for chemotherapy reconstitution, and only 60% of the oncology centers had a biosafety cabinet. 91% of OPs were practicing; however, only 54% were trained in OP, and none of the OPs were board-certified. Most of the OPs spent time weekly on reconstitution, administrative duties, teaching, and training; only 3% spent on oncology clinical trials and conferences and 8% on noninterventional research. We identified four themes: (1) Some OPs are not reconstituting chemotherapy: A Call for MDT, (2) For OP, No Training is Enough, (3) Board Certification will give OPs Recognition, and (4) Introduction of OP Course in Universities. CONCLUSION To improve patient treatment outcomes, training on chemotherapy reconstitution should be prioritized, integration of OPs into MDTs, and the safe handling of chemotherapy in centers should be mandated in the region. The West African Postgraduate College of Pharmacists should be supported in expanding its curriculum and introducing OP fellowships.

Strategies to bring clinical trials closer to patients gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling more participants to receive treatment and/or testing in their local communities. Incorporation of decentralized trial elements presents both opportunities and challenges, spanning regulatory, technical, and operational aspects. This ASCO research statement includes timely consensus-driven recommendations and a call for engagement of all research stakeholders. ASCO held multistakeholder meetings with leaders in oncology research and concluded that research-related regulatory and administrative requirements and burdens present critical barriers to decentralizing trials. One example is sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Statement of Investigator (Form 1572), which was found to exceed FDA's stated intent and used in conservative ways disproportionate to potential risks to participants and scientific integrity. As a result, research sites experience an avalanche of downstream administrative and regulatory activities that consume considerable resources. This statement recommends four key solutions to address such barriers and recalibrate regulatory and administrative expectations for decentralizing trials: (1) FDA should engage the research community in a public-private partnership to modernize standards and enable local access to trials; (2) sponsors and CROs should develop standards and protocols that accommodate flexible approaches, enable local participation, provide clarity around roles and requirements, and promote consistency; (3) research centers, networks, and sites should update policies and procedures to implement decentralized trial elements; and (4) research community should develop a streamlined, uniform mechanism to simplify regulatory data collection and documentation and use it consistently across trials. We can and must prioritize a concerted commitment to simplify and streamline regulatory requirements and practices to broaden access to and participation in cancer clinical trials.

This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

Abstract Purpose: The safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of elraglusib, a glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) small-molecule inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy, in patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors or hematologic malignancies was studied. Patients and Methods: Elraglusib (intravenously twice weekly in 3-week cycles) monotherapy dose escalation was followed by dose escalation with eight chemotherapy regimens (gemcitabine, doxorubicin, lomustine, carboplatin, irinotecan, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel/carboplatin, and pemetrexed/carboplatin) in patients previously exposed to the same chemotherapy. Results: Patients received monotherapy (n = 67) or combination therapy (n = 171) elraglusib doses 1 to 15 mg/kg twice weekly. The initial recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of elraglusib was 15 mg/kg twice weekly and was defined, without dose-limiting toxicity observation, due to fluid volumes necessary for drug administration. The RP2D was subsequently reduced to 9.3 mg/kg once weekly to reduce elraglusib-associated central/peripheral vascular access catheter blockages. Other common elraglusib-related adverse events (AE) included transient visual changes and fatigue. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 55.2% and 71.3% of patients on monotherapy and combination therapy, respectively. Part 1 monotherapy (n = 62) and part 2 combination (n = 138) patients were evaluable for response. In part 1, a patient with melanoma had a complete response, and a patient with acute T-cell leukemia/lymphoma had a partial response (PR). In part 2, seven PRs were observed, and the median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2–2.6] and 6.9 (95% CI, 5.7–8.4) months, respectively. Conclusions: Elraglusib had a favorable toxicity profile as monotherapy and combined with chemotherapy and was associated with clinical benefit supporting further clinical evaluation in combination with chemotherapy.

Abstract Purpose: Romidepsin dosing recommendations for patients with malignancy and varying degrees of hepatic dysfunction was lacking at the time of regulatory approval for T-cell lymphoma. We conducted a multicenter phase I clinical trial (ETCTN-9008) via the NCI Organ Dysfunction Working Group to investigate safety, first cycle MTD, and pharmacokinetic profile of romidepsin in this setting. Patients and Methods: Patients with select advanced solid tumors or hematologic malignancies were stratified according to hepatic function. Romidepsin was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle and escalation followed a 3 + 3 design in moderate and severe impairment cohorts. Blood samples for detailed pharmacokinetic analyses were collected after the first dose. Results: Thirty-one patients received one dose of romidepsin and were evaluable for pharmacokinetic analyses in normal (n = 12), mild (n = 8), moderate (n = 5), and severe (n = 6) cohorts. Adverse events across cohorts were similar, and dose-limiting toxicity occurred in two patients (mild and severe impairment cohorts). The MTD was not determined because the geometric mean AUC values of romidepsin in moderate (7 mg/m2) and severe (5 mg/m2) impairment cohort were 114% and 116% of the normal cohort (14 mg/m2). Conclusions: Data from the ETCTN-9008 trial led to changes in the romidepsin labeling to reflect starting dose adjustment for patients with cancer and moderate and severe hepatic impairment, with no adjustment for mild hepatic impairment.