Schilsky, Richard L.

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.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial–related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

3509 Background: FOLFIRI or FOLFOX are 1st-line treatments (Rx) for MCRC. Cetuximab is an IgG1 Mab that targets the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and is approved as monotherapy or in combination with irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory, EGFR + pts with MCRC. CALGB 80203 randomized untreated MCRC pts to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI ± cetuximab (independent of EGFR status.) Methods: Pts with performance status 0–1 with tumor blocks available for EGFR analysis received either irinotecan 180 mg/m2 over 1.5 hours (h) or oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 over 2h combined with LV 400 mg/m2 over 2h and 5FU 400 mg/m2 bolus, then 46–48h CI 5FU 2400 mg/m2 q o w. Cetuximab dose: 400 mg/m2 loading dose, then 250 mg/m2 qw. Rx continued until progression or toxicity; subsequent Rx was not mandated although information was collected on such rx. Accrual goal was 2200 pts with intended 1° endpt of overall survival (OS). 80203 closed administratively in 1/05 (due to slow accrual) with 238 pts accrued. 2° endpts of response rate (RR), progression free survival (PFS), duration of R and toxicity are now able to be analyzed. Results: Accrual: FOLFIRI (A) - 61; FOLFIRI + cetuximab (B) - 59: FOLFOX (C) - 60; FOLFOX + cetuximab (D) - 58; approx median follow-up (f/u) is 12 months. RR (CR + PR, not all yet confirmed): A - 34%; B - 42%; C - 32%; D - 55%. RR was similar in the FOLFIRI or FOLFOX arms (A+B v. C+D; 38% v. 43%, p=0.44; chi-square) while C225 containing arms (B+D) v. non-C225 arms (A+C) had a superior RR (49% v. 33%; p=0.014, chi-square) It is too early to tell if there are differences in PFS, duration of response or OS. No significant differences in gr III diarrhea or any gr IV toxicities were seen. Conclusions: These results suggest that FOLFIRI and FOLFOX are similar in efficacy for pts with untreated MCRC and that adding cetuximab to either in1st-line Rx appears to increase response rates. PFS and duration of response do not appear different at this analysis. Further f/u and an analysis of prospective companion correlative studies may help to further clarify these results. [Table: see text]

6531 Background: This survey of Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study physicians examined use, attitudes, and perception of tumor genomic testing (TGT), defined as any DNA test performed on tumor specimen/plasma. TAPUR is a multibasket study of marketed agents targeting tumor genomics. Methods: 333 physicians at 54 TAPUR sites were surveyed (2016-2017). Survey domains included use of TGT, barriers to ordering TGT, and genomic confidence. Surveys included 3 scenarios for TGT ordering 1) pretreated advanced cancer patients (pts) without options, 2) newly diagnosed, untreated, metastatic pts and 3) early stage/potentially curable pts with standard options. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: 112 physicians responded (33%). The table displays demographics and genomic confidence. Respondents reported a median of 25% of their pts had TGT in past 12 months for trials/routine care (range 0-85%). Barriers to testing included access to tumor specimen (86%), insurance coverage (67%), concerns that results will not be actionable (55%), and test issues (wait time, unsure which test/lab to use, test accuracy) (54%). TGT was ordered most often for scenario 1 (96%) and 2 pts (70%). Few respondents (32%) would order testing in scenario 3. Of those who reported testing for scenarios 1 & 2, most told pts that results could inform treatment/prognosis/trials (97%) or may be uninformative (84%). In all scenarios, pt expectations of TGT results were discussed prior to testing. A minority reported frequently telling pts in advance that results could inform heritable cancer susceptibility (37%). Conclusions: Confidence in using TGT was high. TGT was performed most for pts with advanced cancer and few options. Availability of specimens was largest barrier reported, indicating the importance of blood-based tests. Few respondents discussed implications of germline findings in advance, despite growing evidence of germline findings in somatic testing. [Table: see text]

638 Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogeneous disease with distinct molecular subtypes in part based on RAS mutational status. It is plausible that RAS mutations are differentially distributed between CC and AA and may contribute to poor outcomes in AAs with CRC. Methods: We did a retrospective analysis of CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial patients. We divided the entire cohort into 2 groups: a) Common RAS: mutation in KRAS exon 2, codon 12 or 13; b) Extended RAS: any NRAS mutations or mutation in KRAS except those listed above. We then analyzed these two subgroups for association between RAS mutations and race (3 categories: Caucasian, AA, Others) using chi-square test for univariate analyses and logistic regression for multivariate analysis. We also analyzed the effect of extended RAS testing on prognosis of metastatic CRC by estimating the overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier method and 95% confidence interval (CI). Cox proportional-hazard model was used for multivariate analyses. Results: There were 1729 CRC patients in common RAS group of which 357 (20.6%) had mutations present. Extended RAS group had 621 patients of which 95 (15.5%) had mutations present. There was no significant difference in the rate of common RAS mutations between CC and AA (20.5% vs. 24%, p=0.22). However, extended RAS mutations were significantly more in AA as compared to CC (25% vs. 14%, p=0.02). Multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, prior adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic radiation confirmed higher odds of extended RAS mutation in AA compared to CC (adjusted OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.23; p=0.02). The median OS in patients with an extended RAS mutation was shorter as compared to those without extended RAS mutation (25.3 vs. 31.9 months; HR 1.26; 95% CI 0.99-1.62; p=0.05). Multivariate analyses adjusted for age, gender, race, prior adjuvant chemotherapy and pelvic radiation showed a trend towards longer OS in patients without extended RAS mutation as compared those with extended RAS mutation (adjusted HR= 1.24, 95% CI, 0.97-0.1.58, p=0.08). Conclusions: Extended RAS mutations are significantly more common in AA as compared to CC. Additionally, presence of extended RAS mutation may confer a poor prognosis in CRC patients.