Waterhouse, David

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.

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.

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.

LBA8003 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstract.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Monday, June 3, 2013, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2013, issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Monday edition of ASCO Daily News.

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.

5574 Background: A noninvasive cell-free DNA (cfDNA)-based cancer detection assay offers the hope of a blood test that might reduce morbidity and mortality of cancers, particularly those without recommended screening tests (eg, some gynecologic cancers). CCGA (NCT02889978) is a prospective, multi-center, longitudinal, case-control study evaluating models for discriminating cancer versus non-cancer. Here, we report F/U of control participants (pts) who demonstrated a cancer-signal in CCGA. Methods: Clinically evaluable samples (N = 2508) from pts enrolled without a cancer diagnosis (dx; NC) and treatment-naive pts with newly diagnosed cancer (C) were divided into training (n = 1564; 580 NC, 984 C) and test (n = 944; 368 NC, 576 C) sets. Classification performance (cancer/non-cancer) was assessed via 3 prototype assays: whole-genome bisulfite (WGBS), whole-genome (WGS), and targeted (507 gene) sequencing. Notable outlier NC pts were identified with cancer-like scores in either ≥2 assay classification results or by the presence of known cancer drivers with ≥1 assay classification result suggesting cancer. All pts are currently in F/U in accordance with study protocol (to date: 80% with > 10 mo and 15% with > 22 mo F/U). Results: Among training and test sets, 8 ( < 1%) NC pts were identified with a cancer-like signal. To-date, 2 have been diagnosed with a gynecologic malignancy: 1 stage IIIc clear cell endometrial carcinoma and 1 stage IIIc ovarian cancer, 3 and 2 months (mo) post-enrollment [PE], respectively. Among C pts in the study, sensitivity (at 98% specificity; WGBS) in these cancer types was: uterine/endometrial: 11% (n = 27 train) and 22% (n = 9 test); ovarian: 82% (n = 17) and 71% (n = 7). In addition, a third NC pt was diagnosed with a stage IV lung cancer 15 mo PE. Conclusions: This cfDNA-based assay detected a cancer-like signal that anticipated a clinical presentation of cancer in undiagnosed pts as early as 15 months prior to the actual dx. High specificity ( > 99%) requires accounting for undiagnosed cancers in study design and analysis. Together, these data suggest that this prototype assay may have high performance detecting a variety of gynecological and other cancers. Clinical trial information: NCT02889978.

LBA8003 Background: PemC and PCB are regimens used for first-line treatment of advanced NS-NSCLC. The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival without Grade 4 toxicity (G4PFS) between two vs three drug regimen arms. Methods: Patients ≥18 years, Stage IV NS NSCLC, AJCC (v7.0), and ECOG PS 0/1 were enrolled. Patients were randomized (1:1); received 4 cycles of induction (PemC: Pem, 500 mg/m2 and C, AUC = 6; PCB: P, 200 mg/m2, C, AUC = 6, and B, 15 mg/kg) followed by Pem (PemC Arm) or B (PCB Arm) maintenance therapy in the absence of progressive disease or discontinuation. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). The study was powered for G4PFS; assuming hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75; there was 80% power to detect superiority of PemC over PCB with a 2-sided type I error of 0.10. Efficacy data were analyzed by intent-to-treat principle using the log-rank test for time-to-event variables, and an exact test for ORR and DCR. Safety data were evaluated using CTCAE v3 for patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. Results: Patients were randomized to PemC (N = 182) or PCB (N = 179). Baseline factors were balanced between arms: median age 66/66 years; % female 42/42; % PS=0, 47/47; % stage IV M1a 29/30; for PemC vs PCB, median G4PFS (months) was 3.91/2.86 (HR = 0.85, 90% CI 0.7, 1.04, p = 0.176); PFS and OS had HR = 1.06 (95% CI 0.84, 1.35), p = 0.610, and HR = 1.07 (95% CI 0.83, 1.36), p = 0.616, respectively. The ORR (%) 23.6/ 27.4 and DCR (%) 59.9/57.0 were for PemC vs PCB, respectively. Significantly more drug-related grade 3/4 anemia (18.7% vs 5.4%), and thrombocytopenia (24.0% vs 9.6%) were seen on PemC; significantly more grade 3/4 neutropenia (48.8% vs 24.6%) and grade 1/2 alopecia (28.3 % vs 8.2%) were seen on PCB. Conclusions: PemC was not superior to PCB in G4PFS; no difference in PFS or OS was observed for the two- vs three-drug regimens. There were no unexpected toxicities; the toxicity profiles demonstrated distinctions by arm, and both regimens demonstrated tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT00948675.

Purpose This multicenter, open-label, phase II study was undertaken to assess the antitumor activity and safety of the oral mitogen-activated extracellular signal regulated kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitor, CI-1040, in breast cancer, colon cancer, non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and pancreatic cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with advanced colorectal, NSCLC, breast, or pancreatic cancer received oral CI-1040 continuously at 800 mg bid. All patients had measurable disease at baseline, a performance status of 2 or less, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function. Expression of pERK, pAkt, and Ki-67 was assessed in archived tumor specimens by quantitative immunohistochemistry. Results Sixty-seven patients with breast (n = 14), colon (n = 20), NSCLC (n = 18), and pancreatic (n = 15) cancer received a total of 194 courses of treatment (median, 2.0 courses; range, one to 14 courses). No complete or partial responses were observed. Stable disease (SD) lasting a median of 4.4 months (range, 4 to 18 months) was confirmed in eight patients (one breast, two colon, two pancreas, and three NSCLC patients). Treatment was well tolerated, with 81% of patients experiencing toxicities of grade 2 or less severity. Most common toxicities included diarrhea, nausea, asthenia, and rash. A mild association (P < .055) between baseline pERK expression in archived tumor specimens and SD was observed. Conclusion CI-1040 was generally well tolerated but demonstrated insufficient antitumor activity to warrant further development in the four tumors tested. PD 0325901, a second generation MEK inhibitor, has recently entered clinical development and, with significantly improved pharmacologic and pharmaceutical properties compared with CI-1040, it may better test the therapeutic potential of MEK inhibition in cancer.