Purpose: Many cancer clinical trials lack appropriate representation of specific patient populations, limiting their generalizability. Therefore, we determined the representation of ethnic minorities and women in cancer clinical trials. Methods: Enrollment data from all therapeutic trials reported as completed in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2003 to 2016 were analyzed. We calculated enrollment fractions (EFs) for each group, defined as the number of enrollees divided by the 2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database cancer prevalence. Results: Of 1,012 clinical trials, 310 (31%) reported ethnicity with a total of 55,689 enrollees. Participation varied significantly across ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic whites were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials (EF, 1.2%) than African Americans (EF, 0.7%; P < .001) and Hispanics (EF, 0.4%; P < .001). A decrease in African American (6% v 9.2%) and Hispanic (2.6% v 3.1%) enrollment was observed when compared with historical data from 1996 to 2002. Younger patients (age younger than 65 years) were more likely to be enrolled in clinical trials than the elderly (64% v 36%; P < .001). Low recruitment of female patients was observed in clinical trials for melanoma (35%), lung cancer (39%), and pancreatic cancer (40%). Conclusion: We observed a decrease in recruitment of minorities over the past 14 years compared with historical data. African Americans, Hispanics, and women were less likely to be enrolled in cancer clinical trials. Future trials should take extra measures to recruit participants that adequately represent the US cancer population.
Genomic-directed therapy of gastrointestinal cancers by comprehensive genomic profile (CGP): Clinical and genomic characteristics at the John Theurer Cancer Center (JTCC).
803 Background: The routine use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) has led to better genomic characterization, more personalized treatments and higher enrollment in clinical trials for many solid cancers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and genomic prolife of patients (pts) with gastrointestinal cancers (GIC) with the use of a CGP assay and their potential therapeutic benefit at a large comprehensive cancer center. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 83 consecutive pts with GIC that had CGP at the JTCC between 01/2014-09/2016. Demographics, CGP results, and clinical characteristics were studied. Clinically relevant genomic alterations (CRGAs) were identified using the FoundationOne assay (Foundation Medicine, Cambridge, MA), and were defined as alterations linked to approved therapies and those under evaluation in genotype-driven clinical trials. Results: 83 pts with GIC were analyzed. 46.9% males and 53.0% females. The median age at diagnosis was 58.5 years. 73 (88%) patients were stage III/IV at diagnosis. Tumors consisted of colorectal (36%), gastric (24%), pancreatic (12%) and cholangiocarcinoma (6%). All the pts were found to have at least one genomic alteration (GA). CRGAs were identified in 63 (76%) of cases, with an average of 2 per pt. The most frequently identified GAs were TP53 43 (29.9%), APC 24 (16.7%), KRAS 31 (21.5%), ARID1A 12 (8.3%), PIK3CA 11 (7.6%), and SMAD4 11 (7.6%). Of the 63 pts with CRGAs, 23 (36%) received one of the therapies suggested by the NGS assay, and 9 (14%) were enrolled in a clinical trial. Conclusions: The use of CGP assay identified a high frequency of CRGAs in GIC pts. The assay provided information for genomic-directed therapy in 36% of the patients. The routine use of CGP in GIC may lead to pts receive more personalized treatments. The potential benefit of selected targeted therapies in individual cases suggests that larger studies of treatment guided by routine CGP in gastrointestinal malignancies are warranted.
Comorbidities limiting recruitment of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients in early-phase trials.
791 Background: With the surge of drug development in the past decade, early phase clinical trials (EPCT) have gained value evaluating the potential benefits of new therapies. The inclusion/exclusion criteria in EPCT are usually rigorous and may exclude many patients (pts) commonly seen in clinical practice. Our objective was to identify the most common comorbidities excluded in EPCT for CRC. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried on December 1stof 2015. We reviewed the characteristics and eligibility criteria of 369 phase I/II interventional drug trials including: experimental arm therapy, location, and exclusion/inclusion criteria. Logistic regressions were completed and exclusion was studied as a binary variable. Results: Of the 369 trials, 68% were phase II and 32% phase I. 46% were conducted in the United States, 30% in Europe, 15% in Asia and 9% in other locations. 74 (20%) trials excluded pts > 70 years of age. 142 (39%) trials required creatinine levels < 1.5 mg/dl, liver enzymes (AST/ALT) < 2.5 and bilirubin < 1.5 of the upper limit of normal. Cytopenia was a significant exclusion factor: 147 (47%) trials required Hgb > 9 g/dl and 218 (59%) excluded pts with platelets < 100,000/dl. In terms of comorbidities, 98 (27%) trials excluded pts with heart failure (NYHA class 3/4), 74 (20%) with atrial fibrillation, 112 (31%) with any anticoagulation therapy and 155 (42%) with positive HIV. Trials located in the US were more likely to exclude pts with Hgb < 9g/dl (OR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.1-2.3, p < 0.05), immunotherapy trials were more likely to exclude pts on any anticoagulation (OR:1.8, 95%CI: 1.2-2.8, p < 0.007) and targeted therapy trials were more likely to exclude pts with history of DVT/PE or cardiovascular diseases (OR: 3.4, 95%CI: 1.9-5.8, p < 0.0001; OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 1.3-3.8, p < 0.002, respectively). Conclusions: 20% of EPCTs on CRC excluded pts with advanced age, organ dysfunction and common comorbidities. Many of the EPCT reviewed were not inclusive of our aging oncology population who are more likely to have multiple comorbidities. Investigators should review whether sufficient justification exists for every exclusion criterion before their incorporation in future trial protocols.