Citations

Abstract Therapeutic advances for glioblastoma have been minimal over the past 2 decades. In light of the multitude of recent phase III trials that have failed to meet their primary endpoints following promising preclinical and early-phase programs, a Society for Neuro-Oncology Think Tank was held in November 2020 to prioritize areas for improvement in the conduct of glioblastoma clinical trials. Here, we review the literature, identify challenges related to clinical trial eligibility criteria and trial design in glioblastoma, and provide recommendations from the Think Tank. In addition, we provide a data-driven context with which to frame this discussion by analyzing key study design features of adult glioblastoma clinical trials listed on ClinicalTrials.gov as “recruiting” or “not yet recruiting” as of February 2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) focus on the classification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotype and cytogenetic/molecular markers; risk assessment and stratification for risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive and Ph-negative ALL for both adolescent and young adult and adult patients; and supportive care considerations. Given the complexity of ALL treatment regimens and the required supportive care measures, the NCCN ALL Panel recommends that patients be treated at a specialized cancer center with expertise in the management of ALL This portion of the Guidelines focuses on the management of Ph-positive and Ph-negative ALL in adolescents and young adults, and management in relapsed settings.

The NCCN Guidelines for Older Adult Oncology address specific issues related to the management of cancer in older adults, including screening and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), assessing the risks and benefits of treatment, preventing or decreasing complications from therapy, and managing patients deemed to be at high risk for treatment-related toxicity. CGA is a multidisciplinary, in-depth evaluation that assesses the objective health of the older adult while evaluating multiple domains, which may affect cancer prognosis and treatment choices. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines providing specific practical framework for the use of CGA when evaluating older adults with cancer.

7 Background: Despite the promise of precision oncology, the cost-effectiveness of targeted treatments is debated. Until now, the increase in price of oral targeted anti-cancer treatments used in common malignancies has not been evaluated. Here, we report patterns in price changes from 2015-2019 for multiple oral anti-cancer medications for common solid tumor malignancies. Methods: We utilized the publicly available Medicare Part D provider utilization and payment database from 2015 to 2019. We extracted drug prices (using generic names) for commonly used targeted oral anticancer agents for lung, breast, and prostate cancer. The primary outcome was the correlation of average change in Medicare spending per dosage unit among the multiple brand-name medications within each class available. We additionally calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) [i.e. mean annual growth rates over a specified period of time] for medication costs within each class, and compared it with the consumer price index (a measure of the average change over time in the prices of consumer items). Results: The study included 6 EGFR inhibitors (1 generic), 5 ALK inhibitors, 2 BRAF inhibitors, 3 hormonal agents (1 generic), 3 CDK4/6 inhibitors, 2 PARP inhibitors, and 7 anti-androgen agents (2 generic). The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for drugs within each class were 0.967 (0.915-0.978) for EGFRi, 0.981 (0.966-0.989) for ALKi, 0.996 for BRAFi, 0.994 (0.992-0.999) for CDK4/6i, 0.855 for PARPi, and 0.442 (-0.522-0.962) for anti-androgens. Except for anti-androgens, all other drug classes showed strong linear association in price increase between two drugs within the same-class. A coefficient could not be calculated for therapies with 2 or fewer data points ( i.e., generic erlotinib, dacomitinib, generic abiraterone, apalutamide, and darolutamide). There was no significant correlation between expenditure for anti-estrogen agents. The median (range) CAGRs in costs over this 5-year period were: were 4.56% for EGFRi, 6.40% for ALKi, 2.58% for BRAFi, 5.48% for hormonal agents, 5.21% for CDK4/6i, 27.29% for PARPi, and 34.8% for anti-androgen agents. Conclusions: The median CAGR in costs for modern oral precision driven cancer therapeutic classes mostly outpaced CPI (2.26%/year), and the average inflation rate (1.90%/year). Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients. For most classes despite there being multiple agents, the rise in drug expenditures correlated closely, calling into question the true value of within class competition. There is an urgent need for drug pricing reform given the average expenditure of Medicare part D, and ultimately out of pocket costs for our patients with cancer continues to trend upwards. Increased advocacy efforts are needed to ensure precision therapeutics remains an attainable and sustainable goal.

135 Background: Black patients have a disproportionately high incidence and mortality from lung cancer. Despite the importance of clinical trials, there continue to be significant racial disparities in recruitment for pivotal registration studies. In 2016, the FDA recommended reporting racial enrollment with a minimum of 5 categories (White, Black, Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native [AIAN] and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander [NHPI]). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors also recommend reporting race and ethnicity. We evaluated race reporting and representation in registration trials for thoracic cancers. Methods: We reviewed the FDA website and identified all new drug licensing indications in thoracic malignancies (small cell lung cancer (SCLC), non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and mesothelioma) from 2006 to 2020. NSCLC was further classified as EGFR+, ALK+, other mutation and NOS (no driver mutation). Clinical trials cited on the licensing label for market authorization were recorded and the corresponding registration trial publication was identified. If race was unreported or underreported (defined as ≤3 groups) in the licensing study, then additional information was obtained from clinicaltrials.gov. We calculated the proportion of registration trials meeting FDA criteria and the proportion of each racial group in trials. Results: From 2006-2020, we identified 55 new licensing indications, involving 26 unique drugs; 5 approvals in SCLC, 49 approvals in NSCLC and 1 in mesothelioma. Prior to the FDA race reporting guidelines, 33% (6/18) of registration studies did not meet FDA requirements. This improved to 27% (10/37) after the guideline introduction. Overall 29,545 patients participated in thoracic registration trials; 66% White, 22% Asian, 2% Black, <1% AIAN, <1% NHPI, 1% other or multiple races and 9% unknown. Table shows race distribution by cancer subtype. Conclusions: Although improving, a substantial number of registrational clinical trials in thoracic oncology still do not report race per FDA guidance. In addition, Black individuals are disproportionately under-represented in registration trials. Greater efforts are needed for the inclusion of Black patients and other minorities in clinical trials.[Table: see text]

Pulsed electrical field (PEF) energy is a promising technique for catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. In this article, the key aspects that need to be considered for safe and effective PEF delivery are reviewed, and their impact on clinical feasibility is discussed. The most important benefit of PEF appears to be the ability to kill cells through mechanisms that do not alter stromal proteins, sparing sensitive structures to improve safety, without sacrificing cardiomyocyte ablation efficacy. Many parameters affect PEF treatment outcomes, including pulse intensity, waveform shape, and number of pulses, as well as electrode configuration and geometry. These physical and electrical characteristics must be titrated carefully to balance target tissue effects with collateral implications (muscle contraction, temperature rise, risk of electrical arcing events). It is important to note that any combination of parameters affecting PEF needs to be tested for clinical efficacy and safety. Applying PEF clinically requires knowledge of the fundamentals of this technology to exploit its opportunities and generate viable, durable health improvements for patients.

AbstractActivating receptor-tyrosine kinase rearranged during transfection (RET) mutations and fusions are potent drivers of oncogenesis. The recent FDA approvals of highly potent and selective RET inhibitors, selpercatinib and pralsetinib, has altered the therapeutic management of RET aberrant tumors. There is ample evidence of the role of RET signaling in certain cancers. RET aberrations as fusions or mutations occur in multiple cancers, however, there is considerable phenotypic diversity. There is emerging data on the lack of responsiveness of immunotherapy in RET-altered cancers. Herein, we review the registrational data from the selective RET-inhibitor trials, and comprehensively explore RET alterations in pan-cancer adult malignancies and their co-alterations. These co-occuring alterations may define the future of RET inhibition from specific selective targeting to customized combination therapies as data are rapidly emerging on both on-target and off-target acquired resistance mechanisms. Fascinatingly, oncogenic RET fusions have been reported to mediate resistance to EGFR inhibition and KRASG12C inhibition.

Abstract Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan–Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75–30) and 8 (2–18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.