Citations

Abstract Oncology Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), including Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, Physician Assistants, and Clinical Pharmacists (CPs), play a vital role in delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care across the United States. Despite their widespread presence in oncology practices, APPs remain underutilized in cancer clinical research, representing a missed opportunity to expand trial access and improve patient outcomes. Clinical trials are essential to advancing oncology care, yet participation remains critically low among adult patients. Given Oncology APPs’ and CPs’ central role in cancer care delivery, their meaningful engagement in oncology clinical trial research is imperative as the standard of oncology care. This position article, with contributions from 5 professional societies, presents solutions and resources to barriers limiting APPs’ and CPs’ involvement in cancer clinical research, including gaps in education, role expectations, limited protected time, restrictive policies, insufficient financial support, and underrecognition of contributions. Integrating APPs and CPs more fully into the clinical research enterprise is essential to improving trial access, patient outcomes, closing equity gaps, and accelerating innovation in oncology care.

PURPOSE Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

8503 Background: Outcomes are poor in triple-class exposed RRMM patients (pts) who progress on immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs), proteasome inhibitors (PIs), and CD38 antibodies (mAbs). Ide-cel, a BCMA targeted CAR T cell therapy, showed promising tolerability and efficacy in RRMM pts in the phase I CRB-401 study ( NEJM2019;380:1726). We present primary efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase II KarMMa trial of ide-cel in RRMM (NCT03361748). Methods: Enrolled pts had ≥3 prior regimens (including IMiD, PI, and CD38 mAb) and were refractory to their last regimen per IMWG criteria. After lymphodepletion (cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2+ fludarabine 30 mg/m2 x 3), pts received 150─450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (target dose range). Endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; primary), complete response (CR) rate, duration of response (DoR), and PFS. Results: Of 140 pts enrolled, 128 received ide-cel. Median age was 61 y; median no. of prior regimens was 6; 84% were triple- and 26% were penta-refractory. Most pts (88%) had bridging therapy. At data cutoff (16 Oct 2019), median follow up was 11.3 mo. ORR was 73% and median PFS was 8.6 mo; both increased with higher dose (Table). All subgroups had an ORR ≥50%, including older and high-risk pts. Most common any-grade (Gr) toxicities were cytopenias (97%) and cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 84%). CRS was mainly Gr 1/2; 5 pts (5%) had Gr 3, 1 had Gr 4, and 1 had Gr 5 (at 300 × 106). Neurotoxicity developed in 23 pts (18%); 4 (3%) Gr 3 and 0 Gr ≥4. Median peak CAR+ T cell expansion occurred at 11 d. Expansion was higher in responders and parameters (AUC0−28d, Cmax) increased with higher dose, with exposure overlap across doses. Persistence was durable, with CAR+ T cells detected in 29/49 (59%) and 4/11 pts (36%) at 6 and 12 mo. Conclusions: Ide-cel demonstrated deep, durable responses in heavily pretreated RRMM pts. Efficacy and safety reflected prior reports and support a favorable ide-cel clinical benefit-risk profile across the target dose range. Clinical trial information: NCT03361748 . [Table: see text]