Citations

8057 Background: The NCI Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (ALCHEMIST) study tested resected stage II-IIIB(N2) NSCLC for targetable EGFR and ALK alterations and PD-L1 expression to screen patients for biomarker-driven adjuvant therapy trials (NCT02194738). Local lab results were requested when available for comparison to central lab results. Methods: We identified patients with both central and local PD-L1 results in the ALCHEMIST adjuvant immunotherapy study screening population. Discrepancies in tumor proportion score (TPS) between central and local PD-L1 were defined using prespecified cut-points (granular: <1%, 1-<5%, 5-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<30%, 30-<40%, 40-<50%, 50-60%, 60-<70%, 70-<80%, 80-<90%, 90-<100%; clinical: <1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Large discrepancies were defined as ≥ 50 percentage point differences; for these cases, local PD-L1 and hematoxylin & eosin-stained slides were requested. These and all central slides were digitally scanned at 40X. Three expert pathologists reviewed the scanned slides in a blinded fashion. Differences between patient or tumor characteristics were assessed by Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Percent agreement was computed within and between the reviewers. Results: Central and local PD-L1 results were available for 497 patients. 177 cases (36%) had discrepancies that placed patients in different clinical TPS categories (<1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Among these, 43 cases had large TPS discrepancies; 14 had available local testing slides. 46 of the 320 cases without discrepancy were randomly selected as controls. No patient or tumor characteristics were associated with discrepancy, including tumor location, histology, grade or cancer stage (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons of TPS according to three pathologists re-reading the same scanned PD-L1 slides showed similar levels of disagreement in clinical TPS category whether there was initial discrepancy between central and local results (24%, 34%, and 23%; mean 27%) or not (33%, 30%, and 20%; mean 28%). Among the 14 cases with large initial discrepancies and local slides available, there was agreement in clinical TPS category when the anonymized central and local scanned slides were re-read by the pathologists in 54%, 38%, and 43% of cases, despite 100% non-agreement in initial reads. There were higher rates of agreement when the tested slides both originated from the same (100%) versus different (35%) blocks, when the same (48%) versus different (40%) PD-L1 antibodies were used, and when the cases were of non-squamous (52%) versus squamous (14%) cell carcinoma. Conclusions: There are substantial differences in PD-L1 TPS read by pathologists that can result in placement of patients in different categories commonly used for clinical management. These differences have clear implications in clinical trials and routine patient care.

PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A221805) was to screen two doses of duloxetine for preventing sensory oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHODS Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once daily 30 mg duloxetine, 60 mg duloxetine, or placebo. Eligible participants had stage II to III colorectal cancer and no baseline neuropathy, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, were age 25 years and older, and received oxaliplatin via one of the following doses and schedules: 85 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks (6 or 12 doses) or 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (4 doses). Duloxetine/placebo was taken once daily beginning day 1 of cycle 1 and continued for 17 weeks. The primary end point, a composite response reflecting sensory OIPN symptom severity and onset, was measured in weeks 19-21 using a validated participant-reported outcome survey assessing extremity numbness, tingling, and pain. Response was defined as a participant-reported highest score of ≤2 (ie, 1 = not at all; 2 = a little) on survey items. To be evaluable for the response end point, eligible participants must have initiated oxaliplatin and submitted ≥1 postbaseline OIPN survey. RESULTS Of the 199 participants (n = 66, 30 mg duloxetine; n = 66, 60 mg duloxetine; n = 67, placebo), 46, 47, and 50 (N = 143, 71.8%), respectively, were evaluable for primary end point analysis based on modified intention-to-treat criteria. Participant mean age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 10.4). Most were White (n = 113, 80.7%) and male (n = 82, 58.6%). The proportion of responders among those receiving placebo (68.0%) was similar to those receiving duloxetine 30 mg (65.2%) or 60 mg (66.0%). Duloxetine adherence rates, measured via pill counts—30 mg (54%), 60 mg (57%), and placebo (59%) groups—were low (<75%). CONCLUSION Duloxetine is not more promising than placebo for preventing sensory OIPN.

TPS8113 Background: There are currently three approved approaches for patients with resectable NSCLC including neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy, adjuvant chemoimmunotherapy and perioperative treatment with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy. All regimens were approved after showing event-free survival (EFS) or disease-free survival (DFS) benefit with the addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone. Each approach has its benefits and risks. Starting immunotherapy prior to surgery may improve treatment compliance and efficacy of immunotherapy. Nevertheless, neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy may result in missing an opportunity for curative surgery and increase the complexity of tumor resection. PROSPECT-LUNG (NCT06632327) is a randomized study evaluating whether starting chemoimmunotherapy before or after surgery leads to better outcomes. Methods: This is a randomized phase 3 trial in which patients will be randomized 1:1 to surgery followed by chemoimmunotherapy (adjuvant arm) or neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant therapy (perioperative arm). Patients with histologic or cytologic confirmation of surgically resectable stage IIA-IIIB NSCLC (per AJCC 9th edition) or stage IIA to IIIB per AJCC 8 th edition up to single ipsilateral mediastinal station (N2a), ECOG PS ≤ 2 (or Karnofsky ≥ 60%), no prior treatment for NSCLC and no previous malignancy within 3 years are eligible. The dual primary endpoints are real-world event free survival (rwEFS) defined as date from randomization to date of the first of the following events: failure to undergo resection for any reason, progression prior to surgery that precludes resection, recurrence or progression at any time after surgery or death from any cause, and overall survival (OS) defined as time from randomization to death from any cause. The target accrual is 1,100 patients assuming one-sided type I error of 0.03 for OS endpoint and 0.02 for rwEFS endpoint. This sample size will enable the detection of a 3-year rwEFS improvement from 55% in the adjuvant therapy arm to 64% in the perioperative arm with an 84% power. This sample size would detect an HR of 0.73 (improvement in median OS from 8.1 to 11 years in favor of the perioperative arm, 5-year OS from 65% in the adjuvant arm to 73% in the perioperative arm, assuming exponential survival) with 83.6% power. The study has a pragmatic design with minimal data collection, reporting of adverse events that lead to discontinuation of therapy, hospitalization or death only. It allows providers to choose therapy per standard of care (FDA approved or on NCCN), includes patients with ECOG performance status 2, permits use of local laboratory testing and imaging studies and determination of recurrence/progression will be done by local treating physicians with no use of RECIST. Clinical trial information: NCT06632327 .

AbstractBackgroundThe use of electronic health record (EHR) data for research is limited by a lack of structure and a standard data model. The objective of the ICAREdata (Integrating Clinical Trials and Real‐World Endpoints Data) project was to structure key research data elements in EHRs using a minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) data model to extract and transmit data.MethodsThe ICAREdata project captured two EHR data elements essential to clinical trials: cancer disease status and treatment plan change. The project was implemented in clinical sites participating in Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials. Data were extracted from EHRs and sent by secure Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource messaging (a standard for exchanging EHRs) to a database. Selected elements were compared with corresponding data from the trial's electronic data capture (EDC) system, Medidata Rave.ResultsBy December 2023, data were extracted and transmitted from 10 sites for 35 patients, involving 367 clinical encounters across 15 clinical trials. Data through March 2023 demonstrated that concordance for the elements treatment plan change and cancer disease status was 79% and 34%, respectively. When disease evaluation was reported by both EHR and EDC (n = 15), there was 87% agreement on cancer disease status.ConclusionsDocumentation, extraction, and aggregation of structured data elements in EHRs using mCODE and ICAREdata methods is feasible in multi‐institutional cancer clinical trials. EDC as a reference data set allowed assessment of the completeness of EHR data capture. Future initiatives will focus on elements with shared definitions in clinical and research environments and efficient workflows.Plain Language Summary Clinical trials use electronic case report forms to report data, and data must be manually entered on these forms, which is costly and time consuming. ICAREdata methods use structured, organized data from clinical trials that can be more easily shared instead having to enter free text into electronic health records.

Abstract Background The Patient Cloud ePRO app was adopted by the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to facilitate capturing electronic patient-reported (ePRO) outcome data, but use has been low. The study objectives were to test whether a patient-targeted ePRO educational resource (ePRO-E) would increase ePRO intent (number of users) and improve data quality (high quality: ≥80% of the required surveys submitted) within an ongoing NCTN study. Methods The ePRO-E intervention, a patient-targeted educational resource (written material and 6-minute animated YouTube video), was designed to address ePRO barriers. ePRO intent and data quality were compared between 2 groups (N = 69): a historical control group and a prospectively recruited intervention group exposed to ePRO-E. Covariates included technology attitudes, age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity. Results Intervention group ePRO intent (78.8%) was statistically significantly higher than historical control group intent (47.1%) (P = .03). Patients choosing ePRO versus paper surveys had more positive and higher technology attitudes scores (P = .03). The odds of choosing ePRO were 4.7 times higher (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.2 to 17.8) (P = .02) among intervention group patients and 5.2 times higher (95% CI = 1.3 to 21.6) (P = .02) among patients with high technology attitudes scores, after controlling for covariates. However, the 80% submission rate (percentage submitting ≥80% of required surveys) in the ePRO group (30.6%) was statistically significantly lower than in the paper group (57.9%) (P = .05). Conclusions ePRO-E exposure increased ePRO intent. High technology attitudes scores were associated with ePRO selection. Since the ePRO survey submission rate was low, additional strategies are needed to promote high-quality data submission.

Importance Patient withdrawal of consent from a cancer clinical trial is defined as a patient’s volitional cessation of participation in all matters related to a trial. It can undermine the trial’s purpose, make the original sample size and power calculations irrelevant, introduce bias between trial arms, and prolong the time to trial completion. Objective To report rates of and baseline factors associated with withdrawal of consent among patients in cancer clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants This multisite observational cohort study was conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Patient withdrawal was defined as a patient’s voluntary termination of consent to participate anytime during trial conduct. Baseline patient- and trial-based factors were investigated for their associations with patient withdrawal within the first 2 years using logistic regression models. All patients who participated in cancer therapeutic clinical trials conducted within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2013 through 2019 were included. The data lock date was January 23, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures The percentage of patients who withdrew consent in 2 years and factors associated with withdrawal of consent. Results A total of 11 993 patients (median age, 62 years; 67% female) from 58 trials were included. Within 2 years, 1060 patients (9%) withdrew from their respective trials. Two-year rates of withdrawal were 5.7%, 7.6%, 8.5%, 7.8%, 8.4%, 9.5%, and 9.8% for each of the respective years from 2013 through 2019. In multivariable analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.15; P &amp;lt; .001), randomized design with placebo (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.38-1.94; P &amp;lt; .001), and patient age 75 years and older (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.72; P = .003) were associated with higher likelihood of withdrawal by 2 years. Use of radiation was associated with patient retention (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study, rates of withdrawal of consent were less than 10% and appeared consistent over time. Factors that are associated with withdrawal of consent should be considered when designing trials and should be further studied to learn how they can be favorably modified.

6513 Background: Pt recruitment receives well-deserved attention, but pt retention is also important for trial interpretability and generalizability. We report on trends and predictive factors for withdrawal of pt consent, defined as pt cessation from trial participation for reasons not mandated in the protocol. Methods: Alliance phase II/III trials that enrolled pts during 2013 – 2019 were included. All pts had ≥2 years (yrs) of follow-up. Primary outcome was withdrawn consent (yes; no) within 2 yrs of enrollment. Pt factors included year of enrollment, age, race, ethnicity, and gender. Trial factors included randomization, use of placebo, and use of radiation. Univariable (Uni) and full multivariable (MV) logistic regression models (including all factors from Uni setting) with a Bonferroni p-value correction (p <.004 considered significant) were used. Results: Median age was 62 yrs, with 67% female, 82% White, 9% Black or African American, and 7% Hispanic. 52% of trials were phase II, 5% II/III and 43% III. Common (> 10%) trial categories included 22% experimental therapeutics or rare tumors, 12% gastrointestinal, 12% genitourinary, 12% neuro-oncology and 10% symptom intervention. 78% of trials were randomized, 22% placebo-controlled and 14% used radiation. 1060 (9%) pts withdrew consent within 2 yr of enrollment (range,5.7% -9.8%) during 2013-2019. In Uni models, all trial and pt factors significantly predicted pt withdrawal except age, race, and gender (See table). In MV models, pts of Hispanic origin, and >75 yrs were more likely to withdraw. Trials using radiation had less likelihood of pt withdrawal. Placebo-controlled randomized trials had higher likelihood of withdrawal. Conclusions: Both trial and pt factors contribute to higher rates of pt withdrawal from clinical trials. Understanding these factors will enable investigators to focus on pt education and optimization of trial design to improve pt retention and the overall clinical trial plan. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882 [Table: see text]