Molecular Landscape and Actionable Alterations in a Genomically Guided Cancer Clinical Trial: National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH).

PURPOSE: Therapeutically actionable molecular alterations are widely distributed across cancer types. The National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial was designed to evaluate targeted therapy antitumor activity in underexplored cancer types. Tumor biopsy specimens were analyzed centrally with next-generation sequencing (NGS) in a master screening protocol. Patients with a tumor molecular alteration addressed by a targeted treatment lacking established efficacy in that tumor type were assigned to 1 of 30 treatments in parallel, single-arm, phase II subprotocols. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Tumor biopsy specimens from 5,954 patients with refractory malignancies at 1,117 accrual sites were analyzed centrally with NGS and selected immunohistochemistry in a master screening protocol. The treatment-assignment rate to treatment arms was assessed. Molecular alterations in seven tumors profiled in both NCI-MATCH trial and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) of primary tumors were compared. RESULTS: Molecular profiling was successful in 93.0% of specimens. An actionable alteration was found in 37.6%. After applying clinical and molecular exclusion criteria, 17.8% were assigned (26.4% could have been assigned if all subprotocols were available simultaneously). Eleven subprotocols reached their accrual goal as of this report. Actionability rates differed among histologies (eg, > 35% for urothelial cancers and < 6% for pancreatic and small-cell lung cancer). Multiple actionable or resistance-conferring tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% and 71.3% of specimens, respectively. Known resistance mutations to targeted therapies were numerically more frequent in NCI-MATCH than TCGA tumors, but not markedly so. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated feasibility of screening large numbers of patients at numerous accruing sites in a complex trial to test investigational therapies for moderately frequent molecular targets. Co-occurring resistance mutations were common and endorse investigation of combination targeted-therapy regimens.

The Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) Trial: Lessons for Genomic Trial Design.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of tumors of various histologies that may respond to drugs targeted to molecular alterations is unknown. NCI-MATCH, a collaboration between ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group and the National Cancer Institute, was initiated to find efficacy signals by matching patients with refractory malignancies to treatment targeted to potential tumor molecular drivers regardless of cancer histology. METHODS: Trial development required assumptions about molecular target prevalence, accrual rates, treatment eligibility, and enrollment rates as well as consideration of logistical requirements. Central tumor profiling was performed with an investigational next-generation DNA-targeted sequencing assay of alterations in 143 genes, and protein expression of protein expression of phosphatase and tensin homolog, mutL homolog 1, mutS homolog 2, and RB transcriptional corepressor 1. Treatments were allocated with a validated computational platform (MATCHBOX). A preplanned interim analysis evaluated assumptions and feasibility in this novel trial. RESULTS: At interim analysis, accrual was robust, tumor biopsies were safe (<1% severe events), and profiling success was 87.3%. Actionable molecular alteration frequency met expectations, but assignment and enrollment lagged due to histology exclusions and mismatch of resources to demand. To address this lag, we revised estimates of mutation frequencies, increased screening sample size, added treatments, and improved assay throughput and efficiency (93.9% completion and 14-day turnaround). CONCLUSIONS: The experiences in the design and implementation of the NCI-MATCH trial suggest that profiling from fresh tumor biopsies and assigning treatment can be performed efficiently in a large national network trial. The success of such trials necessitates a broad screening approach and many treatment options easily accessible to patients.

Improving Breast Ultrasound Interpretation in Uganda Using a Condensed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether a 2-day educational course using a condensed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (condensed BI-RADS) improved the accuracy of Ugandan healthcare workers interpreting breast ultrasound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The target audience of this intervention was Ugandan healthcare workers involved in performing, interpreting, or acting on the results of breast ultrasound. The educational course consisted of a pretest knowledge assessment, a series of lectures on breast imaging interpretation and standardized reporting using a condensed BI-RADS, and a posttest knowledge assessment. Participants interpreted 53 different ultrasound test cases by selecting the finding type, descriptors for masses, and recommendations. We compared the percent correct on the pretest and posttest based on occupation and training level. RESULTS: Sixty-one Ugandan healthcare workers participated in this study, including 13 radiologists, 13 other physicians, 12 technologists, and 23 midlevel providers. Most groups improved in identifying the finding type (P < 0.05). All occupations showed improved use of descriptive terms for the shape and internal echogenicity of masses (P < 0.05). Most groups showed significant improvement in recommendations for normal and benign findings with a corresponding reduction in biopsy recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted breast ultrasound education using a condensed BI-RADS improved the interpretive performance of healthcare workers and was particularly successful in reducing the frequency of unnecessary biopsies for normal and benign findings. Multimodal educational efforts to improve accuracy and management of breast ultrasound findings may augment breast cancer early detection efforts in resource-limited settings.

The National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: summary and recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS: Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Q&A: Robert Comis and Mitchell Schnall on trials. Interview by Eric Bender.

The co-chairs of ECOG-ACRIN talk about combining forces to advance clinical studies.

Outcomes of a cancer clinical trial matching service.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) and Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups (CCCG) provide a clinical trial (CT) information/matching/eligibility service (Clinical Trials Matching Service [CTMS]). Patients' demographic and clinical data, enrollment status, and self-reported barriers to CT participation were analyzed to assess enrollment rates and determinants of enrollment. During 3 years beginning October 1, 2007, the CTMS served 6,903 patients via the ACS call center. Among the 1,987 patients with follow-up information on enrollment, 219 (11.0%) enrolled in a CT; 48 of these 219 enrollees chose a CT they found via the CTMS. Patients were less likely to enroll if they had poor ECOG performance status (P = 0.032); were African American (P = 0.0003), were uninsured or had Medicaid coverage (P = 0.024), or had lower stage disease (P = 0.018). Enrollment varied by trial type/cancer site/system (P = .026). Several barriers significantly predicted nonenrollment. Broader availability of a CTMS might help improve patient participation in cancer clinical trials.

Measuring cancer clinical trial understanding.

Researchers, practitioners, and participants in cancer clinical trials must have a clear understanding of clinical trials if participation in them is to be solicited ethically and effectively. A valid and reliable measure of cancer clinical trial understanding did not exist prior to a 2005 study conducted for the Coalition of Cooperative Cancer Groups. This report outlines a measure derived from that study, discusses the rationale for its component items, examines its psychometric properties, and demonstrates the relationship of this measure to the enrollment decision. Data from national samples of cancer survivors and the general public demonstrate the measure's validity and reliability. Results are discussed as they relate to patient understanding of clinical trials, informed decision making, and health communication processes.

A retrospective analysis of outcomes by age in a three-arm phase III trial of gemcitabine in combination with carboplatin or paclitaxel vs. paclitaxel plus carboplatin for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Sufficient data are currently unavailable to assist in defining suitable regimens for patients ≥ 70 years with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomized to gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1; the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200mg/m(2) on day 1; or paclitaxel 225mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were every 21 days up to 6. Efficacy and toxicity results were compared by age groups. RESULTS: Overall survival (OS) between patients <70 years (8.6 months, 95% CI: 7.9, 9.5) and ≥ 70 years (7.9 months, 95% CI: 7.1, 9.5) was similar. OS was 8.8 months (95% CI: 7.5, 10.3) among patients 70-74 years, 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6, 9.3) among patients 75-79 years, and 7.9 months (95% CI: 6.3, 10.3) among patients ≥ 80 years. OS was lower among patients 75-79 years compared with patients 70-74 years (P=0.04). Compared with patients <70 years, patients ≥ 70 years experienced similar rates of myelosuppresion, but younger patients experienced more vomiting and nausea. There was no clear pattern with respect to differences in efficacy by treatments across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the similarity of patient outcomes across age groups, doublet chemotherapy is feasible among carefully selected elderly patients with good PS.

A Comparison of white and African American outcomes from a three-arm, randomized, phase III multicenter trial of advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of race on the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy doublet regimens in African American patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemonaïve patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1; arm B: the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 on day 1; or arm C: paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 on day 1 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6. A site selection tool identified institutions with potential to recruit a minority population. Outcome and toxicity data of white and African American patients were compared. RESULTS: Of 1135 total patients, 972 were white (85.6%) and 138 were African American (12.2%). Median survival was 8.3 months for white patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-9.3) and 9.1 months for African American patients (95% CI: 8.2-11.1). Response rates were 29.1 and 29.0%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 or 4 toxicities were comparable. Among African Americans, median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.1-10.1) for gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 47), 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.1-15.4) for gemcitabine-paclitaxel (n = 42), and 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.5-13.2) for paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 49). CONCLUSION: Whites and African Americans had similar outcomes, although there was some variability in survival among African Americans across the three treatment groups.

Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups Scientific Leadership Council: systemic therapy and therapeutic individualization.

Over 9,000 women with breast cancer are enrolled annually on clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), accounting for about one-third of all patients enrolled on NCI-sponsored trials. Thousands are also enrolled on pharmaceutical-sponsored studies. Although breast cancer mortality rates have recently declined for the first time in part due to systemic therapeutic advances, coordinated efforts will be necessary to maintain this trend. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened the Scientific Leadership Council in breast cancer (BC), an expert panel, to identify priorities for future research and current trials with greatest practice-changing potential. Panelists formed a consensus on research priorities for chemoprevention, development and application of molecular markers for predicting therapeutic benefit and toxicity, intermediate markers predictive of therapeutic effect, pathogenesis-based therapeutic approaches, utilization of adaptive designs requiring fewer patients to achieve objectives, special and minority populations, and effects of BC and treatment on patients and families. Panelists identified 13 ongoing studies as High Priority and identified gaps in the current trial portfolio. We propose priorities for current and future clinical breast cancer research evaluating systemic therapies that may serve to improve the efficiency of clinical trials, identify individuals most likely to derive therapeutic benefit, and prioritize therapeutic strategies.

Recommendations for research priorities in breast cancer by the coalition of cancer cooperative groups scientific leadership council: imaging and local therapy.

Imaging and local therapy are important modalities for detection and management of localized breast cancer. Improvements in screening and local therapy have contributed to reduced breast cancer-associated morbidity and mortality. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups (CCCG) convened the Scientific Leadership Council (SLC) in breast cancer, an expert panel, to identify priorities for future research and current trials with greatest practice-changing potential. Panelists formed a consensus on research priorities for breast imaging and locoregional therapy, and also identified six trials judged to be of high priority. Current high priority trials included trials determining: (1) the role of accelerated partial breast versus whole-breast radiation (B39), (2) the feasibility, safety, and local and systemic control of small localized breast cancers treated with tumor ablation (Z1072), (3) the role of removal of the primary cancer in selected patients with metastatic disease (E2108), and (4) the clinical and biological effects of pre-operative anti-HER2-directed and ER-directed therapies in localized or locally advanced breast cancer (B41, Z1031, Z1041). Ongoing and future trials will further refine optimal locoregional management, and additional research is required to develop improved screening methods and identify high risk populations most likely to benefit from targeted screening.

Independent review of E2100: a phase III trial of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE: E2100, an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel alone as initial chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: An independent, blinded review of radiologic and clinical data was performed, assessing progression and response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. In addition, ECOG's investigator assessments were reanalyzed using the same methods applied to the independent review. The primary end point was PFS as assessed by an independent review facility (IRF). RESULTS: The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS using both the IRF and investigator assessments. Hazard ratios for PFS (0.48, 95% CI, 0.385 to 0.607; P < .0001 for the IRF v 0.42, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.52; P < .0001 for ECOG investigators) and the improvement in median PFS (11.3 v 5.8 months for the IRF v 11.4 v 5.8 months for ECOG investigators) were similar. Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, the IRF-assessed ORR was significantly higher in patients treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab (48.9% v 22.2%; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The risk of progression was reduced by more than half and the ORR more than doubled with the addition of bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel in both analyses, confirming a substantial and robust bevacizumab treatment effect. The consistency between the IRF and ECOG analyses validates the original data previously reported by ECOG in this open-label trial.

Physician-related factors involved in patient decisions to enroll onto cancer clinical trials.

The development of new cancer therapies requires additional, and more complex, clinical trials. But only approximately 3% to 5% of adult cancer patients participate in cancer clinical trials. This study seeks to identify and understand the attitudes of the public and cancer survivors toward health-related decisions and cancer clinical trials to identify the key factors that must be addressed to increase that percentage.

The role of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group in establishing standards of cancer care: over 50 years of progress through clinical research.

Since its start as the Eastern Cooperative Cancer Chemotherapy Group in 1955, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) has been at the vanguard of adult cancer clinical research in the United States, and for more than 50 years its research findings have influenced cancer care worldwide. While the cancer clinical research milieu has changed considerably since its inception, the ECOG, through sound leadership and a committed membership, has maintained its pioneering roles in scientific discovery and defining standards of cancer care for all adult cancers.

Addressing the current challenges of non-small-cell lung cancer clinical trial accrual.

Conducting research in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is challenging, primarily because of low patient accrual rates resulting from patient-, physician-, protocol-, and healthcare system-related barriers. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a 1-day program entitled Addressing the Current Challenges of NSCLC Clinical Trial Accrual to develop specific strategies for enhancing accrual into NSCLC clinical trials and to increase and sustain the level of discussion with and among cooperative group and community-based researchers. Some of the important areas that were highlighted at the meeting included predictors of successful and unsuccessful trial accrual based on 6 NSCLC trials, of which 4 were considered high-priority NSCLC trials; issues surrounding the process of clinical trial activation; and the role of patient advocates in enhancing trial accrual. Efforts by multidisciplinary teams comprising clinical and laboratory researchers, patient advocates, governmental agencies, and private industries are needed to improve NSCLC trial activation and accrual, with a focus on commitment to ongoing communication among all constituents, measures to improve the activation process, and increased study awareness at the community oncology and patient levels.

Development of clinical trials in a cooperative group setting: the eastern cooperative oncology group.

PURPOSE: We examine the processes and document the calendar time required to activate phase II and III clinical trials by an oncology group: the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). METHODS: Setup steps were documented by (a) interviewing ECOG headquarters and statistical center staff, and committee chairs, (b) reviewing standard operating procedure manuals, and (c) inspecting study records, documents, and e-mails to identify additional steps. Calendar time was collected for each major process for each study in this set. RESULTS: Twenty-eight phase III studies were activated by ECOG during the January 2000 to July 2006 study period. We examined a sample from 16 of those studies in detail. More than 481 distinct processes were required for study activation: 420 working steps, 61 major decision points, 26 processing loops, and 13 stopping points. Median calendar days to activate a trial in the phase III subset was 783 days (range, 285-1,542 days) from executive approval and 808 days (range, 435-1,604 days) from initial conception of the study. Data were collected for all phase II and phase III trials activated and completed during this time period (n = 52) for which development time represented 43.9% and 54.1% of the total trial time, respectively. CONCLUSION: The steps required to develop and activate a clinical trial may require as much or more time than the actual completion of a trial. The data shows that to improve the activation process, research should to be directed toward streamlining both internal and external groups and processes.

Priorities in colorectal cancer research: recommendations from the Gastrointestinal Scientific Leadership Council of the Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups.

Emerging technologies have greatly expanded our ability to detect, characterize, and treat colorectal cancer. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a multidisciplinary panel, the Scientific Leadership Council in GI cancer, to discuss and advise on the priorities and opportunities to advance current and future approaches into the clinical arena to impact most rapidly the morbidity and mortality from this disease. The Council's recommendations for research priorities are the result of engagement of community and academic oncologists, patient advocacy groups, and other stakeholders including the pharmaceutical industry and governmental agencies. We detail some key prospects for investigation in the areas of colon cancer detection, prevention, and surgical and medical management. Many are in early or definitive clinical trials, and a focus on rapid accrual is urged. The implementation of biology-directed laboratory investigations, both in association with ongoing clinical trials and as a separate developmental strategy for targeted therapies, is supported as the route to individualized therapy.