Spectrum of National Institutes of Health-Funded Research in Cardio-Oncology: A Basic, Clinical, and Observational Science Perspective.

Advances in cancer treatments have led to nearly 17 million survivors in the US today. Cardiovascular complications attributed to cancer treatments are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors. In response, NCI and NHLBI held 2 workshops and issued funding opportunities to strengthen research on cardiotoxicity. A representative portfolio of NIH grants categorizing basic, interventional, and observational projects is presented. Compared with anthracyclines, research on radiation therapy and newer treatments is underrepresented. Multidisciplinary collaborative research that considers the cardiotoxicity stage and optimizes the balance between cardiovascular risk and cancer-treatment benefit might support continued improvements in cancer outcomes.

Fluoropyrimidine Cardiotoxicity: Time for a Contemporaneous Appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: Fluoropyrimidines (FPDs) are a fundamental component of many chemotherapy regimens. Cardiotoxic adverse events (AEs) such as angina, ischemia, arrhythmias, and cardiomyopathy associated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and capecitabine (CAPE) have been sparingly described in studies, primarily through case reports. Data from the 1990s revealed an estimated incidence of 0.5% to 19%, with cardiovascular fatalities occurring in ≤28%. The current use of FPDs includes multiple dosing regimens, oral or intravenous delivery, and administration with additional cardiotoxic therapies. As such, it is imperative to better define the cardiotoxicity risk in the modern treatment era. We comprehensively evaluated the incidence, prevalence, and ascertainment of cardiovascular risk factors and disease within ECOG-ACRIN (Eastern Cooperative Group Cancer Research Group - American College of Radiology Imaging Network) Cancer Research Group clinical trials incorporating 5-FU and CAPE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case report forms and clinical study reports from the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group database of phase II and III clinical trials incorporating 5-FU and CAPE were evaluated. A total of 16 trials from 2002 to 2017 were identified that had used bolus 5-FU (n = 1), continuous infusion 5-FU (n = 10) or CAPE (n = 5). RESULTS: A history of cardiovascular disease was variably defined and was an exclusion criterion in 13 of the 16 studies (81%). The baseline risk factors and history of cardiac disease were specifically collected in only 3 studies (19%). All studies collected cardiovascular AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version available at the time of the study. Fewer than half (7 of 16; 44%) of the study case report forms had also specifically requested information on cardiac ischemia/infarction. In the 12 completed studies with clinical study reports, the following AEs were reported: dyspnea, ≤16%; arrhythmias, ≤6%; and angina, ischemia, and elevated troponin, ≤5%. Some trials only recorded cardiac AEs that were possibly associated with the novel drug being studied and not those attributed to the standard of care in the 5-FU/CAPE arm, further decreasing the numerical incidence. CONCLUSION: Inconsistent clinical trial reporting of cardiac AEs precluded accurate and precise delineation of the epidemiology of FPD-related cardiovascular AEs. Prospective knowledge of the definition and natural history will lead to the development of risk factor stratification and prechemotherapy interventions to reduce or prevent cardiotoxicity. We propose that the prospective collection of baseline cardiac data and prespecified cardiac endpoints are necessary to fully understand the incidence and cardiac risk of FDPs.

Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix Tool to Improve the Quality of Research Conduct in the Community.

PURPOSE: Several publications have described minimum standards and exemplary attributes for clinical trial sites to improve research quality. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the clinical trial Best Practice Matrix tool to facilitate research program improvements through annual self-assessments and benchmarking. The tool identified nine attributes, each with three progressive levels, to score clinical trial infrastructural elements from less to more exemplary. The NCCCP sites correlated tool use with research program improvements, and the NCI pursued a formative evaluation to refine the interpretability and measurability of the tool. METHODS: From 2011 to 2013, 21 NCCCP sites self-assessed their programs with the tool annually. During 2013 to 2014, NCI collaborators conducted a five-step formative evaluation of the matrix tool. RESULTS: Sites reported significant increases in level-three scores across the original nine attributes combined (P<.001). Two specific attributes exhibited significant change: clinical trial portfolio diversity and management (P=.0228) and clinical trial communication (P=.0281). The formative evaluation led to revisions, including renaming the Best Practice Matrix as the Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix (CT AIM), expanding infrastructural attributes from nine to 11, clarifying metrics, and developing a new scoring tool. CONCLUSION: Broad community input, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing improved the usability and functionality of the tool. Research programs are encouraged to use the CT AIM to assess and improve site infrastructure. Experience within the NCCCP suggests that the CT AIM is useful for improving quality, benchmarking research performance, reporting progress, and communicating program needs with institutional leaders. The tool model may also be useful in disciplines beyond oncology.

Creating a "culture of research" in a community hospital: Strategies and tools from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program.

BACKGROUND: The value of community-based cancer research has long been recognized. In addition to the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical and Minority-Based Oncology Programs established in 1983, and 1991 respectively, the National Cancer Institute established the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program in 2007 with an aim of enhancing access to high-quality cancer care and clinical research in the community setting where most cancer patients receive their treatment. This article discusses strategies utilized by the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program to build research capacity and create a more entrenched culture of research at the community hospitals participating in the program over a 7-year period. METHODS: To facilitate development of a research culture at the community hospitals, the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program required leadership or chief executive officer engagement; utilized a collaborative learning structure where best practices, successes, and challenges could be shared; promoted site-to-site mentoring to foster faster learning within and between sites; required research program assessments that spanned clinical trial portfolio, accrual barriers, and outreach; increased identification and use of metrics; and, finally, encouraged research team engagement across hospital departments (navigation, multidisciplinary care, pathology, and disparities) to replace the traditionally siloed approach to clinical trials. LIMITATIONS: The health-care environment is rapidly changing while complexity in research increases. Successful research efforts are impacted by numerous factors (e.g. institutional review board reviews, physician interest, and trial availability). The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program sites, as program participants, had access to the required resources and support to develop and implement the strategies described. Metrics are an important component yet often challenging to identify and collect. The model requires a strong emphasis on outreach that challenges hospitals to improve and expand their reach, particularly into underrepresented populations and catchment areas. These efforts build on trust and a referral pipeline within the community which take time and significant commitment to establish. CONCLUSION: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program experience provides a relevant model to broadly address creating a culture of research in community hospitals that are increasingly networked via systems and consortiums. The strategies used align well with the National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Accrual Symposium recommendations for patient-/community-, physician-/provider-, and site-/organizational-level approaches to clinical trials; they helped sites achieve organizational culture shifts that enhanced their cancer research programs. The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program hospitals reported that the strategies were challenging to implement yet proved valuable as they provided useful metrics for programmatic assessment, planning, reporting, and growth. While focused on oncology trials, these concepts may be useful within other disease-focused research as well.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program screening and accrual log to address cancer clinical trial accrual.

PURPOSE: Screening logs have the potential to help oncology clinical trial programs at the site level, as well as trial leaders, address enrollment in real time. Such an approach could be especially helpful in improving representation of racial/ethnic minority and other underrepresented populations in clinical trials. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed a screening log. Log data collected from March 2009 through May 2012 were analyzed for number of patients screened versus enrolled, including for demographic subgroups; screening methods; and enrollment barriers, including reasons for ineligibility and provider and patient reasons for declining to offer or participate in a trial. User feedback was obtained to better understand perceptions of log utility. RESULTS: Of 4,483 patients screened, 18.4% enrolled onto NCCCP log trials. Reasons for nonenrollment were ineligibility (51.6%), patient declined (25.8%), physician declined (15.6%), urgent need for treatment (6.6%), and trial suspension (0.4%). Major reasons for patients declining were no desire to participate in trials (43.2%) and preference for standard of care (39%). Major reasons for physicians declining to offer trials were preference for standard of care (53%) and concerns about tolerability (29.3%). Enrollment rates onto log trials did not differ between white and black (P = .15) or between Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients (P = .73). Other races had lower enrollment rates than whites and blacks. Sites valued the ready access to log data on enrollment barriers, with some sites changing practices to address those barriers. CONCLUSION: Use of screening logs to document enrollment barriers at the local level can facilitate development of strategies to enhance clinical trial accrual.

Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program.

BACKGROUND: This study examined racial/ethnic differences among patients in clinical trial (CT) enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and desire to participate in research within the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) Clinical Trial Screening and Accrual Log. METHODS: Data from 4509 log entries were evaluated in this study. Four logistic regression models were run using physical/medical conditions, enrollment into a CT, patient eligible but declined a CT, and no desire to participate in research as dependent variables. RESULTS: Age ≥ 65 years (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.28-1.79), males (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.92-2.71), and non-Hispanic black race (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.2-1.96) were significantly associated with more physical/medical conditions. Age ≥ 65 years was significantly associated with lower CT enrollment (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.7-0.98). Males (OR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.65-0.94) and a higher grade level score for consent form readability (OR = 0.9, 95% CI = 0.83-0.97) were significantly associated with lower refusal rates. Consent page length ≥ 20 was significantly associated with lower odds of "no desire to participate in research" among CT decliners (OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.58-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: There were no racial/ethnic differences in CT enrollment, refusal rates, or "no desire to participate in research" as the reason given for CT refusal. Higher odds of physical/medical conditions were associated with older age, males, and non-Hispanic blacks. Better management of physical/medical conditions before and during treatment may increase the pool of eligible patients for CTs. Future work should examine the role of comorbidities, sex, age, and consent form characteristics on CT participation.

Early-phase clinical trials in the community: results from the national cancer institute community cancer centers program early-phase working group baseline assessment.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) formed an Early-Phase Working Group to facilitate site participation in early-phase (EP) trials. The Working Group conducted a baseline assessment (BA) to describe the sites' EP trial infrastructure and its association with accrual. METHODS: EP accrual and infrastructure data for the sites were obtained for July 2010-June 2011 and 2010, respectively. Sites with EP accrual rates at or above the median were considered high-accruing sites. Analyses were performed to identify site characteristics associated with higher accrual onto EP trials. RESULTS: Twenty-seven of the 30 NCCCP sites participated. The median number of EP trials open per site over the course of July 2010-June 2011 was 19. Median EP accrual per site was 14 patients in 1 year. Approximately half of the EP trials were Cooperative Group; most were phase II. Except for having a higher number of EP trials open (P = .04), high-accruing sites (n = 14) did not differ significantly from low-accruing sites (n = 13) in terms of any single site characteristic. High-accruing sites did have shorter institutional review board (IRB) turnaround time by 20 days, and were almost three times as likely to be a lead Community Clinical Oncology Program site (small sample size may have prevented statistical significance). Most sites had at least basic EP trial infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Community cancer centers are capable of conducting EP trials. Infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success. This assessment provides useful information for implementing EP trials in the community.