Lost in the plot: missing visual elements in Kaplan-Meier plots of phase III oncology trials.

Missing visual elements (MVE) in Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves can misrepresent data, preclude curve reconstruction, and hamper transparency. This study evaluated KM plots of phase III oncology trials. MVE were defined as an incomplete y-axis range or missing number at risk table in a KM curve. Surrogate endpoint KM curves were additionally evaluated for complete interpretability, defined by (1) reporting the number of censored patients and (2) correspondence of the disease assessment interval with the number at risk interval. Among 641 trials enrolling 518 235 patients, 116 trials (18%) had MVE in KM curves. Industry sponsorship, larger trials, and more recently published trials were correlated with lower odds of MVE. Only 3% of trials (15 of 574) published surrogate endpoint KM plots with complete interpretability. Improvements in the quality of KM curves of phase III oncology trials, particularly for surrogate endpoints, are needed for greater interpretability, reproducibility, and transparency in oncology research.

Single-fraction radiation retreatment for bone metastases: role of a rapid access clinic.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigates retreatment rates in single-fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) for painful bone metastasis in patients with limited life expectancy. We compared retreatment-free survival (RFS) in patients from a rapid access bone metastases clinic (RABC) and non-RABC patients, identifying factors associated with retreatment. METHODS: In this observational study, we analysed RABC patients who received SFRT between April 2018 and November 2019, using non-RABC SFRT patients as a comparison group. Patients with prior or perioperative radiation therapy (RT) were excluded. The primary endpoint was same-site and any-site retreatment with RT or surgery. Patient characteristics were compared using χ2 and Student's t-tests, with RFS estimates based on a multistate model considering death as a competing risk using Aalen-Johansen estimates. RESULTS: We identified 151 patients (79 RABC, 72 non-RABC) with 225 treatments (102 RABC, 123 non-RABC) meeting eligibility criteria. Of the 22 (10.8%) same-site retreatments, 5 (22.7%) received surgery, 14 (63.6%) received RT and 3 (13.6%) received both RT and surgery. We found no significant differences in any-site RFS (p=0.97) or same-site RFS (p=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: RFS is high and similar comparable in the RABC and non-RABC cohorts. Retreatment rates are low, even in patients with low Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores.

Patient-Level Savings on Generic Drugs Through the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company.

This economic evaluation estimates the out-of-pocket cost savings patients could achieve if generic drugs were purchased directly from the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company rather than using their health insurance.

Escalated-dose radiotherapy for unresected locally advanced pancreatic cancer: Patterns of care and survival in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: With locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), uncontrolled local tumor growth frequently leads to mortality. Advancements in radiotherapy (RT) techniques have enabled conformal delivery of escalated-dose RT (EDR), which may have potential local control and overall survival (OS) benefits based on retrospective and early prospective studies. With evidence for EDR emerging, we characterized the adoption of EDR across the United States and its associated outcomes. METHODS: We searched the National Cancer Database for nonsurgically managed LAPC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2019. Pancreas-directed RT with biologically effective doses (BED10) ≥39 and ≤70 Gy was labeled conventional-dose RT (CDR), and BED10 >70 and ≤132 Gy was labeled EDR. We identified associations of EDR and OS using logistic and Cox regressions, respectively. RESULTS: Among the definitive therapy subset (n = 54,115) of the entire study cohort (n = 91,493), the most common treatments were chemotherapy alone (69%), chemotherapy and radiation (29%), and RT alone (2%). For the radiation therapy subset (n = 16,978), use of pancreas-directed RT remained between 13% and 17% over the study period (ptrend > 0.999). Using multivariable logistic regression, treatment at an academic/research facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.46, p < 0.001) and treatment between 2016 and 2019 (aOR 2.54, p < 0.001) were associated with greater receipt of EDR, whereas use of chemotherapy (aOR 0.60, p < 0.001) was associated with less receipt. Median OS estimates for EDR and CDR were 14.5 months and 13.0 months (p < 0.0001), respectively. For radiation therapy subset patients with available survival data (n = 13,579), multivariable Cox regression correlated EDR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.91; p < 0.001) with longer OS versus CDR. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of EDR has increased since 2016, but overall utilization of RT for LAPC has remained at less than one in five patients for almost two decades. These real-world results additionally provide an estimate of effect size of EDR for future prospective trials.

Differential Treatment Effects of Subgroup Analyses in Phase 3 Oncology Trials From 2004 to 2020.

Importance: Subgroup analyses are often performed in oncology to investigate differential treatment effects and may even constitute the basis for regulatory approvals. Current understanding of the features, results, and quality of subgroup analyses is limited. Objective: To evaluate forest plot interpretability and credibility of differential treatment effect claims among oncology trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included randomized phase 3 clinical oncology trials published prior to 2021. Trials were screened from ClinicalTrials.gov. Main Outcomes and Measures: Missing visual elements in forest plots were defined as a missing point estimate or use of a linear x-axis scale for hazard and odds ratios. Multiplicity of testing control was recorded. Differential treatment effect claims were rated using the Instrument for Assessing the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses. Linear and logistic regressions evaluated associations with outcomes. Results: Among 785 trials, 379 studies (48%) enrolling 331 653 patients reported a subgroup analysis. The forest plots of 43% of trials (156 of 363) were missing visual elements impeding interpretability. While 4148 subgroup effects were evaluated, only 1 trial (0.3%) controlled for multiple testing. On average, trials that did not meet the primary end point conducted 2 more subgroup effect tests compared with trials meeting the primary end point (95% CI, 0.59-3.43 tests; P = .006). A total of 101 differential treatment effects were claimed across 15% of trials (55 of 379). Interaction testing was missing in 53% of trials (29 of 55) claiming differential treatment effects. Trials not meeting the primary end point were associated with greater odds of no interaction testing (odds ratio, 4.47; 95% CI, 1.42-15.55, P = .01). The credibility of differential treatment effect claims was rated as low or very low in 93% of cases (94 of 101). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of phase 3 oncology trials, nearly half of trials presented a subgroup analysis in their primary publication. However, forest plots of these subgroup analyses largely lacked essential features for interpretation, and most differential treatment effect claims were not supported. Oncology subgroup analyses should be interpreted with caution, and improvements to the quality of subgroup analyses are needed.

Association of differential censoring with survival and suboptimal control arms among oncology clinical trials.

Differential censoring, which refers to censoring imbalance between treatment arms, may bias the interpretation of survival outcomes in clinical trials. In 146 phase III oncology trials with statistically significant time-to-event surrogate primary endpoints, we evaluated the association between differential censoring in the surrogate primary endpoints, control arm adequacy, and the subsequent statistical significance of overall survival results. Twenty-four (16%) trials exhibited differential censoring that favored the control arm, whereas 15 (10%) exhibited differential censoring that favored the experimental arm. Positive overall survival was more common in control arm differential censoring trials (63%) than in trials without differential censoring (37%) or with experimental arm differential censoring (47%; odds ratio = 2.64, 95% confidence interval = 1.10 to 7.20; P = .04). Control arm differential censoring trials more frequently used suboptimal control arms at 46% compared with 20% without differential censoring and 13% with experimental arm differential censoring (odds ratio = 3.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.29 to 10.0; P = .007). The presence of control arm differential censoring in trials with surrogate primary endpoints, especially in those with overall survival conversion, may indicate an inadequate control arm and should be examined and explained.

Implementation and Efficacy of a Large-Scale Radiation Oncology Case-Based Peer-Review Quality Program across a Multinational Cancer Network.

PURPOSE: With expansion of academic cancer center networks across geographically-dispersed sites, ensuring high-quality delivery of care across all network affiliates is essential. We report on the characteristics and efficacy of a radiation oncology peer-review quality assurance (QA) system implemented across a large-scale multinational cancer network. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Since 2014, weekly case-based peer-review QA meetings have been standard for network radiation oncologists with radiation oncology faculty at a major academic center. This radiotherapy (RT) QA program involves pre-treatment peer-review of cases by disease site, with disease-site subspecialized main campus faculty members. This virtual QA platform involves direct review of the proposed RT plan as well as supporting data, including relevant pathology and imaging studies for each patient. Network RT plans were scored as being concordant or nonconcordant based on national guidelines, institutional recommendations, and/or expert judgment when considering individual patient-specific factors for a given case. Data from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2019, were aggregated for analysis. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2019, across 8 network centers, a total of 16,601 RT plans underwent peer-review. The network-based peer-review case volume increased over the study period, from 958 cases in 2014 to 4,487 in 2019. A combined global nonconcordance rate of 4.5% was noted, with the highest nonconcordance rates among head-and-neck cases (11.0%). For centers that joined the network during the study period, we observed a significant decrease in the nonconcordance rate over time (3.1% average annual decrease in nonconcordance, P = 0.01); among centers that joined the network prior to the study period, nonconcordance rates remained stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Through a standardized QA platform, network-based multinational peer-review of RT plans can be achieved. Improved concordance rates among newly added network affiliates over time are noted, suggesting a positive impact of network membership on the quality of delivered cancer care.

Prevalence and implications of significance testing for baseline covariate imbalance in randomised cancer clinical trials: The Table 1 Fallacy.

BACKGROUND: The 'Table 1 Fallacy' refers to the unsound use of significance testing for comparing the distributions of baseline variables between randomised groups to draw erroneous conclusions about balance or imbalance. We performed a cross-sectional study of the Table 1 Fallacy in phase III oncology trials. METHODS: From ClinicalTrials.gov, 1877 randomised trials were screened. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated predictors of the Table 1 Fallacy. RESULTS: A total of 765 randomised controlled trials involving 553,405 patients were analysed. The Table 1 Fallacy was observed in 25% of trials (188 of 765), with 3% of comparisons deemed significant (59 of 2353), approximating the typical 5% type I error assertion probability. Application of trial-level multiplicity corrections reduced the rate of significant findings to 0.3% (six of 2345 tests). Factors associated with lower odds of the Table 1 Fallacy included industry sponsorship (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.47; multiplicity-corrected P < 0.0001), larger trial size (≥795 versus <280 patients; aOR 0.32, 95% CI 0.19-0.53; multiplicity-corrected P = 0.0008), and publication in a European versus American journal (aOR 0.06, 95% CI 0.03-0.13; multiplicity-corrected P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the persistence of the Table 1 Fallacy in contemporary oncology randomised controlled trials, with one of every four trials testing for baseline differences after randomisation. Significance testing is a suboptimal method for identifying unsound randomisation procedures and may encourage misleading inferences. Journal-level enforcement is a possible strategy to help mitigate this fallacy.

Selection and Prejudice: Addressing Clinical Trial Disparities With a Review of Current Shortcomings and Future Directions.

Growing evidence has demonstrated significant, persistent, and widespread disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment across myriad disease sites and target populations. Although mechanisms underlying such disparities are complex and multifactorial, clinical trial eligibility criteria may serve as a key structural barrier to equitable and diverse trial enrollment. In this review, we provide an overview of the data describing historical and current disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment and subsequently describe several patient-, institution-, and trial-related factors which appear to be key drivers of enrollment inequity, with specific discussion regarding the impact of eligibility criteria. We further describe the landscape of ongoing professional efforts aimed at eliminating clinical trial disparities through various medical, professional, and advocacy groups. The review concludes with a practical discussion of how modernization of eligibility criteria in clinical trials may decrease or eliminate trial disparities, including specific actionable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of future eligibility criteria.

Prevalence, trends, and characteristics of trials investigating local therapy in contemporary phase 3 clinical cancer research.

BACKGROUND: Although most patients with cancer are treated with local therapy (LT), the proportion of late-phase clinical trials investigating local therapeutic interventions is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion, characteristics, and trends of phase 3 cancer clinical trials assessing the therapeutic value of LT over time. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of interventional randomized controlled trials in oncology published from 2002 through 2020 and registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trends and characteristics of LT trials were compared to all other trials. RESULTS: Of 1877 trials screened, 794 trials enrolling 584,347 patients met inclusion criteria. A total of 27 trials (3%) included a primary randomization assessing LT compared with 767 trials (97%) investigating systemic therapy or supportive care. Annual increase in the number of LT trials (slope [m] = 0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15-0.39; p < .001) was outpaced by the increase of trials testing systemic therapy or supportive care (m = 7.57; 95% CI, 6.03-9.11; p < .001). LT trials were more often sponsored by cooperative groups (22 of 27 [81%] vs. 211 of 767 [28%]; p < .001) and less often sponsored by industry (5 of 27 [19%] vs. 609 of 767 [79%]; p < .001). LT trials were more likely to use overall survival as primary end point compared to other trials (13 of 27 [48%] vs. 199 of 767 [26%]; p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary late-phase oncology research, LT trials are increasingly under-represented, under-funded, and evaluate more challenging end points compared to other modalities. These findings strongly argue for greater resource allocation and funding mechanisms for LT clinical trials. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Most people who have cancer receive treatments directed at the site of their cancer, such as surgery or radiation. We do not know, however, how many trials test surgery or radiation compared to drug treatments (that go all over the body). We reviewed trials testing the most researched strategies (phase 3) completed between 2002 and 2020. Only 27 trials tested local treatments like surgery or radiation compared to 767 trials testing other treatments. Our study has important implications for funding research and understanding cancer research priorities.

Incidence of Primary End Point Changes Among Active Cancer Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Primary end point (PEP) changes to an active clinical trial raise questions regarding trial quality and the risk of outcome reporting bias. It is unknown how the frequency and transparency of the reported changes depend on reporting method and whether the PEP changes are associated with trial positivity (ie, the trial met the prespecified statistical threshold for PEP positivity). Objectives: To assess the frequency of reported PEP changes in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and whether these changes are associated with trial positivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data for complete oncology phase 3 RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through February 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was change between the initial PEP and the final reported PEP, assessed using 3 methods: (1) history of tracked changes on ClinicalTrials.gov, (2) self-reported changes noted in the article, and (3) changes reported within the protocol, including all available protocol documents. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether PEP changes were associated with US Food and Drug Administration approval or trial positivity. Results: Of 755 included trials, 145 (19.2%) had PEP changes found by at least 1 of the 3 detection methods. Of the 145 trials with PEP changes, 102 (70.3%) did not have PEP changes disclosed within the manuscript. There was significant variability in rates of PEP detection by each method (χ2 = 72.1; P < .001). Across all methods, PEP changes were detected at higher rates when multiple versions of the protocol (47 of 148 [31.8%]) were available compared with 1 version (22 of 134 [16.4%]) or no protocol (76 of 473 [16.1%]) (χ2 = 18.7; P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that PEP changes were associated with trial positivity (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.25-2.82; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study revealed substantial rates of PEP changes among active RCTs; PEP changes were markedly underreported in published articles and mostly occurred after reported study completion dates. Significant discrepancies in the rate of detected PEP changes call into question the role of increased protocol transparency and completeness in identifying key changes occurring in active trials.

HPV-related anal cancer is associated with changes in the anorectal microbiome during cancer development.

Background: Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare gastrointestinal cancer. Factors associated with progression of HPV infection to anal dysplasia and cancer are unclear and screening guidelines and approaches for anal dysplasia are less clear than for cervical dysplasia. One potential contributing factor is the anorectal microbiome. In this study, we aimed to identify differences in anal microbiome composition in the settings of HPV infection, anal dysplasia, and anal cancer in this rare disease. Methods: Patients were enrolled in two prospective studies. Patients with anal dysplasia were part of a cross-sectional cohort that enrolled women with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia. Anorectal tumor swabs were prospectively collected from patients with biopsy-confirmed locally advanced SCCA prior to receiving standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia without anal dysplasia were considered high-risk (HR Normal). 16S V4 rRNA Microbiome sequencing was performed for anal swabs. Alpha and Beta Diversity and composition were compared for HR Normal, anal dysplasia, and anal cancer. Results: 60 patients with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia were initially enrolled. Seven patients had concurrent anal dysplasia and 44 patients were considered HR Normal. Anorectal swabs from 21 patients with localized SCCA were included, sequenced, and analyzed in the study. Analysis of weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances demonstrated significant differences in microbial community composition between anal cancer and HR normal (p=0.018). LEfSe identified that all three groups exhibited differential enrichment of specific taxa. Peptoniphilus (p=0.028), Fusobacteria (p=0.0295), Porphyromonas (p=0.034), and Prevotella (p=0.029) were enriched in anal cancer specimens when compared to HR normal. Conclusion: Although alpha diversity was similar between HR Normal, dysplasia and cancer patients, composition differed significantly between the three groups. Increased anorectal Peptoniphilus, Fusobacteria, Porphyromonas, and Prevotella abundance were associated with anal cancer. These organisms have been reported in various gastrointestinal cancers with roles in facilitating the proinflammatory microenvironment and neoplasia progression. Future work should investigate a potential role of microbiome analysis in screening for anal dysplasia and investigation into potential mechanisms of how these microbial imbalances influence the immune system and anal carcinogenesis.

Health-related quality of life in adolescents and young adults with cancer who received radiation therapy: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) is a critical component of treatment for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, age 15-39 years old) diagnosed with cancer. Limited prior studies have focused on AYAs receiving RT despite the potentially burdensome effects of RT. We reviewed the literature to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in AYAs with cancer who received RT. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched in January 2022 to identify studies that analyzed HRQOL measured by patient-reported outcomes in AYAs who received RT. After title (n = 286) and abstract (n = 58) screening and full-text review (n = 19), articles that met eligibility criteria were analyzed. RESULTS: Six studies were analyzed. Two studies included AYAs actively receiving treatment and all included patients in survivorship; time between diagnosis and HRQOL data collection ranged from 3 to > 20 years. Physical and mental health were commonly assessed (6/6 studies) with social health assessed in three studies. AYA-relevant HRQOL needs were rarely assessed: fertility (1/6 studies), financial hardship (1/6), body image (0/6), spirituality (0/6), and sexual health (0/6). No study compared HRQOL between patients actively receiving RT and those post-treatment. None of the studies collected HRQOL data longitudinally. CONCLUSION: HRQOL data in AYAs receiving RT is limited. Future studies examining longitudinal, clinician- vs. patient-reported, and AYA-relevant HRQOL are needed to better understand the unique needs in this population.

Inclusion of premenopausal women in breast cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with premenopausal breast cancer (PMBC) have been historically excluded from some clinical trials because of the limitations of using endocrine therapy (ET) in this population. We analyzed breast cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the rates of and factors associated with inclusion of PMBC patients to provide a benchmark for PMBC inclusion in RCTs moving forward. METHODS: Using ClinicalTrials.Gov, we identified breast cancer phase III RCTs and extracted inclusion criteria and patient enrollment information. Multiple binary logistic regression modeling was used to assess trial-related factors that were associated with PMBC patient inclusion. RESULTS: Of 170 breast cancer RCTs identified, 131 (77.1%) included PMBC patients. Sixty-five (38.2%) trials analyzed patients with hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer, of which 31 (47.7%) allowed for enrollment of PMBC patients. Lower rates of PMBC inclusion were seen in trials that studied HR+/HER2-patients (47.7% PMBC inclusion in HR+/HER2-trials vs. 94.3% in non-HR+/HER2-trials, aOR 0.07 [95% CI: 0.02-0.19], p < 0.001) and in trials that randomized or mandated ET (44.4% in ET trials vs. 83.2% in non-ET trials, aOR 0.21 [95% CI: 0.10-0.83], p = 0.02). Trials studying chemotherapy (CT) were associated with inclusion of PMBC patients (100% in CT trials vs. 70.5% in non-CT trials, a OR 14.02 [95% CI: 1.54-127.91], p = 0.01). All surgical and radiation therapy clinical trials allowed for the inclusion of PMBC patients in their eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer clinical trials should carefully select their enrollment criteria and consider inclusion of premenopausal patients when appropriate.

Microbiome Dynamics During Chemoradiation Therapy for Anal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with localized squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) who experience treatment toxicity or recurrences have few therapeutic options. Investigation into the microbiome's influence on treatment toxicity and its potential use as a predictive biomarker could improve these patients' outcomes. Our study presents the first longitudinal characterization of the SCCA tumor microbiome and its associations with treatment-related toxicities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This prospective cohort study included patients with nonmetastatic SCCA receiving standard-of-care chemoradiation therapy. Anorectal swabs of the tumor site were collected before, during, and after treatment. Patient-reported quality-of-life metrics were collected at similar time points. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was used to perform diversity and taxonomic characterization of the SCCA microbiome. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare microbial diversity and abundance over time. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare microbial profiles of high and low toxicity groups. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients with SCCA were included in this study with a median age of 58.5 years (range, 39-77 years), and 18 (82%) were women. Alpha diversity remained relatively stable throughout chemoradiation therapy except for decreases in the Observed Features (P = .03) index at week 5 relative to baseline. Tumor microbial compositions changed significantly by the end of treatment (P = .03). Differential enrichment of bacteria at specific time points occurred during treatment, including the enrichment of Clostridia at follow-up (vs week 5, q = 0.019) and Corynebacterium at week 5 (vs baseline, q = 0.015; vs follow-up, q = 0.022). Patients experiencing high toxicity at week 5 had higher relative counts of Clostridia, Actinobacteria, and Clostridiales at baseline (P = .03 for all). CONCLUSIONS: The tumor microbiome changes during and after chemoradiation therapy, and patient-reported toxicity levels are associated with patients' microbial profiles. Further studies into these microbial characterizations and toxicity associations will elucidate the tumor microbiome's role in predicting treatment-related outcomes for patients with SCCA.

Association between Prior Malignancy Exclusion Criteria and Age Disparities in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC) are often utilized in cancer clinical trials; however, the incidence of PMEC and the association of PMEC with trial participant age disparities remain poorly understood. This study aimed to identify age disparities in oncologic randomized clinical trials as a result of PMEC. Using a comprehensive collection of modern phase III cancer clinical trials obtained via ClinicalTrials.gov, we assessed the incidence and covariates associated with trials excluding patients with prior cancers within 5+ years from registration (PMEC-5). Using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we further sought to determine the correlation between PMEC-5 and age disparities. PMEC-5 were used in 41% of all trials, with higher PMEC-5 utilization among industry-supported trials as well as trials evaluating a targeted therapy. Comparing trial patient median ages with population-matched median ages by disease site and time-period, we assessed the association between PMEC-5 and age disparities among trial participants. PMEC-5 were independently associated with heightened age disparities, which further worsened with longer exclusionary timeframes. Together, PMEC likely contribute to age disparities, suggesting that eligibility criteria modernization through narrower PMEC timeframes may work toward reducing such disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment.

Expansion of Candidate HPV-Specific T Cells in the Tumor Microenvironment during Chemoradiotherapy Is Prognostic in HPV16+ Cancers.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection causes 600,000 new cancers worldwide each year. HPV-related cancers express the oncogenic proteins E6 and E7, which could serve as tumor-specific antigens. It is not known whether immunity to E6 and E7 evolves during chemoradiotherapy or affects survival. Using T cells from 2 HPV16+ patients, we conducted functional T-cell assays to identify candidate HPV-specific T cells and common T-cell receptor motifs, which we then analyzed across 86 patients with HPV-related cancers. The HPV-specific clones and E7-related T-cell receptor motifs expanded in the tumor microenvironment over the course of treatment, whereas non-HPV-specific T cells did not. In HPV16+ patients, improved recurrence-free survival was associated with HPV-responsive T-cell expansion during chemoradiotherapy.

Gastrointestinal malignancies and supportive care trials: a snapshot of the last two decades.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers experience a high symptom burden due to the effects of both cancer and treatment. As such, trials assessing symptom burden and supportive interventions are crucial. Here, we characterise the landscape of phase III GI cancer clinical trials and explore study outcomes centred on the patient's quality of life (QoL). METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) registered between 2000 and 2017 that are assessing a therapeutic intervention in adult patients with cancer and grouped trials by GI disease sites. RESULTS: Overall, we identified 76 phase III trials specific to GI cancers that enrolled a total of 53 725 patients. When analysing the primary outcomes measured, the vast majority of studies (n=71, 86%) measured disease-related endpoints such as progression-free survival or overall survival. All trials had a secondary endpoint that measured adverse events, but only 30 trials (39%) included QoL measures as secondary endpoints. Of the 30 trials that included QoL secondary endpoints, only 16 (53%) reported these results. Only five trials (7%) assessed interventions aimed at supportive measures impacting disease-related or treatment-related toxicity. None of the supportive trials included QoL as a primary endpoint and only two of these trials (40%) included QoL as a secondary endpoint. CONCLUSIONS: Most GI cancer trials failed to incorporate patient-centred outcomes or QoL measures when studying new interventions. These findings call for greater integration of patient-reported metrics, which may lead to better care and outcomes for patients with GI malignancies.

The radiotherapy quality assurance gap among phase III cancer clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Quality assurance (QA) practices improve the quality level of oncology trials by ensuring that the protocol is followed and the results are valid and reproducible. This study investigated the utilization of QA among randomized controlled trials that involve radiotherapy (RT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in February 2020 for all phase III oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs). These trials were screened for RT-specific RCTs that had published primary trial results. Information regarding QA in each trial was collected from the study publications and trial protocol if available. Two individuals independently performed trial screening and data collection. Pearson's Chi-square tests analyses were used to assess factors that were associated with QA inclusion in RT trials. RESULTS: Forty-two RCTs with RT as the primary intervention or as a mandatory component of the protocol were analyzed; the earliest was started in 1994 and one trial was still active though not recruiting. Twenty-nine (69%) trials mandated RT quality assurance (RTQA) practices as part of the trial protocol, with 19 (45%) trials requiring institutional credentialing. Twenty-one (50%) trials published protocol deviation outcomes. Clinical trials involving advanced radiation techniques (IMRT, VMAT, SRS, SBRT) did not include more RTQA than trials without these advanced techniques (73% vs. 65%, p = 0.55). Trials that reported protocol deviation outcomes were associated with mandating RTQA in their protocols as compared to trials that did not report these outcomes (100% vs. 38%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of RTQA utilization and transparency in RT clinical trials. It is imperative for RT trials to include increased QA for safe, consistent, and high-quality RT planning and delivery.

Stereotactic Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Patients With Pancreatic Cancer in the Modern Era.

PURPOSE: Patients with pancreatic cancer often receive radiation therapy before undergoing surgical resection. We compared the clinical outcomes differences between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and 3-dimensional (3D)/intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively collected data from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Patients with borderline resectable/potentially resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant SBRT (median, 36.0 Gy/5fx), 3D conformal radiation (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) or IMRT (median, 50.4 Gy/28 fx) were included. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were analyzed using Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 104 patients were included in our study. Fifty-seven patients (54.8%) were treated with SBRT, and 47 patients (45.2%) were treated with 3D/IMRT. Patients in the SBRT group were slightly older (median age: 70.3 vs 62.7 in the 3D/IMRT group). Both groups had similar proportions of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SBRT: 30, 52.6%; 3D/IMRT: 24, 51.1%). All patients were treated with chemotherapy. Patients in the SBRT group underwent more surgical resection compared with the 3D/IMRT group (38.6% vs 23.4%, respectively). At a median follow-up of 22 months, a total of 60 patients (57.7%) died: 25 (25/57, 43.9%) in the SBRT group, and 35 (35/47, 74.5%) in the 3D/IMRT group. Median OS was slightly higher in the SBRT group (29.6 months vs 24.1 months in the 3D/IMRT group). On multivariable Cox regression, the choice of radiation therapy technique was not associated with differences in OS (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] = 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-1.3%, P = .18). Moreover, patients that underwent surgical resection had better OS (aHR = 0.3, 95% CI, 0.1%-0.8%, P = .01). Furthermore, progression-free survival was also similar between patients treated with SBRT and those treated with 3D/IMRT (aHR = 0.9, 95% CI, 0.5%-1.8%, P = .81). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT was associated with similar clinical outcomes compared with conventional radiation techniques, despite being delivered over a shorter period of time which would spare patients prolonged treatment burden. Future prospective data are still needed to better assess the role of SBRT in patients with pancreatic cancer.