Matching Patients to Accelerate Clinical Trials (MPACT): Enabling Technology for Oncology Clinical Trial Workflow.

Clinical trial enrollment is impeded by the significant time burden placed on research coordinators screening eligible patients. With 50,000 new cancer cases every year, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has made increased access for Veterans to high-quality clinical trials a priority. To aid in this effort, we worked with research coordinators to build the MPACT (Matching Patients to Accelerate Clinical Trials) platform with a goal of improving efficiency in the screening process. MPACT supports both a trial prescreening workflow and a screening workflow, employing Natural Language Processing and Data Science methods to produce reliable phenotypes of trial eligibility criteria. MPACT also has a functionality to track a patient's eligibility status over time. Qualitative feedback has been promising with users reporting a reduction in time spent on identifying eligible patients.

Approach for reporting master protocol study designs on ClinicalTrials.gov: qualitative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe an approach for reporting master protocol research programs (MPRPs) that is consistent with existing good reporting practices and that uses structured information to convey the overall master protocol and design of each substudy. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis. DATA SOURCES: ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Established goals and related practices of the trial reporting system were outlined, examples and key characteristics of MPRPs were reviewed, and specific challenges in registering and reporting summary results to databases designed for traditional clinical trial designs that rely on a model of one study per protocol were identified. RESULTS: A reporting approach is proposed that accommodates the complex study design of MPRPs and their results. This approach involves the use of separate registration records for each substudy within one MPRP protocol (with potential exceptions noted). CONCLUSIONS: How the proposed approach allows for clear, descriptive, structured information about each substudy's prespecified design and supports timely reporting of results after completion of each substudy is described and illustrated. Although the focus is on reporting to ClinicalTrials.gov, the approach supports broader application across trial registries and results databases. This paper is intended to stimulate further discussion of this approach among stakeholders, build awareness about the need to improve reporting of MPRPs, and encourage harmonization across trial registries globally.

Patterns of Enrollment in Cancer Treatment Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic at National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented strain on enrollment to cancer clinical trials and their conduct. Here, we highlight an analysis using information from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Trials Reporting Program database to describe enrollment patterns to interventional cancer treatment trials at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers during the pandemic. Enrollment to cancer treatment trials at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers decreased precipitously early in the pandemic and has not yet fully returned to the 2019 baseline as of mid-2021. We discuss possible reasons for this and how some of the changes in clinical trial conduct implemented during the pandemic may become part of the standard conduct of NCI-supported clinical trials and broaden access to trials.

Ten-year follow-up of a phase 2 study of dose-intense paclitaxel with cisplatin and cyclophosphamide as initial therapy for poor-prognosis, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess activity and toxicity in patients with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) who were receiving dose-intense paclitaxel, cyclophosphamide, cisplatin, and filgrastim delivered with a flexible dosing schedule. METHODS: Patients with stage III/IV EOC received cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m(2), followed by a 24-hour infusion of paclitaxel 250 mg/m(2) and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on Day 2. Filgrastim began on Day 3 at 10 microg/kg daily for 9 days. Patients received 6 cycles of all drugs. Those who achieved a pathologic complete response or had microscopic residual disease at the conclusion of 6 cycles of therapy received an additional 2 to 4 cycles of paclitaxel with cyclophosphamide. Patients who had an objective response continued on cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were enrolled. Thirty-two of 62 patients had stage IIIC disease, and 26 of 62 patients had stage IV disease. According to an intent-to-treat analysis, 55 patients (89%) experienced a clinical complete remission. At a median potential follow-up of 11.4 years, the median progression-free survival was 18.9 months, and the median survival was 5.4 years. The most serious toxicity was grade 3/4 neutropenic fever (35%). Although all participants developed peripheral neuropathy, improvement in neuropathic symptoms began with the decrease or cessation of paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: The studied regimen yielded a high response rate and encouraging overall survival. The current data and those reported by the Japanese Gynecologic Oncology Group suggest that further study is warranted of dose-dense or dose-intense paclitaxel regimens in women with newly diagnosed, advanced-stage EOC.

A phase I study of paclitaxel and continuous daily CAI in patients with refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Carboxyamido-triazole (CAI) is a calcium influx inhibitor with anti-angiogenic and anti-invasive properties and stabilizes tumor progression in patients. We hypothesized daily oral micronized CAI with q3 week paclitaxel would be well-tolerated and active. RESULTS: Twenty-nine heavily pretreated patients [median 3 [0-7]] were enrolled on five dose levels. No additive or cumulative toxicity was observed, and grade III nonhematological toxicity was rare. Neutropenia was the most common hematologic toxicity, seen in 79% of patients, with a trend towards increasing grade with higher paclitaxel doses. The recommended phase II dose defined by the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was CAI 250 mg daily and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) q3weeks. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed paclitaxel increases CAI trough concentration at all dose levels by over 100% (p < 0.0001). A trend towards higher steady-state CAI trough concentrations was found in patients with a partial response (PR; p = 0.09). Six patients had confirmed PR (24%; 4-67 cycles, median 10); two patients had minor responses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with solid tumors received micronized CAI daily (150-250 mg PO) and paclitaxel intravenously q3weeks (175-250 mg/m(2)), sequentially escalating each drug. CAI preceded paclitaxel by one week to permit pharmacokinetic analysis. Patients were assessed for toxicity, pharmacokinetics and disease outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of the combination of CAI and paclitaxel is 250 mg daily and 200 mg/m(2) q3weeks, respectively. The combination is tolerable and has potential antitumor activity.

Combination targeted therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab results in enhanced toxicity and antitumor activity.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib inhibits Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeted against VEGF. We hypothesized that the complementary inhibition of VEGF signaling would have synergistic therapeutic effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had advanced solid tumors, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1, and good end-organ function. A phase I dose-escalation trial of sorafenib and bevacizumab was initiated at below-recommended single-agent doses because of possible overlapping toxicity: sorafenib 200 mg orally twice daily and bevacizumab intravenously at 5 mg/kg (dose level [DL] 1) or 10 mg/kg (DL2) every 2 weeks. Additional patients were enrolled at the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were treated. DL1 was the MTD and administered in cohort 2 (N = 27). Dose-limiting toxicity in DL2 was grade 3 proteinuria and thrombocytopenia. Adverse events included hypertension, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, transaminitis, and fatigue. Partial responses (PRs) were seen in six (43%) of 13 patients with ovarian cancer (response duration range, 4 to 22+ months) and one of three patients with renal cell cancer (response duration, 14 months). PR or disease stabilization >or= 4 months (median, 6 months; range, 4 to 22+ months) was seen in 22 (59%) of 37 assessable patients. The majority (74%) required sorafenib dose reduction to 200 mg/d at a median of four cycles (range, one to 12 cycles). CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab has promising clinical activity, especially in patients with ovarian cancer. The rapidity and frequency of sorafenib dose reductions indicates that sorafenib at 200 mg twice daily with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks may not be tolerable long term, and alternate sorafenib dosing schedules should be explored.

Phase II trial of carboxyamidotriazole in patients with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Carboxyamidotriazole (CAI) is a cytostatic inhibitor of nonvoltage-operated calcium channels and calcium channel-mediated signaling pathways. It inhibits angiogenesis, tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis. We hypothesized that CAI would promote disease stabilization lasting >/= 6 months in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, good end-organ function, measurable disease, and three or fewer prior regimens were eligible. Oral CAI was given daily using a pharmacokinetic-dosing approach to maintain plasma concentrations between 2 and 4 microg/mL. Radiographic imaging to assess response was performed every 8 weeks. Positive outcome included stabilization or improvement of disease lasting >/= 6 months. Plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin (IL)-8, and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 were measured. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were assessable for primary end point analysis, and 38 were assessable for toxicity. Forty-four percent of patients had three prior regimens, more than 50% had four or more disease sites, and 48% had liver metastases. Thirty-three patients reached the targeted concentration range during the first cycle. Eleven patients (31%) attained the >/= 6-month outcome end point, with one partial response (8 months) and three minor responses (8, 12+, and 13 months). Median time to progression was 3.6 months (range, 1.6 to 13.3 months). CAI was well tolerated, with mostly grade 1 to 2 toxicity. Grade 3 events included fatigue (5%), vomiting (2%), neutropenic fever (2%), and neutropenia (2%). There were no grade 4 adverse events. No associations between VEGF, IL-8, and MMP-2 with CAI concentration or clinical outcome were observed. CONCLUSION: CAI is a potential agent for additional study in the stabilization of relapsed ovarian cancer. Given a limited toxicity profile, it may have utility as a maintenance therapeutic agent for this disease.