Evaluating the impact of delayed study startup on accrual in cancer studies.

Background: Drug development in cancer medicine depends on high-quality clinical trials, but these require large investments of time to design, operationalize, and complete; for oncology drugs, this can take 8-10 years. Long timelines are expensive and delay innovative therapies from reaching patients. Delays often arise from study startup, a process that can take 6 months or more. We assessed how study-specific factors affected the study startup duration and the resulting overall success of the study. Method: Data from The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KUCC) were used to analyze studies initiated from 2018 to 2022. Accrual percentage was computed based on the number of enrolled participants and the desired enrollment goal. Accrual success was determined by comparing the percentage of enrollments to predetermined threshold values (50%, 70%, or 90%). Results: Studies that achieve or surpass the 70% activation threshold typically exhibit a median activation time of 140.5 days. In contrast, studies that fall short of the accrual goal tend to have a median activation time of 187 days, demonstrating the shorter median activation times associated with successful studies. Wilcoxon rank-sum test conducted for the study phase (W=13607, p-value=0.001) indicates that late-phase projects took longer to activate compared to early-stage projects. We also conducted the study with 50% and 90% accrual thresholds; our findings remained consistent. Conclusions: Longer activation times are linked to reduced project success, and early-phase studies tend to have higher success than late-phase studies. Therefore, by reducing impediments to the approval process, we can facilitate quicker approvals, increasing the success of studies regardless of phase.

Using Bayesian hierarchical modeling for performance evaluation of clinical trial accrual for a cancer center.

Introduction: Slow patient accrual in cancer clinical trials is always a concern. In 2021, the University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center (KUCC), an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center, implemented the Curated Cancer Clinical Outcomes Database (C3OD) to perform trial feasibility analyses using real-time electronic medical record data. In this study, we proposed a Bayesian hierarchical model to evaluate annual cancer clinical trial accrual performance. Methods: The Bayesian hierarchical model uses Poisson models to describe the accrual performance of individual cancer clinical trials and a hierarchical component to describe the variation in performance across studies. Additionally, this model evaluates the impacts of the C3OD and the COVID-19 pandemic using posterior probabilities across evaluation years. The performance metric is the ratio of the observed accrual rate to the target accrual rate. Results: Posterior medians of the annual accrual performance at the KUCC from 2018 to 2023 are 0.233, 0.246, 0.197, 0.150, 0.254, and 0.340. The COVID-19 pandemic partly explains the drop in performance in 2020 and 2021. The posterior probability that annual accrual performance is better with C3OD in 2023 than pre-pandemic (2019) is 0.935. Conclusions: This study comprehensively evaluates the annual performance of clinical trial accrual at the KUCC, revealing a negative impact of COVID-19 and an ongoing positive impact of C3OD implementation. Two sensitivity analyses further validate the robustness of our model. Evaluating annual accrual performance across clinical trials is essential for a cancer center. The performance evaluation tools described in this paper are highly recommended for monitoring clinical trial accrual.

A phase II study of perioperative pembrolizumab plus mFOLFOX in patients with potentially resectable esophagus, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), and stomach adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy/chemoradiation is standard in esophageal/gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) effect in setting of metastatic and postoperatively. This study is to assess ICI + chemotherapy perioperatively. METHODS: Patients with locally advanced (T1N1-3M0 or T2-3NanyM0) potentially resectable esophageal/gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma by PET/EUS/CT and staging-laparoscopy, were treated preoperative 4 cycles mFOLFOX6 (Oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 /Leucovorin 400 mg/m2 /5-FU bolus 400 mg/m2 then infusion 2400 mg/m2 for 46 h q2weeks) and 3 cycles pembrolizumab (200 mg q3week). Those without distal disease post-neoadjuvant and eligible for resection underwent surgery. Postoperative treatment was initiated at 4-8 weeks with 4 cycles mFOLFOX and 12 cycles pembrolizumab. The primary objective is pathological response (ypRR with tumor regression score, TRS ≤2). The expression of ICI-related markers PD-L1 (CPS), CD8, and CD20 were analyzed before and after preoperative therapy. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients completed the preoperative treatment. Twenty-nine patients had curative R0 resection. 6/29 (21%; 95% CI: 0.08-0.40) achieved ypCR with TRS 0 in resected patients. 26/29 (90%; 95% CI: 0.73-0.98) had ypRR with TRS ≤2. Twenty-six patients finished adjuvant therapy with a median 36.3-month follow-up. Three patients had recurrence/metastatic disease (at 9-, 10-, 22 months enrollment) with one dead at 23 months, and two are still alive at 28 and 36.5 months. The remaining (23/26) are free of disease with 3 years DFS of 88.5% and 3 years OS of 92.3%. There were no unexpected toxicities. Preoperative ICI + chemotherapy enhanced immune responses significantly with increasing expression of PD-L1 (CPS ≥10, p = 0.0078) and CD8 (>5%, p = 0.0059). CONCLUSIONS: The perioperative pembrolizumab and mFOLFOX combination in resectable esophageal/gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma is very effective with 90% ypRR, 21% ypCR, and impressive long-time survival benefits.

Bolstering the complex study start-up process at NCI cancer centers using technology.

Background: The study startup process for interventional clinical trials is a complex process that involves the efforts of many different teams. Each team is responsible for their startup checklist in which they verify that the necessary tasks are done before a study can move on to the next team. This regulatory process provides quality assurance and is vital for ensuring patient safety [10]. However, without having this startup process centralized and optimized, study approval can take longer than necessary as time is lost when it passes through many different hands. Objective: This manuscript highlights the process and the systems that were developed at The University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center regarding the study startup process. To facilitate this process the regulatory management, site development, cancer center administration, and the Biostatistics & Informatics Shared Resources (BISR) teams came together to build a platform aimed at streamlining the startup process and providing a transparent view of where a study is in the startup process. Process: Ensuring the guidelines are clearly articulated for the review criteria of each of the three review boards, i.e., Disease Working Group (DWG), Executive Resourcing Committee (ERC), and Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) along with a system that can track every step and its history throughout the review process. Results: Well-defined processes and tracking methodologies have allowed the operations teams to track each study closely and ensure the 90-day and 120-day deadlines are met, this allows the operational team to dynamically prioritize their work daily. It also provides Principal investigators a transparent view of where their study stands within the study startup process and allows them to prepare for the next steps accordingly. Conclusion/future work: The current process and technology deployment has been a significant improvement to expedite the review process and minimize study startup delays. There are still a few opportunities to fine-tune the study startup process; an example of which includes automatically informing the operational managers or the study teams to act upon deadlines regarding study review rather than the current manual communication process which involves them looking it up in the system which can add delays.

Evaluation of the Durability of the Immune Humoral Response to COVID-19 Vaccines in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Treatment or Who Received a Stem Cell Transplant.

Importance: The durability of the antibody response to COVID-19 vaccines in patients with cancer undergoing treatment or who received a stem cell transplant is unknown and may be associated with infection outcomes. Objective: To evaluate anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (anti-RBD) and neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses to COVID-19 vaccines longitudinally over 6 months in patients with cancer undergoing treatment or who received a stem cell transplant (SCT). Design, Setting, and Participants: In this prospective, observational, longitudinal cross-sectional study of 453 patients with cancer undergoing treatment or who received an SCT at the University of Kansas Cancer Center in Kansas City, blood samples were obtained before 433 patients received a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273), after the first dose of the mRNA vaccine, and 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the second dose. Blood samples were also obtained 2, 4, and 7 months after 17 patients received the JNJ-78436735 vaccine. For patients receiving a third dose of an mRNA vaccine, blood samples were obtained 30 days after the third dose. Interventions: Blood samples and BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, or JNJ-78436735 vaccines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Geometric mean titers (GMTs) of the anti-RBD; the ratio of GMTs for analysis of demographic, disease, and treatment variables; the percentage of neutralization of anti-RBD antibodies; and the correlation between anti-RBD and nAb responses to the COVID-19 vaccines. Results: This study enrolled 453 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.4 [13,1] years; 253 [56%] were female). Of 450 patients, 273 (61%) received the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer), 160 (36%) received the mRNA-1273 vaccine (Moderna), and 17 (4%) received the JNJ-7846735 vaccine (Johnson & Johnson). The GMTs of the anti-RBD for all patients were 1.70 (95% CI, 1.04-2.85) before vaccination, 18.65 (95% CI, 10.19-34.11) after the first dose, 470.38 (95% CI, 322.07-686.99) at 1 month after the second dose, 425.80 (95% CI, 322.24-562.64) at 3 months after the second dose, 447.23 (95% CI, 258.53-773.66) at 6 months after the second dose, and 9224.85 (95% CI, 2423.92-35107.55) after the third dose. The rate of threshold neutralization (≥30%) was observed in 203 of 252 patients (80%) 1 month after the second dose and in 135 of 166 patients (81%) 3 months after the second dose. Anti-RBD and nAb were highly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient, 0.93 [0.92-0.94]; P < .001). Three months after the second dose, anti-RBD titers were lower in male vs female patients (ratio of GMTs, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.34-0.81]), patients older than 65 years vs patients 50 years or younger (ratio of GMTs, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.25-0.57]), and patients with hematologic malignant tumors vs solid tumors (ratio of GMTs, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.81]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, after 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine, anti-RBD titers peaked at 1 month and remained stable over the next 6 months. Patients older than 65 years of age, male patients, and patients with a hematologic malignant tumor had low antibody titers. Compared with the primary vaccine course, a 20-fold increase in titers from a third dose suggests a brisk B-cell anamnestic response in patients with cancer.

A phase 2 trial of regorafenib as a single agent in patients with chemotherapy-refractory, advanced, and metastatic biliary tract adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancers are rare, aggressive neoplasms. Most patients present with advanced/unresectable or metastatic disease at diagnosis, and no second-line regimen has demonstrated clinical benefit. This was a phase 2 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients who had advanced/unresectable or metastatic disease after receiving standard therapy. METHODS: In this single arm-study, patients with advanced/unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer who failed at least 1 line of systemic chemotherapy received regorafenib once daily on a schedule of 21-days on/7-days off in a 28-day cycle. Patients initially received a standard 160 mg dose. After toxicity assessments in the first 3 patients, the dose was reduced to 120 mg for subsequent patients, as preplanned. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), the objective response rate, and the disease control rate. RESULTS: Forty-three patients received at least 1 dose of regorafenib, and 34 patients who received at least 1 cycle of treatment were evaluable for tumor response. The median PFS was 15.6 weeks (90% confidence interval, 12.9-24.7 weeks), and the median OS was 31.8 weeks (90% confidence interval, 13.3-74.3 weeks), with survival rates 40% at 12 months and 32% at 18 months. A partial response was achieved in 5 patients (11%), and 19 had stable disease (44%), for a disease control rate of 56%. The toxicity profile was as expected, with grade 3 and 4 adverse events reported in 40% of patients. The most common toxicities were hypophosphatemia (40%), hyperbilirubinemia (26%), hypertension (23%), and hand-foot skin reaction (7%). CONCLUSIONS: The current results suggest promising efficacy of regorafenib in patients with chemotherapy-refractory, advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer, warranting further studies to confirm its clinical efficacy. There is a clear unmet need for effective therapies in patients who have advanced and metastatic biliary tract cancer.