Search

Clinical trial participants do not reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of people with cancer. ASCO and the Association of Community Cancer Centers collaborated on a quality improvement study to enhance racial and ethnic equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in cancer clinical trials. The groups conducted a pilot study to examine the feasibility, utility, and face validity of a two-part clinical trial site self-assessment to enable diverse types of research sites in the United States to (1) review internal data to assess racial and ethnic disparities in screening and enrollment and (2) review their policies, programs, procedures to identify opportunities and strategies to improve EDI. Overall, 81% of 62 participating sites were satisfied with the assessment; 82% identified opportunities for improvement; and 63% identified specific strategies and 74% thought the assessment had potential to help their site increase EDI. The assessment increased awareness about performance (82%) and helped identify specific strategies (63%) to increase EDI in trials. Although most sites (65%) were able to provide some data on the number of patients that consented, only two sites were able to provide all requested trial screening, offering, and enrollment data by race and ethnicity. Documenting and evaluating such data are critical steps toward improving EDI and are key to identifying and addressing disparities more broadly. ASCO and Association of Community Cancer Centers will partner with sites to better understand their processes and the feasibility of collecting screening, offering, and enrollment data in systematic and automated ways.

Purpose:Cancer clinical trials often accrue slowly or miss enrollment targets. Strict eligibility criteria are a major reason. Restrictive criteria also limit opportunities for patient participation while compromising external validity of trial results. We examined the impact of broadening select eligibility criteria on characteristics and number of patients eligible for trials, using recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research.Experimental Design:A retrospective, observational analysis used electronic health record data from ASCO’s CancerLinQ Discovery database. Study cohort included patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer treated from 2011 to 2018. Patients were grouped by traditional criteria [no brain metastases, no other malignancies, and creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 60 mL/minute] and broadened criteria (including brain metastases, other malignancies, and CrCl ≥ 30 mL/minute).Results:The analysis cohort included 10,500 patients. Median age was 68 years, and 73% of patients were White. Most patients had stage IV disease (65%). A total of 5,005 patients (48%) would be excluded from trial participation using the traditional criteria. The broadened criteria, however, would allow 98% of patients (10,346) to be potential participants. Examination of patients included by traditional criteria (5,495) versus those added (4,851) by broadened criteria showed that the number of women, patients aged 75+ years, and those with stage IV cancer was significantly greater using broadened criteria.Conclusions:This analysis of real-world data demonstrated that broadening three common eligibility criteria has the potential to double the eligible patient population and include trial participants who are more representative of those encountered in practice.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369

Tables of ICD9 and ICD10 codes used.

PURPOSE:People with cancer are at increased risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. ASCO's COVID-19 registry promotes systematic data collection across US oncology practices.METHODS:Participating practices enter data on patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection in cancer treatment. In this analysis, we focus on all patients with hematologic or regional or metastatic solid tumor malignancies. Primary outcomes are 30- and 90-day mortality rates and change over time.RESULTS:Thirty-eight practices provided data for 453 patients from April to October 2020. Sixty-two percent had regional or metastatic solid tumors. Median age was 64 years. Forty-three percent were current or previous cigarette users. Patients with B-cell malignancies age 61-70 years had twice mortality risk (hazard ratio = 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3]) and those age > 70 years had 4.5 times mortality risk (95% CI, 1.8 to 11.1) compared with patients age ≤ 60 years. Association between survival and age was not significant in patients with metastatic solid tumors ( P = .12). Tobacco users had 30-day mortality estimate of 21% compared with 11% for never users (log-rank P = .005). Patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 before June 2020 had 30-day mortality rate of 20% (95% CI, 14% to 25%) compared with 13% (8% to 18%) for those diagnosed in or after June 2020 ( P = .08). The 90-day mortality rate for pre-June patients was 28% (21% to 34%) compared with 21% (13% to 28%; P = .20).CONCLUSION:Older patients with B-cell malignancies were at increased risk for death (unlike older patients with metastatic solid tumors), as were all patients with cancer who smoke tobacco. Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 later in 2020 was associated with more favorable 30- and 90-day mortality, likely related to more asymptomatic cases and improved clinical management.

Background An ASCO taskforce comprised of representatives of oncology clinicians, the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable (NLCRT), LUNGevity, the GO2 Foundation for Lung Cancer, and the ROS1ders sought to: characterize U.S. oncologists’ biomarker ordering and treatment practices for advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC); ascertain barriers to biomarker testing; and understand the impact of delays on treatment decisions. Methods We deployed a survey to 2374 ASCO members, targeting U.S. thoracic and general oncologists. Results We analyzed 170 eligible responses. For non‐squamous NSCLC, 97% of respondents reported ordering tests for EGFR, ALK, ROS1, and BRAF. Testing for MET, RET, and NTRK was reported to be higher among academic versus community providers and higher among thoracic oncologists than generalists. Most respondents considered 1 (46%) or 2 weeks (52%) an acceptable turnaround time, yet 37% usually waited three or more weeks to receive results. Respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to defer treatment until results were reviewed (63%). Community and generalist respondents who waited ≥3 weeks were more likely to initiate non‐targeted treatment while awaiting results. Respondents, U.S. oncologists who typically waited ≥3 weeks for biomarker test results were more likely to defer initiating treatment for patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer until results were reviewed. Treatment decision‐making based on biomarker test results was associated with practice setting and physician specialization and years of experience. Frequency that oncologist’s concern about delaying treatment is a reason for not testing, by years since oncology training completed.

PURPOSE The TAPUR Study is a phase II basket trial that aims to identify signals of antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers harboring genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results in a cohort of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with high tumor mutational burden (HTMB) treated with pembrolizumab are reported. METHODS Patients with advanced mBC received standard doses of either 2 mg/kg or 200 mg infusions of pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. Simon's two-stage design was used with a primary study end point of disease control (DC) defined as objective response or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration. If two or more patients in stage I achieved DC, the cohort would enroll 18 additional patients in stage II. Secondary end points include progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, and safety. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients were enrolled from October 2016 to July 2018. All patients' tumors had HTMB ranging from 9 to 37 mutations/megabase. DC and objective response were noted in 37% (95% CI, 21 to 50) and 21% of patients (95% CI, 8 to 41), respectively. Median PFS was 10.6 weeks (95% CI, 7.7 to 21.1); median overall survival was 30.6 weeks (95% CI, 18.3 to 103.3). No relationship was observed between PFS and tumor mutational burden. Five patients experienced ≥ 1 serious adverse event or grade 3 adverse event at least possibly related to pembrolizumab consistent with the product label. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab monotherapy has antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with mBC characterized by HTMB. Our findings support the recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab for treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic solid tumors with HTMB without alternative treatment options.

PURPOSE: Advances in genomic techniques have led to increased use of next-generation sequencing (NGS). We evaluated the extent to which these tests guide treatment decisions. METHODS: We developed and distributed a survey assessing NGS use and outcomes to a survey pool of ASCO members. Comparisons between groups were performed with Wilcoxon two-sample, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Among 178 respondents, 62% were male, 54% White, and 67% affiliated with academic centers. More than half (56%) indicated that NGS provided actionable information to a moderate or great extent. Use was highest (median ≥ 70% of cases) for lung and gastric cancer, and lowest (median < 25% of cases) in head and neck and genitourinary cancers. Approximately one third of respondents reported that, despite identification of an actionable molecular variant, patients were sometimes or often unable to access the relevant US Food and Drug Administration–approved therapy. When NGS did not provide actionable results, individuals reporting great or moderate guidance overall from NGS in treatment recommendations were more likely to request the compassionate use of an unapproved drug ( P < .001), enroll on a clinical trial ( P < .01), or treat off-label with a drug approved for another indication ( P = .02). CONCLUSION: When NGS identifies an actionable result, a substantial proportion of clinicians reported encountering challenges obtaining approved therapies on the basis of these results. Perceived overall impact of NGS appears associated with clinical behavior unrelated to actionable NGS test results, including pursuing off-label or compassionate use of unapproved therapies or referring to a clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer prevalence and outcomes data, necessary to understand disparities in transgender populations, are significantly hampered because gender identity data are not routinely collected. A database of clinical data on people with cancer, CancerLinQ, is operated by the ASCO and collected from practices across the United States and multiple electronic health records. METHODS: To attempt to identify transgender people with cancer within CancerLinQ, we used three criteria: (1) International Classification of Diseases 9/10 diagnosis (Dx) code suggestive of transgender identity; (2) male gender and Dx of cervical, endometrial, ovarian, fallopian tube, or other related cancer; and (3) female gender and Dx of prostate, testicular, penile, or other related cancer. Charts were abstracted to confirm transgender identity. RESULTS: Five hundred fifty-seven cases matched inclusion criteria and two hundred and forty-two were abstracted. Seventy-six percent of patients with Dx codes suggestive of transgender identity were transgender. Only 2% and 3% of the people identified by criteria 2 and 3 had evidence of transgender identity, respectively. Extrapolating to nonabstracted data, we would expect to identify an additional four individuals in category 2 and an additional three individuals in category 3, or a total of 44. The total population in CancerLinQ is approximately 1,300,000. Thus, our methods could identify 0.003% of the total population as transgender. CONCLUSION: Given the need for data regarding transgender people with cancer and the deficiencies of current data resources, a national concerted effort is needed to prospectively collect gender identity data. These efforts will require systemic efforts to create safe healthcare environments for transgender people.

Purpose: Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria (EC) limit the number of patients who can enroll and potentially benefit from protocol-driven, investigational treatment plans and reduce the generalizability of trial results to the broader population. Following publication of expert stakeholder recommendations for broadening EC in 2017, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) convened working groups to produce additional recommendations and analyze the potential impact on clinical trials using real-world data. Experimental Design: Multistakeholder working groups were appointed by an ASCO-Friends leadership group to propose recommendations for more inclusive EC related to: washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory reference ranges and test intervals, and performance status. Results: The four working groups, ASCO Board of Directors, and Friends leadership support the recommendations included in this statement to modernize EC related to washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory references ranges and test intervals, and performance status to make trial populations more inclusive and representative of cancer patient populations. Conclusions: Implementation of the recommendations is intended to result in greater ease of determining patient eligibility. Increased opportunities for patient participation in research will help address longstanding underrepresentation of certain groups in clinical trials and produce evidence that is more informative for a broader patient population. More patients eligible will also likely speed clinical trial accrual. See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369

Purpose: Cancer clinical trials often accrue slowly or miss enrollment targets. Strict eligibility criteria are a major reason. Restrictive criteria also limit opportunities for patient participation while compromising external validity of trial results. We examined the impact of broadening select eligibility criteria on characteristics and number of patients eligible for trials, using recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research. Experimental Design: A retrospective, observational analysis used electronic health record data from ASCO’s CancerLinQ Discovery database. Study cohort included patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer treated from 2011 to 2018. Patients were grouped by traditional criteria [no brain metastases, no other malignancies, and creatinine clearance (CrCl) ≥ 60 mL/minute] and broadened criteria (including brain metastases, other malignancies, and CrCl ≥ 30 mL/minute). Results: The analysis cohort included 10,500 patients. Median age was 68 years, and 73% of patients were White. Most patients had stage IV disease (65%). A total of 5,005 patients (48%) would be excluded from trial participation using the traditional criteria. The broadened criteria, however, would allow 98% of patients (10,346) to be potential participants. Examination of patients included by traditional criteria (5,495) versus those added (4,851) by broadened criteria showed that the number of women, patients aged 75+ years, and those with stage IV cancer was significantly greater using broadened criteria. Conclusions: This analysis of real-world data demonstrated that broadening three common eligibility criteria has the potential to double the eligible patient population and include trial participants who are more representative of those encountered in practice. See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369

Purpose: Performance status (PS) is one of the most common eligibility criteria. Many trials are limited to patients with high-functioning PS, resulting in important differences between trial participants and patient populations with the disease. In addition, existing PS measures are subjective and susceptible to investigator bias. Experimental Design: A multidisciplinary working group of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research evaluated how PS eligibility criteria could be more inclusive. The working group recommendations are based on a literature search, review of trials, simulation study, and multistakeholder consensus. The working group prioritized inclusiveness and access to investigational therapies, while balancing patient safety and study integrity. Results: Broadening PS eligibility criteria may increase the number of potentially eligible patients for a given clinical trial, thus shortening accrual time. It may also result in greater participant diversity, potentially reduce trial participant and patient disparities, and enable clinicians to more readily translate trial results to patients with low-functioning PS. Potential impact on outcomes was explored through a simulation trial demonstrating that when the number of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS2 participants was relatively small, the effect on the estimated HR and power was modest, even when PS2 patients did not derive a treatment benefit. Conclusions: Expanding PS eligibility criteria to be more inclusive may be justified in many cases and could result in faster accrual rates and more representative trial populations. See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369

PURPOSE The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study is a phase II pragmatic basket trial evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results in a cohort of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with CDKN2A alterations treated with palbociclib are reported. METHODS Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years old with advanced NSCLC, no remaining standard treatment options, measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and adequate organ function. Patients with NSCLC with CDKN2A alterations and no Rb mutations received palbociclib 125 mg orally once daily for 21 days, followed by 7 days off. Simon’s two-stage design was used with a primary study end point of objective response or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks in duration. Secondary end points are progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Twenty-nine patients were enrolled from January 2017 to June 2018; two patients were not evaluable for response but were included in safety analyses. One patient with partial response and six patients with SD were observed, for a disease control rate of 31% (90% CI, 19% to 40%). Median PFS was 8.1 weeks (95% CI, 7.1 to 16.0 weeks), and median OS was 21.6 weeks (95% CI, 14.1 to 41.1 weeks). Eleven patients had at least 1 grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) or serious AE (SAE) possibly related to palbociclib (most common, cytopenias). Other AEs or SAEs possibly related to the treatment included anorexia, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, sepsis, and vomiting. CONCLUSION Palbociclib monotherapy demonstrated evidence of modest antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with NSCLC with CDKN2A alterations. Additional investigation is necessary to confirm efficacy and utility of palbociclib in this population.

The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study identifies signals of antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers that harbor genomic alterations known as drug targets. In this article, data from two cohorts of patients with pancreatic and biliary cancers withEligible patients age 12 years and older with advanced measurable or evaluable solid tumors are provided treatment according to protocol-specified genomic matching rules. The primary study end point is objective response or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration. For each cohort, a Simon two-stage design was used with a futility evaluation after 10 patients. Secondary end points include safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).Between July 2016 and November 2017, 12 and 10 patients with pancreatic and biliary cancer, respectively, withPalbociclib monotherapy does not have clinical activity in patients with advanced pancreatic or biliary cancers with

TAPUR is a pragmatic, phase II basket study evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers harboring genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Sunitinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor of FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT-3), among other targets. Results from a cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FLT-3 amplification treated with sunitinib are reported. This study aimed to investigate whether patients with mCRC with FLT-3 amplification would be responsive to sunitinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor. Eligible patients received a standard sunitinib dose of 50 mg orally for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Simon’s two-stage design was used with the primary study endpoint of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety. Ten patients were enrolled from November 2016 to April 2018. All patients had mCRC with FLT-3 amplification. No ORs were observed. Although two patients had SD at 16 weeks, one died because of disease progression shortly thereafter and the cohort was closed. A single grade 3 adverse event of diarrhea was reported as possibly related to sunitinib. Monotherapy with sunitinib does not have clinical activity in patients with mCRC with FLT-3 amplification and should not be prescribed for off-label use. Other treatments should be considered for these patients, including treatments offered in clinical trials. NCT02693535 (26 February 2016).

PURPOSE Company-reported payments from the Open Payments database (OP) have been compared with self-disclosed financial relationships made by physician authors. Discrepancies have been viewed as under-reporting of financial relationships. Our goal was to perform a systematic comparison to determine sources of discordance between company-reported and self-reported financial relationships. METHODS Financial disclosures reported by 163 authors and presenters who published in Journal of Clinical Oncology or who presented an abstract at the ASCO 2018 Annual Meeting were obtained and matched to payment data in OP. Categories included ownership, research, consulting/services, honoraria, expenses, royalty/patent/intellectual property, and other disclosures. Measures of concordance and discordance were calculated on the basis of matches on both company and category of disclosure and matches on company. Results are reported overall and within certain categories of disclosures. RESULTS Overall concordance between disclosures to ASCO and payments in OP was 16% for company and category matching and 24% for matching on the basis of company only. Authors tended to report more disclosures for research and consulting to ASCO than appear in OP. Expense disclosures were more frequently reported in OP than to ASCO. No payments were categorized as ownership in OP, but 35 authors/presenters disclosed ownership (including stock) to ASCO. CONCLUSION Our results reveal substantial discordance between self-reported and company-reported financial relationships for authors who report clinical oncology research. These findings support the calls for development of standardized disclosure policies across medicine.

The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study is a phase II pragmatic basket trial evaluating antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer with genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results in a cohort of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) withEligible patients were ≥ 18 years old with advanced NSCLC, no remaining standard treatment options, measurable disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2, and adequate organ function. Patients with NSCLC withTwenty-nine patients were enrolled from January 2017 to June 2018; two patients were not evaluable for response but were included in safety analyses. One patient with partial response and six patients with SD were observed, for a disease control rate of 31% (90% CI, 19% to 40%). Median PFS was 8.1 weeks (95% CI, 7.1 to 16.0 weeks), and median OS was 21.6 weeks (95% CI, 14.1 to 41.1 weeks). Eleven patients had at least 1 grade 3 or 4 adverse event (AE) or serious AE (SAE) possibly related to palbociclib (most common, cytopenias). Other AEs or SAEs possibly related to the treatment included anorexia, fatigue, febrile neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, sepsis, and vomiting.Palbociclib monotherapy demonstrated evidence of modest antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with NSCLC with

PURPOSEThe Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) Study identifies signals of antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers that harbor genomic alterations known as drug targets. In this article, data from two cohorts of patients with pancreatic and biliary cancers with CDKN2A loss or mutation treated with palbociclib are reported.METHODSEligible patients age 12 years and older with advanced measurable or evaluable solid tumors are provided treatment according to protocol-specified genomic matching rules. The primary study end point is objective response or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration. For each cohort, a Simon two-stage design was used with a futility evaluation after 10 patients. Secondary end points include safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).RESULTSBetween July 2016 and November 2017, 12 and 10 patients with pancreatic and biliary cancer, respectively, with CDKN2A loss or mutation were treated with palbociclib. Twenty evaluable patients (10 per cohort) were included in the analysis. No patients had objective response or stable disease at 16 weeks, and both cohorts were closed. Two patients, neither with response, were determined to be ineligible. All patients were evaluated for safety, PFS, and OS. A median PFS of 7.2 weeks (90% CI, 4.0 to 8.0 weeks) and median OS of 12.4 weeks (90% CI, 4.7 to 23.1 weeks) were observed in the pancreatic cohort. A median PFS of 7.3 weeks (90% CI, 3.9 to 7.9 weeks) and median OS of 11.1 weeks (90% CI, 5.1 to 14.0 weeks) were observed in the biliary cohort. No unexpected toxicities were observed.CONCLUSIONPalbociclib monotherapy does not have clinical activity in patients with advanced pancreatic or biliary cancers with CDKN2A loss or mutation. Toxicity is similar to reported experience with palbociclib in other tumor types.

Targeted cancer therapies are drugs and biologics designed to affect cancer cell growth by blocking or interfering with specific molecular pathways in the cancer cell. Use of targeted agents usually requires verification through molecular testing that the patient’s tumor harbors the molecular biomarker that is the target of the drug or is predictive of treatment benefit. Genomic mutations may be clinically actionable if they are associated with response or resistance to a potential therapy. If a genomic test reveals an actionable alteration, there are several options for accessing the targeted therapy. This article is intended to help clinicians determine if a tumor mutation is potentially treatable with a marketed or investigational drug or biologic product and to offer guidance on how to access the product of interest.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential collective opportunities and challenges of transforming real-world data (RWD) to real-world evidence (RWE) for clinical effectiveness by focusing on aligning analytic definitions of oncology endpoints. Patients treated with a qualifying therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) in the frontline setting meeting broad eligibility criteria were included to reflect the real-world population. While a trend toward improved outcomes in patients receiving PD-(L)1 therapy over standard chemotherapy was observed in RWD analyses, the magnitude and consistency of treatment effect was more heterogeneous than previously observed in controlled clinical trials. The study design and analysis process highlighted the identification of pertinent methodological issues and potential innovative approaches that could inform the development of high-quality RWD studies.

Pediatric pan-cancer genome analyses do not capture the full range of diagnoses encountered in clinical practice. To inform basket trial design and real-world precision oncology practice, we classified diagnoses and assessed the landscape of mutations, including trial-matching, in an unselected cohort of pediatric solid tumors. Since 2013 all Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s patients have been offered participation in the Profile study. Participant tumor samples were sequenced with DFCI-OncoPanel, a targeted panel test sequencing exons of up to 447 cancer genes for single nucleotide variants, insertions and deletions and copy number alterations, and introns and exons of up to 60 genes for rearrangements. Patient diagnosis was classified according to ICD-O, version 3.2. Genomic alterations were analyzed for matching to the actionable mutation lists of precision oncology basket trials (NCI-COG Pediatric MATCH, NCI-MATCH, and the ASCO TAPUR Study v.3). Data will be shared with the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative. There were 888 pediatric patients with sequencing enrolled in Profile between January 2013 and March 2019; 512 (58%) with solid tumors and 376 (42%) with CNS tumors. Fifty-five percent (491/888) of patients had one of ten common pediatric cancer diagnoses: neuroblastoma (n=80), low-grade glioma (n=72), Wilms tumor (n=57), medulloblastoma (n=55), pilocytic astrocytoma (n=47), rhabdomyosarcoma (n=44), osteosarcoma (n=42), ependymoma (n=39), Ewing sarcoma (n=28) and glioblastoma (n=27). The remaining 45% (397/888) had one of 85 distinct rare malignancies with less than 25 cases per diagnosis. Most (80/85) of these rare diagnoses are not represented in prior pediatric pan-cancer sequencing studies. Recurrent (>5%) pathogenic alterations were, in common and rare diagnoses, TP53 mutations(m) and deletions(del) and BRAFm and rearrangements(r), in common diagnoses, MYC/MYCN amplification (amp) and EWSR1r and, in rare diagnoses, CTNNB1m, CDKN2A/Bdel and NF1m/del. We found that 31% (n=271/888) of patients had at least 1 variant matching a basket trial treatment arm. Genes with matching alterations include BRAF (10%), NF1 (4%), PI3KCA (3%), NRAS (2%), BRCA2 (2%), ALK (1%), and FGFR1 (1%). Sequencing of pediatric malignancies is increasing. This study highlights opportunities to use the resulting genomic data to inform genome-selected clinical trial design and uncover drivers in pediatric cancers. The proportion of cases in this cohort with genomic alterations meeting eligibility for basket trials is equivalent to that seen in the pediatric MATCH screening study. Due to the low prevalence of the diagnoses in the long tail of cancer types in this study, defining the genomic landscape of ultra-rare cancers will require data sharing. Classifying pediatric cancer diagnoses using the ICD-O standard ontology system is feasible and will facilitate data sharing. Citation Format: Suzanne J. Forrest, Hersh Gupta, Abigail Ward, Yvonne Li, Duong Doan, Alyaa Al-Ibraheemi, Sanda Alexandrescu, Pratiti Bandopadhayay, Suzanne Shusterman, Elizabeth A. Mullen, Natalie Collins, Susan N. Chi, Karen D. Wright, Priti Kumari, Tali Mazor, Keith L. Ligon, Priyanka Shivdasani, Phani Davineni, Monica Manam, Richard L. Schilsky, Suanna S. Bruinooge, Jaime M. Guidry Auvil, Ethan Cerami, Barrett J. Rollins, Matthew L. Meyerson, Neal I. Lindeman, Laura MacConaill, Bruce E. Johnson, Andrew D. Cherniack, Alanna J. Church, Katherine A. Janeway. Sequencing of 888 pediatric solid tumors informs precision oncology trial design and data sharing initiatives in pediatric cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 3890.

Purpose Case reports and small prospective trials suggest that administering targeted therapies to patients with advanced cancer and an identified genomic target may be associated with clinical benefit. The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry (TAPUR) study, a phase II prospective, nonrandomized, multibasket pragmatic clinical trial, aims to identify signals of drug activity when US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs are matched to prespecified genomic targets in patients with advanced cancer, outside of approved indications. Methods Patients eligible to participate in TAPUR are age ≥ 12 years and have advanced measurable or evaluable solid tumors, multiple myeloma, or B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Eligible participants are matched to any of the 16 US Food and Drug Administration–approved study drugs based on protocol-specified genomic inclusion and exclusion criteria. Genomic profiling from any Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified, College of American Pathologists–accredited laboratory is acceptable. The treating physician selects the treatment from the available study therapies or consults with the TAPUR Molecular Tumor Board. Participants are placed into multiple parallel cohorts defined by tumor type, genomic alteration, and drug. The primary study end point within each cohort is objective response or stable disease of at least 16 weeks duration. Secondary end points include safety, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results More than 1,000 participants have thus far been registered, and more than 800 have been treated with a TAPUR study drug. Two study cohorts have permanently closed to enrollment because of lack of antitumor activity, and 12 have expanded to the second stage of enrollment after promising preliminary activity. Conclusion The TAPUR study will describe the efficacy and toxicity of the targeted drugs used outside of their approved indications when matched to a somatic genomic variant.

PURPOSE: Feasibility assessments (FAs) are important to establish site capabilities to conduct clinical trials and their suitability for specific trials. However, current FA methods used by biotechnology and pharmaceutical (biotech-pharma) trial sponsors and contract research organizations (CROs) are costly, inefficient, unnecessarily burdensome, and resource intensive. These methods delay trial start-up, act as a barrier to site participation, and ultimately reduce timely patient access to clinical trials and novel treatments. METHODS: An ASCO Task Force was convened to assess the specific burdens and challenges with FAs and to develop recommendations to improve their efficiencies and effectiveness. Stakeholders (including trial sites, biotech-pharma sponsors, and CROs) provided insights into challenges and offered solutions through two surveys and an in-person meeting. The Task Force used the feedback to formulate consensus recommendations to improve FAs for oncology clinical trials. RESULTS: Three key recommendations were identified for application across all biotech-pharma sponsored trials: (1) implement a streamlined and uniform FA process across trials and sponsors; (2) minimize and standardize questions; and (3) leverage technology to centralize FAs, facilitate communications, and reduce redundancies. CONCLUSION: There is an urgency to improve the current FA process, which is costly, inconsistent, inefficient, labor intensive, and of uncertain effectiveness. All stakeholders stand to benefit from implementing these recommendations, which aim to minimize burdens and ensure that more trial sites and patients have timely access to oncology clinical trials. To have meaningful impact, adoption and consistent execution of these recommendations across all trials, sponsors, CROs, and sites are essential.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO’s) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

TAPUR is a pragmatic, phase II basket study evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancers harboring genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Sunitinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor of FMS-like tyrosine kinase-3 (FLT-3), among other targets. Results from a cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with FLT-3 amplification treated with sunitinib are reported.This study aimed to investigate whether patients with mCRC with FLT-3 amplification would be responsive to sunitinib, an oral multikinase inhibitor.Eligible patients received a standard sunitinib dose of 50 mg orally for 4 weeks followed by 2 weeks off. Simon's two-stage design was used with the primary study endpoint of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) at 16 weeks based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and safety.Ten patients were enrolled from November 2016 to April 2018. All patients had mCRC with FLT-3 amplification. No ORs were observed. Although two patients had SD at 16 weeks, one died because of disease progression shortly thereafter and the cohort was closed. A single grade 3 adverse event of diarrhea was reported as possibly related to sunitinib.Monotherapy with sunitinib does not have clinical activity in patients with mCRC with FLT-3 amplification and should not be prescribed for off-label use. Other treatments should be considered for these patients, including treatments offered in clinical trials.NCT02693535 (26 February 2016).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted all aspects of clinical care, including cancer clinical trials. In March 2020, ASCO launched a survey of clinical programs represented on its Cancer Research Committee and Research Community Forum Steering Group and taskforces to learn about the types of changes and challenges that clinical trial programs were experiencing early in the pandemic. There were 32 survey respondents; 14 represented academic programs, and 18 represented community-based programs. Respondents indicated that COVID-19 is leading programs to halt or prioritize screening and/or enrollment for certain clinical trials and cease research-only visits. Most reported conducting remote patient care where possible and remote visits and monitoring with sponsors and/or contract research organizations (CROs); respondents viewed this shift positively. Numerous challenges with conducting clinical trials were reported, including enrollment and protocol adherence difficulties with decreased patient visits, staffing constraints, and limited availability of ancillary services. Interactions with sponsors and CROs about modifying trial procedures were also challenging. The changes in clinical trial procedures identified by the survey could serve as strategies for other programs attempting to maintain their clinical trial portfolios during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, many of the adaptations to trials made during the pandemic provide a long-term opportunity to improve and transform the clinical trial system. Specific improvements could be expanded use of more pragmatic or streamlined trial designs, fewer clinical trial–related patient visits, and minimized sponsor and CRO visits to trial programs.

Purpose The primary purposes of eligibility criteria are to protect the safety of trial participants and define the trial population. Excessive or overly restrictive eligibility criteria can slow trial accrual, jeopardize the generalizability of results, and limit understanding of the intervention’s benefit-risk profile. Methods ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration examined specific eligibility criteria (ie, brain metastases, minimum age, HIV infection, and organ dysfunction and prior and concurrent malignancies) to determine whether to modify definitions to extend trials to a broader population. Working groups developed consensus recommendations based on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research community. Results Patients with treated or clinically stable brain metastases should be routinely included in trials and only excluded if there is compelling rationale. In initial dose-finding trials, pediatric-specific cohorts should be included based on strong scientific rationale for benefit. Later phase trials in diseases that span adult and pediatric populations should include patients older than age 12 years. HIV-infected patients who are healthy and have low risk of AIDS-related outcomes should be included absent specific rationale for exclusion. Renal function criteria should enable liberal creatinine clearance, unless the investigational agent involves renal excretion. Patients with prior or concurrent malignancies should be included, especially when the risk of the malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Conclusion To maximize generalizability of results, trial enrollment criteria should strive for inclusiveness. Rationale for excluding patients should be clearly articulated and reflect expected toxicities associated with the therapy under investigation.

Purpose Patients with organ dysfunction, prior or concurrent malignancies, and comorbidities are often excluded from clinical trials. Excluding patients on the basis of these factors results in clinical trial participants who are healthier and younger than the overall population of patients with cancer. Methods ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research established a multidisciplinary working group that included experts in trial design and conduct to examine how eligibility criteria could be more inclusive. The group analyzed current eligibility criteria; conducted original data analysis; considered safety concerns, potential benefits, research, and potential hurdles of this approach through discussion; and reached consensus on recommendations regarding updated eligibility criteria that prioritize inclusiveness without compromising patient safety. Results If renal toxicity and clearance are not of direct treatment-related concern, then patients with lower creatinine clearance values of > 30 mL/min should be included in trials. Inclusion of patients with mild to moderate hepatic dysfunction may be possible when the totality of the available nonclinical and clinical data indicates that inclusion is safe. Ejection fraction values should be used with investigator assessment of a patient’s risk for heart failure to determine eligibility. Patients with laboratory parameters out of normal range as a result of hematologic disease should be included in trials. Measures of patient functional status should be included in trials to better assess fit versus frail patients. Conclusion Expanding inclusion of these patients will increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and result in a more appropriate population of patients.

Purpose Children have historically been excluded from first-in-human studies of promising new cancer drugs and later phase adult clinical trials. Delays in evaluation may result in off-label use without dosing information as the only access to new drugs. A multistakeholder workshop was convened in May 2016 by ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research to identify opportunities for when it would be scientifically appropriate to expand trial eligibility to include children younger than age 18 years in first-in-human and other adult cancer clinical trials. Methods This group convened experts from academia, government, and industry to review barriers to enrolling children and adolescents in oncology clinical trials. We evaluated the historical context, published literature, regulatory considerations, and myriad risks and benefits associated with lowering the age of enrollment on oncology clinical trials. Results We conclude that many of the historical concerns about including children early in oncology clinical trials do not apply in the current scientific and clinical environment of pediatric oncology and drug development; we provide specific recommendations for how the inclusion of children in early-phase investigational cancer drug trials might be accomplished. Automatic inclusion of pediatric patients is appropriate in early-phase trials that assess dose, safety, and pharmacokinetics in a variety of tumor types and later phase trials that assess efficacy in a specific disease that spans adult and pediatric populations. Conclusion Including children in appropriately designed adult clinical oncology trials is feasible and can be done in a way that enhances their access to these agents without compromising safety or development strategies.

6509 Background: The ASCO Registry was created to analyze the impact of COVID-19 (COVID) on treatment (Tx) and outcomes of patients (pts) with cancer. Methods: The Registry includes pts with 1) a confirmed COVID diagnosis (Dx) and 2) clinically evident cancer receiving Tx/supportive care or resected cancer on adjuvant Tx

9067 Background: With rapid advancements in biomarker testing informing lung cancer treatment decisions, clinicians are challenged to maintain knowledge of who, what and when to test and how to treat based on test results. An ASCO taskforce including representatives from the American Cancer Society National Lung Cancer Roundtable and patient advocates conducted a study to assess biomarker testing and treatment practices for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) among U.S. oncologists. Methods: A survey was sent to 2374 ASCO members – lung cancer specialists and general oncologists. Eligibility required treating ≥1 lung cancer patient/month. Proportions were estimated across groups and compared using chi-square tests. Results: 170 responses were analyzed. 59% of respondents work at an academic center (i.e., have a fellowship program), while 41% work at a community (non-academic hospital/health system/private practice). Nearly all (98%) believe biomarker results should be received within 1 or 2 weeks of ordering, yet 37% wait an average of 3 or 4 weeks for results. Of respondents who usually wait 3 or 4 weeks, 37% initiate a non-targeted systemic treatment while waiting. Respondents from community practices were more likely to initiate non-targeted systemic treatment if results were not available after 2 weeks (59% compared to 40% of academic respondents; p = 0.013). ). When asked about reasons for not testing, respondents 6 years from training (41% vs 19%). Respondents reported high testing rates in both non-squamous and squamous aNSCLC. Roughly equal representation of generalists/specialists and academic/community respondents helps mitigate potential concerns about external validity. Conclusions: Respondents indicated that treatment decisions are impacted by delays in biomarker test results. Clinicians should be informed about when it is safe and appropriate to defer treatment while biomarker testing is pending. Respondents suggest that diagnostic biomarker testing companies should strive to expedite results.[Table: see text]

BACKGROUND The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes a mandate requiring most private health insurers to cover routine patient care costs for cancer clinical trial participation; however, the impact of this provision on cancer centers’ efforts to accrue patients to clinical trials has not been well described. METHODS First, members of cancer research centers and community-based institutions (n = 252) were surveyed to assess the status of insurance denials, and then, a focused survey (n = 77) collected denial details. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine associations between the receipt of denials and site characteristics. RESULTS Overall, 62.7% of the initial survey respondents reported at least 1 insurance denial during 2014. Sites using a precertification process were 3.04 times more likely to experience denials (95% confidence interval, 1.55-5.99; P ≤ .001), and similar rates of denials were reported from sites located in states with preexisting clinical trial coverage laws versus states without them (82.3% vs 85.1%; χ[2] = 50.7; P ≤ .001). Among the focused survey sites, academic centers reported denials more often than community sites (71.4% vs 46.4%). The failure of plans to cover trial participation was cited as the most common reason provided for denials (n = 33 [80.5%]), with nearly 80% of sites (n = 61) not receiving a coverage response from the insurer within 72 hours. CONCLUSIONS Despite the ACA's mandate for most insurers to cover routine care costs for cancer clinical trial participation, denials and delays continue. Denials may continue because some insurers remain exempt from the law, or they may signal an implementation failure. Delays in coverage may affect patient participation in trials. Additional efforts to eliminate this barrier will be needed to achieve federal initiatives to double the pace of cancer research over the next 5 years. Future work should assess the law's effectiveness at the patient level to inform these efforts. Cancer 2017;123:2893–900. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

PURPOSE: Investigators often send reports to sponsors that incorrectly categorize adverse event (AE)s as serious or attribute AEs to investigational drugs. Such errors can contribute to high volumes of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports that sponsors submit to the US Food and Drug Administration and participating investigators, which strain resources and impede the detection of valid safety signals. To improve the quality of serious AE (SAE) reporting by physician-investigators and research staff, ASCO developed and tested a Decision Aid. METHODS: A preliminary study with crossover design was conducted in a convenience sample. Physician-investigators and research staff were randomly assigned to receive case studies. Case studies were assessed for seriousness and attribution, first unassisted and then with the Decision Aid. Participants completed a feedback survey about the Decision Aid. Effectiveness of reporting and attribution are reported as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. Power to detect associations was limited because of a small sample size. RESULTS: The Decision Aid did not significantly affect accuracy of determining seriousness (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.31 to 2.46), but it did significantly increase accuracy of attributing an SAE to a drug (OR, 3.60; 95% CI, 1.15 to 11.4). Most of the 29 participants reported that the Decision Aid was helpful (93%) and improved decision-making time (69%) and confidence in reporting (83%), and that they would use the Decision Aid in practice (83%). CONCLUSION: The Decision Aid shows promise as a method to improve the quality of SAE attribution, which may improve the detection of valid safety signals and reduce the administrative burden of uninformative investigational new drug safety reports. Study of the Decision Aid in a larger sample with analysis stratified by participant role and SAE reporting experience would further assess the tool’s impact.

Purpose: Advanced practice providers (APPs, which include nurse practitioners [NPs] and physician assistants [PAs]) are integral members of oncology teams. This study aims first to identify all oncology APPs and, second, to understand personal and practice characteristics (including compensation) of those APPs. Methods: We identified APPs who practice oncology from membership and claims data. We surveyed 3,055 APPs about their roles in clinical care. Results: We identified at least 5,350 APPs in oncology and an additional 5,400 who might practice oncology. Survey respondents totaled 577, which provided a 19% response rate. Results focused on 540 NPs and PAs. Greater than 90% reported satisfaction with career choice. Respondents identified predominately as white (89%) and female (94%). NPs and PAs spent the majority (80%) of time in direct patient care. The top four patient care activities were patient counseling (NPs, 94%; PAs, 98%), prescribing (NPs, 93%; PAs, 97%), treatment management (NPs, 89%; PAs, 93%), and follow-up visits (NPs, 81%; PAs, 86%). A majority of all APPs reported both independent and shared visits (65% hematology/oncology/survivorship/prevention/pediatric hematology/oncology; 85% surgical/gynecologic oncology; 78% radiation oncology). A minority of APPs reported that they conducted only shared visits. Average annual compensation was between $113,000 and $115,000, which is approximately $10,000 higher than average pay for nononcology APPs. Conclusion: We identified 5,350 oncology APPs and conclude that number may be as high as 7,000. Survey results suggest that practices that incorporate APPs routinely rely on them for patient care. Given the increasing number of patients with and survivors of cancer, APPs are important to ensure access to quality cancer care now and in the future.

Trimodality therapy (chemoradiation and surgery) is the standard of care for stage II/III rectal cancer but nearly one third of patients do not receive radiation therapy (RT). We examined the relationship between the density of radiation oncologists and the travel distance to receipt of RT.A retrospective study based on the National Cancer Data Base identified 26,845 patients aged 18 to 80 years with stage II/III rectal cancer diagnosed from 2007 to 2010. Radiation oncologists were identified through the Physician Compare dataset. Generalized estimating equations clustering by hospital service area was used to examine the association between geographic access and receipt of RT, controlling for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Of the 26,845 patients, 70% received RT within 180 days of diagnosis or within 90 days of surgery. Compared with a travel distance of12.5 miles, patients diagnosed at a reporting facility who traveled ≥50 miles had a decreased likelihood of receipt of RT (50-249 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.75, P.001; ≥250 miles, adjusted odds ratio 0.46; P=.002), all else being equal. The density level of radiation oncologists was not significantly associated with the receipt of RT. Patients who were female, nonwhite, and aged ≥50 years and had comorbidities were less likely to receive RT (P.05). Patients who were uninsured but self-paid for their medical services, initially diagnosed elsewhere but treated at a reporting facility, and resided in Midwest had an increased the likelihood of receipt of RT (P.05).An increased travel burden was associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving RT for patients with stage II/III rectal cancer, all else being equal; however, radiation oncologist density was not. Further research of geographic access and establishing transportation assistance programs or lodging services for patients with an unmet need might help decrease geographic barriers and improve the quality of rectal cancer care.

The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) convened a subcommittee to develop recommendations on improving the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer in response to a critical need identified by the Institute of Medicine. Older adults experience the majority of cancer diagnoses and deaths and make up the majority of cancer survivors. Older adults are also the fastest growing segment of the US population. However, the evidence base for treating this population is sparse, because older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials, and trials designed specifically for older adults are rare. The result is that clinicians have less evidence on how to treat older adults, who represent the majority of patients with cancer. Clinicians and patients are forced to extrapolate from trials conducted in younger, healthier populations when developing treatment plans. This has created a dearth of knowledge regarding the risk of toxicity in the average older patient and about key end points of importance to older adults. ASCO makes five recommendations to improve evidence generation in this population: (1) Use clinical trials to improve the evidence base for treating older adults with cancer, (2) leverage research designs and infrastructure for generating evidence on older adults with cancer, (3) increase US Food and Drug Administration authority to incentivize and require research involving older adults with cancer, (4) increase clinicians' recruitment of older adults with cancer to clinical trials, and (5) use journal policies to improve researchers' reporting on the age distribution and health risk profiles of research participants.

Background: In April 2020, ASCO initiated a registry to capture and analyze status and outcomes of patients with cancer and COVID-19, and to describe effects of the pandemic on U.S. cancer practices. Initial findings of changes to care delivery are included. Methods: Practices provide data on changes to care delivery due to COVID-19 and longitudinal data on patients with cancer and confirmed COVID-19. At present, 26 cancer practices have enrolled in the Registry—5 academic, 15 hospital/health-system (H/HS) owned, and 6 physician-owned (P-O) located in 19 states. Enrollment of practices and data collection is ongoing. Results: Twenty sites, from 17 practices (3 academic, 9 H/HS owned, and 5 P-O in 15 states) responded (April 20-June 4). All incorporated telemedicine visits; 90% reported use of telemedicine was new. 30% reported “declining some but not all” new patient requests. For patients with cancer not on active therapy, 15% of sites postponed some routine visits, 35% conducted virtually all routine visits by telemedicine, and 50% used telemedicine for some routine visits. Most sites (95%) reported following clinical guidelines for visit postponement; 90% reported following local health authorities on when to resume routine visits. 90% screened patients prior to in-office visits for COVID-19 symptoms by phone and at clinic entrance; 10% screened patients using only one method. 30% modified intravenous (IV) drug infusions, including halting some or all (10%), shortening some or all (20%), or switching from IV to oral drugs (15%). While no sites conducted home-based, anticancer drug infusions, 30% are considering this option if COVID19 conditions change. Most sites modified laboratory specimen collection, including allowing a collection site closer to home (60%) and collection in a patient’s home (1 site). Two sites only allowed patients on oral anticancer drugs to use alternate collection sites. Only 1 site reported specimen collection in patients’ homes. All reported making the following changes to clinic arrangements: requiring use of masks, eliminating accompaniment by a support person (with exceptions), and reducing the visit numbers or increasing time between visits. No sites reported shortages of anticancer or supportive care drugs. 45% experienced shortages of nasopharyngeal swabs, 45% of medical hand sanitizer, and 75% of personal protective equipment. 40% of sites have experienced staffing reductions or changes due to reduced patient visits (30%), transfer to other clinical areas (20%), availability (15%), and COVID-19 illness (15%). Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on most aspects of cancer care delivery in U.S. oncology practices. All practices incorporated telemedicine, which is new to most. Adjustments were made to patient visits and scheduled IV drug infusions. Sites reported shortages of equipment related to COVID-19, not cancer or supportive care drug shortages. At the time of the AACR meeting we expect to have data from more practices. Citation Format: Suanna S. Bruinooge, Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer, Stephen Meersman, Patricia Hurley, Brian Bourbeau, Allyn Moushey, Sybil Green, Deborah Kamin, Stephen Grubbs, Richard L. Schilsky. Changes implemented by U.S. oncology practices in response to COVID-19 pandemic: Initial report from the ASCO Registry on COVID-19 and cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Meeting: COVID-19 and Cancer; 2020 Jul 20-22. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2020;26(18_Suppl):Abstract nr S06-01.

e19145 Background: Scientific advances in genomics have ushered in new cancer tests and therapies. Many researchers, clinicians and advocates wonder how breakthroughs are implemented in practice. Methods: We examined Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) use, results, actions and outcomes among US oncologists (oncs) in treatment of their patients (pts) with advanced cancer (AC). 178 physician members of ASCO who used NGS for AC pts in past 3 months completed an online survey (response rate=30%). Results: Table shows NGS use, outcomes, and perceptions of treatment response among oncs who treat AC pts. Results from questions that were NOT asked by cancer type: 19% of respondents reported that NGS results guided treatment recommendations to a great extent, and 37% to a moderate extent, 65% reported tests often provided no actionable information; among oncs reporting NGS results provided actionable information, 31% reported they sometimes/often tried but couldn’t obtain the FDA-approved drug; respondents used many approaches to “decide what to do” with results. 83% explored trials, 68% reviewed scientific literature, 64% explored feasibility of FDA-indicated drug, 52% used NGS report recommendations, 47% talked with colleague, and 23% accessed molecular tumor board most (>60%) of the time. Conclusions: Oncologists reported high use of NGS results to guide treatment decisions for pts with select ACs and an associated benefit in some pts. Two-thirds of oncs often experienced lack of actionable information across a broad range of tumor types. Even when NGS yielded actionable information, it was common for oncs to experience problems obtaining FDA-approved drugs. The large number of approaches oncs used to make treatment decisions may suggest an important opportunity to improve decision-making efficiency in healthcare delivery. [Table: see text]

2076 Background: Despite opioid misuse and abuse, opioids remain a mainstay for management of cancer pain. Government, payers, and institutions have implemented policies to reduce opioid use. The impact of these restrictions on oncologist prescriptions (Rx) of opioids and management of cancer pain in pts with cancer is not well known. Methods: A retrospective, observational analysis used deidentified EHR data from ASCO’s CLQ Discovery database. Study cohort included pts with mNSCLC diagnosis and >1 clinical encounter (including opioid Rx) from CLQ clinician during 2010-2017. Opioids included DEA schedule II and III opioid drugs prescribed for cancer pain, excluding cough suppressants. Annual Rx rates were defined as the number of mNSCLC pts who had ≥ 1 opioid Rx dated 2010-2017 per CLQ total mNSCLC pts who had ≥1 clinical encounter in the year. Annual rates demonstrate trends in opioid prescribing patterns over time. Results: 18,106 pts with mNSCLC clinical activity between 2010 and 2017 were identified. Overall, 39.8% of pts had opioid Rx in 2010-2017. Annual Rx rates increased from 2010-2015 and fell 2016-2017 (see table). Hydrocodone was the second most frequently prescribed opioid overall (N=4211 pts), but Rx rates began to decline in 2012. Tramadol and acetaminophen + codeine Rx rates gradually increased throughout the time period. DEA initially scheduled Tramadol as schedule IV in 2014. Conclusions: Opioids are commonly prescribed by oncologists for patients with mNSCLC. Rx rates have declined since 2015, likely due to increased government, payer, and institutional restrictions on access. Hydrocodone Rx declined since 2012, perhaps exacerbated by reclassification from schedule III to schedule II by the DEA (October 2014). Rxs for schedule IV and III opioids (known to be of lower potency) increased modestly, likely due to comparatively fewer prescribing restrictions. Additional research is needed to understand whether the decline continues and the impact on management of cancer pain, particularly among metastatic patients. [Table: see text]

e19046 Background: Data regarding people who are gender minorities are not well-captured in oncology practices or large cohorts. Given this, collection of cancer prevalence and outcomes data, which are necessary to understand disparities in this population, are significantly hampered. Real-world data may be the most readily available source to explore outcomes in transgender populations. A database of EHR data on people with cancer, CancerLinQ is housed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and collected from nation-wide practices and multiple EHRs. Methods: In order to identify people with cancer who may be transgender within CancerLinQ, we used three criteria: 1. ICD 9/10 diagnosis (Dx) code indicating likely transgender or non-binary gender conforming status 2. Male gender and Dx of cervical, endometrial, ovarian, or Fallopian tube cancers 3. Female gender and Dx of prostate, testicular, or penile cancers . We reviewed medical records for gender, cancer diagnosis, Dx indicating transgender identity and surgical history of transition-related surgeries, in other words surgeries that align bodies with identities and constructed a de-identified dataset of people who met one of the three criteria listed above. People without evidence of transgender identity were assigned as: (1) likely Dx error, because the person had either (a) no cancer, (b) an alternate cancer Dx consistent with sex assigned at birth, or (c) a cancer not listed in the above criteria (e.g. lung); or (2) likely error in gender data, if the cancer Dx was confirmed, but gender data was not; or (3) unknown. Results: Of ~1.3 million records in CancerLinQ at time of case selection, 557 matched inclusion criteria and 242 were abstracted. 76% of patients with ICD9/10 gender related Dx codes had evidence confirming transgender identity. By contrast, only 2% and 3% of the people identified by criteria 2 and 3 had evidence of transgender identity, respectively. Conclusions: Given the need for data regarding transgender people with cancer and the deficiencies of current data resources, a national concerted effort is needed to broaden terminology in EHRs to include whether people are transgender or not as routine and required data elements, provided by patients at their discretion. [Table: see text]

e19311 Background: Leveraging data from a collaboration with 9 data partners, Friends of Cancer Research convened the Real-world Evidence Pilot 2.0, to examine trends and real world (rw) data endpoints in immunotherapy (IO) use for the front line treatment of aNSCLC. Methods: This study leveraged parallel analyses of rw data elements across heterogenous data sources (EHR, administrative claims, and registry) to: a) describe trends in uptake and use of novel IO frontline therapy after advanced diagnosis in NSCLC patients treated in usual care settings and b) examine associations between treatment and rw outcomes at one-year follow-up. The proportion of patients treated on each regimen (IO single agent, chemo, or IO + chemo) from 2011 through 2017 were calculated. Analysis included proportion of patients across treatment regimens stratified by year to describe post approval uptake of IO. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were reported to adjust for follow-up time and stratified by PD-L1 status and stage. Results: Seven datasets identified a range of 999 to 4617 patients per dataset for this analysis. Across datasets, 2508, 3446, and 4176 patients initiated treatment in 2015, 2016, and 2017, respectively. No patients received IO or IO + chemo regimens prior to 2015. Initial approvals for IO use in aNSCLC occurred in October 2015 and for first line in metastatic NSCLC in October 2016. When examining survival at 1 year, overall, OS in PD-(L)1 + patients appeared longer than those with a PD-(L)1 - status. Conclusions: RWE analyses may reveal important trends in clinical cancer patient care including patterns of off-label use. The heterogeneity in the timing of IO uptake across datasets ranged from immediately after approval to ~12 months post-approval. [Table: see text]

[Media: see text] Purpose: To describe the US hematology and medical oncology practice landscape and to report findings of the sixth annual ASCO Oncology Practice Census survey. Participants and Methods: ASCO used Medicare Physician Compare data to characterize oncology practices in the United States. Practice size, number of care sites, and geographic distribution were determined. Trends in the number and size of practices from 2013 to 2017 were examined. All US oncology practices were targeted for the survey; survey responses were linked to the practices identified from Physician Compare to augment results and assess generalizability. Results: More than 2,200 hematology/oncology practices provided care to adult patients in 2017. We observed annual decreases in the number of practices and annual increases in practice size. Of the 2017 practices, 394 (18%) completed the survey and accounted for 58% of the US hematologist/oncologist workforce (n = 7,203). Respondents tended to be larger and encompass more sites of care than nonrespondents. Surveyed practices cited payers (58%), competition (38%), and staffing (37%) as primary sources of strain. Prior authorization was dominant among payer pressures (78%). Electronic health records remained a burden on practices, with only 15% reporting full interoperability. Conclusion: The results of ASCO’s 2017 survey indicate that oncology practices are challenged by day-to-day operations, often related to payment, reimbursement, and competition. Our findings likely represent conservative estimates of such burdens because they are driven by responses from midsized to large-sized organizations, which have lower relative administrative burden, greater market influence, and potentially better ability to adapt in a changing health care environment.

Introduction: This analysis evaluates the impact of bundling drug costs into a hypothetic bundled payment. Methods: An economic model was created for patient vignettes from: advanced-stage III colon cancer and metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. First quarter 2016 Medicare reimbursement rates were used to calculate the average fee-for-service (FFS) reimbursement for these vignettes. The probabilistic risk faced by practices was captured by the type of patients seen in practices and randomly assigned in a Monte Carlo simulation on the basis of the given distribution of patient types within each cancer. Simulations were replicated 1,000 times. The impact of bundled payments that include drug costs for various practice sizes and cancer types was quantified as the probability of incurring a loss at four magnitudes: any loss, > 10%, > 20%, or > 30%. A loss was defined as receiving revenue from the bundle that was less than what the practice would have received under FFS; the probability of loss was calculated on the basis of the number of times a practice reported a loss among the 1,000 simulations. Results: Practices that treat a substantial proportion of patients with complex disease compared with the average patient in the bundle would have revenue well below that expected from FFS. Practices that treat a disproportionate share of patients with less complex disease, as compared with the average patient in the bundle, would have revenue well above the revenue under FFS. Overall, bundled payments put practices at greater risk than FFS because their patient case mix could greatly skew financial performance. Conclusion: Including drug costs in a bundle is subject to the uncontrollable probabilistic risk of patient case mixes.

Purpose.—Clinical use of analytical tests to assess genomic variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is increasing. This joint review from the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists summarizes current information about clinical ctDNA assays and provides a framework for future research.Methods.—An Expert Panel conducted a literature review on the use of ctDNA assays for solid tumors, including preanalytical variables, analytical validity, interpretation and reporting, and clinical validity and utility.Results.—The literature search identified 1338 references. Of those, 390, plus 31 references supplied by the Expert Panel, were selected for full-text review. There were 77 articles selected for inclusion.Conclusions.—The evidence indicates that testing for ctDNA is optimally performed on plasma collected in cell stabilization or EDTA tubes, with EDTA tubes processed within 6 hours of collection. Some ctDNA assays have demonstrated clinical validity and utility with certain types of advanced cancer; however, there is insufficient evidence of clinical validity and utility for the majority of ctDNA assays in advanced cancer. Evidence shows discordance between the results of ctDNA assays and genotyping tumor specimens, and supports tumor tissue genotyping to confirm undetected results from ctDNA tests. There is no evidence of clinical utility and little evidence of clinical validity of ctDNA assays in early-stage cancer, treatment monitoring, or residual disease detection. There is no evidence of clinical validity or clinical utility to suggest that ctDNA assays are useful for cancer screening, outside of a clinical trial. Given the rapid pace of research, reevaluation of the literature will shortly be required, along with the development of tools and guidance for clinical practice.