Search

Background: The heterogeneous biology of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), as well as the variable outcomes, in the setting of numerous treatment options have led to prognostic uncertainty. Consequently, making treatment decisions is challenging and necessitates involved communication between patient and provider about the risks and benefits. We developed and investigated an interactive decision support tool (DST) designed to improve communication of treatment options and related long-term risks for individuals diagnosed with DCIS., Findings: The DST was developed for use by individuals aged > 40 years with DCIS and is based on a disease simulation model that integrates empirical data and clinical characteristics to predict patient-specific impacts of six DCIS treatment choices. Personalized risk predictions for each treatment option were communicated using icon arrays and percentages for each outcome. Users of the DST were asked before and after interacting with the DST about: (1) awareness of DCIS treatment options, (2) willingness to consider these options, (3) knowledge of risks associated with DCIS, and (4) helpfulness of the DST. Data were collected from January 2019 to April 2022. Users' median estimated risk of dying from DCIS in 10 years decreased from 9% pre-tool to 3% post-tool (p < 0.0001). 76% (n = 101/132) found the tool helpful., Conclusions: Information about DCIS treatment options and related risk predictions was effectively communicated, and a large majority participants found the DST to be helpful. Successfully informing patients about their treatment options and how their individual risks affect those options is a critical step in the decision-making process., Clinicaltrials: gov Identifier NCT02926911., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Cancer immunotherapy has flourished over the last 10-15 years, transforming the practice of oncology and providing long-term clinical benefit to some patients. During this time, three distinct classes of immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor-T cell therapies specific for two targets, and two distinct classes of bispecific T cell engagers, a vaccine, and an oncolytic virus have joined cytokines as a standard of cancer care. At the same time, scientific progress has delivered vast amounts of new knowledge. For example, advances in technologies such as single-cell sequencing and spatial transcriptomics have provided deep insights into the immunobiology of the tumor microenvironment. With this rapid clinical and scientific progress, the field of cancer immunotherapy is currently at a critical inflection point, with potential for exponential growth over the next decade. Recognizing this, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer convened a diverse group of experts in cancer immunotherapy representing academia, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, patient advocacy, and the regulatory community to identify current opportunities and challenges with the goal of prioritizing areas with the highest potential for clinical impact. The consensus group identified seven high-priority areas of current opportunity for the field: mechanisms of antitumor activity and toxicity; mechanisms of drug resistance; biomarkers and biospecimens; unique aspects of novel therapeutics; host and environmental interactions; premalignant immunity, immune interception, and immunoprevention; and clinical trial design, endpoints, and conduct. Additionally, potential roadblocks to progress were discussed, and several topics were identified as cross-cutting tools for optimization, each with potential to impact multiple scientific priority areas. These cross-cutting tools include preclinical models, data curation and sharing, biopsies and biospecimens, diversification of funding sources, definitions and standards, and patient engagement. Finally, three key guiding principles were identified that will both optimize and maximize progress in the field. These include engaging the patient community; cultivating diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and leveraging the power of artificial intelligence to accelerate progress. Here, we present the outcomes of these discussions as a strategic vision to galvanize the field for the next decade of exponential progress in cancer immunotherapy., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LAE, employee, Ankyra Therapeutics; researcher, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Bolt Therapeutics, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Compugen, Corvus, CytomX, EMD Serono, Genentech, F Hoffman La Roche, Immune Onc, Merck, Next Cure, Silverback, Takeda, and Tempest; consultant/advisor/speaker, AstraZeneca, BioLineRx, DNAMx, Genentech, F Hoffman La Roche, GPCR, Gilead, Immune Onc, Immunitas, Immutep, Lilly, Macrogenics, Mersana, and Shionogi; royalty and patent beneficiary, potential for royalties in the future from Molecuvax; publicly traded stocks, potential for stock options in the future from Ankyra Therapeutics; Other, NSABP Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, Breast Cancer Research Foundation, NCI, Department of Defense, Johns Hopkins University, University of California San Francisco, Cornell University, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Stand Up to Cancer. These are grants from non-industry entities. TCB, advisory board, Kalivir, Tabby; consultant, Galvanize, Attivare, Mestag, and Tallac. CMC, consultant/advisor/speaker, Bayer, Elephas, Novartis, Nektar Therapeutics, and WiCell Research Institute. ACA, member of the SAB for Tizona Therapeutics, Trishula Therapeutics, Compass Therapeutics, Zumutor Biologics, Excepgen, and ImmuneOncia, which have interests in cancer immunotherapy. ACA is also a paid consultant for iTeos Therapeutics and Larkspur Biosciences. ACA is an inventor on patents related to the checkpoint receptor Tim-3. DC, executive role, ORIEN Patient Advisory Council. JLG, royalty and patent beneficiary, Bethesda Handbook of Clinical Oncology (royalty) and UpToDate (royalty); JITC interim editor-in-chief. PH, consultant/advisor/speaker, Dragonfly SAB and Immatics SAB. ADP, researcher, Astellas; consultant/advisor/speaker, ImmunoACT, Stromatis Pharma, GO Therapeutics, Astellas, and MaxCyte. PJR, employee, Novigenix and SA; researcher, Roche, pRED, Schilieren, and CH; consultant/advisor/speaker, Enterome, Transgene, and Maxivax. AWS, researcher, Biohaven Pharmaceuticals, Replimune, Morphogenesis, Shattuck Laboratories, Regeneron, and Merck; consultant/advisor/speaker, InStil Bio, Signatera, Merck, and Regeneron; royalty and patent beneficiary, UpToDate; and publicly traded stocks, Illumina. JAW reports compensation for speaker’s bureau and honoraria from PeerView and serves as a consultant and/or advisory board member for Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, EverImmune, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Bayer Therapeutics, James Cancer Center OSU, Daiichi Sanyko. SITC staff: EG, nothing to disclose. JW, nothing to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within- and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better inform prescribers and consequently their patients in the process of shared medical decisions., Competing Interests: DaC reported being Copyright holder or overseer for FACT/FACIT, PROMIS, and Neuro-QoL. C-IC, RQ, and VM are all employees of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and are shareholders of the company. In addition, RQ owns stocks of Pfizer Inc. and Amgen Inc. AU and MR are employees of IQVIA, which received professional service fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for conducting the study. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Cella, Chen, Quek, Uribarren, Reaney, Mastey, Collyar and Chassany.)

Health technology assessment (HTA) is intended to determine the value of health technologies and, once a technology is recommended for funding, bridge clinical research and practice. Understanding the values and beliefs expressed by patients and health professionals can help guide this knowledge transfer and work toward managing the expectations of end users. We gathered patient and patient group leader experiences to gain insights into the roles that patients and patient advocacy groups are playing. We argue that through partnerships and co-creation between HTA professionals, researchers and patient advocates we can strengthen the HTA process and better align with service delivery where person-centered care and shared decision making are key elements. Patient experiences and knowledge are important to the democratization of evidence and the legitimacy of HTAs. Patient preference studies are used to balance benefits with potential harms of technologies, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can measure what matters to patients over time. A change in culture in HTA bodies is occurring and with further transformative thinking patients can be involved in every step of the HTA process. Patients have a right to be involved in HTAs, with patients' values central to HTA deliberations on a technology and where patients can provide valuable insights to inform HTA decision-making; and in ensuring that HTA methodologies evolve. By evaluating the implementation of HTA recommendations we can determine how HTA benefits patients and their communities. Our shared commitment can positively effect the common good and provide benefits to individual patients and their communities., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wale, Chandler, Collyar, Hamerlijnck, Saldana and Pemberton-Whitely.)

Importance: Information to be included in advance informed consent forms for health care-associated pneumonia treatment trials remains to be determined., Objective: To identify and determine how to describe information to be included in an advance informed consent form for an early-enrollment noninferiority hospital-acquired and/or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) clinical trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: A Delphi consensus process with stakeholders in HABP/VABP clinical trials was conducted using qualitative semistructured telephone interviews from June to August 2016, followed by 2 online surveys, the first from April to May 2017, and the second from September to October 2017. All stakeholders who participated in the interview were invited to participate in the first survey. Stakeholders who participated in the first survey were invited to participate in the second survey. Stakeholders were patients at risk of pneumonia, caregivers, representatives of institutional review boards, investigators, and study coordinators., Main Outcomes and Measures: Description and consensus of information to be included in advance informed consent forms for early enrollment in noninferiority HABP/VABP clinical trials., Results: Suggestions from 52 stakeholders about what key informed consent concepts to include and how to explain them were used to create 3 categories to be included in an advance consent form: (1) reassurances on patient health and treatment, (2) rationale for advance consent and early enrollment, and (3) an explanation of noninferiority. At the end of the Delphi process, at least 80% consensus was reached among the 40 stakeholders who participated in the second online survey on each of the statements to include in the proposed consent text. Throughout the process, however, describing and reaching consensus on statements about noninferiority was more problematic than the other categories., Conclusions and Relevance: The stakeholders endorsed consent language to be used in combination with a strategy for enrolling patients at highest risk for pneumonia before infection onset. Data-driven consent language may help potential participants make informed decisions about their involvement in clinical research and improve enrollment rates, which are necessary to evaluate new treatments and improve patient care. The proposed consent language may be adapted for other trials using an early enrollment strategy and for noninferiority trials.

Objective: The majority of 'low-risk' (grade I/II) Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) may not progress to invasive breast cancer during a women's lifetime. Therefore, the safety of active surveillance versus standard surgical treatment for DCIS is prospectively being evaluated in clinical trials. If proven safe and selectively implemented in clinical practice, a significant group of women with low-risk DCIS may forego surgery and radiotherapy in the future. Identification of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors associated with prognosis after a primary DCIS would also enhance our care of women with low-risk DCIS., Methods: To identify modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for subsequent breast events after DCIS, we performed a systematic literature search in PUBMED, EMBASE and Scopus., Results: Six out of the 3870 articles retrieved were included for final data extraction. These six studies included a total of 4950 patients with primary DCIS and 640 recorded subsequent breast events. There was moderate evidence for an association of a family history of breast cancer, premenopausal status, high BMI, and high breast density with a subsequent breast cancer or further DCIS., Conclusion: There is a limited number of recent studies published on the impact of modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors on subsequent events after DCIS. The available evidence is insufficient to identify potential targets for risk reduction strategies, reflecting the relatively small numbers and the lack of long-term follow-up in DCIS, a low-event condition., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None declared., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Oncology research increasingly involves biospecimen collection and data sharing. Ethical challenges emerge when researchers seek to use archived biospecimens for purposes that were not well defined in the original informed consent document (ICD). We sought to inform ongoing policy debates by assessing patient views on these issues., Materials and Methods: We administered a cross-sectional self-administered survey to patients with cancer at an academic medical center. Survey questions addressed attitudes toward cancer research, willingness to donate biospecimens, expectations regarding use of biospecimens, and preferences regarding specific ethical dilemmas., Results: Among 240 participants (response rate 69%), virtually all (94%) indicated willingness to donate tissue for research. Most participants (86%) expected that donated tissue would be used for any research deemed scientifically important, and virtually all (94%) expected that the privacy of their health information would be protected. Broad use of stored biospecimens and data sharing with other researchers increased willingness to donate tissue. For three scenarios in which specific consent for proposed biobank research was unclear within the ICD, a majority of patient's favored allowing the research to proceed: 76% to study a different cancer, 88% to study both inherited (germline) and tumor specific (somatic) mutations, and 70% to permit data sharing. A substantial minority believed that research using stored biospecimens should only proceed with specific consent., Conclusion: When debates arise over appropriate use of archived biospecimens, the interests of the research participants in seeing productive use of their blood or tissue should be considered, in addition to addressing concerns about potential risks and lack of specific consent., Implications for Practice: This survey evaluated views of patients with cancer regarding the permissible use of stored biospecimens from cancer trials when modern scientific methods are not well described in the original informed consent document. The vast majority of patients support translational research and expect that any biospecimens they donate will be used to advance knowledge. When researchers, policy makers, and those charged with research oversight debate use of stored biospecimens, it is important to recognize that research participants have an interest in productive use of their blood, tissue, or data, in addition to considerations of risks and the adequacy of documented consent., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Background: As scientific techniques evolve, historical informed consent forms may inadequately address modern research proposals, leading to ethical questions regarding research with archived biospecimens., Subjects, Materials, and Methods: We conducted focus groups among patients with cancer recruited from Massachusetts General Hospital to explore views on medical research, biobanking, and scenarios based on real biospecimen research dilemmas. Our multidisciplinary team developed a structured focus group guide, and all groups were recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded for themes by two independent investigators using NVivo software., Results: Across five focus groups with 21 participants, we found that most participants were supportive of biobanks and use of their own tissue to advance scientific knowledge. Many favor allowing research beyond the scope of the original consent to proceed if recontact is impossible. However, participants were not comfortable speaking for other patients who may oppose research beyond the original consent. This was viewed as a potential violation of participants' rights or interests. Participants were also concerned with a "slippery slope" and potential scientific abuse if research were permitted without adherence to original consent. There was strong support for recontact and reconsent when possible and for the concept of broad consent at the time of tissue collection., Conclusion: Our participants support use of their tissue to advance research and generally support any productive scientific approach. However, in the absence of broad initial consent, when recontact is impossible, a case-by-case decision must be made regarding a proposal's potential benefits and harms. Many participants support broad use of their tissue, but a substantial minority object to use beyond the original consent., Implications for Practice: For prospective studies collecting tissue for future research, investigators should consider seeking broad consent, to allow for evolution of research questions and methods. For studies using previously collected tissues, researchers should attempt recontact and reconsent for research aims or methods beyond the scope of the original consent. When reconsent is not possible, a case-by-case decision must be made, weighing the scientific value of the biobank, potential benefits of the proposed research, and the likelihood and nature of risks to participants and their welfare interests. This study's data suggest that many participants support broad use of their tissue and prefer science to move forward., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2019.)

Introduction: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive non-obligate precursor of invasive breast cancer. With guideline concordant care (GCC), DCIS outcomes are at least as favourable as some other early stage cancer types such as prostate cancer, for which active surveillance (AS) is a standard of care option. However, AS has not yet been tested in relation to DCIS. The goal of the COMET (Comparison of Operative versus Monitoring and Endocrine Therapy) trial for low-risk DCIS is to gather evidence to help future patients consider the range of treatment choices for low-risk DCIS, from standard therapies to AS. The trial will determine whether there may be some women who do not substantially benefit from current GCC and who could thus be safely managed with AS. This protocol is version 5 (11 July 2018). Any future protocol amendments will be submitted to Quorum Centralised Institutional Review Board/local institutional review boards for approval via the sponsor of the study (Alliance Foundation Trials)., Methods and Analysis: COMET is a phase III, randomised controlled clinical trial for patients with low-risk DCIS. The primary outcome is ipsilateral invasive breast cancer rate in women undergoing GCC compared with AS. Secondary objectives will be to compare surgical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes. Patients randomised to the GCC group will undergo surgery as well as radiotherapy when appropriate; those in the AS group will be monitored closely with surgery only on identification of invasive breast cancer. Patients in both the GCC and AS groups will have the option of endocrine therapy. The total planned accrual goal is 1200 patients., Ethics and Dissemination: The COMET trial will be subject to biannual formal review at the Alliance Foundation Data Safety Monitoring Board meetings. Interim analyses for futility/safety will be completed annually, with reporting following Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for non-inferiority trials., Trial Registration Number: NCT02926911; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Importance: Better treatment options are needed in life-threatening infections, including health care-associated pneumonia. Enrolling patients in antibacterial clinical trials before diagnosis may circumvent existing time-to-enrollment constraints. However, the acceptability of an early enrollment strategy using advance consent is unknown., Objective: To assess the perceived acceptability of an early enrollment strategy for enrolling patients in an antibacterial clinical trial before a pneumonia diagnosis., Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative, descriptive study used semistructured telephone interviews. Framed within a planned noninferiority pneumonia antibiotic trial, an early enrollment strategy was described and perceptions were assessed. Using this strategy, patients give consent to enroll before developing pneumonia, to be monitored by study staff, and to be randomly assigned a study antibiotic if pneumonia develops. All interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Fifty-two key stakeholders from across the United States, including 18 patients at risk of pneumonia, 12 caregivers, 10 representatives of institutional review boards, 7 investigators, and 5 study coordinators, were interviewed from June 20 to August 19, 2016., Main Outcomes and Measures: Perceived acceptability of the early enrollment strategy., Results: Among the 52 stakeholders interviewed (ages 29-75 years; 14 women), patients and caregivers expressed no concerns about patients being approached about participation before developing pneumonia; however, some patients may experience anxiety on learning about their risk for pneumonia. No concerns with study staff accessing patients' medical records were expressed. The clarity of consent information was important for understanding the study rather than having the condition under investigation. Among patients, caregivers, and institutional review board representatives, preferences varied regarding opt-out and precedent autonomy procedures. Nearly all patients would be willing to join a trial using the early enrollment strategy and caregivers would be willing to provide proxy consent. Institutional review board representatives were supportive of the strategy and made recommendations for the study protocol, primarily around informed consent. Investigators and study coordinators believed the strategy would not be burdensome and offered suggestions to ensure its feasibility., Conclusion and Relevance: Results of the study suggest that the early enrollment strategy is acceptable. Future research should evaluate whether the strategy improves enrollment rates in registrational pneumonia trials and in trials of other acute infection syndromes with narrow enrollment windows and/or patients with transient decisional incapacity.

The Center for Medical Technology Policy and the Molecular Evidence Development Consortium gathered a diverse group of more than 50 stakeholders to develop consensus on a core set of data elements and values essential to understanding the clinical utility of molecularly targeted therapies in oncology., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 70% of all breast cancers express the estrogen receptor, and are regulated by estrogen. While the ovaries are the primary source of estrogen in premenopausal women, most breast cancer is diagnosed following menopause, when systemic levels of this hormone decline. Estrogen production from androgen precursors is catalyzed by the aromatase enzyme. Although aromatase expression and local estrogen production in breast adipose tissue have been implicated in the development of primary breast cancer, the source of estrogen involved in the regulation of estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) metastatic breast cancer progression is less clear., Methods: Bone is the most common distant site of breast cancer metastasis, particularly for ER+ breast cancers. We employed a co-culture model using trabecular  bone tissues obtained from total hip replacement (THR) surgery specimens to study ER+ and estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer cells within the human bone microenvironment. Luciferase-expressing ER+ (MCF-7, T-47D, ZR-75) and ER- (SK-BR-3, MDA-MB-231, MCF-10A) breast cancer cells were cultured directly on bone tissue fragments or in bone tissue-conditioned media, and monitored over time with bioluminescence imaging (BLI). Bone tissue-conditioned media were generated in the presence vs. absence of aromatase inhibitors, and testosterone. Bone tissue fragments were analyzed for aromatase expression by immunohistochemistry., Results: ER+ breast cancer cells were preferentially sustained in co-cultures with bone tissues and bone tissue-conditioned media relative to ER- cells. Bone fragments analyzed by immunohistochemistry revealed expression of the aromatase enzyme. Bone tissue-conditioned media generated in the presence of testosterone had increased estrogen levels and heightened capacity to stimulate ER+ breast cancer cell proliferation. Pretreatment of cultured bone tissues with aromatase inhibitors, which inhibited estrogen production, reduced the capacity of conditioned media to stimulate ER+ cell proliferation., Conclusions: These results suggest that a local estrogen signaling axis regulates ER+ breast cancer cell viability and proliferation within the bone metastatic niche, and that aromatase inhibitors modulate this axis. Although endocrine therapies are highly effective in the treatment of ER+ breast cancer, resistance to these treatments reduces their efficacy. Characterization of estrogen signaling networks within the bone microenvironment will identify new strategies for combating metastatic progression and endocrine resistance.

Objectives: To explore patient, caregiver and physician perceptions and attitudes regarding the balance of benefit and risk in using antibacterial drugs developed through streamlined development processes., Design: Semistructured focus groups and in-depth interviews were conducted to elicit perceptions and attitudes about the use of antibacterial drugs to treat multidrug-resistant infections. Participants were given background information about antibiotic resistance, streamlined drug development programmes and FDA drug approval processes. Audio recordings of focus groups/interviews were reviewed and quotes excerpted and categorised to identify key themes., Participants: Two primary stakeholder groups were engaged: one comprising caregivers, healthy persons and patients who had recovered from or were at risk of resistant infection (N=67; 11 focus groups); and one comprising physicians who treat resistant infections (N=23)., Results: Responses from focus groups/interviews indicated widespread awareness among patients/caregivers and physicians of the seriousness of the problem of antibacterial resistance. Both groups were willing to accept a degree of uncertainty regarding the balance of risk and benefit in a new therapy where a serious unmet need exists, but also expressed a desire for rigorous monitoring and rapid, transparent reporting of safety/effectiveness data. Both groups wanted to ensure that >1 physician had input on whether to treat patients with antibiotics developed through a streamlined process. Some patients/caregivers unfamiliar with exigencies of critical care suggested a relatively large multidisciplinary team, while physicians believed individual expert consultations would be preferable. Both groups agreed that careful oversight and stewardship of antibacterial drugs are needed to ensure patient safety, preserve efficacy and prevent abuse., Conclusions: Groups comprising patients/caregivers and physicians were aware of serious issues posed by resistant infections and the lack of effective antibacterial drug therapies and shared a consensus that streamlined development programmes represent a necessary response to the resistance crisis, but one that requires enhanced safeguards and risk communication., Competing Interests: Three authors (JS, RT, JT.) are employees of the US Food and Drug Administration, a funder of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and the present study. The FDA is responsible for the review and approval of antibacterial drugs, including those developed using streamlined approaches., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker)., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

As the need for patient participation in biospecimen and correlative research increases, challenging ethical and potentially legal questions are emerging.

Translating research on genomic changes into novel interventions for patients with cancer requires increased analysis of biospecimens and biomarkers in cancer clinical trials, which involve certain procedural requirements.

Despite recent interest on the part of advocates and researchers of oncology clinical trials in sharing study results, participants in these trials are not routinely informed about the results. We identified oncology physicians and nurses through the Cancer and Leukemia Group B database and surveyed them about sharing clinical trial results with participants. Of 1977 eligible members, 796 (40.3%) responded to the mailed survey, 497 (62.4%) of whom reported that they offer trial results to participants less than one-fifth of the time. A total of 576 (72.4%) of responders believed that most patients want to know the results of studies, and 634 (79.7%) of responders expressed willingness to offer results to most study participants in the future, believing that most patients want to know trial results and that routinely offering results would not have a negative effect on patients. Concerns of some responders about routinely offering trial results included negative emotional effect on patients, patient difficulty understanding the information, and resources required to offer the results. Of concern, 16.2% (129/796) of responders believed an obligation to offer results to study participants would make them less likely to enroll patients on studies. Future studies should consider sharing trial results with patients and evaluating the process and its effect on both patients and clinicians.