Search

BackgroundThere is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older.MethodsNUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm.ResultsA total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events.ConclusionsDue to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations.

The lack of treatments with durable response in neuro-oncology highlights the critical need for clinical trials to advance patient care. The intersection of relatively low incidence, evolving classification schema, and entrenched community, healthcare provider, and organizational factors have been historic challenges against successful trial enrollment and implementation. The additional need for multidisciplinary, often tertiary-level care, further magnifies latent national and international health inequities with rural and under-served populations. The COVID-19 pandemic both unveiled fundamental weaknesses in historical approaches and prompted the necessity of new approaches and systems for conducting clinical trials. Here, we provide an overview of traditional barriers to clinical trial enrollment in neuro-oncology, the effect of COVID-19 on these barriers, and the discovery of additional systemic weaknesses. Finally, we discuss future directions by reflecting on lessons learned with strategies to broaden access of care and streamline clinical trial integration into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaborative relationships between academic oncology and industry (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, "omic," and medical device companies) are essential for therapeutic development in oncology; however, limited research on engagement in and perceptions of these relationships has been done. Methods: Survey questions were developed to evaluate relationships between academic oncology and industry. An electronic survey was delivered to 1000 randomly selected members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a professional organization for oncologists, eliciting respondents' views around oncology‐industry collaborations. The responses were analyzed according to prespecified plans. Results: There were 225 survey respondents. Most were from the United States (70.0%), worked at an academic institution (60.1%), worked in medical oncology (81.2%), and had an active relationship with industry (85.8%). One quarter (26.7%) of respondents reported difficulty establishing a relationship with industry collaborators, and most respondents (75%) did not report having had mentorship in developing these relationships. The majority (85.3%) of respondents considered these collaborations important to their careers. Respondents generally thought that scientific integrity was preserved (92%), and most respondents (95%) had little concern over the quality of the collaborative product. Many (60%) shared concerns over potential conflict of interest if an individual with a compensated relationship promoted an industry product for clinical care/research, yet most respondents (67%) stated these relationships did not shape their interactions with patients. Conclusions: This study provides novel data characterizing the nature of collaborative relationships between clinicians, researchers, and industry in oncology. Although respondents considered these collaborations an important part of clinical and academic oncology, formal education or mentorship around these relationships was rare. Conflicting findings around conflict of interest highlight the importance of more dedicated research in this area. Plain Language Summary: Business enterprises in health care play a central role in cancer research and care, driving the development of new medical testing, drugs, and devices. Effective working relationships among clinicians, researchers, and these industry partners can promote innovative research and enhance patient care. Study of these collaborations has been limited to date. Through distribution of a questionnaire to cancer clinicians and researchers, we found that most participants consider these relationships valuable, though they find establishing such relationships challenging partly because of gaps in educational programs in this area. Our findings also highlight the need for further policy around the potential bias these relationships can introduce. Oncology‐industry collaborations can be mutually beneficial relationships that contribute to both scientific and clinical innovation. Despite their value, a deficit of education and policy around these collaborations is recognized by cancer clinicians and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]