Search

Purpose of Review: Oncolytic viruses (OVs) exert their antitumor effect through selective killing of cancer cells and induction of host anti-tumor immunity. This review aims to summarize the recent and current trials with OVs for the treatment of lung cancer., Recent Findings: Several OVs have been developed for the treatment of lung cancer including adenovirus, coxsackievirus B3, reovirus, and vaccinia virus and trials have demonstrated a safe toxicity profile. Early-phase trials in lung cancer with OVs have reported antiviral immune responses and evidence of clinical benefit. However, clinical efficacy of OVs in lung cancer either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy has not been confirmed in larger phase II or III trials. Development of OVs in lung cancer has been limited by difficulty in administering OVs in the tumor directly as well as achieving adequate viral load at all tumor sites with systemically administered OVs. Developing novel combinations with OVs, especially checkpoint inhibitors and other immunotherapeutics, may be a strategy to address the limited success seen thus far. Integrating appropriate biomarker studies and meaningful endpoints in future clinical trials will be imperative. Using novel viral delivery systems in addition to increasing tumor specificity through improved genetic modifications in the OVs are other strategies to improve efficacy., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Clinical trials of novel and targeted agents increasingly require biomarkers for eligibility. Precision oncology continues to evolve, but challenges hamper broad use of molecular profiling (MP) that could increase the number of patients benefiting from targeted therapy. We implemented an integrated clinical genomics program (CGP), including a virtual Molecular Tumor Board (MTB), and examined its impact on MP use and impact on clinical trial accrual in a multisite regional-based cancer system with an emphasis on effects for isolated clinicians., Methods: We assessed MP and MTB use from 2010 to 2020 by practice location, physician experience, and patient characteristics. Use of MTB-recommended treatments was assessed. Clinical trial enrollment was evaluated for patients with MP versus MP and MTB review., Results: After CGP implementation, the number of physicians using MP and the number of MP tests increased ≥ 10-fold. The proportion of Hispanic patients with MP was the same as that in the system (both 2%) with marginal differences observed in the proportion of African Americans tested compared with the system population (16% v 19%). Physicians followed MTB treatment recommendations in 74% of cases. Rapid clinical decline was the most common reason why physicians did not follow MTB recommendations. Clinical trial accrual was 15% (669 of 4,459) for patients with MP alone and 28% (94 of 334) with both MP and MTB review. Clinical trial availability and patient out-of-pocket costs affected MP use., Conclusion: Integrating CGP into clinical workflow with decision support tools, trial matching, and management of patient costs led to increased use of MP by physicians with all levels of experience, enhanced clinical trial accrual, and has the potential to reduce disparities in MP.

Background: Tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) fusion proteins resulting from neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions are rare primary oncogenic drivers in a wide array of tumors. Larotrectinib is a first-in-class, highly selective, central nervous system-active TRK inhibitor approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and over 40 countries for the treatment of TRK fusion solid tumors in adult and pediatric patients. Due to the rarity of TRK fusion cancer, larotrectinib was granted accelerated approval based on a relatively small number of patients enrolled in three early phase trials. ON-TRK aims to evaluate the safety profile of larotrectinib in a broader population and over extended time periods., Methods: ON-TRK is a prospective, non-interventional, open-label, multicenter, multi-cohort, post-approval study in adult and pediatric patients with locally advanced or metastatic TRK fusion cancer treated with larotrectinib that will describe the safety and effectiveness of larotrectinib in real-world practice conditions. Adult patients will be grouped by tumor type and followed for at least 2 years. Patients < 18 years old will be enrolled under a 'pediatric' cohort regardless of tumor type and will be followed for 5 years to evaluate the risk of potential long-term adverse effects of larotrectinib on their growth and development. The effectiveness of larotrectinib in the overall study population as well as in patient subgroups will also be evaluated. Procedures avoided in patients with infantile fibrosarcoma (e.g., amputation) and the number of patients who were able to undergo surgery with a curative intent (excluding amputation) because of the use of larotrectinib will be described. Larotrectinib treatment patterns in real-world practice, including dosing and duration of treatment, will be described., Discussion: The FDA Accelerated Approval Program allows for earlier approval of and patient access to drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need. This study is designed to fulfill post-approval requirements set by the FDA as well as post-marketing requirements set forth by local regulatory bodies and is part of the risk management plan for the EMA., Study Registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT04142437 )., Protocol Version: v2.5, 25 March 2021., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Rapid advancements in cancer discovery, diagnosis, and treatment options available to patients with cancer have highlighted the need for enhancements in clinical trial design. The drug development process is costly, with more than 80% of trials failing to reach recruitment targets. Historical approaches to trial design are increasingly burdensome and lack real-world application in the intent-to-treat patient population. Equitable access to clinical trials combined with increased availability of real-world data are creating new opportunities for inclusiveness, improved outcomes, and evidence-based advances in therapies that will generate more generalizable data to better inform clinical decision-making. Clinical trials need to be inclusive if lifesaving data are not to be missed and investigational therapies are to be more accessible to a broader patient base. Real-world data can facilitate the conduct of studies that are identifying and understanding where disparities exist and developing new interventions to improve patient care. The clinical trial design process should be a multistakeholder and consensus- and evidence-driven process in which stakeholders are working together across the health care industry to close the care gap and ensure elimination of barriers that prevent equal access to specialized cancer care and advanced therapies available in clinical trials. The patient voice is essential throughout the trial process; however, it is often excluded from the design process. Integrating real-world data as well as ensuring patient involvement in early trial design during drug development can enhance enrollment and retention, leading to greater diversity.

Patients with cancer demonstrate particularly poor outcomes from COVID-19. To provide information essential for understanding the biologic underpinnings of this association, we analyzed whole-transcriptome RNA expression data obtained from a large cohort of cancer patients to characterize expression of ACE2, TMPRSS2, and other proteases that are involved in viral attachment to and entry into target cells. We find substantial variability of expression of these factors across tumor types and identify subpopulations expressing ACE2 at very high levels. In some tumor types, especially in gastrointestinal cancers, expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 is highly correlated. Furthermore, we found infiltration with T-cell and natural killer (NK) cell infiltration to be particularly pronounced in ACE2-high tumors. These findings suggest that subsets of cancer patients exist with gene expression profiles that may be associated with heightened susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection, in whom malignant tumors function as viral reservoir and possibly promote the frequently detrimental hyper-immune response in patients infected with this virus.

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.

Microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) and tumor mutational burden (TMB) are predictive biomarkers for immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Still, the relationship between the underlying cause(s) of MSI and TMB in tumors remains poorly defined. We investigated associations of TMB to mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression patterns by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MMR mutations in a diverse sample of tumors. Hypothesized differences were identified by the protein/gene affected/mutated and the tumor histology/primary site. Overall, 1057 MSI-H tumors were identified from the 32 932 tested. MSI was examined by NGS using 7000+ target microsatellite loci. TMB was calculated using only nonsynonymous missense mutations sequenced with a 592-gene panel; a subset of MSI-H tumors also had MMR IHC performed. Analyses examined TMB by MMR protein heterodimer impacted (loss of MLH1/PMS2 vs. MSH2/MSH6 expression) and gene-specific mutations. The sample was 54.6% female; mean age was 63.5 years. Among IHC tested tumors, loss of co-expression of MLH1/PMS2 was more common (n = 544/705, 77.2%) than loss of MSH2/MSH6 (n = 81/705, 11.5%; P < .0001), and was associated with lower mean TMB (MLH1/PMS2: 25.03 mut/Mb vs MSH2/MSH6 46.83 mut/Mb; P < .0001). TMB also varied by tumor histology: colorectal cancers demonstrating MLH1/PMS2 loss had higher TMBs (33.14 mut/Mb) than endometrial cancers (20.60 mut/Mb) and other tumors (25.59 mut/Mb; P < .0001). MMR gene mutations were detected in 42.0% of tumors; among these, MSH6 mutations were most common (25.7%). MSH6 mutation patterns showed variability by tumor histology and TMB. TMB varies by underlying cause(s) of MSI and tumor histology; this heterogeneity may contribute to differences in response to ICI., (© 2020 UICC.)

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.

Precision oncology, defined as molecular profiling of tumors to identify targetable alterations, is rapidly developing and has entered the mainstream of clinical practice. Genomic testing involves many stakeholders working in a coordinated fashion to deliver high-quality tissue samples to high-quality laboratories, where appropriate next-generation sequencing (NGS) molecular analysis leads to actionable results. Clinicians should be familiar with the types of genomic variants reported by the laboratory and the technology used to determine the results, including limitations of current testing methodologies and reports. Interpretation of genomic results is best undertaken with multidisciplinary input to reduce uncertainty in clinical recommendations relating to a documented variant. Non-small cell lung cancer has emerged as a prototype disease where genomic data from at least several well-documented alterations with approved targeted agents are essential for optimal treatment from diagnosis of advanced disease. Due to the development of resistance to targeted therapies, resampling and retesting of tumors, including using liquid biopsy technology after clinical progression, may be important in making treatment decisions. The value of molecular profiling depends on avoiding both underutilization for well-documented variant target-drug pairs and overutilization of variant-drug therapy without proven benefit. As techniques evolve and become more cost effective, the use of molecular testing may prove to add more specificity and improve outcomes for a larger number of patients.

The art of practicing oncology has evolved substantially in the past 5 years. As more and more diagnostic tests, biomarker-directed therapies, and immunotherapies make their way to the oncology marketplace, oncologists will find it increasingly difficult to keep up with the many therapeutic options. Additionally, the cost of cancer care seems to be increasing. Clinical pathways are a systematic way to organize and display detailed, evidence-based treatment options and assist the practitioner with best practice. When selecting which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway, considerations must include the efficacy and safety, as well as costs, of the therapy. Pathway treatment regimens must be continually assessed and modified to ensure that the most up-to-date, high-quality options are incorporated. Value-based models, such as the ASCO Value Framework, can assist providers in presenting economic evaluations of clinical pathway treatment options to patients, thus allowing the patient to decide the overall value of each treatment regimen. Although oncologists and pathway developers can decide which treatment regimens to include on a clinical pathway based on the efficacy of the treatment, assessment of the value of that treatment regimen ultimately lies with the patient. Patient definitions of value will be an important component to enhancing current value-based oncology care models and incorporating new, high-quality, value-based therapeutics into oncology clinical pathways.

Historically, oncology clinical trials have focused on comparing a new drug's efficacy to the standard of care. However, as our understanding of molecular pathways in oncology has evolved, so has our ability to predict how patients will respond to a particular drug, and thus comparison with a standard therapy has become less important. Biomarkers and corresponding diagnostic testing are becoming more and more important to drug development but also limit the type of patient who may benefit from the therapy. Newer clinical trial designs have been developed to assess clinically meaningful endpoints in biomarker-enriched populations, and the number of modern, molecularly driven clinical trials are steadily increasing. At the same time, barriers to clinical trial enrollment have also grown. Many barriers contribute to nonenrollment in clinical trials, including patient, physician, institution, protocol, and regulatory barriers. At the protocol level, eligibility criteria have become a large roadblock to clinical trial accrual. Over time, eligibility criteria have become more and more restrictive. To accrue an adequate number of patients to molecularly driven trials, we should consider eligibility criteria carefully and attempt to reduce restrictive criteria. Reducing restrictive eligibility criteria will allow more patients to be eligible for clinical trial participation, will likely increase the speed of drug approvals, and will result in clinical trial results that more accurately reflect treatment of the population in the clinical setting.

As more clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents evolve, the number of eligibility criteria seems to be increasing. The importance and utility of eligibility criteria must be considered in the context of the fundamental goal of a clinical trial: to understand the risks and benefits of a treatment in the intended-use patient population. Although eligibility criteria are necessary to define the population under study and conduct trials safely, excessive requirements may severely restrict the population available for study, and often, this population is not reflective of the general population for which the drug would be prescribed. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Research Committee, which comprises academic faculty, industry representatives, and patient advocates, evaluated this issue. Evaluation results were mixed. Most physicians agreed that excessive eligibility criterias slow study enrollment rates and prolong the duration of enrollment; however, this hypothesis was difficult to validate with the data examined. We propose the organization of a public workshop, with input from regulatory bodies and key stakeholders, with the goal of developing an algorithmic approach to determining eligibility criteria for individual study protocols, which may help guide future investigators and companies in streamlining eligibility criteria in the era of molecularly driven therapy., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: We determined the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and preliminary activity of OSI-906, a potent, oral, dual inhibitor of insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor (IGF1R) and insulin receptor (IR), in patients with advanced solid tumors., Experimental Design: This was a multicenter, open-label, dose escalation phase I study evaluating three intermittent dosing schedules of once-daily OSI-906 [schedule (S) 1, days 1-3 every 14 days; S2, days 1-5 every 14 days; S3, days 1-7 every 14 days]. A fed-fasting expansion cohort was included in the study., Results: Seventy-nine patients were enrolled: 62 in S1, 4 in S2, and 13 in S3. S2 was discontinued. Dose-limiting toxicity comprised grade 3-4 hyperglycemia, vomiting, fatigue, and prolonged QTc interval. The MTD and recommended phase II dose of OSI-906 was 600 mg for both S1 and S3 schedules. Other common adverse events were grade 1-2 nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and diarrhea. The pharmacokinetics of OSI-906 was dose linear, and the terminal half-life ranged between 2 and 6 hours. High-fat meals had a moderate effect on the pharmacokinetics of OSI-906. At the MTD, inhibition of IGF1R and IR was observed in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. An increase in plasma IGF1 concentrations, an indirect measure of IGF1R signaling inhibition, was seen at doses ≥ 450 mg. Two patients with adrenocortical carcinoma achieved partial responses., Conclusion: The MTD of 600 mg was well tolerated and associated with preliminary antitumor activity. These data support further evaluation of OSI-906 in solid tumors., (©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose of Review: Drugs targeting angiogenesis are rapidly being incorporated into cancer treatment regimens. Bevacizumab was the first antiangiogenesis agent to gain approval by the Food and Drug Administration and is now approved for use in five tumor types. This brief review highlights important recent advances in our understanding of bevacizumab and the patient populations in whom it may be most beneficial., Recent Findings: Results from early studies that led to approval of bevacizumab for use in metastatic colorectal cancer and metastatic lung cancer have been confirmed. Although bevacizumab does not appear to prolong disease-free survival in the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer, phase II results in the neoadjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer and breast cancer are encouraging. It may also have a role in maintenance therapy of colorectal cancer and nonsmall cell lung cancer. Bevacizumab is an important agent in the treatment of recurrent glioma. Although the safety profile of bevacizumab in combination with cytotoxic agents has not changed significantly, there may be excess risk associated with combined angiogenesis blockade., Summary: Bevacizumab has efficacy in a wide variety of cancers and fairly predictable toxicities. In addition to further exploration of the benefits of bevacizumab in other tumor types, future research should focus on integration of biomarkers into patient selection and treatment.

Vaccines targeting infections with hepatitis B virus, a risk factor for hepatocellular cancer, and human papillomavirus, a risk factor for cervical cancer, are considered major clinical cancer chemoprevention successes. Molecularly targeted agents can prevent breast cancer (raloxifene and tamoxifen), colorectal adenomas (celecoxib), and prostate cancer (finasteride). Nevertheless, the broad translation of chemoprevention to the clinic is not yet a reality. Continuing research of molecular targets promises to expand the reach of chemoprevention and to personalize it as well.

Objective: This phase I trial was designed to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination of topotecan and gemcitabine given in a weekly schedule., Materials and Methods: In this single-arm, open label, dose-escalation study, we administered topotecan (0.75-1.5 mg/m) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks to 25 patients with advanced solid tumors., Results: The topotecan MTD, when combined with gemcitabine, was 1.25 mg/m/wk. Dose-limiting toxicities consisted of febrile granulocytopenia in 2 patients at the highest dose level. At the MTD, no episodes of granulocytopenia were observed, whereas 2/9 patients exhibited grade 3 thrombocytopenia. Other common grades 3-4 adverse events across all cohorts included non-neutropenic infections, fatigue, skin reactions, vomiting, and fever. One partial response and 2 stable diseases were observed in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Disease stabilization was also observed in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (3), nonsmall cell lung cancer (1), and thymoma (1)., Conclusions: Topotecan and gemcitabine combined in a weekly schedule exhibit a favorable toxicity profile. Efficacy results support the further evaluation of this regimen in patients with head and neck cancer (particularly nasopharyngeal carcinoma).

Purpose: To establish the maximum tolerated dose of lonafarnib, a novel farnesyltransferase inhibitor, in combination with paclitaxel in patients with solid tumors and to characterize the safety, tolerability, dose-limiting toxicity, and pharmacokinetics of this combination regimen., Experimental Design: In a Phase I trial, lonafarnib was administered p.o., twice daily (b.i.d.) on continuously scheduled doses of 100 mg, 125 mg, and 150 mg in combination with i.v. paclitaxel at doses of 135 mg/m(2) or 175 mg/m(2) administered over 3 h on day 8 of every 21-day cycle. Plasma paclitaxel and lonafarnib concentrations were collected at selected time points from each patient., Results: Twenty-four patients were enrolled; 21 patients were evaluable. The principal grade 3/4 toxicity was diarrhea (5 of 21 patients), which was most likely due to lonafarnib. dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 hyperbilirubinemia at dose level 3 (100 mg b.i.d. lonafarnib and 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel); grade 4 diarrhea and grade 3 peripheral neuropathy at dose level 3A (125 mg b.i.d. lonafarnib and 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel); and grade 4 neutropenia with fever and grade 4 diarrhea at level 4 (150 mg b.i.d. lonafarnib and 175 mg/m(2) paclitaxel). The maximum tolerated dose established by the continual reassessment method was lonafarnib 100 mg b.i.d. and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2). Paclitaxel appeared to have no effect on the pharmacokinetics of lonafarnib. The median duration of therapy was eight cycles, including seven cycles with paclitaxel. Six of 15 previously treated patients had a durable partial response, including 3 patients who had previous taxane therapy. Notably, two of five patients with taxane-resistant metastatic non-small cell lung cancer had partial responses., Conclusions: When combined with paclitaxel, the recommended dose of lonafarnib for Phase II trials is 100 mg p.o. twice daily with 175 mg/m(2) of paclitaxel i.v. every 3 weeks. Additional studies of lonafarnib in combination regimens appear warranted, particularly in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

Cancer chemoprevention is defined as the use of natural, synthetic, or biologic chemical agents to reverse, suppress, or prevent carcinogenic progression to invasive cancer. The success of several recent clinical trials in preventing cancer in high-risk populations suggests that chemoprevention is a rational and appealing strategy. This review will highlight current clinical research in chemoprevention, the biologic effects of chemopreventive agents on epithelial carcinogenesis, and the usefulness of intermediate biomarkers as markers of premalignancy. Selected chemoprevention trials are discussed with a focus on strategies of trial design and clinical outcome. Future directions in the field of chemoprevention will be proposed that are based on recently acquired mechanistic insight into carcinogenesis.