Search

BackgroundDisparities in cancer outcomes persist for underserved populations; one important aspect of this is limited access to promising early phase clinical trials. To address this, the National Cancer Institute-funded Create Access to Targeted Cancer Therapy for Underserved Populations (CATCH-UP.2020) was created. We report the tools developed and accrual metrics of the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020 with a focus on racial, ethnic, geographic, and socioeconomically underserved populations.MethodsCATCH-UP.2020 is a P30 supplement awarded to 8 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers with existing resources to rapidly open and accrue to Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) trials with emphasis on engaging patients from underserved populations. Sites used patient-based, community-based, investigator-based, and program-based tools to meet specific program goals.ResultsFrom September 2020 to August 2021, CATCH-UP.2020 sites opened 45 ETCTN trials. Weighted average trial activation time for the 7 sites reporting this was 107 days. In the initial year, sites enrolled 145 patients in CATCH-UP.2020 with 68 (46.9%) representing racial, ethnic, rural, and socioeconomically underserved populations using the broader definition of underserved encompassed in the grant charge. During the initial year of CATCH-UP.2020, a time impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, 15.8% (66 of 417) and 21.4% (31 of 145) of patients enrolled to ETCTN trials at network and at CATCH-UP sites, respectively, were from racial and ethnic minority groups, a more limited definition of underserved for which comparable data are available.ConclusionTargeted funding accelerated activation and accrual of early phase trials and expanded access to this therapeutic option for underserved populations.

Preclinical modeling suggests that intermittent BRAF inhibitor therapy may delay acquired resistance when blocking oncogenic BRAFV600 in melanoma1,2. We conducted S1320, a randomized, open-label, phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02196181) evaluating whether intermittent dosing of the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic and unresectable BRAFV600 melanoma. Patients were enrolled at 68 academic and community sites nationally. All patients received continuous dabrafenib and trametinib during an 8-week lead-in period, after which patients with non-progressing tumors were randomized to either continuous or intermittent dosing of both drugs on a 3-week-off, 5-week-on schedule. The trial has completed accrual and 206 patients with similar baseline characteristics were randomized 1:1 to the two study arms (105 to continuous dosing, 101 to intermittent dosing). Continuous dosing yielded a statistically significant improvement in post-randomization progression-free survival compared with intermittent dosing (median 9.0 months versus 5.5 months, P = 0.064, pre-specified two-sided α = 0.2). Therefore, contrary to the initial hypothesis, intermittent dosing did not improve progression-free survival in patients. There were no differences in the secondary outcomes, including overall survival and the overall incidence of treatment-associated toxicity, between the two groups.

ImportanceUse of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care.ObjectiveTo develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies.Evidence reviewThe MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed.FindingsThe MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility.Conclusions and relevanceMore evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

BackgroundAntibodies targeting the programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)/programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) checkpoint may cause adverse events (AEs) that are linked to the mechanism of action of this therapeutic class and unique from those observed with conventional chemotherapy.MethodsPatients with advanced solid tumors who were enrolled in the phase 1 JAVELIN Solid Tumor (1650 patients) and phase 2 JAVELIN Merkel 200 (88 patients) trials received avelumab, a human anti-PD-L1 IgG1 antibody at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0). In post hoc analyses, immune-related AEs (irAEs) were identified via an expanded AE list and medical review, and infusion-related reactions (IRRs) occurring ≤2 days after infusion and symptoms occurring ≤1 day after infusion and resolving ≤2 days after onset were identified based on prespecified Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) terms.ResultsOf the 1738 patients analyzed, grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 177 (10.2%); the most common were fatigue (17 patients; 1.0%) and IRR (10 patients; 0.6%). TRAEs led to discontinuation in 107 patients (6.2%) and death in 4 patients (0.2%). Grade ≥3 irAEs occurred in 39 patients (2.2%) and led to discontinuation in 34 patients (2.0%). IRRs or related symptoms occurred in 439 patients (25.3%; grade 3 in 0.5% [9 patients] and grade 4 in 0.2% [3 patients]). An IRR occurred at the time of first infusion in 79.5% of 439 patients who had an IRR, within the first 4 doses in 98.6% of 439 patients who had an IRR, and led to discontinuation in 35 patients (2.0%).ConclusionsAvelumab generally was found to be well tolerated and to have a manageable safety profile. A minority of patients experienced grade ≥3 TRAEs or irAEs, and discontinuation was uncommon. IRRs occurred mainly at the time of first infusion, and repeated events were infrequent. Cancer 2018;124:2010-7. © 2018 The Authors. Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

The development of immunotherapy is an important breakthrough for the treatment of cancer, with antitumor efficacy observed in a wide variety of tumors. To optimize immunotherapy use, approaches must be developed to identify which patients are likely to achieve benefit. To minimize therapeutic toxicities and costs, understanding the ideal choice and sequencing of the numerous immuno-oncology agents available for individual patients is thus critical, but fraught with challenges. The immune tumor microenvironment (TME) is a unique aspect of the response to immuno-oncology agents and measurement of single biomarkers does not adequately capture these complex interactions. Therefore, multiple potential biomarkers are likely needed. Current candidates in this area include PD-L1 expression, CD8+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, tumor mutation load and neoantigen burden, immune-related gene signatures, and multiplex IHC assays that examine the pharmacodynamic and spatial interactions of the TME. The most fruitful investigations are likely to use several techniques to predict response and interrogate mechanisms of resistance. Immuno-oncology biomarker research must employ validated assays to ask focused research questions utilizing clinically annotated tissue collections and biomarker-focused clinical trial designs to investigate specific endpoints. Real-time input from patients and their advocates into biomarker discovery is necessary to ensure that the investigations pursued will improve both clinical outcomes and quality of life. We herein provide a framework of recommendations to guide the search for immuno-oncology biomarkers of value.