Barriers to Accrual and Enrollment in Brain Tumor Trials

Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next five years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions

A population study of clinical trial accrual for women and minorities in neuro-oncology following the NIH Revitalization Act.

BackgroundThe NIH Revitalization Act, implemented 29 years ago, set to improve the representation of women and minorities in clinical trials. In this study, we investigate progress made in all phase therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial CNS tumors stratified by demographic-specific age-adjusted disease incidence and mortality. Additionally, we identify workforce characteristics associated with clinical trials meeting established accrual benchmarks.MethodsRegistry study of published clinical trials for World Health Organization defined neuroepithelial CNS tumors between January 2000 and December 2019. Study participants were obtained from PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov. Population-based data originated from the CBTRUS for incidence analyses. SEER-18 Incidence-Based Mortality data was used for mortality analysis. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact, and χ 2 tests were used for data analysis.ResultsAmong 662 published clinical trials representing 49 907 participants, 62.5% of participants were men and 37.5% women (P < .0001) representing a mortality specific over-accrual for men (P = .001). Whites, Asians, Blacks, and Hispanics represented 91.7%, 1.5%, 2.6%, and 1.7% of trial participants. Compared with mortality, Blacks (47% of expected mortality, P = .008), Hispanics (17% of expected mortality, P < .001) and Asians (33% of expected mortality, P < .001) were underrepresented compared with Whites (114% of expected mortality, P < .001). Clinical trials meeting accrual benchmarks for race included minority authorship.ConclusionsFollowing the Revitalization Act, minorities and women remain underrepresented in therapeutic clinical trials for neuroepithelial tumors, relative to disease incidence and mortality. Study accrual has improved with time. This study provides a framework for clinical trial accrual efforts and offers guidance regarding workforce considerations associated with enrollment of underserved patients

SNO 2020 diversity survey: defining demographics, racial biases, career success metrics and a path forward for the field of neuro-oncology

Abstract Background Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers, and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. Methods In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including the European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics, and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic, and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. Results The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40–49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. Conclusions The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field

SNO 2020 diversity survey: defining demographics, racial biases, career success metrics and a path forward for the field of neuro-oncology.

BACKGROUND: Neuro-oncology has grown tremendously since 2010, marked by increasing society membership, specialized clinical expertise, and new journals. Yet, modest improvement in racial/ethnic diversity amongst clinical trial participants, researchers and clinicians led us to conduct a survey to identify opportunities to enhance diversity and inclusiveness amongst neuro-oncology professionals. METHODS: In summer 2020, the Women and Diversity Committee of the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) distributed an anonymous online survey to members and affiliates including European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO), Asian Society for Neuro-Oncology (ASNO), Society for Neuro-Oncology Latin America (SNOLA) and Society for Neuro-Oncology Sub-Saharan Africa (SNOSSA). The survey captured personal and professional characteristics, biases, effective mentorship qualities, career service metrics and suggested field/society changes. Results were analyzed by geography, profession, age, racial/ethnic and sexual identity. Standard descriptive statistics characterized the study population. RESULTS: The 386 respondents were predominantly female (58%) with a median age range of 40-49 years (31%), White (65%), and SNO members (97%). Most worked in North America (77%) in a research profession (67%). A majority of White respondents reported never experiencing biases (64%), while the majority of non-White respondents reported unconscious biases/microaggressions, followed by a lack of/limited mentorship. Qualitative assessments showcased that personal/professional success metrics were linked to needed improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts within the neuro-oncology field. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of racial/ethnic biases and poor mentorship rates amongst underrepresented groups in neuro-oncology is high and potentially linked to the limited diverse representation amongst members and affiliates. These findings warrant a swift implementation of equity and inclusion practices within the neuro-oncology field

Resolving the phylogenetic origin of glioblastoma via multifocal genomic analysis of pre-treatment and treatment-resistant autopsy specimens

Glioblastomas are malignant neoplasms composed of diverse cell populations. This intratumoral diversity has an underlying architecture, with a hierarchical relationship through clonal evolution from a common ancestor. Therapies are limited by emergence of resistant subclones from this phylogenetic reservoir. To characterize this clonal ancestral origin of recurrent tumors, we determined phylogenetic relationships using whole exome sequencing of pre-treatment IDH1/2 wild-type glioblastoma specimens, matched to post-treatment autopsy samples (n = 9) and metastatic extracranial post-treatment autopsy samples (n = 3). We identified “truncal” genetic events common to the evolutionary ancestry of the initial specimen and later recurrences, thereby inferring the identity of the precursor cell population. Mutations were identified in a subset of cases in known glioblastoma genes such as NF1(n = 3), TP53(n = 4) and EGFR(n = 5). However, by phylogenetic analysis, there were no protein-coding mutations as recurrent truncal events across the majority of cases. In contrast, whole copy-loss of chromosome 10 (12 of 12 cases), copy-loss of chromosome 9p21 (11 of 12 cases) and copy-gain in chromosome 7 (10 of 12 cases) were identified as shared events in the majority of cases. Strikingly, mutations in the TERT promoter were also identified as shared events in all evaluated pairs (9 of 9). Thus, we define four truncal non-coding genomic alterations that represent early genomic events in gliomagenesis, that identify the persistent cellular reservoir from which glioblastoma recurrences emerge. Therapies to target these key early genomic events are needed. These findings offer an evolutionary explanation for why precision therapies that target protein-coding mutations lack efficacy in GBM

Barriers to accrual and enrollment in brain tumor trials

Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions