Cancer Pharmacogenomics and Pharmacoepidemiology: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation

Recent advances in genomic research have demonstrated a substantial role for genomic factors in predicting response to cancer therapies. Researchers in the fields of cancer pharmacogenomics and pharmacoepidemiology seek to understand why individuals respond differently to drug therapy, in terms of both adverse effects and treatment efficacy. To identify research priorities as well as the resources and infrastructure needed to advance these fields, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop titled “Cancer Pharmacogenomics: Setting a Research Agenda to Accelerate Translation” on July 21, 2009, in Bethesda, MD. In this commentary, we summarize and discuss five science-based recommendations and four infrastructure-based recommendations that were identified as a result of discussions held during this workshop. Key recommendations include 1) supporting the routine collection of germline and tumor biospecimens in NCI-sponsored clinical trials and in some observational and population-based studies; 2) incorporating pharmacogenomic markers into clinical trials; 3) addressing the ethical, legal, social, and biospecimen- and data-sharing implications of pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic research; and 4) establishing partnerships across NCI, with other federal agencies, and with industry. Together, these recommendations will facilitate the discovery and validation of clinical, sociodemographic, lifestyle, and genomic markers related to cancer treatment response and adverse events, and they will improve both the speed and efficiency by which new pharmacogenomic and pharmacoepidemiologic information is translated into clinical practice

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the “PRO-CTCAE.” The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI’s cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials

Adult Cancer Clinical Trials That Fail to Complete: An Epidemic?

The number and diversity of cancer therapeutics in the pipeline has increased over the past decade due to an enhanced understanding of cancer biology and the identification of novel therapeutic targets. At the same time, the cost of bringing new drugs to market and the regulatory burdens associated with clinical drug development have progressively increased. The finite number of eligible patients and limited financial resources available to evaluate promising new therapeutics represent rate-limiting factors in the effort to translate preclinical discoveries into the next generation of standard therapeutic approaches. Optimal use of resources requires understanding and ultimately addressing inefficiencies in the cancer clinical trials system. Prior analyses have demonstrated that a large proportion of trials initiated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cooperative Group system are never completed. While NCI Cooperative Group trials are important, they represent only a small proportion of all cancer clinical trials performed. Herein, we explore the problem of cancer clinical trials that fail to complete within the broader cancer clinical trials enterprise. Among 7776 phase II-III adult cancer clinical trials initiated between 2005-2011, we found a seven-year cumulative incidence of failure to complete of approximately 20% (95% confidence interval = 18% to 22%). Nearly 48 000 patients were enrolled in trials that failed to complete. These trials likely contribute little to the scientific knowledge base, divert resources and patients from answering other critical questions, and represent a barrier to progress. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved

Evidence‐Based Communication in Clinical, Mass Media, and Social Media Contexts to Enhance Informed Consent for Participation in Clinical Trials and Precision Medicine Initiatives

This chapter explains that improved clinical trial communication will result in better informed patients who demonstrate greater willingness to participate in a system that is intended to produce significant advances in medical treatment. It centers on the factors where communication scholars and practitioners can best apply their energy and insights. These includes clinical communication interventions, including training of physicians, study nurses, and clinical research staff; public communication messages designed to inform a broad audience about scientific concepts that are central to meaningful and informed consent; and the use of social media platforms for participant recruitment and retention. The chapter discusses the implications of these findings for the development of new interventions designed to enroll members of the public in emerging precision medicine (PM) initiatives, particularly among minority populations. It also reviews communication‐based interventions, including interpersonal communication trainings, public communication campaigns, persuasive message design, and targeted message delivery