Inclusion of Premenopausal Women in Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND: Patients with premenopausal breast cancer (PMBC) have been historically excluded from some clinical trials because of the limitations of using endocrine therapy (ET) in this population. We analyzed breast cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the rates of and factors associated with inclusion of PMBC patients to provide a benchmark for PMBC inclusion in RCTs moving forward. METHODS: Using ClinicalTrials.Gov, we identified breast cancer phase III RCTs and extracted inclusion criteria and patient enrollment information. Multiple binary logistic regression modeling was used to assess trial-related factors that were associated with PMBC patient inclusion. RESULTS: Of 170 breast cancer RCTs identified, 131 (77.1%) included PMBC patients. Sixty-five (38.2%) trials analyzed patients with hormone-receptor-positive (HR+) and HER2-negative (HER2-) breast cancer, of which 31 (47.7%) allowed for enrollment of PMBC patients. Lower rates of PMBC inclusion were seen in trials that studied HR+/HER2-patients (47.7% PMBC inclusion in HR+/HER2-trials vs. 94.3% in non-HR+/HER2-trials, aOR 0.07 [95% CI: 0.02-0.19], p \u3c 0.001) and in trials that randomized or mandated ET (44.4% in ET trials vs. 83.2% in non-ET trials, aOR 0.21 [95% CI: 0.10-0.83], p = 0.02). Trials studying chemotherapy (CT) were associated with inclusion of PMBC patients (100% in CT trials vs. 70.5% in non-CT trials, a OR 14.02 [95% CI: 1.54-127.91], p = 0.01). All surgical and radiation therapy clinical trials allowed for the inclusion of PMBC patients in their eligibility criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Breast cancer clinical trials should carefully select their enrollment criteria and consider inclusion of premenopausal patients when appropriate

Incidence of Primary End Point Changes Among Active Cancer Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE: Primary end point (PEP) changes to an active clinical trial raise questions regarding trial quality and the risk of outcome reporting bias. It is unknown how the frequency and transparency of the reported changes depend on reporting method and whether the PEP changes are associated with trial positivity (ie, the trial met the prespecified statistical threshold for PEP positivity). OBJECTIVES: To assess the frequency of reported PEP changes in oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and whether these changes are associated with trial positivity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data for complete oncology phase 3 RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through February 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was change between the initial PEP and the final reported PEP, assessed using 3 methods: (1) history of tracked changes on ClinicalTrials.gov, (2) self-reported changes noted in the article, and (3) changes reported within the protocol, including all available protocol documents. Logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether PEP changes were associated with US Food and Drug Administration approval or trial positivity. RESULTS: Of 755 included trials, 145 (19.2%) had PEP changes found by at least 1 of the 3 detection methods. Of the 145 trials with PEP changes, 102 (70.3%) did not have PEP changes disclosed within the manuscript. There was significant variability in rates of PEP detection by each method (χ2 = 72.1; P \u3c .001). Across all methods, PEP changes were detected at higher rates when multiple versions of the protocol (47 of 148 [31.8%]) were available compared with 1 version (22 of 134 [16.4%]) or no protocol (76 of 473 [16.1%]) (χ2 = 18.7; P \u3c .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that PEP changes were associated with trial positivity (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.25-2.82; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study revealed substantial rates of PEP changes among active RCTs; PEP changes were markedly underreported in published articles and mostly occurred after reported study completion dates. Significant discrepancies in the rate of detected PEP changes call into question the role of increased protocol transparency and completeness in identifying key changes occurring in active trials

Escalated-Dose Radiotherapy for Unresected Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Patterns of Care and Survival in the United States

INTRODUCTION: With locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), uncontrolled local tumor growth frequently leads to mortality. Advancements in radiotherapy (RT) techniques have enabled conformal delivery of escalated-dose RT (EDR), which may have potential local control and overall survival (OS) benefits based on retrospective and early prospective studies. With evidence for EDR emerging, we characterized the adoption of EDR across the United States and its associated outcomes. METHODS: We searched the National Cancer Database for nonsurgically managed LAPC patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2019. Pancreas-directed RT with biologically effective doses (BED10) ≥39 and ≤70 Gy was labeled conventional-dose RT (CDR), and BED10 \u3e70 and ≤132 Gy was labeled EDR. We identified associations of EDR and OS using logistic and Cox regressions, respectively. RESULTS: Among the definitive therapy subset (n = 54,115) of the entire study cohort (n = 91,493), the most common treatments were chemotherapy alone (69%), chemotherapy and radiation (29%), and RT alone (2%). For the radiation therapy subset (n = 16,978), use of pancreas-directed RT remained between 13% and 17% over the study period (ptrend \u3e 0.999). Using multivariable logistic regression, treatment at an academic/research facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.46, p \u3c 0.001) and treatment between 2016 and 2019 (aOR 2.54, p \u3c 0.001) were associated with greater receipt of EDR, whereas use of chemotherapy (aOR 0.60, p \u3c 0.001) was associated with less receipt. Median OS estimates for EDR and CDR were 14.5 months and 13.0 months (p \u3c 0.0001), respectively. For radiation therapy subset patients with available survival data (n = 13,579), multivariable Cox regression correlated EDR (adjusted hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.80-0.91; p \u3c 0.001) with longer OS versus CDR. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of EDR has increased since 2016, but overall utilization of RT for LAPC has remained at less than one in five patients for almost two decades. These real-world results additionally provide an estimate of effect size of EDR for future prospective trials

HPV-Related Anal Cancer Is Associated With Changes in the Anorectal Microbiome During Cancer Development

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare gastrointestinal cancer. Factors associated with progression of HPV infection to anal dysplasia and cancer are unclear and screening guidelines and approaches for anal dysplasia are less clear than for cervical dysplasia. One potential contributing factor is the anorectal microbiome. In this study, we aimed to identify differences in anal microbiome composition in the settings of HPV infection, anal dysplasia, and anal cancer in this rare disease. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in two prospective studies. Patients with anal dysplasia were part of a cross-sectional cohort that enrolled women with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia. Anorectal tumor swabs were prospectively collected from patients with biopsy-confirmed locally advanced SCCA prior to receiving standard-of-care chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia without anal dysplasia were considered high-risk (HR Normal). 16S V4 rRNA Microbiome sequencing was performed for anal swabs. Alpha and Beta Diversity and composition were compared for HR Normal, anal dysplasia, and anal cancer. RESULTS: 60 patients with high-grade lower genital tract dysplasia were initially enrolled. Seven patients had concurrent anal dysplasia and 44 patients were considered HR Normal. Anorectal swabs from 21 patients with localized SCCA were included, sequenced, and analyzed in the study. Analysis of weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances demonstrated significant differences in microbial community composition between anal cancer and HR normal (p CONCLUSION: Although alpha diversity was similar between HR Normal, dysplasia and cancer patients, composition differed significantly between the three groups. Increased anorecta

Food and Drug Administration approvals in phase 3 Cancer clinical trials

Abstract Background Phase 3 oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can lead to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals. In this study, we aim to identify trial-related factors associated with trials leading to subsequent FDA drug approvals. Methods We performed a database query through the ClinicalTrials.gov registry to search for oncologic phase 3 RCTs on February 2020. We screened all trials for therapeutic, cancer-specific, phase 3, randomized, multi-arm trials. We then identified whether a trial was used for subsequent FDA drug approval through screening of FDA approval announcements. Results In total, 790 trials were included in our study, with 225 trials (28.4%) generating data that were subsequently used for FDA approvals. Of the 225 FDA approvals identified, 65 (28.9%) were based on trials assessing overall survival (OS) as a primary endpoint (PEP), two (0.9%) were based on trials with a quality of life (QoL) PEP, and 158 approvals (70.2%) were based on trials with other PEP (P = 0.01). FDA approvals were more common among industry funded-trials (219, 97.3%; P < 0.001), and less common among trials sponsored by national cooperative groups (21, 9.3%; P < 0.001). Finally, increased pre-hoc power and meeting patients’ accrual target were associated with FDA approvals (P < 0.001). Conclusions The majority of FDA approvals are based on data generated from trials analyzing surrogate primary endpoints and trials receiving industry funding. Additional studies are required to understand the complexity of FDA approvals

Association between Prior Malignancy Exclusion Criteria and Age Disparities in Cancer Clinical Trials

Prior malignancy exclusion criteria (PMEC) are often utilized in cancer clinical trials; however, the incidence of PMEC and the association of PMEC with trial participant age disparities remain poorly understood. This study aimed to identify age disparities in oncologic randomized clinical trials as a result of PMEC. Using a comprehensive collection of modern phase III cancer clinical trials obtained via ClinicalTrials.gov, we assessed the incidence and covariates associated with trials excluding patients with prior cancers within 5+ years from registration (PMEC-5). Using the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we further sought to determine the correlation between PMEC-5 and age disparities. PMEC-5 were used in 41% of all trials, with higher PMEC-5 utilization among industry-supported trials as well as trials evaluating a targeted therapy. Comparing trial patient median ages with population-matched median ages by disease site and time-period, we assessed the association between PMEC-5 and age disparities among trial participants. PMEC-5 were independently associated with heightened age disparities, which further worsened with longer exclusionary timeframes. Together, PMEC likely contribute to age disparities, suggesting that eligibility criteria modernization through narrower PMEC timeframes may work toward reducing such disparities in cancer clinical trial enrollment