National Cancer Institute Clinical Research Articles

The National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting to Address Gaps in Observational and Intervention Trials for Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment.

Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is a broad term encompassing subtle cognitive problems to more severe impairment. CRCI severity is influenced by host, disease, and treatment factors and affects patients prior to, during, and following cancer treatment. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee (SxQoL SC) convened a Clinical Trial Planning Meeting (CTPM) to review the state of the science on CRCI and to develop both Phase II/III intervention trials aimed at improving cognitive function in cancer survivors with non-central nervous system (CNS) disease and longitudinal studies to understand the trajectory of cognitive impairment and contributing factors. Participants included experts in the field of CRCI, members of the SxQOL SC, patient advocates, representatives from all seven NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) Research Bases, and the NCI. Presentations focused on the following topics: measurement, lessons learned from pediatric and geriatric oncology, biomarker and mechanism endpoints, longitudinal study designs, and pharmacologic and behavioral intervention trials. Panel discussions provided guidance on priority cognitive assessments, considerations for remote assessments, inclusion of relevant biomarkers, and strategies for ensuring broad inclusion criteria. Three CTPM working groups (longitudinal studies and pharmacologic and behavioral intervention trials) convened for one year to discuss and report on top priorities and to design studies. The CTPM experts concluded sufficient data exist to advance Phase II/Phase III trials utilizing selected pharmacologic and behavioral interventions for the treatment of CRCI in the non-CNS setting with recommendations included herein.

EPCO-53. MULTI-SCALE REGULATION OF SIGNALING CASCADES AND TUMOR EVOLUTION IN HIGH GRADE ASTROCYTOMAS

Abstract The National Cancer Institute Clinical Proteomic Atlas Consortium (CPTAC) herein reports our deep characterization of 228 grade IV IDH1 WT and mutant astrocytomas (including 28 matched primary and recurrent GBMs) using 15 proteogenomic and metabolomic platforms. Major advances over our first CPTAC GBM report (Wang et al., 2021, Cancer Cell), are the inclusion of many more samples including paired primary and recurrent tumors, application of new platforms, including glycoproteomics and targeted mass spectrometry methods, development and application of new computational techniques, and the integration of an atlas of experimentally determined, functional, kinase substrate interactions from Kinase Library. Paired primary-recurrent GBM analyses showed increased clonal diversity in recurrent tumors as a function of time, and treatment-induced mutation signatures. Proteomic and metabolomic analyses showed that different drivers can cause similar downstream effects. Only EGFR altered tumors were associated with dual EGFR glycosylation (N352 and N603) and EGFR phosphorylation (Y316) events. IDH1 mutation was associated with activated RTK signaling and decreased hypoxia pathway activities, concordant with epigenetic and metabolic profiles. Protein-protein interaction and kinase/phosphatase-substrate analyses uncovered detailed signaling events from different upstream drivers (e.g., EGFR, PDGFRA, and IDH1) converged through a PTPN11 hub to downstream effectors, including GAB1, IRS1, MAP3K5, and PTK2B. In summary, this multiscale resource presents new and deeper biological insights regarding treatment impact on tumor evolution, shared downstream consequences of independent drivers, and the potential importance of PTPN11 signaling circuitry across high-grade gliomas. We hope that reporting this new international resource to the SNO community will advance therapeutic development, including targeted therapies that may avoid known mechanisms of resistance.

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy.

Local versus radical surgery for early rectal cancer with or without neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy.

Harnessing imaging tools to guide immunotherapy trials: summary from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Imaging Steering Committee workshop.

As the immuno-oncology field continues the rapid growth witnessed over the past decade, optimising patient outcomes requires an evolution in the current response-assessment guidelines for phase 2 and 3 immunotherapy clinical trials and clinical care. Additionally, investigational tools-including image analysis of standard-of-care scans (such as CT, magnetic resonance, and PET) with analytics, such as radiomics, functional magnetic resonance agents, and novel molecular-imaging PET agents-offer promising advancements for assessment of immunotherapy. To document current challenges and opportunities and identify next steps in immunotherapy diagnostic imaging, the National Cancer Institute Clinical Imaging Steering Committee convened a meeting with diverse representation among imaging experts and oncologists to generate a comprehensive review of the state of the field.

Infrastructure to Support Accrual of Older Adults to National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

As part of ongoing efforts to meaningfully improve recruitment, enrollment, and accrual of older adults into cancer clinical trials, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored a workshop with experts across the country entitled Engaging Older Adults in the NCI Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities. Three working groups, including Study Design, Infrastructure, and Stakeholders, were formed, who worked together to offer synergistic improvements in the system. Here, we summarize the workshop discussions of the Infrastructure Working Group, whose goal was to address infrastructural challenges, identify underlying resources, and offer solutions to facilitate accrual of older adults into cancer clinical trials. Based on preconference work and workshop discussions, four key recommendations to strengthen NCI infrastructure were proposed: 1) further centralize resources and expertise; 2) provide training for clinical research staff; (3) develop common data elements; and 4) evaluate what works and does not work. These recommendations provide a strategy to improve the infrastructure to enroll more older adults in cancer clinical trials.

Trial Design Considerations to Increase Older Adult Accrual to National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

Although adults aged 65 years or older make up a strong majority of cancer patients, their underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials leads to the lack of representative data to guide evidence-based therapeutic decisions in this patient population. The Trial Design Working Group, convened as part of the workshop titled, Engaging Older Adults in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities, recommended study designs and design elements that could improve accrual of older adults in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. These include trials that are specifically designed to enroll older adults, trials that include a cohort of older patients (parallel cohort, stratified cohort, or embedded cohort), and trials with pragmatic design elements to facilitate enrollment of older adults. This manuscript provides brief descriptions of the recommended designs, examples of successful trials, and considerations for implementation of these designs. As with any clinical trial, the scientific questions and trial objectives should drive the study design, the selection of endpoints and intervention, and eligibility criteria. When designing trials that include older adults, the heterogeneity of fitness levels is an important consideration as fitness can influence accrual rates and outcomes. Appropriately incorporating geriatric assessments can help identify the optimal subset of older patients for inclusion and minimize selection bias. Incorporating pragmatic design elements to reduce the burden on trial participants as well as on accruing sites and retaining essential elements to ensure that the main goal of the trial can be accomplished can enhance enrollment without compromising the integrity of trials.

Integrating Geriatric Assessment Measures into National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

To improve the care of older adults with cancer, the traditional approach to clinical trial design needs to be reconsidered. Older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials with limited or no information on geriatric-specific factors, such as cognition or comorbidities. To address this knowledge gap and increase relevance of therapeutic clinical trial results to the real-life population, integration of aspects relevant to older adults is needed in oncology clinical trials. Geriatric assessment (GA) is a multidimensional tool comprising validated measures assessing specific health domains that are more frequently affected in older adults, including aspects related to physical function, comorbidity, medication use (polypharmacy), cognitive and psychological status, social support, and nutritional status. There are several mechanisms for incorporating either the full GA or specific GA measures into oncology therapeutic clinical trials to contribute to the overarching goal of the trial. Mechanisms include utilizing GA measures to better characterize the trial population, define trial eligibility, allocate treatment receipt within the context of the trial, develop predictive models for treatment outcomes, guide supportive care strategies, personalize care delivery, and assess longitudinal changes in GA domains. The objective of this manuscript is to review how GA measures can contribute to the overall goal of a clinical trial, to provide a framework to guide the selection and integration of GA measures into clinical trial design, and ultimately enable accrual of older adults to clinical trials by facilitating the design of trials tailored to older adults treated in clinical practice.

Preface: Engaging Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials Conducted in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Opportunities to Enhance Accrual

Preface: Engaging Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials Conducted in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Opportunities to Enhance Accrual

Population, Clinical, and Scientific Impact of National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network Treatment Studies.

In the United States, the National Cancer Institute National Cancer Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) groups have conducted publicly funded oncology research for 50 years. The combined impact of all adult network group trials has never been systematically examined. We identified randomized, phase III trials from the adult NCTN groups, reported from 1980 onward, with statistically significant findings for ≥ 1 clinical, time-dependent outcomes. In the subset of trials in which the experimental arm improved overall survival, gains in population life-years were estimated by deriving trial-specific hazard functions and hazard ratios to estimate the experimental treatment benefit and then mapping this trial-level benefit onto the US cancer population using registry and life-table data. Scientific impact was based on citation data from Google Scholar. Federal investment costs per life-year gained were estimated. The results were derived through December 31, 2020. One hundred sixty-two trials comprised of 108,334 patients were analyzed, representing 29.8% (162/544) of trials conducted. The most common cancers included breast (34), gynecologic (28), and lung (14). The trials were cited 165,336 times (mean, 62.2 citations/trial/year); 87.7% of trials were cited in cancer care guidelines in favor of the recommended treatment. These studies were estimated to have generated 14.2 million (95% CI, 11.5 to 16.5 million) additional life-years to patients with cancer, with projected gains of 24.1 million (95% CI, 19.7 to 28.2 million) life-years by 2030. The federal investment cost per life-year gained through 2020 was $326 in US dollars. NCTN randomized trials have been widely cited and are routinely included in clinical guidelines. Moreover, their conduct has predicted substantial improvements in overall survival in the United States for patients with oncologic disease, suggesting they have contributed meaningfully to this nation's health. These findings demonstrate the critical role of government-sponsored research in extending the lives of patients with cancer.

Early-phase clinical trial eligibility and response evaluation criteria for refractory, relapsed, or progressive neuroblastoma: A consensus statement from the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting.

International standardized criteria for eligibility, evaluable disease sites, and disease response assessment in patients with refractory, progressive, or relapsed high-risk neuroblastoma enrolled in early-phase clinical trials are lacking. A National Cancer Institute-sponsored Clinical Trials Planning Meeting was convened to develop an international consensus to refine the tumor site eligibility criteria and evaluation of disease response for early-phase clinical trials in children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Standardized data collection of patient and disease characteristics (including specified genomic data), eligibility criteria, a definition of evaluable disease, and response evaluations for primary and metastatic sites of disease were developed. Eligibility included two distinct patient groups: progressive disease and refractory disease. The refractory disease group was subdivided into responding persistent disease and stable persistent disease to better capture the clinical heterogeneity of refractory neuroblastoma. Requirements for defining disease evaluable for a response assessment were provided; they included requirements for biopsy to confirm viable neuroblastoma and/or ganglioneuroblastoma in those patients with soft tissue or bone disease not avid for iodine-123 meta-iodobenzylguanidine. Standardized evaluations for response components and time intervals for response evaluations were established. The use of international consensus eligibility, evaluability, and response criteria for early-phase clinical studies will facilitate the collection of comparable data across international trials and promote more rapid identification of effective treatment regimens for high-risk neuroblastoma.

Implementing Modernized Eligibility Criteria in US National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

In 2018, the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) at the US National Cancer Institute published new protocol template language that focused on organ function and prior and concurrent cancers in an effort to modernize eligibility criteria for cancer treatment trials. We conducted an analysis of CTEP-supported trials to evaluate the uptake and incorporation of the new language. The analysis included evaluation of 122 protocols approved in the years 2018-2020 for inclusion of the modernized eligibility criteria and consistency with new protocol template language related to 7 major eligibility criteria. These were cardiac function, liver function, kidney function, HIV status, prior and/or concurrent malignancies, treated and/or stable brain metastasis, and new and/or progressive brain metastases. Overall, CTEP trials evaluated in this period demonstrated that eligibility criteria were implemented to a relatively high degree ranging from a low of 54.1% for prior and/or concurrent malignancies to a high of 93.4% for eligibility criteria related to HIV infection. The findings demonstrate that modernized eligibility criteria can be successfully implemented but that consistent implementation requires sustained focused effort. As a result of these findings, CTEP began a new initiative in January 2022 that incorporates a specific review of eligibility criteria for new protocols to promote and improve consistency with the modernization effort.

Disparities and trends in the participation of minorities, women, and the elderly in breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer clinical trials.

This study was done to determine the representation of minorities, women, and the elderly in National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trials. This is an analysis in the NCI Clinical Data Update System. Patients were evaluated in breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer trials from 2000 to 2019. Representation in a trial was determined by race/ethnicity, sex, and age. Secondarily, the change in trial participation by multivariable analysis by comparing years 2000 through 2004 to 2015 through 2019 was evaluated. The cohort included 242,720 participants: 197,320 Non-Hispanic White (81.3%), 21,190 Black (8.7%), 11,587 Hispanic (4.8%), and 6880 Asian/Pacific Islander (2.8%). Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented for colorectal (odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.67; P < .001 and OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P < .001, respectively), lung (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001 and 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.77; P < .001, respectively), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92; P < .001 and OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51-0.66; P < .001) between 2015 and 2019. The odds of participation in 2015 to 2019 increased among Black patients in breast (OR, 2.19; 95% CI, 2.07-%2.32; P < .001), lung (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.38-1.73; P < .001), and prostate cancer trials (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26; P < .001). The odds of participation in a trial among Hispanic patients increased for breast (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 3.09-3.56; P < .001), colorectal (OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 2.04-2.96; P < .001), lung (OR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.20-4.69; P < .001), and prostate cancer (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.42-2.04; P = .005). This study identified that Black and Hispanic patients remain underrepresented in trials, but in recent years, participation has increased. These findings indicate that minority participation has increased over time, but further efforts are needed.

Comparison of Design, Eligibility, and Outcomes of Neuroendocrine Neoplasm Trials Initiated From 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2020

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) have historically been grouped homogenously in clinical trials, despite their heterogeneity. Given the adoption of a more advanced pathologic classification system and drug licensure of several targeted therapies over the last decade, information is needed on whether study characteristics of NEN studies have evolved. To assess changes in study design, eligibility, accrual, sponsorship, and outcomes between phase II or III NEN clinical trials that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009 vs 2010 to 2020. This quality improvement study used a systematic survey of completed studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2020. Therapeutic phase II and III NEN studies were identified through a database search of Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE (OvidSP), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), Web of Science (Clarivate), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), ClinicalTrials.gov (National Institutes of Health), EU Clinical Trials Register, and National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials. Data were analyzed between March and June 2021. Study characteristic proportions between the 2 enrollment periods. Of 3243 identified studies, 119 studies met criteria for inclusion, of which 117 studies (54 studies that began enrollment between 2000-2009 and 63 studies that began enrollment between 2010-2020) included exact dates of enrollment and were compared. Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were less likely to include all NENs (13 studies [21%] vs 34 studies [63%]; P < .001) and more likely to include select NENs (eg, gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors, 25 studies [40%] vs 11 studies [20%]; P = .02; pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, 32 studies [51%] vs 16 studies [30%]; P = .02). Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were more likely to specify tumor differentiation (59 studies [98%] vs 34 studies [63%]; P < .001) or Ki-67 index (23 studies [38%] vs 5 studies [9%]; P < .001) in inclusion criteria. Studies that began enrollment after 2010, compared with studies that began enrollment from 2000 to 2009, were more likely to use progression-free survival (22 studies [35%] vs 9 studies [18%]; P = .04) rather than objective response rate (19 studies [30%] vs 27 studies [53%]; P = .01) as a primary or coprimary end point. These findings suggest that NEN trials enrolling over the last decade were more focused on select tumor populations, compared with studies that began enrollment before 2010. Despite this shift, more than 20% of studies still included all NENs. Studying novel agents in specific disease populations may enhance drug development in the field.

Use of a clinical trial screening tool to enhance patient accrual.

Clinical trial patient accrual continues to be challenging despite the identification of multiple physician, patient, and system barriers. Expanded collection of demographic data, including socioeconomic status (employment, income, education) and comorbidities, can enhance our understanding of the identified barriers, inform the development of interventions to overcome these barriers, and recognize their impact on treatment outcomes. A clinical trials screening tool was developed to collect expanded demographic data and barriers to trial enrollment; it has been implemented in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and implementation of the tool and to share information obtained during the first 43 months of its use. There were 19,373 entries collected; 74% of those screened enrolled in a clinical trial. Demographic characteristics were compared between those screened and those enrolled. They varied significantly between the groups. Reasons for nonenrollment included ineligibility (50%), eligible but declined (47%), eligible but physician declined to offer participation (2%), and eligible but the study was suspended (1%). The most common reasons for ineligibility were failure to meet the protocol-specific stage of cancer, the presence of comorbidities, and the symptom-eligibility score was not met. The most common reason for eligible patients declining participation was that they had no desire to participate in research. The tool provides valuable information about the characteristics of individuals who are screened and enrolled in National Cancer Institute-sponsored trials, as well as about barriers to enrollment in trials. The data also inform protocol development and interventions at the patient, provider, and institutional level.

Sexual health among adolescent and young adult cancer survivors: A scoping review from the Children's Oncology Group Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Discipline Committee.

Sexual function is a vital aspect of quality of life among adolescent and young adult (AYA) (ages 15-39 years) cancer survivors. Sexual function encompasses physical, psychosocial, and developmental factors that contribute to sexual health, all of which may be negatively impacted by cancer and treatment. However, limited information is available to inform the care of AYA cancer survivors in this regard. This scoping review, conducted by the Children's Oncology Group AYA Oncology Discipline Committee, summarizes available literature regarding sexual function among AYA cancer survivors, including relevant psychosexual aspects of romantic relationships and body image. Results suggest that, overall, AYA cancer survivors experience a substantial burden of sexual dysfunction. Both physical and psychosocial sequelae influence survivors' sexual health. Interventions to support sexual health and psychosexual adjustment after cancer treatment are needed. Collaborations between the Children's Oncology Group and adult-focused cooperative groups within the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network are warranted to advance prospective assessment of sexual dysfunction and test interventions to improve sexual health among AYA cancer survivors.

Caregiver engagement practices in National Cancer Institute Clinical Oncology Research Program settings: Implications for research to advance the field.

Supportive care interventions have demonstrated benefits for both informal and/or family cancer caregivers and their patients, but uptake generally is poor. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the availability of supportive care services in community oncology practices, as well as engagement practices to connect caregivers with these services. Questions from the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP)'s 2017 Landscape Survey examined caregiver engagement practices (ie, caregiver identification, needs assessment, and supportive care service availability). Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the caregiver engagement outcomes and practice group characteristics. A total of 204 practice groups responded to each of the primary outcome questions. Only 40.2% of practice groups endorsed having a process with which to systematically identify and document caregivers, although approximately 76% were routinely using assessment tools to identify caregiver needs and approximately 63.7% had supportive care services available to caregivers. Caregiver identification was more common in sites affiliated with a critical access hospital (odds ratio [OR], 2.44; P = .013), and assessments were less common in safety-net practices (OR, 0.41; P = .013). Supportive care services were more commonly available in the Western region of the United States, in practices with inpatient services (OR, 2.96; P = .012), and in practices affiliated with a critical access hospital (OR, 3.31; P = .010). Although many practice groups provide supportive care services, fewer than one-half systematically identify and document informal cancer caregivers. Expanding fundamental engagement practices such as caregiver identification, assessment, and service provision will be critical to support recent calls to improve caregivers' well-being and skills to perform caregiving tasks.

Do reminder emails and past due notifications improve patient completion and institutional data submission for patient-reported outcome measures?

NRG Oncology, part of the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network, took efforts to increase patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completion and institutional data submission rates within clinical trials. Lack of completion diminishes power to draw conclusions and can be a waste of resources. It is hypothesized that trials with automatic email reminders and past due notifications will have PROM forms submitted more timely with higher patient completion. Automatic emails sent to the research associate were added to selected NRG Oncology trials. Comparisons between trials with and without automatic emails were analyzed using Chi-square tests with respect to patient completion and timeliness of form submission rates. Multivariable analyses were conducted using repeated measures generalized estimating equations. If PROMs were not completed, a form providing the reason why was submitted and counted towards form submission. For both disease sites, form submission was significantly higher within 1 month of the form's due date for the studies with automatic emails vs. those without (prostate: 79.7% vs. 75.7%, p < 0.001; breast: 59.2% vs. 31.3%, p < 0.001). No significant differences in patient completion were observed between the breast trials. The prostate trial with automatic emails had significantly higher patient completion but this result was not confirmed in the multivariable analysis. Although patient completion rates were higher on trials with automatic emails, there may be confounding factors requiring future study. The automatic emails appeared to have increased the timeliness of form submission, thus supporting their continued use on NRG Oncology trials.

Toward Improving Practices for Submission of Diagnostic Tissue Blocks for National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) National Clinical Trials Network performs phase II and III clinical trials, which increasingly rely on the submission of diagnostic formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue blocks for biomarker assessment. Simultaneously, advances in precision oncology require that clinical centers maintain diagnostic specimens for ancillary, standard-of-care diagnostics. This has caused tissue blocks to become a limited resource for advancing the NCI clinical trial enterprise and the practice of modern molecular pathology. The NCI convened a 1-day workshop of multidisciplined experts to discuss barriers and strategic solutions to facilitate diagnostic block submission for clinical trial science, from the perspective of patient advocates, legal experts, pathologists, and clinical oncologists. The expert views and opinions were carefully noted and reported. Recommendations were proposed to reduce institutional barriers and to assist organizations in developing clear policies regarding diagnostic block submission for clinical trials.

Association of National Cancer Institute–Sponsored Clinical Trial Network Group Studies With Guideline Care and New Drug Indications

National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) groups serve a vital role in identifying effective new antineoplastic regimens. However, the downstream clinical effect of their trials has not been systematically examined. To examine the association of NCTN trials with guideline care and new drug indications. This retrospective cohort study evaluated phase 3 SWOG Cancer Research Network clinical trials from January 1, 1980, through June 30, 2017. Only completed trials with published results were included. To be considered practice influential (PI), a trial must have been associated with guideline care through its inclusion in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines or US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new drug approvals in favor of a recommended treatment. Data were analyzed from June 15, 2018, through March 29, 2019. Estimated overall rate of PI trials, as well as trends over time. The total federal investment supporting the set of trials was also determined. In total, 182 trials consisting of 148 028 patients were studied. Eighty-two studies (45.1%; 95% CI, 37.7%-52.6%) were PI, of which 70 (38.5%) influenced NCCN guidelines, 6 (3.3%) influenced FDA new drug approvals, and 6 (3.3%) influenced both. The number of PI trials was 47 of 65 (72.3%) among those with positive findings and 35 of 117 (29.9%) among those with negative findings. Thus, 35 of 82 PI trials (42.7%) were based on studies with negative findings, with nearly half of these studies (17 of 35 [48.6%]) reaffirming standard of care compared with experimental therapy. The total federal investment spent in conducting the trials was $1.36 billion (2017 US dollars), a rate of $7.5 million per study or $16.6 million per PI trial. Nearly half of all phase 3 trials by one of the NCTN's largest groups were associated with guideline care or new drug indications, including those with positive and negative findings. Compared with the costs of a new drug approval in pharmaceutical companies, typically estimated at more than $1 billion, the amount of federal funds invested to provide this valuable evidence was modest. These results suggest that the NCTN program contributes clinically meaningful, cost-efficient evidence to guide patient care.

The impact of NCI-sponsored network group clinical trials on guideline care and new drug indications.

6604 Background: National Cancer Institute Clinical Trial Network (NCTN) groups serve a vital role in identifying new antineoplastic regimens. However, the clinical impact of their trials has not been systematically examined. We analyzed the influence of network group cancer clinical trials on clinical guidelines and new drug approvals. Methods: We evaluated Phase III cancer clinical trials which the SWOG Cancer Research Network coordinated or participated in (1980-2017). Included trials were completed and its results published. A documented practice influential (DPI) trial was one with verified influence on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical guidelines (available starting in 1996) or on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved package inserts. We estimated the rate of DPI trials overall and over time. The total federal investment supporting the set of trials was also determined based on public data. Results: In total, 182 trials comprising 148,028 patients were studied. We identified 79 DPI studies (43.4%); 73 influenced NCCN guidelines, 12 influenced new drug approvals, and 6 influenced both. The rate of DPI trials was 72.3% (47/65) among formally positive trials (i.e., achieved their protocol specified endpoint) and 27.4% (32/117) among negative trials. Thus 40.5% (32/79) of DPI trials were based on negative studies, half of which (16/32 = 50.0%) reaffirmed standard of care over experimental therapy. There were no differences between DPI and non-DPI trials in key study design characteristics. Total federal investment for the programs conducting the trials was $1.36 billion (USD2017), a rate of $7.5 million per trial, or $17.2 million per DPI trial. Conclusions: Nearly half of all phase III trials by one of the NCTN’s largest groups had documented practice influence on clinical care guidelines or new drug approvals. Even many negative trials impacted guideline recommendations. Compared to the costs of a new drug approval in pharmaceutical companies – typically estimated at &gt; $1 billion – the amount invested by federal funders to provide this valuable evidence was modest. These findings highlight the major role of the NCTN’s clinical trial program in advancing oncology practice.