Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria Research Articles

Generalizability of pharmaceutical randomized controlled trial eligibility criteria for progressive pulmonary fibrosis.

Progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PFF) is of substantial interest for novel pharmacotherapy discovery, but little is known about clinical trial eligibility criteria. We evaluated eligibility criteria of PPF randomized controlled trials (RCTs), their representativeness in registry patients, and forced vital capacity (FVC) changes and mortality according to trial eligibility. A systematic search was used to identify completed and in-progress phase II and III PPF RCTs. Common clinical trial eligibility criteria used in ≥60% of previous PPF RCTs were identified. The most common criteria for PPF used in RCTs ("trial-PPF criteria") and the clinical practice guideline definition of PPF ("guideline-PPF criteria") were both applied to patients enrolled in a prospective multicenter Canadian registry. Common trial eligibility criteria were tested for their frequency and association with health outcomes in registry patients who met trial-PPF and guideline-PPF criteria. Ten different definitions of PPF were used in 16 RCTs. At the time of meeting PPF definitions, 50% of 864 patients with trial-PPF and 44% of 408 patients with guideline-PPF met the common trial eligibility criteria. For both definitions, trial-eligible patients had more rapid 1-year FVC decline but better transplant-free survival than trial-ineligible patients. Patients with unclassifiable interstitial lung disease (ILD) had higher proportion of trial exclusion compared to those with connective tissue disease-associated ILD and fibrotic hypersensitivity pneumonitis. Annual FVC decline (trial-PPF: -67 to -21 mL; guideline-PPF: -116 to -41 mL) and 1-year transplant-free survival (trial-PPF: 90.5 to 97.5%; guideline-PPF: 87 to 96.2%) varied in trial-eligible patients across ILD subtypes. Existing RCTs use a variety of definitions for PPF with eligibility criteria that have limited representativeness. FVC decline and transplant-free survival vary according to trial eligibility and ILD subtypes.

Unnecessary exclusion: Eligibility criteria in gynecologic oncology interventional clinical trials impair access to trials

Unnecessary exclusion: Eligibility criteria in gynecologic oncology interventional clinical trials impair access to trials

CriteriaMapper: establishing the automatic identification of clinical trial cohorts from electronic health records by matching normalized eligibility criteria and patient clinical characteristics

The use of electronic health records (EHRs) holds the potential to enhance clinical trial activities. However, the identification of eligible patients within EHRs presents considerable challenges. We aimed to develop a CriteriaMapper system for phenotyping eligibility criteria, enabling the identification of patients from EHRs with clinical characteristics that match those criteria. We utilized clinical trial eligibility criteria and patient EHRs from the Mount Sinai Database. The CriteriaMapper system was developed to normalize the criteria using national standard terminologies and in-house databases, facilitating computability and queryability to bridge clinical trial criteria and EHRs. The system employed rule-based pattern recognition and manual annotation. Our system normalized 367 out of 640 unique eligibility criteria attributes, covering various medical conditions including non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, multiple myeloma, ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, and sickle cell anemia. About 174 criteria were encoded with standard terminologies and 193 were normalized using the in-house reference tables. The agreement between automated and manual normalization was high (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.82), and patient matching demonstrated a 0.94 F1 score. Our system has proven effective on EHRs from multiple institutions, showing broad applicability and promising improved clinical trial processes, leading to better patient selection, and enhanced clinical research outcomes.

Projected Annual Lecanemab Treatment Eligibility in an Irish Regional Specialist Memory Clinic.

The advent of Disease Modifying Therapies (DMTs) for the treatment of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) has the potential to transform the lives of those with early AD. Timely identification of eligible patients is needed to ensure treatments are delivered during a narrow window of therapeutic opportunity. Appropriate clinical service design will hinge on improved understanding of future demands, thus there is a pressing need to investigate patient eligibility in real world clinical cohorts. The primary aim of this study is to assess the eligibility by appropriate use criteria (AUC) for lecanemab therapy in a real-world, undifferentiated clinical patient cohort attending a Regional Specialist Memory Clinic (RSMC), with the secondary aims of determining the proportion of patients with biomarker positive Alzheimer's Disease (AD) who would be eligible for lecanemab therapy by AUC. Clinical trial eligibility criteria were also applied to both groups and discrepancies that exist between eligibility rates explored. A retrospective cohort study of all new patients attending a RSMC from 1st January 2022 to 31st December 2022 was conducted. Data collected included demographic details, outcomes of diagnostic assessments and comorbidities. MRI images, where indicated, were reviewed. Amyloid positivity was defined as either Amyloid and Tau positive (A+T+) or Amyloid positive with a positive P-Tau/Ab42 ratio on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing. Appropriate use criteria (AUC) and clinical trial criteria for lecanemab were applied. Proportion of eligible patients was calculated. Eleven (5.9%) of 188 new patient attenders were eligible (average age 66.7years [SD 8.9], 63.6% female) by AUC, with 26.2% of patients with biomarker positive Alzheimer's Disease eligible for lecanemab therapy. The most common reason for exclusion was a lack of biomarker confirmation of AD pathology followed by cognitive ineligibility (based on defined cognitive testing cut-offs) at the time of referral and/or initial assessment. Only 40.4% of patients had CSF testing for AD biomarkers while almost 20% of the patients with biomarker positive AD were excluded due to lack of a screening MRI in the previous 12months. In this study, the potential eligibility rate by AUC of the entire patient cohort (5.9%) was limited by the small proportion of patients who had CSF testing for AD biomarkers. So while disease-modification with Lecanemab is a welcome therapeutic advance, although only a small proportion of people currently attending specialist services will be eligible. Successful delivery of DMTs will require significant resource allocation and optimisation of referral pathways to facilitate early identification of potentially eligible patients.

Evaluation of completeness of commonly used data elements for clinical trial eligibility criteria using a registry-enhanced data collection process: Results from patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) at three community oncology practices.

346 Background: Data elements required for clinical trial eligibility assessments are often unstandardized and incomplete in EHR making clinical research participant identification a challenging and biased process. Moreover, the absence of new patient records and disease codes results in monitoring large patient populations until records are completed. These issues can lead to missed opportunities for timely patient identification. N-Power Medicine (NPM) developed a registry-enhanced oncology network platform for unbiased, and real-time quality data collection. We report from this platform on completeness rates of key variables for eligibility assessment in NSCLC and CRC clinical trials. Methods: NPM’s platform consists of 3 parts: patient registry (Kaleido), onsite and remote staff to consent patients and ensure data completeness, quality and standardization, and technology to structure and process the data. Patients with NSCLC and CRC from 3 community oncology practices across different US regions were enrolled in Kaleido and visited the clinic between February and May 2024. Data for 11 key variables were abstracted. To minimize the need for extensive monitoring until a diagnosis was confirmed, we developed a machine learning (ML) model for lung cancer using non-C34 ICD10 codes to construct multiple classes of tunable predictive models. Results: A total of 728 (NSCLC=281, CRC=447) patients were evaluated. The male-to-female ratio was 1 for NSCLC and 1.3 for CRC and 90% of NSCLC and 68% of CRC patients were over 60 years of age. The platform achieved 99% completeness for critical data points such as diagnosis date, histology, metastatic status, recent systemic anti-cancer treatments, ECOG performance status and other cancer diagnoses with diagnosis date. 47% of NSCLC and 43% of CRC patients had metastatic disease at the time of evaluation. Over 90% of patients with metastasis had their current therapy line and relevant genomic test results successfully documented. Imaging-based cancer status completeness was 95% for NSCLC and 89% for CRC. The ML model would identify over 50% of all patients that would eventually receive a lung cancer diagnosis, with over 80% specificity up to 3 weeks before a diagnosis. Conclusions: NPM’s platform demonstrated high completeness rates for the majority of essential data elements, improving the inclusion of all eligible patients in clinical trials. The predictive ML model shows promise in identifying suitable patients before an ICD10 code is assigned, reducing the need for extensive monitoring and ensuring timely completeness of necessary assessments for eligibility. Importantly, these advancements were achieved without adding financial or resource burdens to clinical workflows.

219P Enhancing clinical trial eligibility criteria in FSHD: validating whole-body MRI as a key outcome measure

219P Enhancing clinical trial eligibility criteria in FSHD: validating whole-body MRI as a key outcome measure

Abstract B116: Overcoming barriers in recruiting medically underserved patients with lung cancer: The NutriCare study, a "Food is Medicine" intervention

Abstract Despite recent efforts to expand clinical trial eligibility criteria to involve traditionally underserved patient populations, less than 5% of patients diagnosed with cancer choose to participate in clinical trials (lifestyle, behavioral or pharmaceutical), of which only a small fraction represents underserved or vulnerable populations. The barriers that contribute to these trends are multifactorial. Examining sociodemographic and clinical characteristics may provide insight into successful participant recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups in clinical trials. The NutriCare study (NCT04986670) is a national, multisite, randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of medically tailored meals plus weekly nutritional counseling on the outcomes of vulnerable patients with treatment-naïve lung cancer initiating treatment. Eligibility criteria defining vulnerability included: ≥65 years of age; underrepresented minority; rural resident; no health insurance; or income ≤130% of federal poverty line. To remain on study, eligible participants also completed a 90-minute baseline assessment within 8 weeks of study consent. A comprehensive list of screened patients was maintained throughout the course of the study, including approach attempts and refusal reasons for participation. Strategies to improve recruitment included obtaining referrals from the treating physician and inclusion of the study dietitian during the informed consent process. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the recruitment and retention of vulnerable patients. Overall, 438 participants were screened in Phase I of this study at The Ohio State University and MD Anderson (Nov, 2020 – Aug, 2022), of which 116 (26%) participants consented to the study. Of these 116 participants, 76 (66%) were 65 years of age or older, 42 (36%) lived in a rural area, 21 (18%) identified as a racial or ethnic minority, and 27 (23%) met federal poverty levels. As the study progressed, 44 (38%) patients withdrew between baseline to 3-months,18 (16%) patients withdrew between the 3-month to 8-month timepoints, and a total of 54 (47%) participants completed the study. The highest retention rates were identified among those <65 years (58%), males (52%), early-stage lung cancer (69%), racial or ethnic minorities (62%), non-rural residents (50%) and those above the federal poverty line (48%). Barriers to completing the study included rapid decline in performance status among those diagnosed with late/extensive stage lung cancers (16%), treatment impacting taste and appetite (8%), and logistical complications with the meal intervention (3%). Barriers to recruitment and willingness to participate during the NutriCare trial were similar across recruiting sites. Future trials should consider implementation of a crossover study design, local and customized food delivery services, and measurements of time toxicity related to survey completion as an outcome. These efforts may improve clinical trial participation and provide more supportive care needs for vulnerable patients with lung cancer. Citation Format: Hazel M. Antao, Kenneth Kwan Ho Chui, Jade Smith, Pooja Vibhakar, Mary Kathryn Cohen, Jessica Bauman, Saumil Gandhi, Joya Chandra, Lori Pai, Fang Fang Zhang, Colleen Spees, Carolyn Presley. Overcoming barriers in recruiting medically underserved patients with lung cancer: The NutriCare study, a "Food is Medicine" intervention [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl):Abstract nr B116.

Trial selection criteria should not be used for clinical decisions and recommendations: the thrombectomy trials example

BackgroundDespite multiple calls for more inclusive studies, most clinical trial eligibility criteria remain too restrictive. Thrombectomy trials have been no exception. MethodsWe review the landmark trials that have shown the benefits of thrombectomy, their eligibility criteria, and consequences on clinical practice. We discuss the rationale behind various reasons for exclusions. We also examine the logical problem involved in using eligibility criteria as indications for treatment. ResultsMost thrombectomy trials have been too restrictive. This has been shown by a plethora of follow-up studies that have refuted most of the previously recommended trial eligibility restrictions. Meanwhile, the effect of clinical recommendations based on restrictive eligibility criteria is that treatment has been denied to the majority of patients who could have benefitted. Trial eligibility criteria cannot be used to make clinical decisions or recommendations unless, like any other medical diagnosis, they have been shown capable of reliably differentiating patients into those that will, and those that will not benefit from treatment. This goal can only be achieved with all-inclusive pragmatic trials. ConclusionRestrictive eligibility criteria render clinical trials incapable of guiding medical decisions or recommendations.

Investigating patient eligibility for anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment of Alzheimer's disease: real-world data from an Austrian psychiatric memory clinic population.

Pharmacological treatment options for patients with dementia owing to Alzheimer's disease are limited to symptomatic therapy. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the monoclonal antibody lecanemab for the treatment of amyloid-positive patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and early Alzheimer´s dementia. European approval is expected in 2024. Data on the applicability and eligibility for treatment with anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies outside of a study population are lacking. This study examined eligibility criteria for lecanemab in a real-world memory clinic population between 1 January 2022 and 31 July 2023. We conducted a retrospective, single-centre study applying the clinical trial eligibility criteria for lecanemab to out-patients of a specialised psychiatric memory clinic. Eligibility for anti-amyloid treatment was assessed following the phase 3 inclusion and exclusion criteria and the published recommendations for lecanemab. The study population consisted of 587 out-patients. Two-thirds were diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (probable or possible Alzheimer's disease dementia in 43.6% of cases, n = 256) or MCI (23%, n = 135), and 33.4% (n = 196) were diagnosed with dementia or neurocognitive disorder owing to another aetiology. Applying all lecanemab eligibility criteria, 11 (4.3%) patients with dementia and two (1.5%) patients with MCI would have been eligible for treatment with this compound, whereas 13 dementia (5.1%) and 14 (10.4%) MCI patients met clinical inclusion criteria, but had no available amyloid status. Even in a memory clinic with a good infrastructure and sufficient facilities for dementia diagnostics, most patients do not meet the eligibility criteria for treatment with lecanemab.

Evaluating the impact of laboratory-based eligibility criteria by race/ethnicity in first-line clinical trials of DLBCL

AbstractUnderrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials remains a persistent challenge. Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria have been shown to exacerbate this problem. We previously identified that up to 24% of patients treated with standard immunochemotherapy would have been excluded from recent first-line trials in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) based on 5 laboratory-based criteria. These ineligible patients had worse clinical outcomes and increased deaths related to lymphoma progression, suggesting the potential exclusion of patients who could have benefited most from the novel therapies being evaluated. Using data from the prospectively enrolled Lymphoma Epidemiology Outcomes cohort study, with demographics broadly similar to the US patients diagnosed with lymphoma, we evaluated the impact of laboratory eligibility criteria from recent first-line DLBCL trials across various racial and ethnic backgrounds. There were significant differences in the baseline laboratory values by race/ethnicity with Black/African American (AA) patients having the lowest mean hemoglobin and highest creatinine clearance. Based on recent clinical trial eligibility criteria, AA and Hispanic patients had higher rates of laboratory-based ineligibility than non-Hispanic White patients. The largest gap in the clinical outcomes between eligible and noneligible patients was noted within AA patients with an overall survival hazard ratio based on POLARIX clinical trial criteria of 4.09 (95% confidence interval, 1.83-9.14). A thoughtful approach to the utility of each criterion and cutoffs for eligibility needs to be evaluated in the context of its differential impact across various racial/ethnic groups.

Analysis of eligibility criteria in Alzheimer’s and related dementias clinical trials

Overly restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria can reduce generalizability, slow enrollment, and disproportionately exclude historically underrepresented populations. The eligibility criteria for 196 Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias (AD/ADRD) trials funded by the National Institute on Aging were analyzed to identify common criteria and their potential to disproportionately exclude participants by race/ethnicity. The trials were categorized by type (48 Phase I/II pharmacological, 7 Phase III/IV pharmacological, 128 non-pharmacological, 7 diagnostic, and 6 neuropsychiatric) and target population (51 AD/ADRD, 58 Mild Cognitive Impairment, 25 at-risk, and 62 cognitively normal). Eligibility criteria were coded into the following categories: Medical, Neurologic, Psychiatric, and Procedural. A literature search was conducted to describe the prevalence of disparities for eligibility criteria for African Americans/Black (AA/B), Hispanic/Latino (H/L), American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (NH/PI) populations. The trials had a median of 15 criteria. The most frequent criterion were age cutoffs (87% of trials), specified neurologic (65%), and psychiatric disorders (61%). Underrepresented groups could be disproportionately excluded by 16 eligibility categories; 42% of trials specified English-speakers only in their criteria. Most trials (82%) contain poorly operationalized criteria (i.e., criteria not well defined that can have multiple interpretations/means of implementation) and criteria that may reduce racial/ethnic enrollment diversity.

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: Expanding clinical trial eligibility criteria based on quality of life data

Cutaneous lupus erythematosus: Expanding clinical trial eligibility criteria based on quality of life data

Recommendations for broadening eligibility criteria in esophagus cancer clinical trials: the mortality disparity of esophagus cancer as a first or second primary malignancy.

Esophagus cancer as a second primary malignancy (esophagus-2) is increasingly common, but its prognosis is poorly understood. This study aims to examine the overall, non-cancer related and cancer-specific survival of patients diagnosed with esophagus-2 compared to the first primary esophagus cancer (esophagus-1). We included primary esophagus cancer patients diagnosed from 1975 to 2019 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Esophagus-2 was identified in patients with a previous diagnosis of non-esophageal primary malignancy. Hazard ratios of overall, esophagus cancer-specific and non-cancer related mortality were estimated among patients with esophagus-2 compared to esophagus-1, adjusting for age, gender, tumor stage and other demographic and clinical characteristics. A total of 74,521 and 14,820 patients were identified as esophagus-1 and esophagus-2 respectively. Esophagus-2 patients suffered lower risk of esophagus cancer-specific mortality in initial 5 years but with similar risk thereafter, independent of tumor characteristics and treatment. In the first 5 years after diagnosis, patients with esophagus-2 had similar risk of overall mortality with those with esophagus-1 but increased risk thereafter. As for non-cancer related mortality, esophagus-2 patients had higher risk all along. Esophagus-2 patients should not be entirely excluded from clinical trial and a 3-year exclusion window is suggested. A conservative approach to manage esophagus-2 solely based on malignancy history is not supported but effort should be put into surveillance, prevention and management of the comorbidities and complications for the first malignancy.

Recommendations for Broadening Eligibility Criteria in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Clinical Trials.

Clinical trial recruitment for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has become more challenging over time. We aimed to develop recommendations for broadening IBD clinical trial eligibility to improve the inclusion of a more representative patient population in a more efficient timeline. We applied the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method focused on broadening IBD clinical trial eligibility. A literature review was performed for 7 domains, each representing a different area related to trial recruitment. Based on these domains, 32 statements were developed. A questionnaire was sent to IBD specialists to anonymously vote on each statement with regards to its appropriateness and feasibility. After the first round of voting, participants met for a moderated discussion to review all statements. At the end of the discussion a second round of anonymous voting led to the final recommendations. The final round of voting resulted in 26 statements. All were rated as feasible and 25 of 26 rated as appropriate. Recommendations generally are to be more inclusive of complicated disease phenotypes, more liberal around safety criteria, to recognize the importance of non-invasive imaging and biomarkers, to minimize the washout period and to not enforce a minimum or maximum number of prior medications, to allow a recently recorded colonoscopy to count as a baseline study, and to be less restrictive of age. Recommendations to broaden clinical trial eligibility were found to be both appropriate and feasible with a high degree of agreement amongst an international group of IBD specialists.

Attaining Equity of Access to Research: Perspective on Research in Pregnancy and Breastfeeding Following Dolores Shockley Lecture at ASCPT2024.

Everybody deserves access to evidence-based information to make decisions about their health. However, in many situations, clinical trial eligibility criteria mean that specific data do not exist for certain groups of individuals. These include pregnant and breastfeeding women, children, older people, those with hepatic and renal dysfunction, those with acute severe illness, and those with multiple co-morbidities and interacting medications. Resultantly, there may not be specific drug-dosing information for many patients who are treated in a clinical setting. The ASCPT2024 Dolores Shockley Lecture focused on the equitable access to research with a specific focus on clinical pharmacology studies in pregnancy and breastfeeding. To ensure the safe, effective use of medication in pregnancy and breastfeeding, women should be included in clinical trials and pharmacokinetic studies when a medication is anticipated to be used in women of childbearing potential. Community groups should be involved at all stages of research to maintain transparency and trust. This ensures that local priorities are investigated, that communities understand the findings and are empowered to make evidence-based decisions about their own medication use. Principles informing the design of such studies in pregnancy and lactation are in existence. Mathematical techniques such as physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling and stochastic simulation and estimation can enhance study design, and population pharmacokinetic modeling be used to understand variability within and between individuals. Data should be made findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). Information (and where necessary, training) regarding the use of these approaches should be provided to decision-making stakeholders such as ethics committees and regulatory bodies.

Treatment discontinuation due to toxicity for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated on SWOG S1203.

6529 Background: Curative-intent therapy for patients with newly diagnosed AML centers on the use of cytarabine as part of an intensive multi-drug induction regimen. Treatment-related toxicity may lead to patients stopping treatment, despite the considerable risk of inadequately treated AML. We compared rates of protocol therapy discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) in either of two standard induction regimens (7+3 or high dose cytarabine + idarubicin, IA) on the S1203 study (Garcia-Manero; Leukemia 2023). Methods: S1203 was a randomized study of patients <60 years old with newly diagnosed AML. Patients were required to have performance status (PS) <3, ejection fraction >45%, and no prolonged QTc interval or known cardiac disease. There were no exclusion criteria for kidney or liver function. On the 7+3 induction arm, subjects received daunorubicin 90 mg/m2 IV daily days 1-3 with continuous infusion cytarabine 100 mg/m2 daily days 1-7. On the IA arm, subjects received idarubicin 12 mg/m2 daily days 1-3 with continuous infusion cytarabine 1.5 g/m2 daily days 1-4. Toxicities were assessed per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. Rates of discontinuation were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Results: From 4/2013-11/2015, 522 subjects were randomized (261 to each arm). Treatment discontinuation due to either death or toxicity occurred in 8 vs 22 patients on 7+3 vs IA respectively (p=0.014). During induction, 0 patients on the 7+3 arm discontinued treatment due to toxicity versus 4 patients on the IA arm (0% vs 2%; p=0.12). Toxicities leading to treatment discontinuation on the IA arm included congestive heart failure (n=2, one with concurrent arrhythmia), acute kidney injury (n=1), and hypotension complicated by stroke and cardiac arrest (n=1). Two of the 4 patients who discontinued treatment due to toxicity on IA achieved a complete remission after their first cycle. For patients with PS 2-3 (n=40 on 7+3, n=27 on IA), rates of grade 3-5 AEs were 85% vs 86% and rates of grade 5 AEs were 0% vs 11% (p=0.065). Conclusions: 7+3 was well tolerated. Excluding patients from S1203 with PS 2-3 or decreased hepatic/renal function would not have prevented treatment-related toxicity. The low rate of protocol therapy discontinuation due to toxicity suggests that eligibility criteria for clinical trials could be further broadened to improve patient access. Clinical trial information: NCT0180233 . [Table: see text]

Uptake of recommendations for broadening clinical trial eligibility criteria for patients with brain metastasis and leptomeningeal disease in lung cancer clinical trials: A systematic review.

e23007 Background: Brain metastasis (BM) in patients with lung cancer are relatively frequent (~20%). Clinical trials (CTs) often exclude patients with BM due to concerns about life expectancy, functional status, and toxicity. Restrictive eligibility criteria deter patients with BM from receiving investigational treatments that may be beneficial. In 2017, ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research (FoCR), and the US FDA recommended to expand eligibility criteria to assist in design more representative trials. We examined the uptake of these guidelines in BM/leptomeningeal disease (LMD) inclusion criteria among registered lung cancer CTs. Methods: We extracted eligibility criteria of US-based, phase I/II/III interventional CTs for patients with metastatic lung cancer registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 10/2012 to 01/2024. CTs registered one year within ASCO/FoCR/FDA published their recommendations were excluded. For each trial, two independent reviewers screened eligibility criteria and classified patients with BM as fully included (active/untreated disease), partially included (treated/stable disease), or excluded, and LMD as included or excluded. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. Fisher’s exact tests and odds ratio (OR) were obtained by logistic regression. Results: Among 307 CTs, patients with BM were partially included in most CTs (228, 74.3%), excluded in 9 (2.9%) and not mentioned in 35 trials (11.4%). Patients with active BM were included in 35 trials (11.4%). The use of steroids was accepted in 69 trials (22.5%). Only 18 trials (5.8%) included patients with LMD. Most patients with LMD were excluded (135, 44.0%) or not mentioned as criterion (154, 50.2%). A statistically significant difference was observed in the inclusion of patients with BM pre- vs post-recommendations ( p= 0.046). Yet, there was not significant difference in trials with active BM and LMD pre- vs post-recommendations. CTs including patients with active BM or LMD were more likely to appear in CTs explicitly measuring central nervous system outcomes (OR = 4.3; p= 0.002; OR = 14.3; p= 7e-5, respectively). Conclusions: Although existing recommendations to broaden CTs eligibility criteria to include patients with BM showed a significant change, patients with active BM and LMD remained excluded from lung cancer trials. Designing CTs including patients with active BM/LMD is likely to improve patient accrual, increase access to clinical trials and further characterize the investigational drug’s safety and efficacy in this patient population. Exclusion criteria should be clearly justified, and expected toxicity should be reflected in the rationale. As new targeted therapies emerge in lung cancer realm, eligibility criteria should be modernized to fit patients who will be using novel therapies once they are available.

Impact of eligibility criteria discordance on clinical trial accrual in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL).

e13707 Background: Excessively stringent clinical trial eligibility criteria may hinder trial accrual, differentially exclude racial-ethnic minority groups, and limit generalizability. This study reviewed the association between trial accrual and concordance of eligibility criteria with known drug safety data in DLBCL clinical trials. Methods: Eligibility criteria and accrual of completed phase II/III clinical trials for DLBCL that opened in the US between 2010-2020 were abstracted from ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials missing posted results or studying cellular therapy / transplant were excluded. Concordance with known safety data was assessed by comparing study eligibility criteria for QTc, renal, hepatic, and cardiac function to FDA labels and phase I safety signals of study drugs. Excessively strict discordant criteria (ExSDC) were defined as eligibility criteria without supporting safety signals. Logistic regression +/- dispersion was used for analysis. Results: 58 trials met criteria for inclusion, accruing 6,232 participants. 88% of studies involved a non-FDA-approved agent, 74% were multicenter, 55% were industry sponsored, 66% only accrued in the US, and 86% were phase II. Eligibility criteria were highly variable (Table). Discordance of renal, hepatic, cardiac function, and QTc criteria from known safety data occurred in 31%, 26%, 41%, and 29% of studies, respectively. Race and ethnicity data were not reported in 22% and 45% of studies, respectively. Trials after 2015 were more likely to report race (p=0.04) and ethnicity (p=0.01). In a multivariable model adjusted for international study sites, greater number of ExSDC was associated with a lower proportion of black patients in the trial (OR 0.45, CI 0.29-0.71, p=0.001). ExSDC in cardiac function were most associated with reduced accrual of this minority group (OR 0.17, CI 0.05-0.58, p=0.007). 11 studies (19%) had early termination for lack of accrual (ETLA). In multivariable analysis, greater number of ExSDC was independently associated with ETLA (OR 3.53, CI 1.45-8.64, p=0.006), while multicenter status protected against ETLA (OR 0.05, CI 0.01-0.31, p=0.002). Industry sponsor and concordance of cardiac criteria protected against ETLA in univariable analysis only. Other eligibility criteria were not associated. Conclusions: Eligibility criteria in DLBCL trials varied widely and were often discordant with known safety data. Higher number of ExSDC was associated with lower accrual of black patients and higher risk of ETLA. Optimizing concordance of eligibility criteria with safety data may improve trial accrual and diversity. [Table: see text]

Critical re-evaluation of the identification of iron deficiency states and effective iron repletion strategies in patients with chronic heart failure.

According to current guidelines, iron deficiency is defined by a serum ferritin level <100 ng/ml or a transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20% if the serum ferritin level is 100-299 μg/L. These criteria were developed to encourage the use of intravenous iron as an adjunct to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in the treatment of renal anaemia. However, in patients with heart failure, these criteria are not supported by any pathophysiological or clinical evidence that they identify an absolute or functional iron deficiency state. A low baseline TSAT-but not serum ferritin level-appears to be a reliable indicator of the effect of intravenous iron to reduce major heart failure events. In randomized controlled trials, intravenous iron decreased the risk of cardiovascular death or total heart failure hospitalization in patients with a TSAT <20% (risk ratio 0.67 [0.49-0.92]) but not in patients with a TSAT ≥20% (risk ratio 0.99 [0.74-1.30]), with the magnitude of the risk reduction being proportional to the severity of hypoferraemia. Patients who were enrolled in clinical trials solely because they had a serum ferritin level <100 μg/L showed no significant benefit on heart failure outcomes, and it is noteworthy that serum ferritin levels of 20-300 μg/L lie entirely within the range of normal values for healthy adults. Current guidelines reflect the eligibility criteria of clinical trials, which inadvertently adopted unvalidated criteria to define iron deficiency. Reliance on these guidelines would lead to the treatment of many patients who are not iron deficient (serum ferritin level <100 μg/L but normal TSAT) and ignores the possibility of iron deficiency in patients with a low TSAT but with serum ferritin level of >300 μg/L. Importantly, analyses of benefit based on trial eligibility-driven guidelines substantially underestimate the magnitude of heart-failure-event risk reduction with intravenous iron in patients who are truly iron deficient. Based on all available data, we recommend a new mechanism-based and trial-tested approach that reflects the totality of evidence more faithfully than the historical process adopted by clinical investigators and by the guidelines. Until additional evidence is forthcoming, an iron deficiency state in patients with heart failure should be defined by a TSAT <20% (as long as the serum ferritin level is <400 μg/L), and furthermore, the use of a serum ferritin level <100 μg/L alone as a diagnostic criterion should be discarded.

Racial Disparities in Endometrial Cancer Clinical Trial Representation: Exploring the Role of Eligibility Criteria.

This study aimed to determine whether Black patients with recurrent endometrial cancer were more likely than White patients to be ineligible for a recently published clinical trial due to specific eligibility criteria. Patients with recurrent or progressive endometrial cancer diagnosed from January 2010 to December 2021 who received care at a single institution were identified. Demographic and clinicopathologic information was abstracted and determination of clinical trial eligibility was made based on 14 criteria from the KEYNOTE-775 trial. Characteristics of the eligible and ineligible cohorts were compared, and each ineligibility criterion was evaluated by race. One hundred seventy-five patients were identified, 89 who would have met all inclusion and no exclusion criteria for KEYNOTE-775, and 86 who would have been ineligible by one or more exclusion criteria. Patients in the ineligible cohort were more likely to have lower BMI (median 26.5 vs. 29.2, P <0.001), but were otherwise similar with regard to insurance status, histology, and stage at diagnosis. Black patients had 33% lower odds of being eligible (95% CI: 0.33-1.34) and were more likely to meet the exclusion criterion of having a previous intestinal anastomosis, but the result was not statistically significant. If this criterion were removed, the racial distribution of those ineligible for the trial would be more similar (46.4% Black vs. 42.2% White). Clinical trial eligibility criteria may contribute to the underrepresentation of racial groups in clinical trials, but other factors should be explored. Studies to quantify and lessen the impact of implicit bias are also needed.