Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program Research Articles

Abstract LB_A10: Efficacy of ATR inhibitor berzosertib plus topotecan or topotecan alone in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract Background: Patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) have a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options, especially after standard treatment of platinum doublet chemotherapy +/- immunotherapy. SCLC is characterized with high replication stress. A previous single-arm phase 2 study showed anti-tumor activity with the addition of ataxia-telangiectasia–mutated and rad3-related (ATR) kinase inhibitor berzosertib to topotecan. This study aimed to investigate whether the addition of berzosertib to topotecan improves clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed SCLC. Patients and methods: The randomized, open-labeled phase 2 study recruited patients with SCLC and relapse after one or more prior therapies from 16 US cancer centers as members of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Patients previously treated with topotecan were not eligible. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive topotecan (arm 1: 1.25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 through 5) alone or with berzosertib (arm 2: 210 mg/m2 intravenously on days 2 and 5), in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by sensitivity to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR) in the overall population and in platinum-sensitive or -resistant patients. Results: Between December 2019 and December 2022, sixty patients were randomly assigned to receive topotecan alone (n=20) or in combination of with berzosertib (n=40). After a median potential follow-up of 21.3 months, there was no difference in PFS between the two arms [median: 3.0 months in arm 1 versus 3.9 months in arm 2, hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI): 0.80 (0.46 to 1.41), P = 0.44]. OS was significantly longer with the combination [5.4 months in arm 1 versus 8.9 months in arm 2, HR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.29 to 0.96), P = 0.033]. Of 57 evaluable patients, a numerically higher ORR was observed in patients receiving the combination: 5.6% (1/18, 95% CI: 0.1% to 27.3%) in arm 1 versus 25.6% (10/39, 13.0% to 42.1%) in arm 2. In an unplanned post hoc analysis, the depth of target lesion responses was significantly associated with better OS in patients on the combination arm (adjusted P = 0.022 by landmark analysis), suggesting that the deeper tumor regressions by the combination of berzosertib and topotecan may have eventually contributed to OS improvement. Adverse event profiles were similar between the two arms. Conclusions: In this randomized clinical trial, berzosertib plus topotecan did not improve PFS compared with topotecan alone in patients with relapsed SCLC. However, the combination significantly improved OS, suggesting potential efficacy of replication-stress targeted therapies in SCLC. Citation Format: Nobuyuki Takahashi, Zhonglin Hao, Liza C Villaruz, Jun Zhang, Jimmy Ruiz, W. Jeffrey Petty, Hirva Mamdani, Jonathan W Riess, Jorge Nieva, Jose M Pachecho, Alexander D Fuld, Elaine Shum, Aman Chauhan, Samantha Nichols, Hirity Shimellis, Jessie McGlone, Linda Sciuto, Danielle Pinkiert, Chante Graham, Meenakshi Shelat, Robbie Kattappuram, Melissa Abel, Brett Schroeder, Deep Upadhyay, Manan Krishnamurthy, Ajit Kumar Sharma, Rajesh Kumar, Justin Malin, Christopher W Schultz, Shubhank Goyal, Christophe E Redon, Yves Pommier, Mirit I Aladjem, Steven D Gore, Seth M Steinberg, Rasa Vilimas, Parth Desai, Anish Thomas. Efficacy of ATR inhibitor berzosertib plus topotecan or topotecan alone in patients with relapsed small cell lung cancer: A randomized clinical trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2023 Oct 11-15; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2023;22(12 Suppl):Abstract nr LB_A10.

Expanding the role of advanced practice providers (APPs) in cancer clinical trials.

60 Background: Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) represent a growing and increasingly important component of the oncology workforce. However, APP roles in clinical research are not clearly understood, and certain policies may limit participation. For instance, National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) historically prohibited APPs from signing orders on CTEP-sponsored studies, even at centers where APPs have antineoplastic privileges allowing them to order cancer treatments as standard therapy or on non-CTEP studies. At the UT Southwestern Harold C. Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (SCCC), more than 100 active CTEP-sponsored trials account for approximately 30% of therapeutic enrollment. Given these considerations, we approached CTEP regarding potential policy change. Methods: In early 2020, we raised the issue of disparities in allowed APP delegation between (1) CTEP trials and (2) standard practice and non-CTEP trials to NCI/CTEP leadership. Later that year, CTEP organized a discussion on the topic with SCCC representatives and other stakeholders. Subsequently, NCI deployed a survey to National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) centers asking about the role of APPs at their respective institutions. Results: Following the survey, CTEP revised its policy, allowing appropriately credentialed APPs to sign treatment orders on CTEP-sponsored trials, effective September 1, 2021. After completing required regulatory steps to update trial protocols at UTSW SCCC, approved APPs began signing cancer clinical trial treatment orders in January 2022. Since that time, the proportion of trial treatment orders signed by APPs at SCCC has increased from 1% in January 2022 to 20% in May 2022. Conclusions: The role of APPs in cancer care can be further enhanced by alleviating barriers and allowing providers to perform at the full scope of practice, thereby further integrating care teams critical to compliant and safe clinical trial participation.

Enrollment of adolescent and young adult patients newly diagnosed with cancer in NCI CTEP-sponsored clinical trials before and after launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network.

Participation of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) in oncology clinical trials is important to ensure adequate opportunities for AYA patients to contribute to, and benefit from, advances in cancer treatment. Accrual data for National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) cooperative group-led treatment trials were examined to assess enrollment of newly diagnosed AYA patients (15-39 years) during the period 2004-2019, with particular interest in comparing enrollment before launch of the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to after. All phase 2, 2/3, and 3 trials activated during the period between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019, were identified (n=1568) and reduced to a set of 304 that met predetermined criteria to focus on cooperative group-led trials that involved therapy for newly diagnosed cancer and had age eligibility overlapping the AYA range. The proportion of AYA patients relative to total accrual, along with 95% bootstrapped CI was calculated for patients enrolled pre-NCTN and post-NCTN. AYA accrual comprised 9.5% (95% CI, 7.6-11.8) pre-NCTN compared with 14.0% (95% CI, 9.9-18.3) post-NCTN. The mean difference in proportions post-NCTN compared with pre-NCTN was 4.4% (0.7%-8.3%). These results indicate an increase in AYA participation in trials conducted within the NCTN relative to the pre-NCTN period. This suggests an awareness and utilization of NCTN trials for AYAs with cancer.

Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies for cancer: A pooled analysis of investigational clinical trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (NCI-CTEP) in the United States and Canada.

2508 Background: MACE due to ICIs are infrequent immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that comprise a spectrum of cardiac toxicities with variable manifestations. ICI-related MACE can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, hence the need to better define presentations of MACE and their association with non-cardiac irAEs in ICI-treated patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of MACE captured in the serious adverse events reporting database of the NCI-CTEP for NCI-sponsored investigational clinical trials between 6/2015-12/2019. Patients (pts) were eligible if they had been treated with anti-programmed cell death protein-1/programmed death-ligand 1 (anti-PD-[L]1) alone or in combination with additional anti-cancer therapies. Results: A total of 6,925 pts received anti-PD-(L)1-based therapies; 48% (n = 3354) were treated with single-agent anti-PD-(L)1 therapy. Of 6925 pts, 0.6% (n = 40) qualified as ICI-related MACE. Myocarditis accounted for 45% (n = 18/40) of total ICI-MACE. Approximately 77.5% (n = 31/40) of MACE were ≥ grade 3. Multi-system organ involvement with other non-cardiac irAEs was seen in 65% (n = 26/40). Most pts with myocarditis (83%, n = 15/18) had one or more non-cardiac irAEs associated; non-cardiac irAEs were observed in 50% (n = 11/22) of non-myocarditis MACE. Incidence of MACE was higher with anti-PD-(L)1 + targeted therapies vs. anti-PD-(L)1 + anti-CTLA-4 (2.1% vs. 0.09%, p = 0.08). Most of these were non-myocarditis MACE. There was a significantly higher incidence of myocarditis with anti-PD-(L)1-based combinations vs. single-agent anti-PD-(L)1 therapies (0.39%, n = 13/3341 vs. 0.14%, n = 5/3566, p = 0.04. Most pts with myocarditis had been treated with anti-PD-1-based combinations (72%, n = 13/18); the most common combination being anti-PD1+ anti-CTLA-4 (92%, n = 12/13). Pts with myocarditis presented after a median of 2 ICI doses and after a median of 35 days from the initial ICI administration. In pts with myocarditis, a concurrent or preceding history of myositis was present in 53% (n = 8/15). Deaths related to myocarditis were identified in 22.5% (n = 4/18). All four patients who died had concurrent myositis, with three having concurrent transaminitis. Conclusions: Our results represent the first report of a comprehensive pooled analysis of ICI-MACE obtained from NCI CTEP-sponsored investigational clinical trials. Based on our results, increasing patient and prescriber awareness in understanding patterns of ICI-MACE and associated non-cardiac irAEs should be emphasized. Furthermore, better characterization of the risk and patterns of non-myocarditis MACE with the use of anti-PD(L)-1 ICIs concurrently with non-ICI-based anti-cancer therapies is needed.

Outcomes of Pregnancy During Immunotherapy Treatment for Cancer: Analysis of Clinical Trials Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute

Despite expanding indications for immunotherapeutic agents, there is limited understanding about their clinical effects on pregnancy outcomes. Generally, pregnant patients with cancer are excluded from clinical trials, and inadvertent pregnancies on trial result in patients being taken off because of concerns for fetal toxicity. To answer this question of pregnancy outcomes on immunotherapy-based trials, we performed a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)-Adverse Event Reporting System for unexpected pregnancies during NCI-CTEP-sponsored immunotherapy clinical trials between 2011 and 2020. We identified nine female patients who had unexpected pregnancies, of whom seven chose to take their pregnancies to term. All seven pregnancies resulted in vaginal births of apparently normal infants. This is the first report of pregnancy outcomes in multiple female patients exposed to immunotherapy. Our data suggest the need for further research to better evaluate and define contraception recommendations during immunotherapy treatment for cancer.

Screening and Validation of Molecular Targeted Radiosensitizers

The development of molecular targeted drugs with radiation and chemotherapy is critically important for improving the outcomes of patients with hard-to-treat, potentially curable cancers. However, too many preclinical studies have not translated into successful radiation oncology trials. Major contributing factors to this insufficiency include poor reproducibility of preclinical data, inadequate preclinical modeling of intertumoral genomic heterogeneity that influences treatment sensitivity in the clinic, and a reliance on tumor growth delay instead of local control (TCD50) endpoints. There exists an urgent need to overcome these barriers to facilitate successful clinical translation of targeted radiosensitizers. To this end, we have used 3-dimensional (3D) cell culture assays to better model tumor behavior in vivo. Examples of successful prediction of in vivo effects with these 3D assays include radiosensitization of head and neck cancers by inhibiting epidermal growth factor receptor or focal adhesion kinase signaling, and radioresistance associated with oncogenic mutation of KRAS. To address the issue of tumor heterogeneity, we leveraged institutional resources that allow high-throughput 3D screening of radiation combinations with small-molecule inhibitors across genomically characterized cell lines from lung, head and neck, and pancreatic cancers. This high-throughput screen is expected to uncover genomic biomarkers that will inform the successful clinical translation of targeted agents from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program portfolio and other sources. Screening "hits" need to be subjected to refinement studies that include clonogenic assays, addition of disease-specific chemotherapeutics, target/biomarker validation, and integration of patient-derived tumor models. The chemoradiosensitizing activities of the most promising drugs should be confirmed in TCD50 assays in xenograft models with or without relevant biomarker and using clinically relevant radiation fractionation. We predict that appropriately validated and biomarker-directed targeted therapies will have a higher likelihood than past efforts of being successfully incorporated into the standard management of hard-to-treat tumors.

Radiopharmaceutical Validation for Clinical Use.

Radiopharmaceuticals are reemerging as attractive anticancer agents, but there are no universally adopted guidelines or standardized procedures for evaluating agent validity before early-phase trial implementation. To validate a radiopharmaceutical, it is desirous for the radiopharmaceutical to be specific, selective, and deliverable against tumors of a given, molecularly defined cancer for which it is intended to treat. In this article, we discuss four levels of evidence—target antigen immunohistochemistry, in vitro and in vivo preclinical experiments, animal biodistribution and dosimetry studies, and first-in-human microdose biodistribution studies—that might be used to justify oncology therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals in a drug-development sequence involving early-phase trials. We discuss common practices for validating radiopharmaceuticals for clinical use, everyday pitfalls, and commonplace operationalizing steps for radiopharmaceutical early-phase trials. We anticipate in the near-term that radiopharmaceutical trials will become a larger proportion of the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) portfolio.

Adavosertib plus gemcitabine for platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory recurrent ovarian cancer: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

The Wee1 (WEE1hu) inhibitor adavosertib and gemcitabine have shown preclinical synergy and promising activity in early phase clinical trials. We aimed to determine the efficacy of this combination in patients with ovarian cancer. In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial, women with measurable recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer were recruited from 11 academic centres in the USA and Canada. Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, a life expectancy of more than 3 months, and normal organ and marrow function. Women with ovarian cancer of non-high-grade serous histology were eligible for enrolment in a non-randomised exploratory cohort. Eligible participants with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were randomly assigned (2:1), using block randomisation (block size of three and six) and no stratification, to receive intravenous gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15) with either oral adavosertib (175 mg) or identical placebo once daily on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16, in 28-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients and the team caring for each patient were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The safety and efficacy analysis population comprised all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02151292, and is closed to accrual. Between Sept 22, 2014, and May 30, 2018, 124 women were enrolled, of whom 99 had high-grade serous ovarian cancer and were randomly assigned to adavosertib plus gemcitabine (65 [66%]) or placebo plus gemcitabine (34 [34%]). 25 women with non-high-grade serous ovarian cancer were enrolled in the exploratory cohort. After randomisation, five patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer were found to be ineligible (four in the experimental group and one in the control group) and did not receive treatment. Median age for all treated patients (n=119) was 62 years (IQR 54-67). Progression-free survival was longer with adavosertib plus gemcitabine (median 4·6 months [95% CI 3·6-6·4] with adavosertib plus gemcitabine vs 3·0 months [1·8-3·8] with placebo plus gemcitabine; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·35-0·90]; log-rank p=0·015). The most frequent grade 3 or worse adverse events were haematological (neutropenia in 38 [62%] of 61 participants in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs ten [30%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group; thrombocytopenia in 19 [31%] of 61 in the adavosertib plus gemcitabine group vs two [6%] of 33 in the placebo plus gemcitabine group). There were no treatment-related deaths; two patients (one in each group in the high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort) died while on study medication (from sepsis in the experimental group and from disease progression in the control group). The observed clinical efficacy of a Wee1 inhibitor combined with gemcitabine supports ongoing assessment of DNA damage response drugs in high-grade serous ovarian cancer, a TP53-mutated tumour type with high replication stress. This therapeutic approach might be applicable to other tumour types with high replication stress; larger confirmatory studies are required. US National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research, US Department of Defense, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and AstraZeneca.

Radiopharmaceutical Switch Maintenance for Relapsed Ovarian Carcinoma.

Switch maintenance, or using alternative therapeutic agents that were not administered during a prior course of cancer treatment, has emerged as an active clinical research and regulatory agency-approvable path in the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) drug-development sequence. To better inform the design of therapeutic radiopharmaceutical trials, we reviewed academic scholarship discussing the clinical use of maintenance approaches to cancer treatment. Women with advanced-stage primary platinum-refractory or platinum-resistant ovarian carcinoma and their courses of treatment provide context for our discussion. Twenty-four (10%) out of 244 trials for women with ovarian carcinoma fit our search terms for maintenance trials. Five (2%) trials studied radiopharmaceuticals as switch maintenance. In our opinion, radiopharmaceutical switch maintenance merits further testing in prospective trials for women with advanced-stage primary platinum recurrent or refractory ovarian carcinoma.

Financial Toxicity Encountered in Therapeutic Radiopharmaceutical Clinical Development for Ovarian Cancer.

Financial toxicity or the debt a cancer survivor incurs from the costs of their medical cancer care is an understudied aspect in the clinical development of experimental therapeutic agents. The United States National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program studies experimental therapeutic agents like radiopharmaceuticals in both early and late phase trials, which provide opportunities to comprehend more clearly the possible sources of financial toxicity incurred by cancer survivors. We reviewed the academic scholarship describing fiscal and social costs involved in the development of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. Because many ovarian cancer survivors outlive their disease through initial and, perhaps, multiple treatment courses, these women and their treatments provide context for our discussion on financial toxicity. 16 (27%) of 60 articles discuss financial toxicity incurred by women with ovarian cancer; none described financial toxicity associated with regulatory agency-approved or experimental therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals. Fiscal costs of radiopharmaceutical dose and schedule and social costs of individual productivity loss or asset expenditure arose as primary financial toxicities. The development of radiopharmaceuticals for women with ovarian cancer remains a high priority for the NCI Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Weighing radiopharmaceutical clinical benefit against measures of financial toxicity is challenging and warrants further study in prospective radiopharmaceutical clinical trials.

Bone Fracture Incidence After Androgen Deprivation Therapy-Investigational Agents: Results From Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program-Sponsored Early Phase Clinical Trials 2006–2013

Introduction: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is a primary treatment option for patients diagnosed with locally advanced-stage or metastatic prostate cancer. Androgen deprivation can be achieved either by radical orchiectomy or by medical castration using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. ADT has been linked to an initial 12-month loss of bone mineral density, a risk factor for weight-bearing bone fracture, and therefore, a confounding hazard for adverse event when patients are enrolled on early phase trials. To better understand the frequency of ADT-investigational agent-related bone fracture, we conducted a retrospective study of National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP)-sponsored early phase trials to determine the number of fractures observed among enrolled prostate cancer patients.Patients and Methods: 464 locally advanced-stage or metastatic prostate cancer patients were identified among seven ADT-investigational agent trials conducted between 2006 and 2013. Demographic, co-morbidity, treatment, and adverse event variables were abstracted from CTEP databases and descriptive statistics were used.Results: 464 men had a median age of 64 years, were mostly white (90%), and had a performance status of 0 or 1 (98%). The number of new bone fractures occurring on or after ADT-investigational agent treatment was very low (4.6 per 1000 person-years). The median pretrial prostate specific antigen level was 29 ng/mL and most men (71%) had prostate cancer histopathology Gleason 7 score or higher. In these trials, 43 percent of men had bone only and 35 percent had bone and visceral metastatic disease. The most frequent grade 1 or 2 adverse events were fatigue (36%), hot flashes (27%), and anemia (17%). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were rare, with hypertension (3%) and hyperglycemia (3%) observed.Conclusions: Identifying bone health factors may still be relevant in selected early phase ADT-investigational agent trial patients, emphasizing the need for improved methods for capturing baseline bone health and studying ADT-investigational agent and concurrent medication interactions on bone health.

Evaluation of the contribution of randomised cancer clinical trials evaluating agents without documented single-agent activity

BackgroundWith the development of targeted agents, the approach to combination cancer therapy has evolved to focus on identifying ways in which pathway inhibition by one agent may enhance the activity of other agents. In theory, this implies that under this new paradigm, agents are no longer required to show single-agent activity, as the pathway inhibited by the targeted agent may only have a therapeutic effect when given with other agents. This raises the question of the extent to which anticancer agents without single-agent activity can contribute to effective combination regimens.Patients and methodsWe reviewed outcomes of randomised phase 2 combination trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program that were activated in 2008 to 2017 and noted the single-agent activity of the experimental agents.ResultsFifty-three trials were identified, and 50 had available results: 7 (14%), 15 (30%) and 28 (56%) had experimental agents with single-agent activity classified as active, inactive and indeterminate, respectively. Thirteen per cent (95% CI=1.7% to 40.5%) of trials evaluating inactive agents and 11.6% (95% CI=3.9% to 25.1%) of trials evaluating agents without known single-agent activity (pooled inactive and indeterminate) were positive, compared with 42.9% (95% CI=9.9% to 81.6%) for agents with single-agent activity.ConclusionsIncorporating agents without documented single-agent activity into treatment regimens is unlikely to produce meaningful improvements in activity unless there is compelling biological rationale. This finding has important implications for the prioritisation of anticancer agents for combination testing, and for the allocation of clinical trial resources.

Identification of high-risk drugs related to chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program–sponsored phase I trials

BackgroundChemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a significant and debilitating side effect. However, there have been no studies of the relative risk of CIPN with known causative agents. We examined the risk of CIPN in patients taking such agents as a part of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program–sponsored phase I trials. MethodsCIPN events in each patient were graded according to the Clinical Terminology of Common Adverse Effects and compared among several high-risk chemotherapeutic agent groups, adjusting for possible confounding factors. Patients receiving tubulin-targeted agents were analysed separately for specific background factors associated with CIPN. ResultsIn 135 phase I clinical trials, 259 of 3614 patients were identified as developing CIPN during chemotherapy. Tubulin-targeting agents and proteasome inhibitors were identified as high-risk agents (hazard ratio 9.04 and 5.01, respectively) for CIPN, whereas platinum-complex agents and thalidomide analogues imparted lower risk (hazard ratio 1.52 and 1.11, respectively). Age, sex and medical history of diabetes were not significantly related to CIPN. CIPN developed over time as the number of chemotherapy cycles increased. Among patients with CIPN, treatment with tubulin-targeting agents resulted in a significantly higher rate of chemotherapy schedule modification compared with treatments with other chemotherapeutic agents. ConclusionsTubulin-targeting agents and proteasome inhibitors were associated with a greatly increased risk of CIPN compared with other agents. CIPN tended to develop in later chemotherapy cycles. These findings will help to minimise the risk of CIPN by encouraging increased surveillance and earlier dose adjustment of high-risk agents in phase I trials.

Radiopharmaceuticals for Relapsed or Refractory Ovarian Cancers.

Targeted radiopharmaceuticals for therapeutic use deliver radionuclides directly to tumor anywhere in the body, and therefore, have renewed interest for clinical development in women with disseminated chemorefractory ovarian cancers. About two in every five women with advanced stage ovarian cancer outlive their disease after the first treatment phase, with the rest rendered incurable due to the chemorefractory nature of their disease. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program conducted 67 phase I or phase Ib trials among women with relapsed or refractory ovarian cancer between 1989 and 2017 in an effort to uncover tolerable and effective drug combinations intended to increase survival rates. None of these early clinical development phase trials involved radiopharmaceuticals. Here, the NCI provides its perspective on targeted radiopharmaceutical conjugates alone or in combination with its experimental therapeutics portfolio for women with relapsed or refractory ovarian cancer. An infrastructure build for Federal radiopharmaceutical medical monitoring and adverse event reporting has begun.

Radiopharmaceuticals for Relapsed or Refractory Leukemias.

Radiopharmaceuticals, meaning drugs that hold a radionuclide intended for use in cancer patients for treatment of their disease or for palliation of their disease-related symptoms, have gained new interest for clinical development in adult patients with relapsed or refractory leukemia. About one-third of adult patients outlive their leukemia, with the remainder unable to attain complete remission status following the first phase of treatment due to refractory bone marrow or blood residual microscopic disease. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program conducted 49 phase 1-1b trials in adult patients with leukemia between 1986 and 2017 in an effort to discover tolerated and effective therapeutic drug combinations intended to improve remission and mortality rates. None of these trials involved radiopharmaceuticals. In this article, the NCI perspective on the challenges encountered in and on the future potential of radiopharmaceuticals alone or in combination for adult patients with relapsed or refractory leukemia is discussed. An effort is underway already to build-up the NCI's clinical trial enterprise infrastructure for radiopharmaceutical clinical development.

Triapine Radiochemotherapy in Advanced Stage Cervical Cancer

Clinical ribonucleotide reductase (RNR) inhibitors have reinvigorated enthusiasm for radiochemotherapy treatment of patients with regionally advanced stage cervical cancers. About two-thirds of patients outlive their cervical cancer (1), even though up to half of their tumors retain residual microscopic disease (2). The National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program conducted two prospective trials of triapine–cisplatin–radiation to improve upon this finding by precisely targeting cervical cancer’s overactive RNR. Triapine’s potent inactivation of RNR arrests cells at the G1/S cell cycle restriction checkpoint and enhances cisplatin–radiation cytotoxicity. In this article, we provide perspective on challenges encountered in and future potential of clinical development of a triapine–cisplatin–radiation combination for patients with regionally advanced cervical cancer. New trial results and review presented here suggest that a triapine–cisplatin–radiation combination may offer molecular cell cycle target control to maximize damage in cancers and to minimize injury to normal cells. A randomized trial now accrues patients with regionally advanced stage cervical cancer to evaluate triapine’s contribution to clinical benefit after cisplatin–radiation (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02466971).

Nivolumab with or without ipilimumab treatment for metastatic sarcoma (Alliance A091401): two open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 trials

Patients with metastatic sarcoma have limited treatment options. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4, respectively. We investigated the activity and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic sarcoma. We did a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 study that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older and had central pathology confirmation of sarcoma with at least one measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, evidence of metastatic, locally advanced or unresectable disease, an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and received at least one previous line of systemic therapy. Patients were assigned to treatment in an unblinded manner, as this trial was conducted as two independent, non-comparative phase 2 trials. Enrolled patients were assigned (1:1) via a dynamic allocation algorithm to intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Thereafter, all patients received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma achieving a confirmed objective response. Analysis was per protocol. This study is ongoing although enrolment is closed. It is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500797. Between Aug 13, 2015, and March 17, 2016, 96 patients from 15 sites in the USA underwent central pathology review for eligibility and 85 eligible patients, including planned over-enrolment, were allocated to receive either nivolumab monotherapy (43 patients) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (42 patients). The primary endpoint analysis was done according to protocol specifications in the first 76 eligible patients (38 patients per group). The number of confirmed responses was two (5% [92% CI 1-16] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab group and six (16% [7-30] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (four [10%] patients), decreased lymphocyte count (three [7%]), and dehydration, increased lipase, pain, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, secondary benign neoplasm, and urinary tract obstruction (two [5%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab group and anaemia (eight [19%] patients), hypotension (four [10%] patients), and pain and urinary tract infection (three [7%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (19%) of 42 patients receiving monotherapy and 11 (26%) of 42 patients receiving combination therapy, and included anaemia, anorexia, dehydration, decreased platelet count, diarrhoea, fatigue, fever, increased creatinine, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, hyponatraemia, pain, pleural effusion, and pruritus. There were no treatment-related deaths. Nivolumab alone does not warrant further study in an unselected sarcoma population given the limited efficacy. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab demonstrated promising efficacy in certain sarcoma subtypes, with a manageable safety profile comparable to current available treatment options. The combination therapy met its predefined primary study endpoint; further evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a randomised study is warranted. Alliance Clinical Trials in Oncology, National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival.

Characteristics and outcomes of breast cancer patients enrolled in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program sponsored phase I clinical trials

Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death among women. Given the availability of approved therapies and abundance of phase II and III clinical trials, historically few BC patients have been referred for consideration of participation on a phase I trial. We were interested in determining whether clinical benefit rates differed in patients with BC from other patients enrolled in phase I trials. We performed a retrospective analysis of all Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) sponsored phase I trials from 1993 to 2012. We report an analysis of demographic variables, rates of response to treatment, grade 4 toxicities, and treatment-related deaths. De-identified data from 8087 patients were analyzed, with 1,376 having a diagnosis of BC. The median time from initial cancer diagnosis to enrollment in a CTEP-sponsored phase I clinical trial was 614days for all patients. Breast cancer patients were enrolled on average 790days after initial diagnosis, while non-BC patients had a median enrollment time of 582days (p<0.001). Breast cancer patients had more clinical responses than non-BC patients (18.3% vs. 4.3%, respectively). Along with the higher rate of response, BC patients remained on phase I trials longer than non-BC patients with a median of 70days while the latter were on trial for a median of 57days. The overall rate of death related to the treatment drugs was 0.47%. Our data confirm our hypothesis that when compared to a general population of patients with cancer enrolled on phase I clinical trials, BC patients tend to derive clinical benefit from these therapies with similar toxicity profile. This evidence further supports enrollment of BC patients on phase I trials.

Analysis of esophagogastric cancer patients enrolled in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program sponsored phase 1 trials.

In phase 1 trials, an important entry criterion is life expectancy predicted to be more than 90days, which is generally difficult to predict. The Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score that is determined by lactate dehydrogenase level, albumin level, and number of metastatic sites of disease was developed to help project patient outcomes. There have been no systematic analyses to evaluate the utility of the RMH prognostic score for esophagogastric cancer patients. All nonpediatric phase 1 oncology trials sponsored by the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program that began between 2001 and 2013 were considered in this review. Of 4722 patients with solid tumors, 115 patients were eligible for our analysis; 54 (47%) with cancer of the esophagus, 14 (12%) with cancer of the esopagogastric junction, and 47 (41%) with stomach cancer. Eighty-six patients (75%) had a good RMH prognostic score (0 or 1) and 29 patients (25%) had a poor RMH prognostic score (2 or 3). Disease control rates were significantly different between patients with good and poor RMH prognostic scores (49% vs 17%; two-sided Fisher's exact test P=0.004). The median treatment duration and overall survival for good and poor RMH prognostic score patients were significantly different (median treatment duration 2.1months vs 1.2months respectively, P=0.016; median overall survival 10.9months vs 2.1months respectively, P<0.001). In the multivariate analysis, age (60years or older), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (2 or greater), and the RMH prognostic score (2 or 3) were significant predictors of poor survival. The RMH prognostic score is a strong tool to predict the prognosis of esophagogastric cancer patients who might participate in a phase 1 trial.

Experience of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program on Community-Based Cancer Clinical Trials Activity.

A goal of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) was to improve cancer research capacity in community settings. We examined research capacity development during the pilot phase of the NCCCP within the context of national trends in clinical trial activity with respect to the number and phase of trials, total accrual, and accrual of underserved populations. We examined self-reported data from NCCCP sites during 2007 to 2010, supplemented with data from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program. Trial availability and accrual improved more quickly at NCCCP sites compared with national trends. Phase III trial availability increased 8% nationally versus 16% across NCCCP sites, and accrual increased 30% nationally versus 133% across NCCCP sites. Accrual of racial and ethnic minorities rose 82%, from 83 to 151 patients, and accrual of patients age ≥ 65 years rose by 221%, from 200 to 641 patients. Change in trial portfolio and accrual differed by sophistication of the site and by prior experience in conducting clinical trials at the site. Despite the short duration, the NCCCP pilot resulted in an increase in the number of open trials as well as patient accrual at a faster rate than that observed nationally. These results, coupled with insights into the relative success of sites with varying sophistication at the outset, provide promise that lessons learned can be applied more broadly to increase research participation.