Disparities in Participation in Interventional Clinical Trials for Myelodysplastic Syndromes

Abstract Background: Only a minority of patients diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) enroll in interventional clinical trials, which impedes development of novel therapies. Factors contributing to low trial accrual are incompletely understood but have been hypothesized to include the older age and frail nature of many patients with MDS, narrow trial eligibility criteria, lack of "precision medicine" agents, perception of MDS as an indolent or lower-risk disease, and difficulty or expense of traveling to trial centers (Steensma D et al Cancer 2018). Methods: We analyzed a pooled patient database from institutions of the US MDS Clinical Research Consortium (MDS CRC) to compare characteristics of participants in interventional trials with those patients who never enrolled in a trial during their disease course. Demographics, ZIP code of patient residence (a surrogate measure for income), distance from home to the referral center, presenting blood counts, World Health Organization (WHO) 2008 MDS classification, and Revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) score were compared between trial participants and non-participants. Results: Clinical trial enrollment data were available on 2,138 patients with MDS who had been evaluated at sites in the MDS CRC, of whom 515 (24.1%) participated in an interventional clinical trial. The median age of patients was 67.0 years and 63.4% were male. Patients who participated in trials were on average 1.2 years younger than non-participants (66.1 vs 67.3 years, p=0.037) while men were more likely to participate in a trial (70% of trial participants were male compared to 30% female, compare to non-participants of whom 61% were male and 39% female; p<0.01.) Clinical trial participants tended to live a little closer to the trial center (median distance 134.5 miles for participants vs. 154.8 miles for non-participants, p=0.15). Race was not associated with likelihood of trial enrollment, but Hispanic ethnicity was associated with trial non-participation (p=0.045) and patients in more affluent ZIP codes had a higher participation rate (p<0.01). Patients with RAEB-2, RCMD and RARS were over-represented in trials compared to disease subtype prevalence, while del(5q) was underrepresented (p=0.06). IPSS-R did not influence participation. Conclusion: Even at large referral centers, only a minority of patients with MDS enroll in interventional trials. Younger, male, affluent non-Hispanic patients were more likely to enroll in studies. Understanding barriers to trial accrual may help investigators and study sponsors design trials that will accrue more rapidly and augment treatment options for patients with MDS. Disclosures Komrokji: Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roboz:Sandoz: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Brunner:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Sekeres:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Opsona: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Understanding the Differences between Clinical Trial Participants and Real-World Patients with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-113872 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 2970-2970 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Tolulope Fatola ◽

Sarah C. Rutherford ◽

John N. Allan ◽

Jia Ruan ◽

Richard R. Furman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Real World ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Bulky Disease ◽

History Of ◽

Trial Participants

Abstract Introduction. Recent research in lymphoma has resulted in better outcomes for clinical trial populations. Population studies have suggested that some real-world patients (pts) have not benefited. We hypothesized that one reason for this discrepancy is the difference between trial participants and real-world pts. We aimed to: 1) Compare demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of real-world and clinical trial pts receiving first-line therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), follicular lymphoma (FL), and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL); and 2) Compare demographics and baseline clinical characteristics of real-world DLBCL, FL, and MCL pts with clinical trial eligibility criteria. Methods. Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified all phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that opened between 2002-2017 and included pts with DLBCL, FL, MCL. Published trials that included front-line immunotherapy and chemotherapy were selected, and eligibility criteria recorded. We reviewed publications and recorded pt numbers and characteristics. Using the Weill Cornell Medicine (WCM) Lymphoma Database, an IRB-approved, prospective cohort which started in 2010, we identified all pts diagnosed with DLBCL, FL, and MCL and recorded baseline characteristics. Descriptive statistics were used to describe clinical trial eligibility and pt characteristics. Fisher's exact test was used to compare pt characteristics. Results. We identified 642 phase 2 and 3 trials on Clinicaltrials.gov, 37 of which met predefined criteria. The most frequent exclusion criteria were HIV infection (n=33), pregnancy (n=25), HBV infection (n=21), history of non-lymphoma cancer (n=19), ECOG>2 (n=16), HCV infection (n=16), serum creatinine >2 mg/dL or >2x ULN (n=15), active infection (n=12), history of MI (n=11), serum bilirubin >2 mg/dL or >2x ULN (n=7), congestive heart failure (n=4), hemoglobin (Hb) <10g/dL (n=4). A total of 5614 pts were enrolled in 37 trials. Pt characteristics are listed in Table 1. Of 3690 enrolled in the 23 trials that reported the number of patients screened for eligibility, 502 (14%) were excluded based on eligibility criteria. We identified 652 pts in the WCM Database with newly diagnosed DLBCL, FL, and MCL (Table 1). Key differences between clinical trial and Database populations for DLBCL included proportion of pts with stage 3-4 disease (79% vs 60%, p<0.001), presence of B symptoms (40% vs 25%, p<0.001) or bulky disease (23% vs 15%, p=0.016), and intermediate or high IPI (85% vs 66%, p<0.001); 36% of Database pts were age >70. Among FL pts, key differences between trial and Database populations included proportion with stage 3-4 disease (98% vs 56%, p<0.001), presence of B symptoms (36% vs 8%, p<0.001) or bulky disease (21% vs. 5%, p<0.001), and intermediate or high FLIPI (83% vs 58%, p<0.001). All FL trials had a median age between 50-60, whereas 30% Database pts varied in age from 27-93 years and 30% were age >70. Clinical trial vs. Database MCL pts differed in proportion with presence of B symptoms (29% vs 18%, p=0.022) or bulky disease (18% vs 5%, p=0.025), and intermediate or high MIPI (63.5% vs 79%, p=0.002); 42% of Database pts were age >70. Of all 652 pts from the Database, 190 (29%) had characteristics that may have excluded them from clinical trial participation. The most common reasons for exclusion included history of cancer (11%), cardiac arrhythmias (7%), MI (6%), active infections (6%) and Hb <10g/dL (5%). Only 19 might have been excluded due to serum creatinine >2mg/dL (1.4%), serum bilirubin >2 mg/dL (0.9%) and ECOG >2 (0.6%). Conclusions. These data suggest that real-world lymphoma pts are considerably more heterogeneous than clinical trial populations. While the average pt in WCM Database had a lower stage and/or lower prognostic risk score than a typical trial population, over 30% of database pts were > 70, a group that was uncommon in clinical trials. Likewise, almost 30% of Database pts had medical conditions that may have excluded them from clinical trial participation. Future research should focus on better defining the characteristics and outcomes of pts that either are underrepresented on clinical trials, both intentionally due to eligibility criteria and unintentionally for less clear reasons. It is likely that some eligibility criteria have little impact on treatment and outcomes and may be eliminated from prospective trials, while other trials may focus on pts that remain poorly understood. Disclosures Allan: Acerta: Consultancy; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Furman:Verastem: Consultancy; Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Gilead: Consultancy. Leonard:ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; United Therapeutics: Consultancy; Biotest: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy. Martin:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Sickle-Cell Disease in Greece: Patient Reported Outcomes Related to Clinical Complications, Treatment Choices and Attitudes, Beliefs and Trends Affecting Potential Participation in Clinical Trials - a Greek National Multicentric Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127966 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 4838-4838

Author(s):

Sophia Delicou ◽

Michael D. Diamantidis ◽

Konstantinos Manganas ◽

Eftychios Eftychiadis ◽

Despoina Pantelidou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Sickle Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Educational Status ◽

Current Treatment ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Chi Square ◽

Clinical Complications

Background: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an autosomal recessive disorder caused by a point mutation in the β-globin chain of hemoglobin that forms hemoglobin S. It is clinically characterized by complicated episodes of veno-occlusive crises (VOC), emergency room (ER) visits and uncomplicated inpatient admissions. Aim: We investigated the clinical complications and treatment choices of a large cohort of Greek SCD patients, representative of the whole country. Most importantly, this study aimed to assess patients' attitudes and beliefs regarding their enrollment in clinical trials testing new drugs. We examined the factors influencing such a participation. Patients and Methods: A total of 254 patients from 10 Thalassemia and Sickle Cell Departments across Greece (110 men/144 women), aged 18 - over 65, 210 (82.7%) with β-thalassemia/sickle cell trait and 44 (17.3%) with homozygous SCD participated in the study. The participants had variable educational and socioeconomic background. They all answered an anonymous self-report questionnaire during their medical evaluations between November 2018 and May 2019, including their demographic and clinical characteristics, their current treatment and their opinion regarding a possible participation in a clinical trial for SCD. Descriptive statistical analysis using calculated scale variables and Chi-square test were performed. Results: All participants completed the survey. During the previous year, 64 patients (25.3%) had no admissions for VOC, 128 (50.6%) had 1-5, whereas 21 (8.3%) had 5-10 and 40 (15.8%) more than 10. Except for acute pain crises, the most frequent complications were chronic pain (59%), liver/spleen dysfunction (32.4%), infectious episodes (29.5%), iron overload (23.8%) and pulmonary hypertension (20.1%). In addition to hematological care, patients seeked medical attention from expert physicians for disease complications; 77.6% of the patients reported that they yearly visited a cardiologist, 42.4% an ophthalmologist, 31.9% an orthopedic, 28.4% a pneumonologist, 28.9% a hepatologist, 12.6% an urologist, 14% a nephrologist, 11.9% an infectious disease doctor, 10.1% a pain management specialist and 8.1% a neurologist. The therapeutic approaches included daily folic acid supplementation (86.1%), vaccines (68.3%), hydroxyurea (66.3%), antibiotics (57.1%), simple pain moderators (52.4%), opioids (48.8%) and iron chelators (30.2%). Previous experience in clinical trials was reported by only 17 patients (6.9%). Regarding the patients' attitudes towards a probable clinical trial, 41.3% were positive to try new therapies, 28.3% negative and 30.4% neutral. 67.2% were satisfied with their current treatment, without excluding a potential participation in clinical trials; such treatment satisfaction correlated significantly with older age, lower income and secondary hemochromatosis under chelation treatment (p<0.05). 40% reported that they had been waiting for years for a new treatment, but 43.2% strongly denied becoming an experimental mouse model, whereas 47.3% mentioned that they would trust their doctors' advice correlating positively with male gender and higher income (p<0.05). Lower educational status, prior intake of hydroxyurea and residence/origin in the capital in contrast to the countryside (chi-square, p<0.05) significantly correlated with a potential clinical trial participation. Internet and television information motivated patients to seek more details from their doctor. Concerning the factors rated as the most important for a potential participation in a clinical trial, 7 out of 10 patients of our cohort considered of utmost equal importance the effectiveness of a probable treatment and the relative toxicity. Conclusions: Most SCD patients have chronic complications and visit specialized physicians. Since the participation of larger number of patients in clinical trials is essential for the application of novel drugs, the most important factors of our cohort are the effectiveness of a probable treatment and the relative toxicity, along with the trust to the doctor. These factors are crucial, influencing patients' decision. Even though a proportion of our patients remain skeptical towards clinical trials, an increasing number is willing to participate, which correlates positively with residence in the capital, lower educational status and prior intake of hydroxyurea. Disclosures Kattamis: Apopharma: Honoraria; Vertex: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Ionis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ViFOR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Symeonidis:Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tekeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Development and Testing of a Lymphoma Clinical Trials Specific Frailty Index: A Secondary Analysis of the LY.12 Clinical Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-153037 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 4076-4076

Author(s):

Abi Vijenthira ◽

Xinzhi Li ◽

Michael Crump ◽

Annette E. Hay ◽

Lois E. Shepherd ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Frailty Index ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Frail Patients ◽

The Impact

Abstract Background: Frailty is common in older patients with lymphoma. However, it remains unknown whether frailty is prevalent in patients included in clinical trials of lymphoma, as those with frailty may meet inclusion criteria of a trial which do not include functional information beyond performance status (PS). Understanding the prevalence and impact of frailty in clinical trials is important to direct future stratification criteria, as well as to have robust data to counsel frail patients on their potential outcomes. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis using data from the phase III LY.12 clinical trial in which patients with relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma were randomized to gemcitabine-dexamethasone-cisplatin or dexamethasone-high dose cytarabine-cisplatin chemotherapy prior to autologous stem cell transplant. The primary objective of our study was to construct a lymphoma clinical trials specific frailty index (FI) using previously described methods (Searle. BMC Geriatr. 2008;8:24). Secondary objectives were to describe the association of frailty (binary variable) with overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), hospitalization, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), and proceeding to transplant, and to describe the association of frailty with these outcomes, controlling for important covariates (age, sex, immunophenotype, revised international prognostic index score (rIPI), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) PS, stage, and response to previous chemotherapy). Results: 619 patients in the LY12 trial were used to construct the frailty index (Table 1). Using a binary cut-off for frailty (<0.2), 15% (N=93) of patients were classified as frail. There were no differences in age or sex between frail and non-frail patients; however they differed in terms of other lymphoma-related characteristics (Table 2). Frailty was strongly associated with OS (HR 2.012, 95% CI 1.57-2.58), EFS (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.53-2.46), frequency of the worst overall Grade >3 AE (OR 2.65 (15% vs. 6%), p=0.003), and likelihood of proceeding to ASCT (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15-0.43), but not hospitalization (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.97-2.40) or SAE (6% vs. 4%, p=0.3). In multivariable analysis, frailty was not significantly associated with OS, EFS, likelihood of proceeding to ASCT, nor hospitalization (Table 3), though there was a trend to significance for ASCT. However, rIPI remained significantly associated with OS and EFS, ECOG remained significantly associated with OS (Table 3) Conclusion: A potentially broadly applicable lymphoma clinical trials specific FI was constructed through secondary analysis of LY12 data. 15% of patients were classified as frail. Frailty was significantly associated with OS, EFS, frequency of grade >3 AE and likelihood of proceeding to transplant. However, this relationship no longer was significant when controlling for lymphoma-related prognostic variables, suggesting that the impact of poor prognostic features of lymphoma supersede the impact of frailty alone in this younger clinical trial population. Interestingly, rIPI and ECOG demonstrated their value as simple predictors that are highly associated with OS and/or EFS even when controlling for other important covariates including frailty. These findings require further testing in an external data set, and would be particularly valuable to test in an older population. Calibration of the FI against clinical frailty assessment (e.g. Clinical Frailty Scale, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment) would also be meaningful to confirm its ability to classify frail versus non-frail patients. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crump: Epizyme: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Kyte/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hay: Merck: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Prica: Astra-Zeneca: Honoraria; Kite Gilead: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

Preliminary Results from a Phase II Study of the Combination of Azacitidine and Pembrolizumab in Patients with Higher-Risk Myelodysplastic Syndrome

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2018-99-115720 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 464-464 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Kelly S. Chien ◽

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Gautam Borthakur ◽

Courtney D. DiNardo ◽

Naval G. Daver ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Myelodysplastic Syndrome ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Research Funding ◽

International Prognostic Scoring System ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Genetics Research ◽

Ongoing Phase

Abstract Background: The survival of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) after hypomethylating agent (HMA) failure is poor at about 4 to 6 months. The exposure of CD34 positive cells from patients with MDS to HMA has been shown to result in increased expression of PD-1 and PD-L1, with a sequential increase in the expression of PD-1 and PD-L1 particularly in patients that have failed HMA (Yang H, Leukemia 2014). Pembrolizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting PD-1, thus blocking its interaction with ligands PD-L1 and PD-L2, that has been FDA-approved for certain solid tumors. Consequently, we designed an ongoing phase II clinical trial to evaluate the safety and clinical activity of the combination of azacitidine and pembrolizumab in patients with higher-risk MDS. Methods: Adult patients with intermediate-1 or higher disease by the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) were eligible for the study. Patients were divided into two cohorts: those who had not received prior therapy and those who had not responded to, progressed on, or relapsed after HMA therapy, with a goal enrollment of 20 patients per cohort. Patients received azacitidine 75 mg/m2 IV or SQ daily for 7 days on a 28-day cycle and pembrolizumab 200 mg IV starting on cycle 1 day 1 and every 3 weeks thereafter independent of azacitidine dosing schedule. The endpoints were overall response rate and safety. Patients were discontinued from the clinical trial if there was disease progression, unacceptable adverse experiences, intercurrent illness preventing further administration of study treatment, confirmed positive serum pregnancy test, noncompliance, loss to follow-up, completion of 24 months of uninterrupted treatment with pembrolizumab or 35 administrations of the study medication (whichever occurred later), lack of efficacy, or any other reason leading to the investigator's decision for withdrawal. Clinical trial information: NCT03094637. Results: At data cut-off (July 2018), 18 patients have been treated with azacitidine and pembrolizumab with a median follow-up time of 16 weeks and 9 patients continuing on treatment in cycles 1-6. Twelve patients were enrolled in the HMA failure cohort and 6 patients in the previously untreated MDS cohort. Of the 12 patients evaluable for response, 7 were in the HMA failure cohort and 5 in the previously untreated MDS cohort. In the HMA failure cohort, 1 patient achieved CR, 1 patient demonstrated hematological improvement with mCR or CRi, and 5 patients progressed. In the previously untreated MDS cohort, 1 patient attained CR, 2 patients exhibited hematological improvement, 1 patient showed progression, and 1 patient died due to treatment-unrelated causes. The most frequently observed mutations in the 5 responding patients were TET2 in 3 patients and ASXL1, DNMT3A, and RUNX1 in 2 patients each. Three of the responders had diploid cytogenetics, 1 had del(10), and 1 had complex karyotype. Treatment was overall well-tolerated. Most common treatment-related adverse events (all grades) were neutropenia (22%); elevated ALT, elevated AST, anemia, and injection site reactions (17%); and constipation, joint pain, anorexia, pneumonitis, and pneumonia (11%). Conclusions: In this ongoing phase II trial, preliminary data suggest that azacitidine and pembrolizumab was relatively safe and may have antitumor activity in patients who failed HMA. Disclosures Cortes: Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding. DiNardo:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Medimmune: Honoraria; Agios: Consultancy; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Daver:Sunesis: Research Funding; ARIAD: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding. Jain:Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cellectis: Research Funding; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novimmune: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Verastem: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Infinity: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Verastem: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive Biotechnologioes: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Determinants of Clinical Trial Participation and Impact on Survival Outcomes Among Patients with Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-131776 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5833-5833

Author(s):

Gabriella C Malave ◽

Prashant Kapoor ◽

Angela Dispenzieri ◽

Morie A. Gertz ◽

Martha Q. Lacy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Overall Survival ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Newly Diagnosed ◽

Clinical Trial Participation ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Baseline Characteristics

Background: The overall participation of cancer patients in interventional clinical trials in the United States remains very low, with ~5% of patients being enrolled in clinical trials nationwide. The outcomes of patients with MM have improved significantly over the past decade, but available data suggest that the participation rates for patients with MM is comparable to other cancers. The drivers of participation and the potential impact of clinical trial participation have not been systematically studied in MM. Patients and Methods: We identified 228 patients who were enrolled into clinical trials for initial therapy of newly diagnosed MM between 2004 and 2018, and 4 controls for each of these patients. Controls were patients with NDMM, who were diagnosed closest in time to the index patients and did not participate in an interventional treatment trial. Various baseline characteristics as well as overall survival were compared between the two groups. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups are as shown in the Table. Patients who entered clinical trials were more likely to be female, resided closer to the clinic, and were more likely to have a prior history of MGUS. They were more likely to have higher ISS Stage, and a higher serum LDH, but there was no difference in the FISH risk status. Other indices of disease burden such as lower hemoglobin and platelets, higher serum creatinine were all seen more often in the control group, but may have been influenced by the trial entry criteria. Looking at the outcomes, the overall survival was longer among those enrolled into clinical trials compared to those who did not [median 103 (95% CI; 86, 136) vs. 63 (95% CI; 53, 69) months, p<0.001 (Figure). Conclusions: The current study provides important clues regarding demographic determinants of trial participation and disease biology related features that reflect likelihood of trial participation. Overall survival was significantly longer among the trial participants, which likely represent a mix of reasons including baseline status of patients, intensity of monitoring and efficacy of novel treatment approaches. Table Disclosures Kapoor: Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Glaxo Smith Kline: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Alnylam: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Akcea: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Gertz:Ionis: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; Prothena: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Spectrum: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dingli:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Rigel: Consultancy; alexion: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Millenium: Consultancy. Leung:Omeros: Research Funding; Aduro: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Prothena: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Russell:Imanis: Equity Ownership. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Blastic Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell Neoplasm (BPDCN): A Large Single-Center Experience: Analysis of Clinical and Molecular Characteristics and Patient Outcomes

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v126.23.3746.3746 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 126 (23) ◽

pp. 3746-3746 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Naveen Pemmaraju ◽

Hagop M. Kantarjian ◽

Jorge E. Cortes ◽

Madeleine Duvic ◽

Joseph D Khoury ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Dendritic Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Plasmacytoid Dendritic Cell ◽

Cell Transplant ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Cell Neoplasm

Abstract Background: Blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm (BPDCN) is an aggressive hematologic malignancy with heterogeneous clinical presentation and no available standard therapy. Little is known about the clinical characteristics, molecular characterization, and outcomes of patients (pts) with BPDCN. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of pts age ≥18 years with a confirmed pathological diagnosis of BPDCN. Results: 37 pts evaluated at our institution between October 1998-June 2015 were identified. Table 1 shows baseline pt characteristics. Bone marrow (BM) was involved in 23 (62%), skin in 26(70%), lymph nodes in 11(30%), central spinal fluid (CSF) in 3 (8%) and 1 (3%) pt each had disease involving brain, uterus/ovary, elbow/soft tissue, and pleural fluid. Tumor immunophenotype demonstrated: CD4+ (31/32), CD56+ (29/32), TCL-1+ (19/21), CD 123+ (22/23). Additionally, CD22 was expressed in 3/9 pts. Frontline therapies received: 19 (51%) HCVAD; 5 (14%) CHOP, 5 (14%) clinical trials, 2 (5%) bortezomib-based, 1 AML induction with daunorubicin+ARAC, 1 oral MTX, 1 IFN-based therapy, 3 other regimens. 5 (14%) pts received radiation (XRT) as part of their therapy. Median follow-up time was 7 months [1-27 mo]. Median number of chemotherapy regimens was 1 [1-6]. Complete remission (CR1) (by standard AML criteria) was achieved in 19 pts (51%) with a median CR1 duration of 19 mo [1-39 mo]. Median overall survival (OS) was 23 mo [6-45 mo]. 23 (69%) pts died, the most common cause of death being multi-organ failure. Among 14 (38%) pts without BM involvement at diagnosis, all 14 had skin involvement. Comparison of pts with BM involvement versus skin-only showed no difference in outcomes. For pts with BM disease, median OS and median CR1 were 23 mo [1-45 mo] and 21 mo [1-39 mo], respectively. For pts with skin-only disease,median OS and median CR1 were 18 mo [1-31 mo] and 19 mo [1-23 mo], respectively, p =0.43 (OS), p=0.78 (CR1). 10 pts (27%) received stem cell transplant (SCT) [7 allogeneic (including 3 cord blood) and 3 autologous). The median OS for pts receiving SCT (n=10) was 18 mo [8-40 mo] versus 23 mo [1-45] for non-SCT group (n=27), p = 0.98. 19 pts (51%) received HCVAD as part of first-line therapy: median OS was 18 mo [1-45 mo] and median CR1: 21 mo [1-39 mo]. Out of 16 pts evaluable for response, 15 achieved CR1; 1 pt died at day 15 (pneumonia). A clinically validated 28-gene molecular panel (next-generation sequencing for commonly mutated genes in myeloid malignancies) is now being performed prospectively on all new pts with BPDCN seen at our institution (thus far, n=9); notably, all 9 have expressed some form of TET2 mutation [ordered mutations=3(c.1648C>T p.R550; c.3781C>T p.R1261C; c.4365del p.M1456fs*2)], ordered+variant=2,variants=4], confirming our earlier finding of occurrence of TET2 mutations in pts with BPDCN (Alayed K, et al Am J Hematol 2013). Thus far, there has been no statistically significant difference in terms of response rates in pts with known TET2 mutations/variants (n=9) vs all others/not done (n=26). Conclusions: Among patients with BPDCN, we observed an older, male predominance, a high incidence of TET2 mutations and, despite intensive chemotherapy and achievement of CR1 in many pts, most still experience relapse and short survival. Therefore, there is an urgent need for novel therapies. Therapies targeting cell surface CD123 and CD56, are available in 2 separate clinical trials at our institution: SL-401 (DT-IL3), which demonstrated 7/9 (78%) major responses including 5 CR, after a single cycle of therapy, (Frankel et al, Blood 2014) is currently being tested in an ongoing multicenter phase I/II trial (Stemline Therapeutics Inc, ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02113982, refer to separate abstract ASH 2015) and Lorvotuzumab Mertansine (ImmunoGen, Inc), an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD56 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02420873), is in an ongoing ph II trial in CD56-expressing hematologic malignancies, including BPDCN. Table 1. Baseline characteristics (N = 37) Characteristic N (%) / [range] Median age, years 62[20 - 86] Male 33 (89) Median WBC x 109/L 5.9 [1.7-76.5] Median Hemoglobin g/dL 12.9 [6.8-17.1] Median Platelet x 109/L 130 [22-294] Median BM blast 13[0-95] Cytogenetics (n=27)DiploidComplexDeletion 12p13 17 8 1 Miscellaneous 1 28-gene profile (n=9); includes mutations& variantsTET2ASXL1MPLTP53IDH1IDH2 9 3 2 1 1 1 Disclosures Pemmaraju: Stemline: Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; LFB: Consultancy, Honoraria. Off Label Use: No standard of care available. clinical trial drug therapies/investigation/trial only various cytotoxic chemotherapies used in ALL, AML, other blood cancers. Cortes:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; BerGenBio AS: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ariad: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ambit: Consultancy, Research Funding; Arog: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Jenssen: Consultancy. Duvic:Innate Pharma: Research Funding; Tetralogics SHAPE: Research Funding; Cell Medica Ltd: Consultancy; Array Biopharma: Consultancy; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Millennium Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Spatz Foundation: Research Funding; Therakos: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Huya Bioscience Int'l: Consultancy; MiRagen Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rhizen Pharma: Research Funding; Allos (spectrum): Research Funding; Soligenics: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Co: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Daver:ImmunoGen: Other: clinical trial, Research Funding. O'Brien:Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Frankel:Stemline: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Konopleva:Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Stemline: Research Funding; Calithera: Research Funding; Threshold: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

The Impact of Comorbidities and Organ Dysfunction Commonly Used for Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria on Outcome in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) Patients Receiving Induction Chemotherapy

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-130319 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 16-16

Author(s):

Abby Statler ◽

Brian P. Hobbs ◽

Tomas Radivoyevitch ◽

Caitlin Siebenaller ◽

Sudipto Mukherjee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Logistic Regression ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Organ Dysfunction ◽

Induction Chemotherapy ◽

Research Funding ◽

Organ Function ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Dose Modifications

Background: Clinical trial recruitment is hindered by patient (pt), provider, and organizational barriers. The prohibitory impact of specific comorbidity/organ function criteria, however, has not been studied in the AML pt population. While intended to protect pts, trial eligibility criteria, when excessive, exclude pts irrespective of expected toxicities (Statler et al. Leukemia 2017). Yet, research demonstrates adverse events and outcomes are similar among eligible and ineligible AML pts (Statler et al. Blood 2018). We characterized the multi-morbidity prolife of AML pts prior to induction chemotherapy and compared outcomes among those with and without baseline comorbidities/organ dysfunction that have been used in clinical trial eligibility criteria. Methods: Adult (≥18 years) AML pts who received chemotherapy at Cleveland Clinic from 2003 to 2019 were included. The following characteristics were analyzed: age, sex, self-reported race, insurance, etiology of AML, comorbidities, hepatic/renal function tests, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and corrected QT interval (QTc). AML risk was categorized according to the 2017 European LeukemiaNet (ELN) risk stratification. Univariate associations between dose modifications and pt characteristics were tested using logistic regression. Cox proportional hazards and logistic regression were used to identify significant prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) and complete remission (CR) status per International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate median OS. Results: Of 1,082 AML pts analyzed, the median age was 60.6 years (IQR: 50.2, 69.1), 53.1% (n=574) were male, 86.8% (n=939) were white, and 45.7% (n=494) had Medicare insurance. A majority (n=680, [62.9%]) had de novo AML, and 55.3% (n=598) had intermediate-risk disease. Pts were treated with: intensive cytarabine-based (n=901 [83.3%]), or non-intensive (low-dose cytarabine or hypomethylating agents (n=181 [16.7%]). Of those with comorbidities, the most common were vascular (n=540 [49.9%]), endocrine (n=272 [25.1%]), and neurological (n=220, [20.3%]) (Tables 1 and 2). With a median follow-up of 12.9 (IQR: 4.67-43.13) months, the median OS for the cohort was 15.1 months (range 0.03-189.25). In multivariate analyses controlling for treatment, age, sex, insurance, number of comorbidities, AML etiology, and ELN risk, the only comorbidity associated with OS was liver disease (HR=1.90, P=.004). However, baseline AST (3xULN vs. normal: HR=1.02, P=.94; >3-5x ULN vs. normal: HR=1.42, P=.30.), ALT (3xULN vs. normal: HR=0.76, p=0.45, >3-5xULN vs. normal: HR=1.58, P=.23) and bilirubin (1.5xULN vs. normal: HR=1.34, P=.08) were not associated with a worse OS. Minor renal dysfunction was also not associated with OS, when measured by creatinine (1.5xULN vs. normal: HR=1.06, P=.52) or creatinine clearance by Cockcroft-Gault (CrCl 84-60 ml/min: HR=0.95, P=.62). Baseline LVEF abnormalities, though, were associated with increased mortality, and as severity increased the effect size increased in a dose-response fashion (50-40%: HR=1.38, P=.04; <40%: HR=1.66, P=.009). The pattern for baseline prolonged QTc was similar; increasing values of QTc was associated with increased mortality (>480ms: HR=1.36, P=.04; ≥501: HR=1.72, 95%, P=.001). With the exception of liver comorbidities (OR=0.26, P=.03), our analysis failed to identify significant evidence of association between response and comorbidities/organ dysfunction. Comorbidities and liver function abnormalities were also not associated with dose modifications during AML treatment, while pts with clinically significant renal (CrCl ≤ 30 ml/min) and/or cardiac (LVEF ≤50%) abnormalities at baseline did have a higher odds of a dose reduction in univariate analysis. Conclusions: The majority of AML pts within this cohort (n=953 [88.1%]) presented with at least 1 comorbidity and/or 1 clinically insignificant liver or renal abnormality that could have excluded them from clinical trials. Yet, survival, response, and dose modification outcomes did not significantly differ between pts with and without comorbid conditions or minor liver/renal abnormalities. These results suggest future AML trials may liberalize comorbidity and organ function eligibility criteria, which will likely improve recruitment rates and provide equitable access to investigational products. Disclosures Hobbs: SimulStat Inc.: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Mukherjee:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Projects in Knowledge: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Partnership for Health Analytic Research, LLC (PHAR, LLC): Consultancy; McGraw Hill Hematology Oncology Board Review: Other: Editor. Advani:Abbvie: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Gerds:Sierra Oncology: Research Funding; Imago Biosciences: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nazha:Tolero, Karyopharma: Honoraria; MEI: Other: Data monitoring Committee; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmacutical: Research Funding; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy. Sekeres:Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

How Median Follow-up Time Informs Survival Outcomes: Lessons from a Trial of Acute Myeloid Patients Treated with Venetoclax and Azacitidine

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-126344 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5897-5897

Author(s):

Diana Abbott ◽

Andrew Hammes ◽

Jonathan A Gutman ◽

Daniel A Pollyea ◽

Clayton Smith

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Trial Data ◽

Time To Event ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

The Stability

Background: Follow-up time in clinical trials must leverage conflicting aims. To ensure patient safety, investigators often assess toxicity and efficacy endpoints at various times throughout a trial. Yet accurate analysis requires stable estimates of time-to-event outcomes, which can require longer follow-up than is observed in interim analyses. While median follow-up is routinely reported in clinical trials, the stability of time-to-event estimates and their relationship to follow-up times are rarely discussed. However, the potential follow-up of study participants who are censored in a clinical trial can impact time-to-event estimates (Betensky 2015). Methods: A clinical trial of venetoclax + azacitidine in 33 newly diagnosed older patients with AML was conducted at our institution and is described in detail elsewhere (Pollyea 2018). Trial data consisting of follow-up from January 2015 through February 2018 established promising results (overall response rate = 91%; median response duration, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were not yet reached). Due to ongoing interest in median time-to-event patient outcomes that were not reached and thus could not be reported at the time of publication, the data have been re-analyzed on repeated occasions as follow-up has continued, with OS of particular interest. Median follow-up was calculated using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Median OS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier product limit estimates. Analysis of trial data has occurred at 6 different censoring time points: December 4, 2017; February 28, 2018; October 3, 2018; December 31, 2018; March 8, 2019; and May 20, 2019. Upper and lower limits of the Kaplan-Meier OS estimate were calculated to explore the stability of OS estimates over time (Betensky 2015). Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute). Results: Median OS was not reached until analysis was conducted as of October 3, 2018. At this analysis the median OS (1130 days) exceeded the median follow-up time (867 days). This phenomenon also occurred for data censored on December 31, 2018, with the median OS (1130 days) also exceeding the median follow-up time (956 days). In the most recent two analyses of the data (March 8, 2019 and May 20, 2019), the median OS settled at a consistent value (880 days) that did not exceed the median follow-up times (1023 days and 1096 days, respectively). Exploration of the stability of OS estimates revealed that a single patient enrolled early in the study and died after 1130 days of follow-up skewed the median OS estimate upward. Conclusions: Interest in our clinical trial results motivated numerous follow-up analyses of our data. As such, we encountered a peculiar result in which median OS exceeded median follow-up. In investigating the stability of the OS K-M estimates, a single patient's study data was found to skew results in these instances. Removal of this patient's data in these instances (when the relationship between median follow-up and median OS suggest estimate instability) results in a median OS consistent with subsequent analyses at later censoring dates (880 days for the modified analysis). We therefore conclude that time-to-event estimate stability is informative and should be incorporated into survival analysis of clinical trial data. Disclosures Pollyea: Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celyad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Diachii Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Racial Disparities and Their Impact on Knowledge, Behavioral Patterns, and Preferences Towards Participation in Clinical Trials Among Cancer Patients

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-140390 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 39-40

Author(s):

Meghna Ailawadhi ◽

Mays F Abdulazeez ◽

Leyla Bojanini Molina ◽

Victoria R. Alegria ◽

Taimur Sher ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Plan ◽

Term Treatment ◽

Trial Participation ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Long Term Treatment

Background: Clinical trials are critical to drug development and the formulation of evidence-based guidelines which are essential to providing crucial and often life-saving treatment to cancer patients. Clinical trial participation is very poor in the United States overall, with a dismal representation of racial minorities. While this has been a focus of several efforts focused on education, targeted enrollment etc., there is a lack of understanding of the patient's knowledge and preferences, and how that may be shaping their decision to consider participation in clinical trials. We undertook a patient-reported survey to explore these factors and understand any underlying disparities. Methods: A 15-question paper-based anonymous questionnaire addressing the cancer patient's knowledge about their disease and clinical trials, as well as factors that may shape their understanding of, or may be barriers to their participation in clinical trials was used. This was administered to adult patients with lymphoid malignancies at the Mayo Clinic in Florida. Categorical and continuous variables between white and minority respondents were compared using the Chi-square test and U Mann Whitney with a significance level of 0.05. Results: The survey was completed by 203 cancer patients. Of these, 3 patients did not report race and ethnicity and so responses from 200 patients were included in the final analysis. Of the respondents, 73% (n=146) were white and 27% (n=54) were minorities. Whites were older than minorities, although not statistically significant (median 67 vs. 61.5 yrs, p=0.06). Minority patients had lower education level with 41% having ≤high school education as compared to 16% whites (p<0.001). Majority of white patients (53%) reported their physicians as the highest ranked source of information for cancer vs. 33% minority patients (p=0.01). Other sources of information explored were internet, nurses, family/friends, books/flyers or other patients. A higher number of white patients reported treatment and its side effects to be the topic of most importance to them at the time of cancer diagnosis as compared to minorities (33% vs. 15%, p=0.01). Similarly, prognosis was more important for a higher number of whites than minorities (21% vs. 15%, p=0.03). Understanding of the diagnosis and financial impact were also explored but not found to have any significant difference. Understanding their treatment and long-term treatment plan was the most frequent knowledge gap reported by whites (81%) vs. minorities (54%, p=0.004). Minorities had several knowledge gap areas (understanding the diagnosis, treatment, side effects, long-term treatment plan, financial impact, survival) more evenly distributed. Regarding clinical trials, minorities were more likely to agree that clinical trials were of benefit for patients (42% vs. 28%, p=0.05) and that in a clinical trial the experimental drug always works better than the one it is being compared to (65% vs. 38%, p<0.001). Minority patients were less likely to agree to participating in clinical trials just based on their doctor's recommendation and judgement (83% vs. 93%, p=0.03). A higher number of minority patients felt that pharmaceutical companies have a big influence on the result of a clinical trial (83% vs. 65%, p=0.01). Fear of not benefiting from clinical trials was the reason for not participating among a higher number of whites (36% vs. 19%, p=0.02) while minorities more frequently reported fear of being a guinea pig (22% vs. 14%) and fear of financial burden (17% vs. 8%) although these were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Racial disparities exist at various aspects of cancer-related knowledge resources, gaps and needs. Minorities have more widespread knowledge gaps and depend on more resources for cancer-related knowledge, which may affect their clinical trial participation and preferences. There appears to be mistrust and misinformation guiding minority patient's understanding, leading to more widespread fears of clinical trials. Knowledge gaps and misinformation needs to be addressed in order to achieve higher participation in clinical trials in general, and among minority patients in particular. Disclosures Manochakian: AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Guardant health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novocure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ailawadhi:Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria.

Download Full-text

AML Clinical Trial Decision Making: How Often Do Physicians Follow a Consensus-Derived Assignment Scheme?

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-131280 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5094-5094

Author(s):

Kelda Gardner ◽

Mary-Elizabeth M. Percival ◽

Paul C. Hendrie ◽

Anna B. Halpern ◽

Carole M. Shaw ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trial ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Selection Bias ◽

Patient Preference ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Choice ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Physician Patient ◽

Assignment Scheme

Background At our center we consider most patients with newly-diagnosed AML or MDS-EB2 to be candidates for clinical trials. The NCI website (clinicaltrials.gov) currently lists 72 adult trials implying uncertainty as to which is best. These trials often have arbitrary exclusion criteria, and even if eligible, not every patient may enroll in a given trial. Other sources of clinical trial selection bias include physician or patient preferences and logistical issues such as transportation or insurance coverage. These selection biases may contribute to the well-known difficulties in reproducing "promising" findings from early phase trials in subsequent larger studies. At our center we use a pre-determined treatment assignment scheme to allocate clinical trials to patients prior to the initial physician-patient consultation, which may increase trial enrollment and decrease bias in trial assignment. To assess selection bias, we examined how often the assigned treatment was given to patients. Methods A randomly-ordered, physician consensus-derived clinical trial list was created and updated as protocols opened and closed. Trials initiated by our investigators appeared more often on the list than trials sponsored by industry partners. Upon a patient's arrival we provided her/his physician a pre-assigned clinical trial based on that patient's age and probability of early death (using the treatment related mortality score, TRM). After being informed of options including other trials, standard care, or supportive care alone, physicians and their patients decided on a treatment. Once a treatment choice was selected, physicians received an electronic survey. In cases where the pre-assigned clinical trial was not chosen, the survey inquired about reasons for this decision. Categories were: (a) patient ineligible, (b) protocol not accruing, (c) patient and/or physician preference and (d) logistics, e.g. patient cannot stay in Seattle for length demanded by protocol) or (e) insurance denial. Results From December 2017 through June 2019, we collected surveys on 158 out of 170 (93%) arrivals for whom treatment decisions were made. The pre-assigned therapy was given in 40/158 cases (25%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 19-33%). In all 40 cases the trial chosen were ones initiated by investigators here. Twenty-four of the 118 patients (21%) in whom the assigned therapy was not given chose to be treated at home or receive palliative care only. Reasons the remaining 94 patients did not receive their assigned therapy were: physician/patient preference (51), protocol not accruing (18), logistical issues (13), and ineligibility (12 patients). Among patients not enrolled on the assigned trial due to physician/patient preference, 27 of 51 received treatment on an alternate clinical trial, and 24 received standard therapy. The intensity of the therapy was identified by the treating physician as a factor leading to the alternate treatment choice in 35 of 51 patients (67%). In 21 patients in whom a less intense therapy was assigned, intense therapy was given instead; while the opposite occurred in 14 patients. In 16 cases the preferred intensity was the same as that assigned but a different regimen was used. The median TRM score was lower among patients given high intensity vs. intermediate/low intensity treatments (medians 3.75 for high vs, 10.05 for low; Kruskal Wallis p < 0.00001). Discussion and conclusion The pre-assigned therapy was given to 25% of patients (40/158), rising to only 31% (40/128) after removing cases where the protocol was not enrolling or the patient ineligible. Factors possibly contributing to these low rates are the number, nature and specifics of the available protocols, the characteristics of the patients referred to us (e.g. distance from Seattle to their homes), availability of acceptable alternative treatment in a local setting, and characteristics of our physicians (e.g. inherent preferences for higher or lower intensity therapy). The low rate with which pre-assigned treatments were given suggests the continued presence of considerable selection bias when treatment decisions are made. The possibility of such bias should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of clinical trials. Improvements in care of AML patients will require trials to enroll patients representative of the population in need of treatment. Disclosures Gardner: Abbvie: Speakers Bureau. Halpern:Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding. Scott:Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Alexion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Speakers Bureau. Oehler:Pfizer Inc.: Research Funding; NCCN: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy. Walter:Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership; Aptevo Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Argenx BVBA: Consultancy; BioLineRx: Consultancy; BiVictriX: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Boston Biomedical: Consultancy; Covagen: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; New Link Genetics: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Race Oncology: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Becker:AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Glycomimetics, Invivoscribe, JW Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Trovagene: Research Funding; Accordant Health Services/Caremark: Consultancy; The France Foundation: Honoraria.

Download Full-text