PURPOSE:Therapeutically actionable molecular alterations are widely distributed across cancer types. The National Cancer Institute Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial was designed to evaluate targeted therapy antitumor activity in underexplored cancer types. Tumor biopsy specimens were analyzed centrally with next-generation sequencing (NGS) in a master screening protocol. Patients with a tumor molecular alteration addressed by a targeted treatment lacking established efficacy in that tumor type were assigned to 1 of 30 treatments in parallel, single-arm, phase II subprotocols. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Tumor biopsy specimens from 5,954 patients with refractory malignancies at 1,117 accrual sites were analyzed centrally with NGS and selected immunohistochemistry in a master screening protocol. The treatment-assignment rate to treatment arms was assessed. Molecular alterations in seven tumors profiled in both NCI-MATCH trial and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) of primary tumors were compared. RESULTS:Molecular profiling was successful in 93.0% of specimens. An actionable alteration was found in 37.6%. After applying clinical and molecular exclusion criteria, 17.8% were assigned (26.4% could have been assigned if all subprotocols were available simultaneously). Eleven subprotocols reached their accrual goal as of this report. Actionability rates differed among histologies (eg, > 35% for urothelial cancers and < 6% for pancreatic and small-cell lung cancer). Multiple actionable or resistance-conferring tumor mutations were seen in 11.9% and 71.3% of specimens, respectively. Known resistance mutations to targeted therapies were numerically more frequent in NCI-MATCH than TCGA tumors, but not markedly so. CONCLUSION:We demonstrated feasibility of screening large numbers of patients at numerous accruing sites in a complex trial to test investigational therapies for moderately frequent molecular targets. Co-occurring resistance mutations were common and endorse investigation of combination targeted-therapy regimens.

Abstract Introduction: NCI-MATCH (EAY131), a national signal-finding trial, assigns targeted treatments to patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory solid tumors, lymphomas and myelomas based on molecular abnormalities in tumors. We screened 4901 pts for dMMR, an eligibility criterion. Methods: Immunohistochemical expression (IHC) of MLH1 and MSH2 was performed at the CLIA-accredited MD Anderson Clinical IHC Laboratory. Loss of nuclear expression of MLH1 or MSH2 predicted microsatellite instability resulting from sporadic alterations or germline mutations. Assays were validated for FFPE tissue and used under an FDA abbreviated investigational device exemption. IHC was performed on 4 μm deparaffinized and rehydrated FFPE tissue sections. Antigen retrieval was performed at 100°C for 20 minutes with Tris-EDTA buffer solution, pH 6.0 & blocking of endogenous peroxidase with 3% peroxide for 5 minutes. Primary MLH1 antibody (Cell MarqueTM, clone G168-728) at 1:300 dilution and primary MSH2 antibody (Calbiochem®, clone FE11) at 1:100 dilution were applied. Primary antibody detection used a commercial polymer system (Bond Polymer Refine Detection, Leica) with stain development using incubation with DAB and DAB Enhancer (Leica). Loss of nuclear expression (required for dMMR eligibility): Complete loss of nuclear expression by tumor cells and retention of staining in non-neoplastic cells (internal control). Intact nuclear expression: Nuclear expression of any intensity within tumor cells. Cannot be determined: Insufficient specimen, technically inadequate IHC assay, or cytoplasmic staining without definite nuclear staining. Results: 4901 pts had MLH1/MSH2 IHC assay, of whom 37 had both MLH1 and MSH2 indeterminate. Of 4864 cases with valid MLH1/MSH2 results, 2% had dMMR (Table–histologies combined to fit allowed space). The most frequent dMMR was in the few thyroid/parathyroid tumors, followed by various gynecologic tumors. Conclusion: 2% of 4864 cases with valid MLH1/MSH2 results in NCI-MATCH had dMMR by IHC; prevalence varied across histologies. Many tumors lacking expression of MLH1 or MSH2 are not prominently associated with Lynch syndrome or frequent somatic dMMR. The NCI-MATCH screen for dMMR adds to information on the potential benefit of screening advanced/refractory tumor types for this abnormality as a standard practice for determining eligibility for PD-1 inhibitors. Pecent tumor categories lacking MLH1/MSH2 expressionHistologyLoss of nuclear MLH1 expressionLoss of nuclear MSH2 expression# screenedPercent of screenedGastrointestinal cancer29413252.5%Gynecological cancer28330110.3%Brain cancer02523.8%Sarcoma (various)601065.7%Thyroid/Parathyroid02366.7%Prostate071225.7%Breast715661.4%Neuroendocrine231922.6%Other303260.9% Citation Format: Barbara A. Conley, Stanley R. Hamilton, Shuli Li, Robert J. Gray, David R. Patton, Peter J. O'Dwyer, Robert L. Comis, Jeffrey S. Abrams, Nilofer S. Azad, Michael J. Overman, Jonathan D. Schoenfeld, Paul M. Williams, James V. Tricoli, Elad Sharon, Howard Streicher, Lyndsay N. Harris, Alice P. Chen, Keith T. Flaherty. Prevalence of mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR) in the NCI Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH or EAY131) population [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A053.

Rationale and Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether a 2-day educational course using a condensed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (condensed BI-BADS) improved the accuracy of Ugandan healthcare workers interpreting breast ultrasound.Materials and Methods: The target audience of this intervention was Ugandan healthcare workers involved in performing, interpreting, or acting on the results of breast ultrasound. The educational course consisted of a pretest knowledge assessment, a series of lectures on breast imaging interpretation and standardized reporting using a condensed BI-BADS, and a posttest knowledge assessment. Participants interpreted 53 different ultrasound test cases by selecting the finding type, descriptors for masses, and recommendations. We compared the percent correct on the pretest and posttest based on occupation and training level.Results: Sixty-one Ugandan healthcare workers participated in this study, including 13 radiologists, 13 other physicians, 12 technologists, and 23 midlevel providers. Most groups improved in identifying the finding type (P < 0.05). All occupations showed improved use of descriptive terms for the shape and internal echogenicity of masses (P < 0.05). Most groups showed significant improvement in recommendations for normal and benign findings with a corresponding reduction in biopsy recommendations.Conclusions: Targeted breast ultrasound education using a condensed BI-BADS improved the interpretive performance of healthcare workers and was particularly successful in reducing the frequency of unnecessary biopsies for normal and benign findings. Multimodal educational efforts to improve accuracy and management of breast ultrasound findings may augment breast cancer early detection efforts in resource-limited settings.

INTRODUCTIONMany challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions.METHODSThe National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature.RESULTSFew rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations.CONCLUSIONSA combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) and Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups (CCCG) provide a clinical trial (CT) information/matching/eligibility service (Clinical Trials Matching Service [CTMS]). Patients' demographic and clinical data, enrollment status, and self-reported barriers to CT participation were analyzed to assess enrollment rates and determinants of enrollment. During 3 years beginning October 1, 2007, the CTMS served 6,903 patients via the ACS call center. Among the 1,987 patients with follow-up information on enrollment, 219 (11.0%) enrolled in a CT; 48 of these 219 enrollees chose a CT they found via the CTMS. Patients were less likely to enroll if they had poor ECOG performance status (P = 0.032); were African American (P = 0.0003), were uninsured or had Medicaid coverage (P = 0.024), or had lower stage disease (P = 0.018). Enrollment varied by trial type/cancer site/system (P = .026). Several barriers significantly predicted nonenrollment. Broader availability of a CTMS might help improve patient participation in cancer clinical trials.

The co-chairs of ECOG-ACRIN talk about combining forces to advance clinical studies.

Researchers, practitioners, and participants in cancer clinical trials must have a clear understanding of clinical trials if participation in them is to be solicited ethically and effectively. A valid and reliable measure of cancer clinical trial understanding did not exist prior to a 2005 study conducted for the Coalition of Cooperative Cancer Groups. This report outlines a measure derived from that study, discusses the rationale for its component items, examines its psychometric properties, and demonstrates the relationship of this measure to the enrollment decision. Data from national samples of cancer survivors and the general public demonstrate the measure's validity and reliability. Results are discussed as they relate to patient understanding of clinical trials, informed decision making, and health communication processes.

Purpose: To investigate the effect of race on the efficacy and safety of standard chemotherapy doublet regimens in African American patients, we conducted a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized trial.Patients and Methods: Chemonaive patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 and stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer were randomized to arm A: gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5.5 on day 1; arm B: the same schedule of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1; or arm C: paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) on day 1 plus carboplatin area under the curve 6.0 on day 1. Cycles were repeated every 21 days up to 6. A site selection tool identified institutions with potential to recruit a minority population. Outcome and toxicity data of white and African American patients were compared.Results: Of 1135 total patients, 972 were white (85.6%) and 138 were African American (12.2%). Median survival was 8.3 months for white patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.7-9.3) and 9.1 months for African American patients (95% CI: 8.2-11.1). Response rates were 29.1 and 29.0%, respectively. Rates of grade 3 or 4 toxicities were comparable. Among African Americans, median survival was 7.2 months (95% CI: 5.1-10.1) for gemcitabine-carboplatin (n = 47), 10.5 months (95% CI: 7.1-15.4) for gemcitabine- paclitaxel (n = 42), and 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.5-13.2) for paclitaxel-carboplatin (n = 49).Conclusion: Whites and African Americans had similar outcomes, although there was some variability in survival among African Americans across the three treatment groups.

The development of new cancer therapies requires additional, and more complex, clinical trials. But only approximately 3% to 5% of adult cancer patients participate in cancer clinical trials. This study seeks to identify and understand the attitudes of the public and cancer survivors toward health-related decisions and cancer clinical trials to identify the key factors that must be addressed to increase that percentage.

Imaging and local therapy are important modalities for detection and management of localized breast cancer. Improvements in screening and local therapy have contributed to reduced breast cancer-associated morbidity and mortality. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups (CCCG) convened the Scientific Leadership Council (SLC) in breast cancer, an expert panel, to identify priorities for future research and current trials with greatest practice-changing potential. Panelists formed a consensus on research priorities for breast imaging and locoregional therapy, and also identified six trials judged to be of high priority. Current high priority trials included trials determining: (1) the role of accelerated partial breast versus whole-breast radiation (B39), (2) the feasibility, safety, and local and systemic control of small localized breast cancers treated with tumor ablation (Z1072), (3) the role of removal of the primary cancer in selected patients with metastatic disease (E2108), and (4) the clinical and biological effects of pre-operative anti-HER2-directed and ER-directed therapies in localized or locally advanced breast cancer (B41, Z1031, Z1041). Ongoing and future trials will further refine optimal locoregional management, and additional research is required to develop improved screening methods and identify high risk populations most likely to benefit from targeted screening.

PURPOSEE2100, an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel alone as initial chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.METHODSAn independent, blinded review of radiologic and clinical data was performed, assessing progression and response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. In addition, ECOG's investigator assessments were reanalyzed using the same methods applied to the independent review. The primary end point was PFS as assessed by an independent review facility (IRF).RESULTSThe addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS using both the IRF and investigator assessments. Hazard ratios for PFS (0.48, 95% CI, 0.385 to 0.607; P < .0001 for the IRF v 0.42, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.52; P < .0001 for ECOG investigators) and the improvement in median PFS (11.3 v 5.8 months for the IRF v 11.4 v 5.8 months for ECOG investigators) were similar. Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, the IRF-assessed ORR was significantly higher in patients treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab (48.9% v 22.2%; P < .0001).CONCLUSIONThe risk of progression was reduced by more than half and the ORR more than doubled with the addition of bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel in both analyses, confirming a substantial and robust bevacizumab treatment effect. The consistency between the IRF and ECOG analyses validates the original data previously reported by ECOG in this open-label trial.

BACKGROUND:Paclitaxel-carboplatin is used as the standard regimen for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This trial was designed to compare gemcitabine + carboplatin or gemcitabine + paclitaxel to the standard regimen.PATIENTS AND METHODS:A total of 1135 chemonaive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC were randomly allocated to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) 5.5 on day 1 (GC), gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) on day 1 (GP), or paclitaxel 225 mg/m(2) plus carboplatin AUC 6.0 on day 1 (PC). Stratification was based on disease stage, baseline weight loss, and presence or absence of brain metastases. Cycles were repeated every 21 days for up to six cycles or disease progression.RESULTS:Median survival (months) with GC was 7.9 compared with 8.5 for GP and 8.7 for PC. Response rates (RRs) were as follows: GC, 25.3%; GP, 32.1%; and PC, 29.8%. The GC arm was associated with a greater incidence of grade 3 or 4 hematologic events but a lower rate of neurotoxicity and alopecia when compared with GP and PC.CONCLUSIONS:Non-platinum and non-paclitaxel gemcitabine-containing doublets demonstrate similar overall survival and RR compared with the standard PC regimen. However, the treatment arms had distinct toxicity profiles.

In 2001, a Clinical Trials Task Force was formed as part of The American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO) strategic planning process to recommend initiatives to increase clinical trial awareness and participation by physicians.The Clinical Trial Participation Awards were one of the recommendations of this Task Force.From 2003 to 2008, a total of 63 awards have been conferred.These awards honor community oncology practices for their efforts to improve the care of people with cancer through participation in clinical trials.The program is

Conducting research in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is challenging, primarily because of low patient accrual rates resulting from patient-, physician-, protocol-, and healthcare system-related barriers. The Coalition of Cancer Cooperative Groups convened a 1-day program entitled Addressing the Current Challenges of NSCLC Clinical Trial Accrual to develop specific strategies for enhancing accrual into NSCLC clinical trials and to increase and sustain the level of discussion with and among cooperative group and community-based researchers. Some of the important areas that were highlighted at the meeting included predictors of successful and unsuccessful trial accrual based on 6 NSCLC trials, of which 4 were considered high-priority NSCLC trials; issues surrounding the process of clinical trial activation; and the role of patient advocates in enhancing trial accrual. Efforts by multidisciplinary teams comprising clinical and laboratory researchers, patient advocates, governmental agencies, and private industries are needed to improve NSCLC trial activation and accrual, with a focus on commitment to ongoing communication among all constituents, measures to improve the activation process, and increased study awareness at the community oncology and patient levels.