BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in lung cancer increasingly require patients to provide fresh tumor tissue as a prerequisite to enrollment. The effects of this requirement on enrollment rates, enrollment durations, and patient selection have not been fully elucidated. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed data generated by patients who consented to 1 or more interventional lung cancer clinical trials at the University of California-Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2013 and December 2014. Trials were considered to require a biopsy when enrollment was conditional on the procurement of tissue without intervening therapy between procurement and enrollment. RESULTS: In total, 311 patients underwent 368 screening incidents for 1 or more of 19 trials. Trials that required a new biopsy had a longer median screening duration (34 vs 14 days) than trials that did not require a biopsy (P < .001). Trials that required a biopsy had a greater screen failure rate (49.1% vs 26.5%; P < .001), which was largely driven by patients who did not undergo the required biopsy or lacked the required biomarker. Worsening performance status led to the majority of screen failures (56.5%) among biomarker-eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although the scientific benefits of obtaining a new biopsy and requiring specific results for trial enrollment are clear, these requirements lead to a lengthening of the screening period, which, in some patients, is associated with clinical decline before enrollment. Implications for the interpretation of data from studies of this design should be explored. Cancer 2017;123:4800-7.
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in lung cancer increasingly require patients to provide fresh tumor tissue as a prerequisite to enrollment. The effects of this requirement on enrollment rates, enrollment durations, and patient selection have not been fully elucidated. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed data generated by patients who consented to 1 or more interventional lung cancer clinical trials at the University of California-Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center between January 2013 and December 2014. Trials were considered to require a biopsy when enrollment was conditional on the procurement of tissue without intervening therapy between procurement and enrollment. RESULTS: In total, 311 patients underwent 368 screening incidents for 1 or more of 19 trials. Trials that required a new biopsy had a longer median screening duration (34 vs 14 days) than trials that did not require a biopsy (P < .001). Trials that required a biopsy had a greater screen failure rate (49.1% vs 26.5%; P < .001), which was largely driven by patients who did not undergo the required biopsy or lacked the required biomarker. Worsening performance status led to the majority of screen failures (56.5%) among biomarker-eligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although the scientific benefits of obtaining a new biopsy and requiring specific results for trial enrollment are clear, these requirements lead to a lengthening of the screening period, which, in some patients, is associated with clinical decline before enrollment. Implications for the interpretation of data from studies of this design should be explored. Cancer 2017;123:4800-7.
Authors: I A Du Rand; J Blaikley; R Booton; N Chaudhuri; V Gupta; S Khalid; S Mandal; J Martin; J Mills; N Navani; N M Rahman; J M Wrightson; M Munavvar Journal: Thorax Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Lee M Ellis; David S Bernstein; Emile E Voest; Jordan D Berlin; Daniel Sargent; Patricia Cortazar; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Roy S Herbst; Rogerio C Lilenbaum; Camelia Sima; Alan P Venook; Mithat Gonen; Richard L Schilsky; Neal J Meropol; Lowell E Schnipper Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; Jean-Charles Soria; Jonathan W Goldman; Heather A Wakelee; Shirish M Gadgeel; Andrea Varga; Vassiliki Papadimitrakopoulou; Benjamin J Solomon; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Rafal Dziadziuszko; Dara L Aisner; Robert C Doebele; Cathy Galasso; Edward B Garon; Rebecca S Heist; Jennifer Logan; Joel W Neal; Melody A Mendenhall; Suzanne Nichols; Zofia Piotrowska; Antoinette J Wozniak; Mitch Raponi; Chris A Karlovich; Sarah Jaw-Tsai; Jeffrey Isaacson; Darrin Despain; Shannon L Matheny; Lindsey Rolfe; Andrew R Allen; D Ross Camidge Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: L Sorber; K Zwaenepoel; V Deschoolmeester; P E Y Van Schil; J Van Meerbeeck; F Lardon; C Rolfo; P Pauwels Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Kenneth O'Byrne; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Sarayut Lucien Geater; Sergey Orlov; Chun-Ming Tsai; Michael Boyer; Wu-Chou Su; Jaafar Bennouna; Terufumi Kato; Vera Gorbunova; Ki Hyeong Lee; Riyaz Shah; Dan Massey; Victoria Zazulina; Mehdi Shahidi; Martin Schuler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael J Overman; Janhavi Modak; Scott Kopetz; Ravi Murthy; James C Yao; Marshall E Hicks; James L Abbruzzese; Alda L Tam Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nora S Sánchez; Michael P Kahle; Ann Marie Bailey; Chetna Wathoo; Kavitha Balaji; Mehmet Esat Demirhan; Dong Yang; Milind Javle; Ahmed Kaseb; Cathy Eng; Vivek Subbiah; Filip Janku; Victoria M Raymond; Richard B Lanman; Kenna R Mills Shaw; Funda Meric-Bernstam Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2019-09-24
Authors: Jana B Adizie; Judith Tweedie; Aamir Khakwani; Emily Peach; Richard Hubbard; Natasha Wood; John R Gosney; Susan V Harden; Paul Beckett; Sanjay Popat; Neal Navani Journal: JTO Clin Res Rep Date: 2021-04-27