National Cancer Institute Basket/Umbrella Clinical Trials: MATCH, LungMAP, and Beyond.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chen AP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6658131 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul/Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
National Cancer Institute Basket/Umbrella Clinical Trials: MATCH, LungMAP, and Beyond.
Chen Alice P AP Eljanne Mariam M Harris Lyndsay L Malik Shakuntala S Seibel Nita L NL
Cancer journal (Sudbury, Mass.) 20190701 4
With advances in genetic testing and its common usage, the field of precision medicine has exploded in the field of oncology. The National Cancer Institute is uniquely positioned to lead in this area of research through its wide network of investigators, partnerships with pharmaceutical companies in drug development, and laboratory capabilities. It has developed a portfolio of trials as part of a Precision Medicine Initiative that uses various basket/umbrella designs to increase the understandin ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In recent years, cancers once viewed as relatively homogeneous in terms of organ location and treatment strategy are now better understood to be increasingly heterogeneous across biomarker and genetically defined patient subgroups. This has produced a shift toward development of biomarker-targeted agents during a time when funding for cancer research has been limited; as a result, the need for improved operational efficiency in studying many agent-and-target combinations in parallel has emerged. Platform trials, basket trials, and umbrella trials are new approaches to clinical research driven by this need for enhanced efficiency in the modern era of increasingly specific cancer subpopulations and decreased resources to study treatments for individual cancer subtypes in a traditional way. In this review, we provide an overview of these new types of clinical trial designs, including discussions of motivation for their use, recommended terminology, examples, and challenges encountered in their application.
| S-EPMC5834138 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesAmid a rapid increase in cancer care costs, we examined the extent to which economic evaluations (EEs) were conducted for new treatments evaluated in clinical trials at SWOG, a large National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer research network.MethodsWe investigated phase III cancer treatment clinical trials activated from 1980 onward with primary articles reporting the protocol-designated endpoints published in scientific journals by 2017. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit, we searched for EEs using trial name, cancer type, information on the comparison arms, and refined keywords for EE designs. We reported the overall proportion of trials with associated EEs and trends of this proportion over time. We synthesized and analyzed information on funding sources, health outcomes, and sources of quality-of-life and cost data from the EEs.ResultsAmong 182 examined trials, 15 EEs were associated with 13 (7.1%) trials. Among the EEs, almost half (7 of 15) were either unfunded or did not report funding information, whereas nearly half (7 of 15) were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 2 (2 of 15, 13.3%) were supported by federal funding. All EEs reported a healthcare payer perspective. The proportion of trials with an associated EE increased from 1980 to 1989 and 2000 to 2009, but never exceeded 11%. Sources for cost and quality-of-life data for the EEs primarily came from outside the clinical trials.ConclusionsFew economic studies of treatments evaluated in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials have been conducted. Policymakers, payers, and patients lack economic evidence to consider newly evaluated cancer treatments, despite an urgent need to control healthcare costs.
| S-EPMC8262264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To improve the care of older adults with cancer, the traditional approach to clinical trial design needs to be reconsidered. Older adults are underrepresented in clinical trials with limited or no information on geriatric-specific factors, such as cognition or comorbidities. To address this knowledge gap and increase relevance of therapeutic clinical trial results to the real-life population, integration of aspects relevant to older adults is needed in oncology clinical trials. Geriatric assessment (GA) is a multidimensional tool comprising validated measures assessing specific health domains that are more frequently affected in older adults, including aspects related to physical function, comorbidity, medication use (polypharmacy), cognitive and psychological status, social support, and nutritional status. There are several mechanisms for incorporating either the full GA or specific GA measures into oncology therapeutic clinical trials to contribute to the overarching goal of the trial. Mechanisms include utilizing GA measures to better characterize the trial population, define trial eligibility, allocate treatment receipt within the context of the trial, develop predictive models for treatment outcomes, guide supportive care strategies, personalize care delivery, and assess longitudinal changes in GA domains. The objective of this manuscript is to review how GA measures can contribute to the overall goal of a clinical trial, to provide a framework to guide the selection and integration of GA measures into clinical trial design, and ultimately enable accrual of older adults to clinical trials by facilitating the design of trials tailored to older adults treated in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC9949568 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNovel precision oncology trial designs, such as basket and umbrella trials, are designed to test new anticancer agents in more effective and affordable ways. However, they present some ethical concerns referred to scientific validity, risk-benefit balance and informed consent. Our aim is to discuss these issues in basket and umbrella trials, giving examples of two ongoing cancer trials: NCI-MATCH (National Cancer Institute - Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice) and Lung-MAP (Lung Cancer Master Protocol) study.Main bodyWe discuss three ethical requirements for clinical trials which may be challenged in basket and umbrella trial designs. Firstly, we consider scientific validity. Thanks to the new trial designs, patients with rare malignancies have the opportunity to be enrolled and benefit from the trial, but due to insufficient accrual, the trial may generate clinically insignificant findings. Inadequate sample size in study arms and the use of surrogate endpoints may result in a drug approval without confirmed efficacy. Moreover, complexity, limited quality and availability of tumor samples may not only introduce bias and result in unreliable and unrepresentative findings, but also can potentially harm patients and assign them to an inappropriate therapy arm. Secondly, we refer to benefits and risks. Novel clinical trials can gain important knowledge on the variety of tumors, which can be used in future trials to develop effective therapies. However, they offer limited direct benefits to patients. All potential participants must wait about 2 weeks for the results of the genetic screening, which may be stressful and produce anxiety. The enrollment of patients whose tumors harbor multiple mutations in treatments matching a single mutation may be controversial. As to informed consent - the third requirement we discuss, the excessive use of phrases like "personalized medicine", "tailored therapy" or "precision oncology" might be misleading and cause personal convictions that the study protocol is designed to fulfill the individual health-related needs of participants.ConclusionsWe suggest that further approaches should be implemented to enhance scientific validity, reduce misunderstandings and risks, thus maximizing the benefits to society and to trial participants.
| S-EPMC6708208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeSubstantial evidence suggests that tobacco use has adverse effects on cancer treatment outcomes; however, routine assessment of tobacco use has not been fully incorporated into standard clinical oncology practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate tobacco use assessment in patients enrolled onto actively accruing cancer clinical trials.MethodsProtocols and forms for 155 actively accruing trials in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program were evaluated for tobacco use assessment at enrollment and follow-up by using a structured coding instrument.ResultsOf the 155 clinical trials reviewed, 45 (29%) assessed any form of tobacco use at enrollment, but only 34 (21.9%) assessed current cigarette use. Only seven trials (4.5%) assessed any form of tobacco use during follow-up. Secondhand smoke exposure was captured in 2.6% of trials at enrollment and 0.6% during follow-up. None of the trials assessed nicotine dependence or interest in quitting at any point during enrollment or treatment. Tobacco status assessment was higher in lung/head and neck trials as well as phase III trials, but there was no difference according to year of starting accrual or cooperative group.ConclusionMost actively accruing cooperative group clinical trials do not assess tobacco use, and there is no observable trend in improvement over the past 8 years. Failure to incorporate standardized tobacco assessments into NCI-funded Cooperative Group Clinical Trials will limit the ability to provide evidence-based cessation support and will limit the ability to accurately understand the precise effect of tobacco use on cancer treatment outcomes.
| S-EPMC3410402 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe described participant demographics for National Cancer Institute (NCI) clinical trials at the clinical center (NCI-CC participants) of the National Institutes of Health to identify enrollment disparities.MethodsWe analyzed NCI-CC data from 2005 to 2020, calculated enrollment fractions, compared with the US cancer population represented by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer incidence data (2018) and the Cancer in North America database (2018), and compared further with clinical trial disparities data from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program and National Clinical Trials Network (2005-2019), and from ClinicalTrials.gov (2003-2016).ResultsNCI-CC (38 531 participants) had higher enrollment fractions for older adults (8.5%), male (5.6%), non-Hispanic (5.1%), and Black or African American (5.3%) participants; lower women proportion across race and ethnicity; and fewer female sex-specific cancer (6.8%) than male sex-specific cancer (11.7%) participants. NCI-CC had lower median age than Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (54.0 vs 65.4); more Black or African American participants (12.0% vs 11.1%); and fewer women (41.7% vs 49.5%), White (76.1% vs 80.5%), Asian or Pacific Islander (4.6% vs 6.0%), American Indian or Alaska Native (0.3% vs 0.5%), and Hispanic participants (7.1% vs 13%). NCI-CC had more Black or African American and Asian or Pacific Islander participants; fewer Hispanic participants than the NCI Community Oncology Research Program and National Clinical Trials Network; more Black or African American and Hispanic participants; fewer Asian or Pacific Islander participants than ClinicalTrials.gov data. Improvement was noted for NCI-CC (older adults, Black or African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic participants).ConclusionWe found lower representation of older adults, women, Asian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaska Native, and Hispanic participants vs the US cancer population and higher representation of Black or African American vs US cancer population and oncology clinical trials. Multifaceted efforts are underway to reduce disparities in cancer clinical trials at the NCI-CC.
| S-EPMC11223850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although adults aged 65 years or older make up a strong majority of cancer patients, their underrepresentation in cancer clinical trials leads to the lack of representative data to guide evidence-based therapeutic decisions in this patient population. The Trial Design Working Group, convened as part of the workshop titled, Engaging Older Adults in the National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities, recommended study designs and design elements that could improve accrual of older adults in National Cancer Institute-funded clinical trials. These include trials that are specifically designed to enroll older adults, trials that include a cohort of older patients (parallel cohort, stratified cohort, or embedded cohort), and trials with pragmatic design elements to facilitate enrollment of older adults. This manuscript provides brief descriptions of the recommended designs, examples of successful trials, and considerations for implementation of these designs. As with any clinical trial, the scientific questions and trial objectives should drive the study design, the selection of endpoints and intervention, and eligibility criteria. When designing trials that include older adults, the heterogeneity of fitness levels is an important consideration as fitness can influence accrual rates and outcomes. Appropriately incorporating geriatric assessments can help identify the optimal subset of older patients for inclusion and minimize selection bias. Incorporating pragmatic design elements to reduce the burden on trial participants as well as on accruing sites and retaining essential elements to ensure that the main goal of the trial can be accomplished can enhance enrollment without compromising the integrity of trials.
| S-EPMC9949574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With advancements in biomarkers and momentum in precision medicine, biomarker-guided trials such as basket trials and umbrella trials have been developed under the master protocol framework. A master protocol refers to a single, overarching design developed to evaluate multiple hypotheses with the general goal of improving the efficiency of trial evaluation. One type of master protocol is the basket trial, in which a targeted therapy is evaluated for multiple diseases that share common molecular alterations or risk factors that may help predict whether the patients will respond to the given therapy. Another variant of a master protocol is the umbrella trial, in which multiple targeted therapies are evaluated for a single disease that is stratified into multiple subgroups based on different molecular or other predictive risk factors. Both designs follow the core principle of precision medicine-to tailor intervention strategies based on the patient's risk factor(s) that can help predict whether they will respond to a specific treatment. There have been increasing numbers of basket and umbrella trials, but they are still poorly understood. This article reviews common characteristics of basket and umbrella trials, key trials and recent US Food and Drug Administration approvals for precision oncology, and important considerations for clinical readers when critically evaluating future publications on basket trials and umbrella trials and for researchers when designing these clinical trials.
| S-EPMC7187272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMaster protocols, classified as basket trials, umbrella trials, and platform trials, are novel designs that investigate multiple hypotheses through concurrent sub-studies (e.g., multiple treatments or populations or that allow adding/removing arms during the trial), offering enhanced efficiency and a more ethical approach to trial evaluation. Despite the many advantages of these designs, they are infrequently used.MethodsWe conducted a landscape analysis of master protocols using a systematic literature search to determine what trials have been conducted and proposed for an overall goal of improving the literacy in this emerging concept. On July 8, 2019, English-language studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases and hand searches of published reviews and registries.ResultsWe identified 83 master protocols (49 basket, 18 umbrella, and 16 platform trials). The number of master protocols has increased rapidly over the last five years. Most have been conducted in the US (n = 44/83) and investigated experimental drugs (n = 82/83) in the field of oncology (n = 76/83). The majority of basket trials were exploratory (i.e., phase I/II; n = 47/49) and not randomized (n = 44/49), and more than half (n = 28/48) investigated only a single intervention. The median sample size of basket trials was 205 participants (interquartile range, Q3-Q1 [IQR]: 500-90 = 410), and the median study duration was 22.3 (IQR: 74.1-42.9 = 31.1) months. Similar to basket trials, most umbrella trials were exploratory (n = 16/18), but the use of randomization was more common (n = 8/18). The median sample size of umbrella trials was 346 participants (IQR: 565-252 = 313), and the median study duration was 60.9 (IQR: 81.3-46.9 = 34.4) months. The median number of interventions investigated in umbrella trials was 5 (IQR: 6-4 = 2). The majority of platform trials were randomized (n = 15/16), and phase III investigation (n = 7/15; one did not report information on phase) was more common in platform trials with four of them using seamless II/III design. The median sample size was 892 (IQR: 1835-255 = 1580), and the median study duration was 58.9 (IQR: 101.3-36.9 = 64.4) months.ConclusionsWe anticipate that the number of master protocols will continue to increase at a rapid pace over the upcoming decades. More efforts to improve awareness and training are needed to apply these innovative trial design methods to fields outside of oncology.
| S-EPMC6751792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTherapeutically 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 methodsTumor 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.ResultsMolecular 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.ConclusionWe 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.
| S-EPMC7676882 | biostudies-literature