Syed Zafar

Financial barriers to clinical trial enrollment are an area of active investigation. Financial toxicity as a concept describes how high costs and financial burden can lead to compromised care and outcomes. Despite the potential to yield large survival benefits and improved access to cutting-edge therapies, less than 5% of adult patients with cancer are enrolled in a clinical trial. Disparities in trial enrollment exist along age, ethnic, and sociodemographic lines, with younger, poorer, nonwhite patients with private insurance-the exact population who may be at highest risk for financial toxicity-less likely to participate. Cost and insurance concerns remain an obstacle for clinical trial enrollment for certain patient populations. Changing the clinical trial paradigm with a focus on addressing structural and clinical barriers to clinical trial enrollment is paramount. This includes expanding access to clinical trials within community populations, advocating for health policy changes to guarantee insurance coverage of clinical trial standard-of-care health care, and considering noncoercive financial assistance (particularly for indirect costs like travel and lodging) for participants to defray their additional costs of participation. Additional steps toward education, cost transparency, and expansion of foundation assistance may also improve equitable access to clinical trials for all.

PURPOSE: More than 20% of US clinical trials fail to accrue sufficiently. Our purpose was to provide a benchmark for better understanding clinical trial enrollment feasibility and to assess relative levels of competition for patients by cancer diagnosis. METHODS: The Database for Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov, up to date as of September 3, 2017, was used to identify actively recruiting, interventional oncology trials with US sites. Observational studies were excluded because not all are registered. Trials were categorized through Medical Subject Headings or free-text condition terms and sorted by cancer diagnosis. Trials that included more than one cancer diagnosis were included in the overall cohort but excluded when evaluating enrollment by cancer type. Trial enrollment slot availability was estimated between September 1, 2017, and August 31, 2018. Availability was estimated from total anticipated enrollment and duration, assuming a constant recruitment rate. Estimates for studies with both foreign and domestic sites were then prorated to calculate available enrollment in the United States alone. Ratios of the number of newly diagnosed patients in the United States available per trial slot were estimated using the American Cancer Society cancer incidence estimates for 2017. RESULTS: A total of 4,598 interventional oncology trials were identified. Overall, the estimated ratio of newly diagnosed patients available per trial slot was 12.6. Estimated ratios of patients per trial slot for six cancer diagnoses with the highest potential of 12-month US enrollment were as follows: colorectal, 24.7; lung and bronchus, 20.1; prostate, 17.6; breast (female), 13.8; leukemia, 11.6; and brain and other nervous system, 6.0. CONCLUSION: For all cancers, successfully accruing trials currently open would require that more than one in every 13 recently diagnosed patients (7.9%) enroll. This ratio and relative difficulty of accrual varies among cancers examined.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chemotherapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. In this phase Ib/II clinical trial, we established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RPTD) for the combination of capecitabine and ziv-aflibercept, and then we evaluated the efficacy of the combination in patients with chemotherapy refractory metastatic CRC. METHODS: All patients were required to have a Karnofsky Performance Status > 70% and adequate organ function. The phase Ib dose escalation cohort included patients with advanced solid tumors who had progressed on all standard therapies. Using a standard 3 + 3 design, we identified the MTD and RPTD for the combination. Fifty patients with metastatic CRC who had progressed on or were intolerant of a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab were then enrolled in a single-arm phase II expansion cohort, and were treated at the RPTD. Prior EGFR antibody therapy was required for subjects with RAS wildtype tumors. The primary endpoint for the expansion cohort was progression-free survival (PFS) at two months. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were enrolled and evaluable for toxicity (13 dose escalation; 50 expansion). The MTD and RPTD were: capecitabine 850 mg/m2, P.O. bid, days 1-14, and ziv-aflibercept 6 mg/kg I.V., day 1, of each 21-day cycle. In the expansion cohort, 72% of patients were progression-free at two months (95% confidence interval [CI], 60-84%). Median PFS and OS were 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.3-4.5) and 7.1 months (95% CI: 5.8-10.0), respectively. Among all patients evaluable for toxicity, the most common treatment related adverse events (all grade [%]; grade ≥ 3 [%]) included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (41%; 6%), hypertension (33%; 22%), and mucositis (19%; 5%). RNA was isolated from archived tumor specimens and gene expression analyses revealed no association between angiogenic biomarkers and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: The combination of capecitabine and ziv-aflibercept at the RPTD demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability. PFS at 2 months in patients with chemotherapy refractory metastatic CRC was significantly greater than that in historical controls, indicating that this combination warrants further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was registered in the www.clinicaltrials.gov system as NCT01661972 on July 31, 2012.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity is a well-recognized adverse effect of cancer care, yet little is known about how women consider treatment costs when facing preference-sensitive decisions for breast cancer surgery or how surgical treatment choice affects financial harm. We sought to determine how financial costs and burden relate to decisions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Women (≥ 18 years old) with a history of breast cancer were recruited from the Army of Women and Sisters Network to complete an 88-item electronic survey. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to evaluate the impact of costs on surgical decisions and financial harm after breast cancer surgery. RESULTS: A total of 607 women with stage 0 to III breast cancer were included. Most were white (90%), were insured privately (70%) or by Medicare (25%), were college educated (78%), and reported household incomes of more than $74,000 (56%). Forty-three percent underwent breast-conserving surgery, 25% underwent mastectomy, 32% underwent bilateral mastectomy, and 36% underwent breast reconstruction. Twenty-eight percent reported that costs of treatment influenced their surgical decisions, and at incomes of $45,000 per year, costs were prioritized over breast preservation or appearance. Overall, 35% reported financial burden as a result of their cancer treatment, and 78% never discussed costs with their cancer team. When compared with breast-conserving surgery, bilateral mastectomy with or without reconstruction was significantly associated with higher incurred debt, significant to catastrophic financial burden, treatment-related financial hardship, and altered employment. Among the highest incomes, 65% of women were fiscally unprepared, reporting higher-than-expected (26%) treatment costs. CONCLUSION: Cancer treatment costs influenced decisions for breast cancer surgery, and comparably effective surgical treatments differed significantly in their risk of patient-reported financial burden, debt, and impact on employment. Cost transparency may inform preference-sensitive surgical decisions and improve patient-centered care.