Sarah A. Alwardt, PhD

Results from the first phase of the broad, collaborative MYLUNG research study in lung cancer are now available. Recently presented during the lung cancer session at the 2021 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting, the findings provide a close-up look at current biomarker testing rates and turnaround times for patients treated in community practices within The US Oncology Network (The Network). MYLUNG—or Molecularly Informed Lung Cancer Treatment in a Community Cancer Network: A Pragmatic Consortium (MYLUNG Consortium)—is a national, real-world 3-phase evidence study of more than 12,000 patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) over a 5-year period. The MYLUNG consortium unites providers and investigators in The Network, US Oncology Research, and Ontada with biopharmaceutical manufacturers and patient advocacy groups. These diverse organizations and stakeholders across NSCLC drug development, therapy, and care are collaborating in a joint effort to advance precision medicine for lung cancer. 

MYLUNG Consortium consists of 3 protocols, and each will provide valuable information over the course of the study and well beyond, as the data will continue to be mined for many years. Protocol 1, which just concluded, examines Ontada’s real-world data from electronic health records to identify trends such as testing rates, types of tests selected, and other practice patterns, laying the groundwork for the next 2 study protocols. Protocol 2 will observe factors and events that determine a patient’s first-line treatment selection, and protocol 3 will connect the findings from the first 2 protocols to enable prospective, operational interventions. The hope is that MYLUNG Consortium will fill the gap between developments in emerging targeted therapies and the knowledge present at the physician/patient level in order to match therapies to tumor findings. This article, the second in a series following the MYLUNG Consortium study, takes a close look at protocol 1 results.

Protocol 1 provides a close-up lens into NSCLC biomarker testing practices over the past few years. During this retrospective study of more than 3500 patients with metastatic NSCLC, the following areas were investigated: testing rates for 

 mutations, and PD-L1; use of a full next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel; time from NSCLC diagnosis to first-line therapy; turnaround times from biomarker orders to results; and time from NSCLC diagnosis to test results. 

The analysis of this in-depth data enables the formation of some early conclusions about historical baseline trends for testing patterns, such as: 

 Most patients are receiving some biomarker testing.

Approximately 90% of patients have at least 1 biomarker test prior to first-line therapy. This high number is encouraging because almost all patients are undergoing testing. 

Less than half of the patients had 5 or more biomarkers tested. 

Only 46% received 5 or more biomarker tests, potentially leaving many biomarkers unidentified that may be useful in making treatment decisions. 

NGS occurs in less than 50% of patients. 

Although NGS testing increased over the periods examined, it is still vastly underutilized. This is concerning because the goal of targeted therapy is to ensure that providers are adapting treatments to all the potential biomarkers that have been identified. Failing to employ this valuable tool whenever possible limits the knowledge that can play a key role in determining the most effective and appropriate therapy for a specific cancer. 

Time from diagnosis to first-line therapy is 5 weeks. 

Five weeks is a long time to wait for treatment for distressed and anxious patients with an aggressive advanced cancer. This delay may be a driving factor in the initiation of nontargeted therapy that is then eventually switched to a more targeted treatment. 

Time to obtain biomarker testing results is prolonged. 

The median turnaround time from biomarker testing orders to results ranged from 10 to 15 days for individual biomarkers, and time from diagnosis to biomarker results ranged from 14 to 21 days by biomarker. The median time from diagnosis to first-line therapy for all patients was 35 days. 

The time taken to get test results and the time to treatment highlight what the MYLUNG Consortium gap analysis is trying to address and impact. By identifying why there is such a delay in getting test results and where there is opportunity to improve the testing process, it may be possible to get information in front of the patient and physician earlier.

Most of the population is receiving a diagnosis at advanced disease, with roughly more than 80% diagnosed at stage IV; portions of the population are receiving a diagnosis at earlier stages and then progress into an advanced disease state. Testing is occurring when appropriate at advanced disease. No age groups are overly represented or misrepresented. 

These results are consistent with the trends in NSCLC across the nation from an epidemiological perspective. 

Protocol 1 Provides a Foundation for Further Exploration 

By examining current testing practices in protocol 1, valuable data were gained. To determine how to improve treatment assignment in the future, it is imperative to know how things are today. Protocol 1 provided that information through careful interrogation of the data. Collecting retrospective data, such as in protocol 1, can encourage hypothesis generation. These studies shine a light on current practices but do not change how things are done. That requires additional steps. Protocol 1 identified various data gaps and enabled the formation of some interesting conclusions and hypotheses to address in forthcoming prospective trials. There is much more to come, and we hope the cancer care community will stay with us on this journey. 

The next phase of the MYLUNG Consortium study, protocol 2, is now underway and will provide a more granular understanding of the tissue journey by prospectively evaluating contemporary ordering practices and testing turnaround times. Protocol 1 results are also driving some early thoughts about interventions that can be investigated in protocol 3. We are excited to have the opportunity to explore these theories because all this research contributes to the development of strategies to optimize care in the future.

Articles

Results from the first phase of the broad, collaborative MYLUNG research study in lung cancer provide a close-up look at current biomarker testing rates and turnaround times for patients treated in community practices within The US Oncology Network.

Underused Next-Generation Sequence Testing Revealed in MYLUNG Consortium Study

Therapies targeting oncogenesis and the tumor microenvironment are increasingly replacing chemotherapies as first-line treatments for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

 However, in real-world practice, barriers continue to exist for the uptake and use of comprehensive biomarker testing. Whether it is because of long turnaround time frames for molecular testing, payer concerns and a lack of coverage, or another factor, many patients are not receiving the molecular testing they need to initiate targeted therapy early in their cancer care journey. To fulfill the promise of precision medicine for patients with NSCLC, a better understanding of the barriers, challenges, risks, and opportunities around molecular-ly guided therapies for lung cancer is needed.

Recognizing that a large-scale study of the data is needed for deeper insight into targeted therapy adoption, we have formed the MYLUNG consortium to conduct a broad, national, real-world evidence (RWE) study of more than 12,000 patients with NSCLC over a 5-year period. MYLUNG—or Molecularly Informed Lung Cancer Treatment in a Community Cancer Network: A Pragmatic Consortium—will generate real-world practice patterns across The US Oncology Network (The Network) with active surveillance throughout the patient journey. The overall objective of this programmatic study is to identify and proactively address barriers to targeted treatments so patients can obtain necessary molecular testing at the point of diagnosis and receive the right treatment at the right time in their preferred setting of care.

The MYLUNG consortium brings together providers and researchers in The Network, US Oncology Research, and Ontada (all supported by McKesson Corporation), biopharmaceutical manufacturers, and patient advocacy groups in a joint effort to advance precision medicine for lung cancer. It marks a unique level of collaboration among diverse organizations and stakeholders, all working together across the spectrum of NSCLC drug development, therapy, and care.

Supporting more than 480 independent, community treatment center locations across the United States, The Network is poised to address the issues surrounding targeted therapy uptake and use; approximately 55% of newly diagnosed patients are seen in the community setting, and many patients prefer to receive cancer care closest to home.

 MYLUNG highlights McKesson’s ability to integrate a continuous, virtual cycle with feedback loops between the RWE research team and The Network sites of care to quickly integrate best practices across The Network while adaptively responding to the constantly changing landscape of oncology discovery for both diagnostics and treatment.

Meanwhile, biopharmaceutical companies, patient advocacy groups, health care policymakers, payers, and other stakeholders will deepen their understanding of the barriers to care for patients with targetable mutations that may benefit from receiving precision medicine therapies as first-line treatments. With an unprecedented level of engagement among consortium participants, the MYLUNG program will be one of the first broad, prospective, postmarketed research endeavors in lung cancer.

Eighty-four percent of lung cancers are NSCLC, affecting approximately 228,000 patients per year in the US.

Among the 3 main classes of treatments—chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapy—the latter category is growing at an exponential rate. Every year, a new crop of targeted therapies is approved for ever-smaller populations of molecularly annotated patients. What was once recognized as 2 NSCLC diseases, squamous cancer and adenocarcinoma, is now about 10 different disease states. We are in an adaptable situation as new mutation discoveries lead to increasingly subdivided tumor types, for which novel therapies are now available.

The FDA has approved several dozen targeted therapies and combinations for NSCLC (eg, ceritinib [Zykadia], bevacizumab [Avastin], osimertinib [Tagrisso], crizotinib [Xalkori], dabrafenib [Tafinlar], pralsetinib [Gavreto], and others). A tremendous amount of bio-pharmaceutical development is ongoing in NSCLC, and the care journey is growing in complexity as providers must navigate an increasingly nuanced world of precision medicine for their patients.

A robust pipeline of double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is bringing these new targeted therapies to market, powering a transformation in lung cancer care. Conducted on a specific population of patients who meet eligibility criteria, RCTs produce data that excel at isolating the efficacy and benefit of a specific intervention. However, when a targeted therapy moves into the real world with a heterogeneous patient population, the data often break down because most patients diverge from the trial’s eligibility criteria. The extrapolation of results in RCTs is often very different from patients’ experience with these therapies in the real world.

Although RCTs remain the gold standard in biopharma research, it is crucial to collect RWE through programmatic studies such as MYLUNG, which will interpret the data and generate evidence from thousands of diverse patients. Notably, the purpose of MYLUNG is not to address the comparative effectiveness of different therapies that target the same mutation. Rather, MYLUNG will examine the obstacles to obtaining molecular testing and the decision-making process and timeline that lead a physician to select a treatment for their patient, whether it is chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy.

One such challenge is the molecular-testing timeline, as it can take from 2 to 5 weeks to take a biopsy, send tissue to the lab, and await results and interpretation—always with a risk that a specimen’s quantity or quality will be deemed insufficient or that the data are uninterpretable. Such instances may limit a clinician’s ability to convey information to the patient in a timely way. Oncology practices may implement caregiving interventions—such as using blood assays, tissue navigators, genetic counselors, or process plans—to address hurdles to testing and the uptake and use of targeted therapies. However, practices have little data about such interventions. MYLUNG will change that, drawing on RWE to provide a framework of best practices for providers, based on the heterogeneity of their baseline practice experience.

MYLUNG will consist of 3 protocols, and each will provide value over the 5-year study (

). In protocol 1, the study examines data in structured fields of the electronic health record to discover trends such as the rate of testing, tests selected, and other practice patterns, and it lays the groundwork for the next 2 study protocols. Protocol 2 will observe multiple factors and events that determine which treatment will be utilized as a patient’s first-line treatment. Protocol 3 will connect the dots, enabling prospective, operational interventions—such as choosing blood-based assays over biopsies; utilizing a tissue navigator or genetic counselor; or developing a process plan—to address barriers. The end goal is to improve the rate of appropriate molecular testing and the subsequent assignment of indicated targeted therapies.

In addition to the large size and scope of the study, the innovative potential of MYLUNG lies in its pragmatic approach to finding ways that providers can help patients with lung cancer on a practice level. The Network touches a broad spectrum of diverse patient populations, disease presentations, and needs. Innovation n these areas tends to be slow because interventions are often undertaken within a smaller ecosystem, eg, at a single institution. The sheer scale and diverse ecosystem of MYLUNG will allow it to uncover the most effective interventions that can be broadly implemented and then quickly put into practice. Moreover, beyond helping us answer today’s precision medicine questions, the rich data sets from these studies may help us answer the questions of tomorrow as well.

The benefits of MYLUNG extend to patients, providers, and all manner of stakeholders in lung cancer care. Patients and their advocates want to know that they are receiving the best treatment options available to them in a timely manner. Providers must navigate a landscape of cancer care that grows more complex daily, with novel therapies rapidly coming to market. Biopharmaceutical manufacturers are tasked with developing the targeted medications so oncologists can get the right medicine to the right patient, at the right time. Payers need a better understanding of targeted therapies to determine their cost coverage. And policymakers are tasked with comprehending the potential policy implications of the fast-changing science.

MYLUNG has the potential to significantly impact the way patients with NSCLC are cared for in this dynamic new oncology landscape. Mining a wealth of RWE from each of the 3 protocols, the study investigators will be able to recommend customized approaches and a clear methodology of best practices for providers. The hope is that MYLUNG will positively impact the uptake and use of targeted therapies as first-line treatments where clinically appropriate and, ultimately, lead to improved outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

1. Yuan M, Huang LL, Chen JH, Wu J, Xu Q. The emerging treatment land-scape of targeted therapy in non-small-cell lung cancer. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2019;4:61. doi:10.1038/s41392-019-0099-9

2. Fact sheet: what is community oncology? Community Oncology Alliance. 2017. Accessed November 17, 2020. https://bit.ly/37Z4hy5

3. Key statistics for lung cancer. American Cancer Society. Updated January 12, 2021. Accessed January 13, 2021. https://bit.ly/34SIBSc

Therapies targeting oncogenesis and the tumor microenvironment are increasingly replacing chemotherapies as first-line treatments for non–small cell lung cancer. 

MYLUNG Study Explores Molecularly Informed Lung Cancer Treatment 

, Marcus Neubauer, MD, chief medical officer for The US Oncology Network, and I kicked off a 2-part series exploring the implications of the disruptions to oncology treatment patterns caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the potential impact on patient outcomes.

 looked at how real-world data (RWD) gathered during COVID-19 on treatment patterns, complications, and the viability of treatment modification options can provide insights to inform future cancer care.

Part 2 builds on that foundation, reviewing how COVID-19 also has transformed the normal clinical trial process—trials have been discontinued or delayed, and data collection has been affected. This article will discuss the implications of this disruption and answer 2 critical questions, which are:


how to leverage RWD for clinical trial rescue to maintain drug development during COVID-19, and

how to understand the impact of COVID-19 on the data itself.

Due to efforts to reduce exposure to the coronavirus, oncology patient volumes initially decreased, treatment regimens were disrupted or altered, and new cancer diagnoses also slowed. This affected not only patient care, but also clinical trials.

As a result, many trials were delayed or paused as biopharma sponsors tried balancing patient safety with minimizing risk to trial integrity. Recognizing that trial sponsors faced such challenges as quarantines, hospital and physician 

office closures, travel limitations, and supply chain interruptions, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance in March for conducting clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic that indicated protocol modifications or deviations might be unavoidable.

Using RWD to Rescue Trials Disrupted by COVID-19 

Yet, even with these challenges, it is critical to maintain the drug development and regulatory process to make new drugs and new treatments available. We have an opportunity to think differently about the trials in flight and revamp the process of gaining insight into treatment patterns and performance during COVID-19 and beyond.

With a goal of protecting patient safety and helping sponsors complete trials and accelerate access to treatments, we must expand the use of RWD to complete trials disrupted due to COVID19. This includes expanding randomized controlled trial (RCT) eligibility and looking at new ways to leverage RWD to provide an alternative to having to accrue 2 arms when trial recruitment is challenging enough without a pandemic. Here are some methodologies to consider:

: Even prior to COVID-19, the FDA had begun to embrace the use of synthetic control cohorts to support drug development and regulatory approval of breakthrough medicines designed to improve patient care. With the willingness of the FDA to accept adjustments to trial protocols, synthetic control arms offer a tremendous opportunity to augment clinical data by allowing biopharma company sponsors to reduce 

the number of subjects assigned to the control arm in a randomized trial, or to conduct smaller randomized trials. This could be critical to completing or restarting trials disrupted by COVID-19.

 According to the National Cancer Institute, standard of care is defined as treatment that experts agree is appropriate, accepted, and widely used. There are a number of affected trials that were using— or planned to use—a prospectively accrued standard-of-care control arm. We have the opportunity to review the protocols for these trials and determine where strong evidence of standard of care exists that would support the use of historical data as the control arm. For example, RWD was pulled from McKesson’s iKnowMed oncology EHR data set to identify patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (mMCC). Those data were compared with a clinical trial arm for a new therapy to understand the patient response to treatment. This helped establish the FDA approval of a first-line therapy for mMCC, which was the first time RWD was part of a regulatory approval in oncology. This type of trial innovation reduces the number of patients who would need to be accrued during a pandemic, helps maintain patient safety, and avoids potential COVID-19 comorbidity challenges.

Real-world cohort as part of antiviral trials

: In its formal guidance on development of COVID-19 treatments and preventative agents issued in May, the FDA indicated that expansive enrollment criteria will be necessary for clinical 

development to address the scope of the public health crisis and urged sponsors to enroll complicated or fragile patients. The use of pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on the correlation between treatments and outcomes in real-world clinical settings, has increased significantly over the last several years. Pragmatic trials offer the ability to test treatment options on more representative patient populations with fewer exclusions for common conditions that could affect outcomes in practice. These data can be used as a stand-alone analysis or as part of the RCT.

How to Ensure Data Quality During COVID-19

In addition to looking at methods to safely and efficiently conduct clinical trials in this new environment, it is also important to understand the impact of the coronavirus on the data itself, and to ensure that the data are complete, high quality, and generalizable across broad populations.

The potential for COVID-19 infections will reshape how we think about patient data for this time period, especially since testing has not been implemented consistently across the country. With a huge population that may have been affected, how do we think about recruitment, as well as including those we know were infected, 

when we’re analyzing health outcomes during this time frame? Do we simply censor the data and exclude any patients who were diagnosed or treated between January and May 2020, or can we find an appropriate way to address this potential confounding?

In order to track and record information related to the COVID-19 screening population, McKesson developed new data collection tools specific to the coronavirus for its iKnowMed oncology EHR. Beginning in mid-March, practices in The US Oncology Network started to screen patients at the door and gather clinical data about symptoms (fever, cough, fatigue) and risk factors, such as recent local or international travel. Practices also recorded if patients had been tested for COVID-19 and the test results.

To date, practices in The US Oncology Network have screened more than 100,000 patients. This is the beginning of a COVID-19 database that can be used to figure out whether patients’ treatment courses and outcomes were altered, as well as if patients had complications because they were COVID-19 positive, among other things.

With the ability to validate data lineage and verify patients’ status, these data will help identify qualified patients to enroll in trials more quickly.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has magnified the value of RWD in oncology, and the industry has responded with a number of initiatives aimed at refining the role of RWD in guiding clinical trial development, answering important clinical questions, and supporting regulatory decisions. This includes the COVID-19 Evidence Accelerator, a collaborative effort to develop a common set of RWD elements and an initial set of priority questions regarding the therapeutic interventions, risk factors, and the management of COVID-19 in patients with cancer.

McKesson working with the Friends of Cancer Research, the FDA, biopharma companies, and other industry stakeholders on this new paradigm. This data aggregation effort is designed to not only look at how to best care for patients today, but to inform future cancer care and sup-port new models of clinical trials by leveraging RWD to its full potential.

FDA Guidance on Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products during COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. FDA. March 2020. Accessed August 18, 2020. https://bit.ly/3gH9Bab

Sarah A. Alwardt, PhD, is the Vice President of Data, Evidence, and Insights Operations for McKesson

Due to efforts to reduce exposure to the coronavirus, oncology patient volumes initially decreased, treatment regimens were disrupted or altered, and new cancer diagnoses also slowed. This affected not only patient care, but also clinical trials.









How to Leverage  Real-World Data as COVID-19 Transforms Clinical Trials

Oncology is rapidly transitioning into a field where tumor types are increasingly sub-segmented by molecular characteristics, and treatments are becoming structurally informed and designed based not only on tumor characteristics but also patient characteristics. In the conduct of tumor sequencing, multiple alterations are often discovered. However, alignment between molecular alteration and treatment efficacy is still imperfect. Consequently, it is common to use several drugs aimed at various alterations, rather than just 1. Although this approach may be necessary, it increases the complexity of treatment and the possibility of adverse events. 

Much is still unknown about the cancer process and how targeted therapies work on specific tumor vulnerabilities. Providers must closely follow evolving information, especially regarding adverse events. This knowledge will enable them to be proactive to quickly modify treatment and avoid compromising efficacy while keeping the patient on therapy.

Adverse Effects Differ From Chemotherapy 

Chemotherapy as a treatment modality has been used since the 1940s, so its adverse effects are generally well known. Adverse effects caused by targeted therapies can be different from chemotherapy. Some adverse effects are still under appreciated because, in the context of a clinical trial report, they were not fully described due to low frequency and/or prevalence; however, that does not mean that they are harmless. When a targeted agent combines with other drugs the patient is taking, an unexpected adverse effect may appear and be more severe than those caused by chemotherapy.

Many immunotherapy agents can trigger serious problems, such as autoimmune-based adverse events. Providers must respond quickly to manage these conditions. Some of these adverse effects, such as thrombocytopenia, leukopenia, or anemia, may not require management or can be handled in the office. However, a patient with severe diarrhea or pneumonitis who is taking a checkpoint inhibitor can quickly be in a life-threatening situation that requires hospitalization.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are an example of how adverse effects of a parent compound might be 

mitigated while new issues arise. ADCs were developed to provide a “targeted” approach to delivering chemotherapy drugs that might otherwise be too toxic to be systemically delivered in its native form. The conjugates leverage tumor cell expression of antigens and/or receptors to focus delivery of a cytotoxic warhead. For the most part, these conjugates are stable in solution and only release their active agent upon binding and internalization at the cancer cell level. However, unique toxicities may occur due to normal cell expression of the same targets or irritation from the conjugate itself.

Today, there are many different types of targeted drugs, and the knowledge base is still being developed concerning adverse events they may cause. Adverse effects largely depend on the type of drug administered and what it targets. The most common adverse effects associated with certain targeted therapies are diarrhea and liver problems, such as hepatitis and elevated liver enzymes (CHECKLIST).

Clinical Trials Leave Many Questions Unanswered 

Even though new targeted therapies may have received FDA approval, little is known about their performance and safety in the broader patient population. Approval in a clinical trial does not mean the drug is right for everyone. Trial populations are relatively small compared with the prevalent population of patients, and documented adverse events may be similarly challenged–particularly since the manner in which adverse events are reported in the medical literature highlights the most common events (usually ≥10%) and the highest degrees of severity. This underestimates the potential burden of less common and less severe adverse events that could have a major impact on treatment tolerance. Extrapolating that data to the real world leaves many unanswered questions. With so many unknowns, bringing these drugs to a broader population is challenging and requires surveillance–a process called pharmacovigilance.

A major difference in a clinical trial’s study population versus the general at-risk population is how the patients on a trial were selected for participation. To reduce the number of confounding variables that could affect the primary efficacy signal, eligibility criteria are outlined to homogenize the study participants. While eliminating patients with preexisting conditions provides a clearer signal, it also effectively reduces extrapolation value, bringing unknown risks to patients not matching those used for the study. Most drug approvals carry a postmarketing commitment to gather data on real-world evidence, and updated safety packages are provided as new data become available. In some cases, this has led to more restrictive general use because the adverse events were more common than anticipated.

Although drug manufacturers do a good job of compiling data about adverse events, much is still unknown. Simply put, health care providers can find themselves in uncharted waters, trying to navigate the safest way for patients to receive potentially lifesaving therapies with limited information. Providers must understand that targeted therapies can potentially affect normal processes in the body and create adverse effects that may be unknown or under appreciated at the time of study closure. Consequently, providers need to be on alert for all symptoms, even if these symptoms are vague or unattributed, as they may ultimately signal the start of an escalating problem.

Comorbidity is very common among patients with cancer. Most commonly, it’s the rule rather than the exception. Among the top 4 incident cancers–lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate comorbidity rates are 52.9%, 40.7%, 32.2%, and 30.5%, respectively.2 These secondary illnesses 

must be managed to ensure patients are healthy enough to withstand treatment. However, it is well documented that some of these medications can complicate the effective delivery of cancer medicines, particularly drugs where natural metabolism is shared.

Continuing education at the provider level is crucial to the effective and safe management of patients with comorbid conditions. Detailed history of concomitant disease and current medication is essential to developing a comprehensive treatment plan. Increasing complexity of both the oncologic and comorbid condition treatment heightens the need for providers to continually update their understanding of new agents and adverse events, utilizing educational opportunities that focus on these new therapies.

Mitigating strategies can be developed based on data that emerge as therapies become more widely used in patients with comorbidities. This approach has been successful with immunotherapy, especially CAR (chimeric antigen receptor) T-cell therapy. As the severity of the adverse effects began to emerge, toxicity guidelines were developed to help providers manage severe autoimmune adverse events, with special attention paid to patients with comorbidities. Today, providers can receive accreditation for delivering CAR T-cell therapy and other complex therapies. As more advanced treatments appear, accreditation may become a reimbursement requirement.

Enabling Successful Treatment Providers can help ensure optimal outcomes for patients undergoing targeted therapies by employing best practices in several key areas, such as:

Patients and providers should be thoroughly educated about known adverse effects. Pharmaceutical companies have done a good job producing materials that provide pretreatment education concerning adverse effects and when to seek help if experiencing difficulties. With immunotherapies, it is critical for patients and providers to understand when symptoms must be immediately addressed and when they can wait. Certain symptoms can worsen in a matter of hours, creating a life-threatening situation.

Closely monitoring patients enables providers to be proactive about adverse events. Many clinical trials today are actually measuring the time to an adverse event and developing a profile for the drug under study. This is a giant step forward in managing symptoms, as it enables providers to create mitigation strategies and understand the natural cadence of adverse events.

There are several approved targeted drugs that require close monitoring because they can cause severe effects outside of the office between cycles, such as hypertension. When this was recognized during trials, home blood pressure cuffs and logs were provided to patients to track their readings. Utilizing this information, a combination therapy was identified that created dangerous adverse effects within the first 2 weeks, enabling providers to proactively manage these symptoms. When the drugs were finally approved, these best practices were brought to the office level to mitigate adverse effects.

Certain PARP inhibitors also require closer monitoring, particularly for platelets and bone marrow suppression. Consequently, weekly counts after the first treatment cycle are required with some of these agents to identify potential problems.

Many practices in The US Oncology Network are using triage and symptom tracking via patient portals to assess degrees of urgency. This real-time communication helps ensure patients get immediate care if needed, minimizing adverse events.

Staying Current Is Challenging But Critical 

The rapid pace of emerging targeted therapies is creating a dynamic world that is increasingly complex for providers. Keeping up with the huge volume of information required to offer these therapies is difficult to manage in addition to patient care responsibilities. Undoubtedly, this will be an ongoing challenge.

The key to success may lie in using all forms of instructive technology and presentations focused on targeted therapies, including social media, webinars, publications, seminars, and other offerings. These educational opportunities enable providers to share real-world evidence and experiences, helping to build a critical knowledge base. As more new agents emerge, every available avenue should be utilized to keep the nuances of these complex therapies top-of-mind for providers so they can deliver safe, expert care.

 1. Targeted cancer therapies. National Cancer Institute. Accessed September 14, 2020. https://bit.ly/2ZQohyl 

2. Pirschel C. The impact of comorbidities on patient care. ONS Voice. January 30, 2017. Accessed September 14, 2020. https://bit.ly/35Ahe0v

Much is still unknown about the cancer process and how targeted therapies work on specific tumor vulnerabilities. Providers must closely follow evolving information, especially regarding adverse events.

Sarah A. Alwardt, PhD | Authors

Articles

Underused Next-Generation Sequence Testing Revealed in MYLUNG Consortium Study

MYLUNG Study Explores Molecularly Informed Lung Cancer Treatment

How to Leverage Real-World Data as COVID-19 Transforms Clinical Trials

Optimizing Benefit in Targeted Therapies Requires Multipronged Educational Approach