Background: Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) is a phenotype that is characterized by the inability of a cell to effectively repair DNA double-strand breaks using the homologous recombination repair (HRR) pathway. Loss-of-function genes involved in this pathway can sensitize tumors to poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and platinum-based chemotherapy, which target the destruction of cancer cells by working in concert with HRD through synthetic lethality. However, to identify patients with these tumors, it is vital to understand how to best measure homologous repair (HR) status and to characterize the level of alignment in these measurements across different diagnostic platforms. A key current challenge is that there is no standardized method to define, measure, and report HR status using diagnostics in the clinical setting.Methods: Friends of Cancer Research convened a consortium of project partners from key healthcare sectors to address concerns about the lack of consistency in the way HRD is defined and methods for measuring HR status.Results: This publication provides findings from the group’s discussions that identified opportunities to align the definition of HRD and the parameters that contribute to the determination of HR status. The consortium proposed recommendations and best practices to benefit the broader cancer community.Conclusion: Overall, this publication provides additional perspectives for scientist, physician, laboratory, and patient communities to contextualize the definition of HRD and various platforms that are used to measure HRD in tumors.

Purpose: Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria (EC) limit the number of patients who can enroll and potentially benefit from protocol-driven, investigational treatment plans and reduce the generalizability of trial results to the broader population. Following publication of expert stakeholder recommendations for broadening EC in 2017, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) convened working groups to produce additional recommendations and analyze the potential impact on clinical trials using real-world data. Experimental Design: Multistakeholder working groups were appointed by an ASCO-Friends leadership group to propose recommendations for more inclusive EC related to: washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory reference ranges and test intervals, and performance status. Results: The four working groups, ASCO Board of Directors, and Friends leadership support the recommendations included in this statement to modernize EC related to washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory references ranges and test intervals, and performance status to make trial populations more inclusive and representative of cancer patient populations. Conclusions: Implementation of the recommendations is intended to result in greater ease of determining patient eligibility. Increased opportunities for patient participation in research will help address longstanding underrepresentation of certain groups in clinical trials and produce evidence that is more informative for a broader patient population. More patients eligible will also likely speed clinical trial accrual.

PURPOSE: As immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) become increasingly used in frontline settings, identifying early indicators of response is needed. Recent studies suggest a role for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in monitoring response to ICI, but uncertainty exists in the generalizability of these studies. Here, the role of ctDNA for monitoring response to ICI is assessed through a standardized approach by assessing clinical trial data from five independent studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient-level clinical and ctDNA data were pooled and harmonized from 200 patients across five independent clinical trials investigating the treatment of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)–directed monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. CtDNA levels were measured using different ctDNA assays across the studies. Maximum variant allele frequencies were calculated using all somatic tumor-derived variants in each unique patient sample to correlate ctDNA changes with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: We observed strong associations between reductions in ctDNA levels from on-treatment liquid biopsies with improved OS (OS; hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.20; P < .001) and PFS (PFS; hazard ratio 1.76; 95% CI, 1.31 to 2.36; P < .001). Changes in the maximum variant allele frequencies ctDNA values showed strong association across different outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis of five independent clinical trials, consistent and robust associations between reductions in ctDNA and outcomes were found across multiple end points assessed in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer treated with an ICI. Additional tumor types, stages, and drug classes should be included in future analyses to further validate this. CtDNA may serve as an important tool in clinical development and an early indicator of treatment benefit.

Heparanase is known to enhance the progression of many cancer types and is associated with poor patient prognosis. We recently reported that after patients with multiple myeloma were treated with high dose chemotherapy, the tumor cells that emerged upon relapse expressed a much higher level of heparanase than was present prior to therapy. Because tumor cells having stemness properties are thought to seed tumor relapse, we investigated whether heparanase had a role in promoting myeloma stemness. When plated at low density and grown in serum-free conditions that support survival and expansion of stem-like cells, myeloma cells expressing a low level of heparanase formed tumor spheroids poorly. In contrast, cells expressing a high level of heparanase formed significantly more and larger spheroids than did the heparanase low cells. Importantly, heparanase-low expressing cells exhibited plasticity and were induced to exhibit stemness properties when exposed to recombinant heparanase or to exosomes that contained a high level of heparanase cargo. The spheroid-forming heparanase-high cells had elevated expression of GLI1, SOX2 and ALDH1A1, three genes known to be associated with myeloma stemness. Inhibitors that block the heparan sulfate degrading activity of heparanase significantly diminished spheroid formation and expression of stemness genes implying a direct role of the enzyme in regulating stemness. Blocking the NF-κB pathway inhibited spheroid formation and expression of stemness genes demonstrating a role for NF-κB in heparanase-mediated stemness. Myeloma cells made deficient in heparanase exhibited decreased stemness properties in vitro and when injected into mice they formed tumors poorly compared to the robust tumorigenic capacity of cells expressing higher levels of heparanase. These studies reveal for the first time a role for heparanase in promoting cancer stemness and provide new insight into its function in driving tumor progression and its association with poor prognosis in cancer patients.

Purpose: In clinical research, eligibility criteria promote patient safety and optimize the evidence generated from clinical trials. However, overly stringent eligibility criteria, including laboratory requirements, may limit enrollment, resulting in delayed trial completion and potentially limiting applicability of trial results to a general practice population. Experimental Design: Starting in 2018, a working group consisting of experts in direct patient care, the FDA, industry, and patient advocacy developed recommendations to guide the optimal use of laboratory reference ranges and testing intervals in clinical trial eligibility criteria and study procedures. The working group evaluated current eligibility criteria across different clinical trial phases and performed a literature review to evaluate the impact of and justification for laboratory test eligibility requirements and testing intervals in clinical trials. Recommendations were developed on the basis of the goals of promoting safety and optimizing the evidence generated, while also expanding eligibility and applicability, and minimizing excess burden of trial participation. Results: In general, we found little variation over time and trial phase in laboratory test requirements, suggesting that these eligibility criteria are not refined according to ongoing clinical experience. We propose recommendations to optimize the use of laboratory tests when considering eligibility criteria. Conclusions: Tailoring the use of laboratory test requirements and testing intervals may increase the number and diversity of patients in clinical trials and provide clinical data that more closely represent the general practice populations. See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369