Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review

Importance

Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors. Little is known about these practices in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence of PROs as prespecified end points in RCTs of hematological malignant neoplasms, and to assess reporting of PROs in associated trial publications.

Evidence Review

All issues of 8 journals known for publishing high-impact RCTs (NEJM, Lancet, Lancet Hematology, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Blood, JAMA, and JAMA Oncology) between January 1, 2018, and December 13, 2022, were searched for primary publications of therapeutic phase 3 trials for adults with hematological malignant neoplasms. Studies that evaluated pretransplant conditioning regimens, graft-vs-host disease treatment, or radiotherapy as experimental treatment were excluded. Data regarding trial characteristics and PROs were extracted from manuscripts and trial protocols. Univariable analyses assessed associations between trial characteristics and PRO collection or reporting.

Findings

Ninety RCTs were eligible for analysis. PROs were an end point in 66 (73%) trials: in 1 trial (1%) as a primary end point, in 50 (56%) as a secondary end point, and in 15 (17%) as an exploratory end point. PRO data were reported in 26 of 66 primary publications (39%): outcomes were unchanged in 18 and improved in 8, with none reporting worse PROs with experimental treatment. Trials sponsored by for-profit entities were more likely to include PROs as an end point (49 of 55 [89%] vs 17 of 35 [49%]; P < .001) but were not significantly more likely to report PRO data (20 of 49 [41%] vs 6 of 17 [35%]; P = .69). Compared with trials involving lymphoma (18 of 29 [62%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (18 of 28 [64%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (27 of 30 [90%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (3 of 3 [100%]) were more likely to include PROs as an end point (P = .03). Similarly, compared with trials involving lymphoma (3 of 18 [17%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (5 of 18 [28%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (16 of 27 [59%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (2 of 3 [67%]) were more likely to report PROs in the primary publication (P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review, almost 3 of every 4 therapeutic RCTs for blood cancers collected PRO data; however, only 1 RCT included PROs as a primary end point. Moreover, most did not report resulting PRO data in the primary publication and when reported, PROs were either better or unchanged, raising concern for publication bias. This analysis suggests a critical gap in dissemination of data on the lived experiences of patients enrolled in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit.

Objective

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval.

Results

A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Favorable impact of PD1/PD-L1 antagonists on bone remodeling: an exploratory prospective clinical study and ex vivo validation

BACKGROUND

Skeletal morbidity in patients with cancer has a major impact on the quality of life, and preserving bone health while improving outcomes is an important goal of modern antitumor treatment strategies. Despite their widespread use in early disease stages, the effects of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) on the skeleton are still poorly defined. Here, we initiated a comprehensive investigation of the impact of ICIs on bone health by longitudinal assessment of bone turnover markers in patients with cancer and by validation in a novel bioengineered 3D model of bone remodeling.

METHODS

An exploratory longitudinal study was conducted to assess serum markers of bone resorption (C-terminal telopeptide, CTX) and formation (procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide, PINP, and osteocalcin, OCN) before each ICI application (programmed cell death 1 (PD1) inhibitor or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor) for 6 months or until disease progression in patients with advanced cancer and no evidence of bone metastases. To validate the in vivo results, we evaluated osteoclast (OC) and osteoblast (OB) differentiation on treatment with ICIs. In addition, their effect on bone remodeling was assessed by immunohistochemistry, confocal microscopy, and proteomics analysis in a dynamic 3D bone model.

RESULTS

During the first month of treatment, CTX levels decreased sharply but transiently. In contrast, we observed a delayed increase of serum levels of PINP and OCN after 4 months of therapy. In vitro, ICIs impaired the maturation of preosteoclasts by inhibiting STAT3/NFATc1 signaling but not JNK, ERK, and AKT while lacking any direct effect on osteogenesis. However, using our bioengineered 3D bone model, which enables the simultaneous differentiation of OB and OC precursor cells, we confirmed the uncoupling of the OC/OB activity on exposure to ICIs by demonstrating impaired OC maturation along with increased OB differentiation.

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that the inhibition of the PD1/PD-L1 signaling axis interferes with bone turnover and may exert a protective effect on bone by indirectly promoting osteogenesis.

Patient-reported outcomes with selpercatinib treatment in patients with RET-driven cancers in the phase I/II LIBRETTO-001 trial

BACKGROUND

This post-hoc retrospective study describes long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for REarranged during Transfection (RET)-altered non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), medullary thyroid cancer (MTC), non-MTC thyroid cancer (TC), and tumor agnostic (TA) patients (Data cut-off: January 2023) from the LIBRETTO-001 trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients completed the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30). Patients with MTC also completed a modified version of the Systemic Therapy-Induced Diarrhea Assessment Tool (mSTIDAT). The proportion of patients with improved, stable, or worsened status after baseline was reported. PROs were summarized at 3 years (cycle 37) post-baseline for the NSCLC and MTC cohorts, and at 2 years (cycle 25) post-baseline for the TC and TA cohorts. Time-to-event outcomes (time to first improvement or worsening and duration of improvement) were reported.

RESULTS

The baseline assessment was completed by 200 (63.3%), 209 (70.8%), 50 (76.9%), and 38 (73.1%) patients in the NSCLC, MTC, TC, and TA cohorts, respectively. The total compliance rate was 80%, 82%, 70%, and 85%, respectively. Approximately 75% (NSCLC), 81% (MTC), 75% (TC), and 40% (TA) of patients across all cohorts reported improved or stable QLQ-C30 scores at year 3 (NSCLC and MTC) or year 2 (TC and TA) with continuous selpercatinib use. Across cohorts, the median time to first improvement ranged from 2.0 to 19.4 months, the median duration of improvement ranged from 1.9 to 28.2 months, and the median time to first worsening ranged from 5.6 to 44.2 months. The total compliance rate for the mSTIDAT was 83.7% and the proportion of patients with MTC who reported diarrhea on the mSTIDAT was reduced from 80.8% at baseline to 35.6% at year 3.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of patients with RET-driven cancers improved or remained stable on most QLQ-C30 domains, demonstrating favorable health-related quality of life as measured by the QLQ-C30 during long-term treatment with selpercatinib.

An empirical analysis of overall survival in drug approvals by the US FDA (2006-2023)

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the use of surrogate markers in drugs approved for oncology/hematology indications. This has likely resulted in a greater number of approvals and possibly drugs coming to market faster, but it is unknown whether these drugs also improve overall survival (OS) for patients taking them.

METHODS

We sought to estimate the percentage of oncology drugs that have shown to improve OS in a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology drug approvals (2006-2023). We searched for OS data in registration trials and the peer-reviewed literature.

RESULTS

We found 392 oncology drug approvals. Eighty-seven (22%) drug approvals were based on OS, 147 drug approvals were later tested for OS benefit (38% of all approvals and 48% of drugs approved on a surrogate), and 130 (33%) have yet to be tested for OS benefit. Of the 147 drug approvals later tested for OS, 109 (28% of all approvals and 74% of drugs later tested for OS) have yet to show OS benefit, whereas 38 (10% of all approvals and 26% of drugs later tested for OS benefit) were later shown to have OS benefit. In total, 125 out of 392 (32%) drugs approved for any indication have been shown to improve OS benefit at some point, and 267 (68%) have yet to show approval.

CONCLUSION

About 32% of all oncology drug approvals have evidence for an improvement in OS. Higher standards are needed in drug regulation to ensure that approved drugs are delivering better patient outcomes, specifically in regards to survival.

Surrogate endpoints for HTA decisions of breast cancer drugs: utility and pitfalls

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Health technology assessment (HTA) of cancer drugs is important to identify whether drugs should be publicly funded. With increasing use of surrogate end points in clinical trials including breast cancer, a review of literature was done to synthesize evidence for validation of these surrogate end points and their potential role in HTA decisions pertaining to breast cancer.

FINDINGS

Disease free survival (DFS) in human epidermal receptor 2 (HER2) positive early breast cancer remains the only validated surrogate end point. Other surrogate end points like pathological complete response (pCR) and event free survival (EFS) in early breast cancer (EBC) and objective response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) in advanced disease have not been validated for overall survival (OS). Moreover, surrogate end points for quality of life (QOL) have not been established and drugs that improve PFS can have detrimental effect on QOL. End points like pCR have excellent prognostic utility in individual patients but have weak correlation with survival at trial level.

SUMMARY

Most surrogate end points used in breast cancer do not predict OS or QOL which makes it challenging to use them for decisions regarding public funding of cancer drugs. These findings are relevant to HTA agencies prior to making drug reimbursement decisions.

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Therapies for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Trials Published Between 2010 and 2020

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the evolution of clinical outcomes derived from clinical trials on first-line therapies for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published between 2010 and 2020, focusing on how these outcomes impact survival rates and management of patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of phase III and pivotal phase II clinical trials was conducted by a structured search on Medline and Embase. A comprehensive set of variables was collected to assess their influence on survival rates. We also estimated the clinical benefit by applying the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 and extracted the authors' conclusions.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies involving 34,951 patients were included. Best survival outcomes were found for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (OS and progression-free survival medians: 19.4 and 10.2 mo) and for those expressing molecular targets (OS and progression-free survival medians: 23.8 and 11.0 mo). No significant influence on survival rates was observed for industry funding and disease stage (IIIB/IV vs. IV). ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was applied in 45 positive studies and resulted in a meaningful clinical benefit score in 37.8%. Quality of life (QoL) was reported in 57.6% of the original publications and showed statistical significance favoring the experimental arm in 33.3%. Positive authors' conclusions (75.7% of trials) were based on OS and/or QoL in 34% and on surrogate endpoints in 66%.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended survival times and a steady improvement in QoL have been observed. However, there were more than twice as many studies reporting positive authors' conclusions as studies meeting the ESMO threshold for meaningful clinical benefit.

Ensuring Ethical Postprogression Therapy for Patients in Randomized Trial Control Arms

@Eddie_Cliff et al explore the scientific & ethical reasons why patients randomized to the control arm of trials should 'crossover' to receive the investigational therapy if their disease progresses

Analysis of phase III clinical trials in metastatic NSCLC to assess the correlation between QoL results and survival outcomes

BACKGROUND

In addition to improving survival outcomes, new oncology treatments should lead to amelioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Herein, we examined whether QoL results correlated with PFS and OS outcomes in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating new systemic treatments in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

METHODS

The systematic search of PubMed was conducted in October 2022. We identified 81 RCTs testing novel drugs in metastatic NSCLC and published in the English language in a PubMed-indexed journal between 2012 and 2021. Only trials reporting QoL results and at least one survival outcome between OS and PFS were selected. For each RCT, we assessed whether global QoL was "superior," "inferior," or with "non-statistically significant difference" in the experimental arm compared to the control arm.

RESULTS

Experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 30 (37.0%) RCTs and inferior QoL in 3 (3.7%) RCTs. In the remaining 48 (59.3%) RCTs, a statistically significant difference between the experimental and control arms was not found. Of note, we found a statistically significant association between QoL and PFS improvements (X² = 3.93, p = 0.0473). In more detail, this association was not significant in trials testing immunotherapy or chemotherapy. On the contrary, in RCTs testing target therapies, QoL results positively correlated with PFS outcomes (p = 0.0196). This association was even stronger in the 32 trials testing EGFR or ALK inhibitors (p = 0.0077). On the other hand, QoL results did not positively correlate with OS outcomes (X² = 0.81, p = 0.368). Furthermore, we found that experimental treatments led to superior QoL in 27/57 (47.4%) trials with positive results and in 3/24 (12.5%) RCTs with negative results (p = 0.0028). Finally, we analyzed how QoL data were described in publications of RCTs in which QoL outcomes were not improved (n = 51). We found that a favorable description of QoL results was associated with sponsorship by industries (p = 0.0232).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study reveals a positive association of QoL results with PFS outcomes in RCTs testing novel treatments in metastatic NSCLC. This association is particularly evident for target therapies. These findings further emphasize the relevance of an accurate assessment of QoL in RCTs in NSCLC.

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes in the approval of novel oncology drugs in the United States, 2017-2022

Background

With the growing notion of patient-focused drug development, the quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of cancer patients are gaining considerable attention. Several drug regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are calling attention to PROs. This review aims to comprehensively characterise the application of PROs and regulatory considerations for PROs in the FDA-approved novel oncology drugs.

Methods

The FDA review documents and labels for novel oncology drugs approved from July 2017 to July 2022 were retrieved. We collected and analysed drug approval information, types of endpoints for PROs, PRO measures, designs of trials including PROs, and regulatory comments on PRO-related contents.

Findings

Results demonstrated that PROs were used more commonly for solid tumours than hematologic malignancies, which might be correlated with the disease characteristics. We further categorised and analysed existing PRO measures, providing insight for tool selection in future oncology trial design. Our findings also indicated that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug approvals. The major deficiencies related to PROs commented on by FDA reviewers were analysed, followed by recommendations for improvements.

Interpretation

This review demonstrates that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug marketing review, and how they can be used to support the approval of new oncology drugs is still in the exploratory stage. This current situation is not only related to the deficiencies in the design and implementation of PRO-related contents in oncology trials, but more importantly, it is a reminder that we should pay more attention to patient experience in the development of oncology drugs.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Sarcopenia, biological age and treatment eligibility in patients with cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cancer incidence will dramatically increase, especially among older adults, during the next few decades. This may lead to bankruptcy of the healthcare systems worldwide if the current approach to treatment eligibility is not improved. In fact, current treatment personalization is mostly focusing on the genetic and molecular characteristics of cancer cells, whereas clinical characterization of patients is still dependent on gross variables (i.e. chronological age, BMI, comorbidities, Performance Status and so on). This could have contributed to the poor performance of many anticancer drugs in the real-world setting when compared with the results obtained in prospective, randomized clinical trials.

RECENT FINDINGS

The role of chronological age in identifying patients with increased likelihood to respond to therapies has been challenged, pointing to biological age (i.e. accumulated damage to biological systems over the life course, leading to loss of reserve and capacity to respond to challenges) as a robust predictor of outcome encompassing genetic, phenotypic and clinical factors. Sarcopenia has been proposed as a reliable clinical index of biological age, but the complexity of body composition changes occurring during tumour growth appears to preclude its routine use when assessing eligibility in cancer patients.

SUMMARY

Integration of sarcopenia measures within scores of allostatic load may further increase the clinical relevance of changes of body composition, highlight its sensitivity to early nutritional intervention leading to mitigation of accelerated ageing, and contribute to wide delivery of precision oncology.

Health-related quality of life is underestimated and underreported in phase III clinical trials in NSCLC

Major associations of medical oncologists remark that novel anticancer treatments should guarantee improvement of survival outcomes as well as of patients' quality of life (QoL). Herein, we investigated QoL assessment and reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing new drugs in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), published between 2010 and 2021. We selected 172 RCTs for further analysis. Only 2/172 (1.2%) trial included QoL among primary study endpoints. Of note, 40/172 (23.3%) trials did not include QoL assessment among endpoints. The majority of RCTs (102/172, 59.3%) did not report QoL results in primary publications. Particularly, RCTs testing immunotherapy, target therapy and chemotherapy did not disclose QoL data in primary publications in 97.0%, 51.5% and 46.5% of cases, respectively. Next, we found that only 43/95 (45.3%) positive studies reported QoL results in primary articles. Of the 102 trials missing QoL data in primary manuscripts, only 21 (20.6%) disclosed QoL results in a secondary publication. Finally, we found a common fail in adherence to CONSORT-PROs items in publications reporting QoL results. In summary, our study reveals a relevant inadequate assessment and under-reporting of QoL in RCTs of novel systemic treatments for patients with metastatic NSCLC.

High protein diet in digestive cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent advances in the nutritional management of patients with digestive cancers suggest that modulation of protein intake may significantly contribute to achieve nutritional and clinical benefits. By reviewing the available evidence, a quantitatively and qualitatively optimal protein intake could be derived.

RECENT FINDINGS

High protein diets (i.e., 1-1.5 g/kg body weight/day) appear key to maintain the adequate nutritional status, and may also contribute to achieve clinical benefits. This target appears particularly relevant in patients with digestive cancers at risk or already malnourished, or in older patients. During active cancer treatments, protein intake should be closer to the upper limit of the recommended intake. Also, high protein intake should be maintained beyond the periods of catabolic crisis associated with active treatments. In contrast with general reasoning, animal proteins should represent the majority of the recommended intake. Based on the available evidence, the intake of no specific amino acid can be strongly recommended to enhance anabolic potentials or the immune modulating effects of high protein diets.

SUMMARY

High protein intake, mostly based on animal proteins, should be recommended to patients with digestive cancers. However, this target should be translated into clinical prescription after considering the clinical and metabolic needs of the patients. The quest for the optimal protein intake of patients with cancer at different time points of their clinical journey is still open.

Risk and benefit for umbrella trials in oncology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Umbrella clinical trials in precision oncology are designed to tailor therapies to the specific genetic changes within a tumor. Little is known about the risk/benefit ratio for umbrella clinical trials. The aim of our systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles in cancer umbrella trials testing targeted drugs or a combination of targeted therapy with chemotherapy.

METHODS

Our study was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020171494). We searched Embase and PubMed for cancer umbrella trials testing targeted agents or a combination of targeted therapies with chemotherapy. We included solid tumor studies published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019. We measured the risk using drug-related grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs), and the benefit by objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). When possible, data were meta-analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 6207 records identified, we included 31 sub-trials or arms of nine umbrella trials (N = 1637). The pooled overall ORR was 17.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.5-25.9). The ORR for targeted therapies in the experimental arms was significantly lower than the ORR for a combination of targeted therapy drugs with chemotherapy: 13.3% vs 39.0%; p = 0.005. The median PFS was 2.4 months (95% CI 1.9-2.9), and the median OS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.1-8.4). The overall drug-related death rate (drug-related grade 5 AEs rate) was 0.8% (95% CI 0.3-1.4), and the average drug-related grade 3/4 AE rate per person was 0.45 (95% CI 0.40-0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that, on average, one in five cancer patients in umbrella trials published between 1 January 2006 and 7 October 2019 responded to a given therapy, while one in 125 died due to drug toxicity. Our findings do not support the expectation of increased patient benefit in cancer umbrella trials. Further studies should investigate whether umbrella trial design and the precision oncology approach improve patient outcomes.