A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology

Surrogate endpoints in phase III randomized trials of advanced gastroesophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overall survival (OS) is the most meaningful endpoint in clinical trials. However, owing to their limitations, surrogate endpoints are commonly used and validation studies are required to assess their reliability. Analysis of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (AGC) with > 100 patients, correlation coefficients (r), and determination coefficients (R²) between OS and surrogates were evaluated through meta-analyses. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were examined to determine their correlations with OS. Analysis of 65 phase III RCTs (29,766 subjects) showed a moderate correlation between PFS/TTP and OS (r = 0.77, R² = 0.59), while ORR correlation was low (r = 0.56, R² = 0.31). Excluding immunotherapy trials improved the PFS/TTP and OS correlations (r = 0.83, R² = 0.70). These findings suggest the potential use of PFS/TTP in AGC phase III investigations, disregarding the use of ORR as a surrogate endpoint.

Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter

While some recent drug treatments have been transformative for patients with cancer, many treatments offer small benefits despite high clinical toxicity, time toxicity and financial toxicity. Moreover, treatments that do provide substantial clinical benefits are not available to many patients globally due to issues with availability and affordability. The Common Sense Oncology's vision is that patients will have access to treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter, regardless of where they live. In recognition of the growing challenges in the field of oncology, Common Sense Oncology seeks to achieve this vision by improving evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication.

Clinical trial design and treatment effects: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled and single-arm trials supporting 437 FDA approvals of cancer drugs and indications

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyse the association between clinical trial design and treatment effects for cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, ClincialTrials.gov and the Global Burden of Disease study.

PARTICIPANTS

Pivotal trials for 170 drugs with FDA approval across 437 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effects were measured in HRs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and in relative risk for tumour response. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions explored the association between treatment effect estimates and clinical trial design for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm trials.

RESULTS

Across RCTs, greater effect estimates were observed in smaller trials for OS (ß=0.06, p<0.001), PFS (ß=0.15, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-3.61, p<0.001). Effect estimates were larger in shorter trials for OS (ß=0.08, p<0.001) and PFS (ß=0.09, p=0.002). OS (ß=0.04, p=0.006), PFS (ß=0.10, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-2.91, p=0.004) outcomes were greater in trials with fewer centres. HRs for PFS (0.54 vs 0.62, p=0.011) were lower in trials testing the new drug to an inactive (placebo/no treatment) rather than an active comparator. The analysed efficacy population (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated) was not consistently associated with treatment effects. Results were consistent for single-arm trials and in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pivotal trial design is significantly associated with measured treatment effects. Particularly small, short, single-centre trials testing a new drug compared with an inactive rather than an active comparator could overstate treatment outcomes. Future studies should verify results in unsuccessful trials, adjust for further confounders and examine other therapeutic areas. The FDA, manufacturers and trialists must strive to conduct robust clinical trials with a low risk of bias.

Time-to-Event Endpoints in Imaging Biomarker Studies

Time-to-event endpoints are widely used as measures of patients' well-being and indicators of prognosis. In imaging-based biomarker studies, there are increasingly more studies that focus on examining imaging biomarkers' prognostic or predictive utilities on those endpoints, whether in a trial or an observational study setting. In this educational review article, we briefly introduce some basic concepts of time-to-event endpoints and point out potential pitfalls in the context of imaging biomarker research in hope of improving radiologists' understanding of related subjects. Besides, we have included some review and discussions on the benefits of using time-to-event endpoints and considerations on selecting overall survival or progression-free survival for primary analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Progression-free survival estimates are shaped by specific censoring rules: Implications for PFS as an endpoint in cancer randomized trials

Kaplan-Meier analysis hinges on the assumption that patients who are censored- lost to follow-up, or only recently enrolled on the study- are no different, on average, than patients who are followed. As such, censoring these patients- omitting their future information and taking the average of those who were followed- should not dramatically change the overall estimate. Yet, in a recent clinical trial, two sets of censoring rules- one favored by trialists and one favored by the US Food and Drug Administration- were applied to a progression-free survival (PFS) estimate. In response, the PFS estimate changed dramatically, increasing the median in the experimental arm from 32 to 43 months, while the control arm was essentially unchanged. In this commentary, we explore the reasons why PFS changed so dramatically. We provide a broad overview of censoring in oncology clinical trials, and suggestions to ensure that PFS is a more reliable endpoint.

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.

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

RESULTS

In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

A perspective: the integration of ctDNA into Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours 1.1 for phase II immunotherapy clinical trials

A consensus guideline, iRECIST, was developed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) working group for the use of the modified RECIST version 1.1 in cancer immunotherapy trials. iRECIST was designed to separate pseudoprogression from real progression. However, this is not the only ambiguous situation. In clinical immunotherapy trials, stable disease may reflect three tumor responses, including real stable disease, progressive disease and responsive disease. The prediction of a "true complete/partial response" is also important. Much data has accumulated showing that ctDNA can guide decisions at this point; thus, integrating ctDNA into the RECIST 1.1 criteria may help to distinguish a true tumor response type earlier in patients treated with immunotherapy; however, prospectively designed validation studies are needed.

Correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to assess the therapeutic effect of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) and investigate the correlation between surrogate endpoints and overall survival (OS). A systematic literature search included phase I, II, and III clinical trials comparing ICIs to placebo or other therapies for uHCC treatment. Correlations between OS and surrogate endpoints were evaluated using meta-regression analyses and calculating the surrogate threshold effect (STE). The correlation analysis showed a weak association between OS and progression-free survival (PFS), with an R2 value of 0.352 (95% CI: 0.000-0.967). However, complete response (CR) exhibited a strong correlation with OS (R2 = 0.905, 95% CI: 0.728-1.000). Subgroup analyses revealed high correlations between OS and PFS, CR, stable disease (SD), and DC in phase III trials (R2: 0.827-0.922). For the ICI + IA group, significant correlations were observed between OS and SD, progressive disease (PD), and grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (R2: 0.713-0.969). Analyses of the correlation between survival benefit and risk of mortality across various time points showed a strong association within the first year (R2: 0.724-0.868) but a weak association beyond one year (R2: 0.406-0.499). In ICI trials for uHCC, PFS has limited utility as a surrogate endpoint for OS, while CR exhibits a strong correlation with OS. Subgroup analyses highlight high correlations between OS and PFS, SD, and DC in phase III trials. Notably, the ICI + IA group shows significant associations between OS and SD, PD, and grade 3-5 irAEs. These findings offer valuable insights for interpreting trial outcomes and selecting appropriate endpoints in future clinical studies involving ICIs for uHCC patients.

Early Detection of Disease Progression in Metastatic Cancers: Could CTCs Improve RECIST Criteria?

Early detection of disease progression is a crucial issue in the management of cancer patients, especially in metastatic settings. Currently, treatment selection mostly relies on criteria based on radiologic evaluations (RECIST). The aim of the present retrospective study is to evaluate the potential inclusion of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) in hybrid criteria. CTC counts from a total of 160 patients with different metastatic tumors were analyzed for this purpose. In our cohort, 73 patients were affected by breast cancer, 69 by colorectal cancer and 18 by prostate cancer. PFS and OS were evaluated according to the corresponding prediction of disease progression by CTCs and RECIST criteria. In breast cancer, CTC-I has an important impact on the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values. When CTC-I predicted earlier than RECIST-I, the disease progression, the PFS and OS were shorter with respect to the opposite case. In particular, PFS was 11 (5-16) vs. 34 (23-45)-with p < 0.001-and OS was 80 (22-138) vs. 116 (43-189), p = 0.33. The results suggest a promising role of CTCs as complementary information which could significantly improve the clinical outcomes, and they encourage consideration of future trials to evaluate new hybrid criteria, particularly for patients with breast cancer.

Integrated germline and somatic features reveal divergent immune pathways driving ICB response

Immune Checkpoint Blockade (ICB) has revolutionized cancer treatment, however mechanisms determining patient response remain poorly understood. Here we used machine learning to predict ICB response from germline and somatic biomarkers and interpreted the learned model to uncover putative mechanisms driving superior outcomes. Patients with higher T follicular helper infiltrates were robust to defects in the class-I Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC-I). Further investigation uncovered different ICB responses in MHC-I versus MHC-II neoantigen reliant tumors across patients. Despite similar response rates, MHC-II reliant responses were associated with significantly longer durable clinical benefit (Discovery: Median OS=63.6 vs. 34.5 months P=0.0074; Validation: Median OS=37.5 vs. 33.1 months, P=0.040). Characteristics of the tumor immune microenvironment reflected MHC neoantigen reliance, and analysis of immune checkpoints revealed LAG3 as a potential target in MHC-II but not MHC-I reliant responses. This study highlights the value of interpretable machine learning models in elucidating the biological basis of therapy responses.

Promising and Minimally Invasive Biomarkers: Targeting Melanoma

The therapeutic landscape of malignant melanoma has been radically reformed in recent years, with novel treatments emerging in both the field of cancer immunotherapy and signalling pathway inhibition. Large-scale tumour genomic characterization has accurately classified malignant melanoma into four different genomic subtypes so far. Despite this, only somatic mutations in BRAF oncogene, as assessed in tumour biopsies, has so far become a validated predictive biomarker of treatment with small molecule inhibitors. The biology of tumour evolution and heterogeneity has uncovered the current limitations associated with decoding genomic drivers based only on a single-site tumour biopsy. There is an urgent need to develop minimally invasive biomarkers that accurately reflect the real-time evolution of melanoma and that allow for streamlined collection, analysis, and interpretation. These will enable us to face challenges with tumour tissue attainment and process and will fulfil the vision of utilizing "liquid biopsy" to guide clinical decisions, in a manner akin to how it is used in the management of haematological malignancies. In this review, we will summarize the most recent published evidence on the role of minimally invasive biomarkers in melanoma, commenting on their future potential to lead to practice-changing discoveries.

Progression-free survival, disease-free survival and other composite end points in oncology: improved reporting is needed

Composite outcome measures such as progression-free survival and disease-free survival are increasingly used as surrogate end points in oncology research, frequently serving as the primary end point of pivotal trials that form the basis for FDA and EMA approvals. Such outcome measures combine two or more distinct events (for example, tumour (re)growth, new lesions and/or death) into a single, time-to-event end point. The use of a composite end point can increase the statistical power of a clinical trial and decrease the follow-up period required to demonstrate efficacy, thus lowering costs; however, these end points have a number of limitations. Composite outcomes are often vaguely defined, with definitions that vary greatly between studies, complicating comparisons of results across trials. Altering the makeup of events included in a composite outcome can alter study conclusions, including whether treatment effects are statistically significant. Moreover, the events included in a composite outcome often vary in clinical significance, reflect distinct biological pathways and/or are affected differently by treatment. Therefore, knowing the precise breakdown of the component events is essential to accurately interpret trial results and gauge the true benefit of an intervention. In oncology clinical trials, however, such information is rarely provided. In this Perspective, we emphasize this deficiency through a review of 50 studies with progression-free survival as an outcome published in five top oncology journals, discuss the advantages and challenges of using composite end points, and highlight the need for transparent reporting of the component events.

The Importance of Feasibility Assessment in the Design of ctDNA Guided Trials - Results From the OPTIPAL II Study

INTRODUCTION

Both quantitative and molecular changes in ctDNA can hold important information when treating metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but its clinical utility is yet to be established. Before conducting a large-scale randomized trial, it is essential to test feasibility. This study investigates whether ctDNA is feasible for detecting patients who will benefit from treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors and the prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) response.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with mCRC, who were considered for systemic palliative treatment and were eligible for ctDNA analysis. Mutational testing on cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was done by ddPCR. ctDNA response from baseline to the third treatment cycle was evaluated in patients with detectable ctDNA at baseline. ctDNA maximum response was defined as undetectable ctDNA at the third treatment cycle, ctDNA partial response as any decrease in the ctDNA level, and ctDNA progression as any increase in the ctDNA level.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients were included. The time to test results for mutational testing on cfDNA was significantly shorter than on tumor tissue (p < .001). Progression-free survival were 11.2 months (reference group), 7.5 months (HR = 10.7, p= .02), and 4.6 months (HR = 11.4, p= .02) in patients with ctDNA maximum response, partial response, and progression, respectively. Overall survival was 31.2 months (reference group), 15.2 months (HR = 4.1, p= .03), and 9.0 months (HR = 2.6, p= .03) in patients with ctDNA maximum response, partial response, and progression, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment mutational testing on cfDNA in daily clinic is feasible and can be applied in randomized clinical trials evaluating the clinical utility of ctDNA. Early dynamics in ctDNA during systemic treatment hold prognostic value.

Progress and Challenges of the New Conditional Approval Process in China: A Pooled Analysis From 2018 to 2021

PURPOSE

To speed the review and approval of drugs and address pressing medical needs, China began to advocate for the implementation of the conditional approval process in 2017. We aimed to assess the implementation of the conditional approval process in China and further analyze its potential problems and future challenges.

METHODS

This study examined the new drug approval with conditions in China between 2018 and 2021, based on an analysis of drug technical review documents from the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE). Using publicly available information, we further analyzed the characteristics and results of pivotal clinical trials of conditionally approved drugs, postmarketing study requirements and progress.

FINDINGS

Between 2018 and 2021, China conditionally approved 50 drugs, with 80% (40/50) being antineoplastic agents. Premarketing pivotal trials predominantly used single-arm clinical trials (83.7%, 41/49), while postmarketing trials mainly employed randomized controlled clinical trials (81.0%, 34/42). In oncology drugs, conditionally approved drugs with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as primary endpoints achieved significant clinical value in terms of efficacy. However, there were also pivotal clinical trials with response rate (RR) as the primary endpoint that demonstrated lower clinical benefits (8.9% of drugs with RR below 20%). Safety analysis revealed substantial variations in the proportions of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) across pivotal trials (Grade ≥ 3 AEs: 9.0%-99.0%; SAEs: 8.0%-83.0%). For nononcology drugs, pivotal trials also demonstrated an acceptable risk-benefit ratio but exhibited methodological issues. Meanwhile, Most postmarketing studies lacked completion date restrictions (43.2%, 17/47), and no requirements were specified for the transition to full approval. Furthermore, surrogate endpoints were primarily utilized both pre- and postmarketing, but the rational selection of surrogate endpoints remains to be investigated.

IMPLICATIONS

The conditional approval process expedites patient access to drugs for serious diseases. However, challenges pertaining to evidence assessment during approval and design flaws in postmarketing studies exist in China's conditional approval system, necessitating future improvements.

A systematic review of recent phase-II trials in refractory or recurrent osteosarcoma: Can we inform future trial design?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

To analyze changes in recurrent/refractory osteosarcoma phase II trials over time to inform future trials in this population with poor prognosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of trials registered on trial registries between 01/01/2017-14/02/2022. Comparison of 98 trials identified between 2003 and 2016. Publication search/analysis for both periods, last update on 01/12/2022.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2022, 71 phase-II trials met our selection criteria (19 osteosarcoma-specific trials, 14 solid tumor trials with and 38 trials without an osteosarcoma-specific stratum). The trial number increased over time: 13.9 versus 7 trials/year (p = 0.06). Monotherapy remained the predominant treatment (62% vs. 62%, p = 1). Targeted therapies were increasingly evaluated (66% vs. 41%, P = 0.001). Heterogeneity persisted in the trial characteristics. The inclusion criteria were measurable disease (75%), evaluable disease (14%), and surgical remission (11%). 82% of the trials included pediatric or adolescent patients. Biomarker-driven trials accounted for 25% of the total trials. The survival endpoint use (rather than response) slightly increased (40% versus 31%), but the study H1/H0 hypotheses remained heterogeneous. Single-arm designs predominated over multiarm trials (n = 7). Available efficacy data on 1361 osteosarcoma patients in 58 trials remained disappointing, even though 21% of these trials were considered positive, predominantly those evaluating multi-targeted kinase inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Despite observed changes in trial design and an increased number of trials investigating new therapies, high heterogeneity remained with respect to patient selection, study design, primary endpoints, and statistical hypotheses in recently registered phase II trials for osteosarcoma. Continued optimization of trial design informed by a deeper biological understanding should strengthen the development of new therapies.

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.

Evidence of pre-approval clinical trial supporting the granted conditional approval for novel cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2022

Background

Accelerated approval (AA) of novel anticancer drugs based on surrogacy has attracted considerable concern globally. China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) also established a similar conditional approval (CA) program to accelerate the approval of novel drugs to address unmet medical needs. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the pre-approval clinical trial evidence and potential challenge of cancer drugs receiving CA in China from policy implementation to 2022.

Methods

The cancer drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted CA between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022 using the public database of the NMPA were analyzed. The characteristics of the cancer drugs received CA were described. Primary efficacy endpoints and safety derived from the pre-approval clinical trial, including response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were quantitatively estimated by meta-analysis. Besides, the correlation between the surrogate endpoints and OS was estimated by the reported trial-level correlation analysis.

Findings

The NMPA approved 72 cancer indications (56 new molecular entities) with CA between 2015 and 2022. 34 indications (47%) were also approved by the FDA or EMA. 74% (53/72) of cancer indications were based on a single-arm trial design while 26% (19/72) for randomized controlled trials. The pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.45-0.55, I2 = 96%) with significant differences across cancer types and targets while the pooled hazard risk was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53, I2 = 89%) for PFS and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73, I2 = 0%) for OS. The pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs from single-arm designs resulted in 15% and 25%, respectively. In randomized controlled trials, the pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs observed in CA drugs and the control groups were comparable. Surrogate endpoints were widely used as the primary efficacy endpoints in the pre-approval pivotal clinical trials with 75% (54/72) for RR, 10% (7/72) for PFS, and 4% (3/72) for others. Of these, 27% (17/63) of the surrogate endpoints reported a trial-level correlation with OS; three reported high correlation (r ≥ 0.85), two reported moderate correlation (0.70 ≤ r < 0.85) and 12 reported low correlation (r < 0.70).

Interpretation

The majority of novel cancer drugs that received CA were based on RR designed for single-arm trials. The reported correlations of treatment effect between the surrogate endpoints and OS used for CA were limited. Our findings highlighted that the introduction of OS or quality of life based on RCT in confirmatory clinical trials as much as feasible was essential to ensure the clinical benefits for patients.

Funding

This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).

Cancer Drugs Reimbursed with Limited Evidence on Overall Survival and Quality of Life: Do Follow-Up Studies Confirm Patient Benefits?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cancer drug costs have increased considerably within healthcare systems, but many drugs lack quality-of-life (QoL) and overall survival (OS) data at the time of reimbursement approval. This study aimed to review the extent of subsequent literature documenting improvements in OS and QoL for cancer drug indications where no such evidence existed at the time of reimbursement approval.

METHODS

Drug indications with claims of added therapeutical value but a lack of evidence on OS and QoL that were reimbursed between 2010 and 2020 in Sweden were included for review. Searches were conducted in PubMed and ClinicalTrial.gov for randomized controlled trials examining OS and QoL.

RESULTS

Of the 22 included drug indications, seven were found to have at least one trial with conclusive evidence of improvements in OS or QoL after a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. The remaining 15 drug indications either lacked subsequent randomized controlled trial data on OS or QoL (n = 6) or showed no statistically significant improvements (n = 9). Only one drug demonstrated evidence of improvement in both OS and QoL for its indication.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable share of reimbursed cancer drug indications continue to lack evidence of improvement in both OS and QoL. With limited healthcare resources and an increasing cancer burden, third-party payers have strong incentives to require additional post-reimbursement data to confirm any improvements in OS and QoL.

Systematic review of time to subsequent therapy as a candidate surrogate endpoint in advanced solid tumors

Aim: Time to subsequent therapy (TST) is an end point that may complement progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in determining the treatment effect of anticancer drugs and may be a potential surrogate for PFS and OS. We systematically reviewed the correlation between TST and both PFS and OS in published phase 2/3 studies in advanced solid tumors. Materials & methods: Trial-level correlational analyses were performed for TST versus PFS (by investigator and/or central review) and TST versus OS. Results: Of 21 included studies, nine (43%) used 'time to first subsequent therapy or death' (TFST) as the TST end point; 11 (57%) used different definitions ('other TST end points'). There was a strong correlation between TFST and PFS by investigator (medians: R2 = 0.88; hazard ratio [HR]: R2 = 0.91) and TFST versus PFS by central review (medians: R2 = 0.86; HRs: R2 = 0.84). For TFST versus OS there was medium/poor correlation for medians (R2 = 0.64) and HRs (R2 = 0.02). Conclusion: TFST strongly correlates with PFS, but not with OS.

European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists/Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance quality indicators for metastatic breast cancer care

AIMS

Improvement in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) can only occur if the adequate quality of care is implemented and verified, including access to multidisciplinary, specialised care given in accordance with high-quality guidelines. To this purpose, European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists and the Advanced Breast Cancer Global Alliance joined efforts to develop the first set of quality indicators (QI) specifically for MBC that should be routinely measured and evaluated to ensure that breast cancer centres meet the required standards.

METHODS

A working group of multidisciplinary European experts in breast cancer met to discuss each identified QI, reporting the definition, the minimum and target standard for breast cancer centres to achieve, and the motivation for selection. The level of evidence was determined according to the short version of the United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality classification.

RESULTS

QI to measure access to and involvement in multidisciplinary and supportive care, appropriate pathological characterisation of disease, systemic therapies and radiotherapy were developed with the consensus of the working group.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first effort of a multistep project that aims to have QI for MBC routinely measured and evaluated to ensure that breast cancer centres achieve mandated standards in the care of patients with metastatic disease.

Making Sense of Composite Endpoints in Clinical Research

Multiple drugs currently used in clinical practice have been approved by regulatory agencies based on studies that utilize composite endpoints. Composite endpoints are appealing because they reduce sample size requirements, follow-up periods, and costs. However, interpreting composite endpoints can be challenging, and their misuse is not uncommon. Incorrect interpretation of composite outcomes can lead to misleading conclusions that impact patient care. To correctly interpret composite outcomes, several important questions should be considered. Are the individual components of the composite outcome equally important to patients? Did the more and less important endpoints occur with similar frequency? Do the component endpoints exhibit similar relative risk reductions? If these questions receive affirmative answers, the use and interpretation of the composite endpoint would be appropriate. However, if any component of the composite endpoint fails to satisfy the aforementioned criteria, interpretation can become difficult, necessitating additional steps. Regulatory agencies acknowledge these challenges and have specific considerations when approving drugs based on studies employing composite endpoints. In conclusion, composite endpoints are valuable tools for evaluating the efficacy and net clinical benefit of interventions; however, cautious interpretation is advised.

Comparison of novel oncology drugs that received dual approval from the US accelerated approval and EU conditional marketing authorisation pathways, 2006-2021: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to provide insight into differences in drug review decisions made by the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval (AA) pathway and the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) pathway, and to add to the current knowledge base of drug approval processes.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study thoroughly examines novel oncology drugs with dual approval through FDA AA and EMA CMA between 2006 and 2021. Statistical analysis was performed from June to July 2022.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The study examined the regulatory differences between regions for dually approved novel oncology drugs, including approval decisions, pivotal efficacy clinical trials, speed of review and postmarketing obligations.

RESULTS

During this time period, there was a difference in the use of the FDA AA and the EMA CMA (FDA: EMA: 41.2%: 70.0%, p<0.05). Of the 25 drugs approved by both the FDA AA and the EMA CMA, 22 (88.0%) of the regulatory decisions were based on the same pivotal clinical trials. But there were more differences in the requirements for postmarketing obligations, with the EMA's postmarketing obligations focusing on the efficacy and safety of the drug (EMA: FDA: 63.0%: 27.0%, p＜0.05) and the FDA's postmarketing obligations focusing more on the efficacy (FDA: EMA: 73.0%: 23.9%, p＜0.05). In addition, both the USA and EU had some postmarketing obligations completed beyond the schedule (30.4% and 19.2% in the USA and EU, respectively), with the longest delays lasting 3.7 years (0.2-3.7 years) and 3.3 years (0.04-3.3 years) in the USA and EU, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDA and EMA have different orientations and benefit-risk balance considerations in the use of AA or CMA. It is also the case that the shortcomings in the design and implementation of postmarketing studies have made it a challenge to obtain the evidence needed to confirm a drug's benefits.

Circulating tumor DNA: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors - can we RECIST? Focus on colorectal cancer

Interest in the measurement of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased during the past decade. The analysis of quantitative ctDNA changes as a general response evaluation criterion during systemic treatment is a scientific approach with high clinical potential, and results can be transferred to a pan-cancer concept if relevantly investigated. The purpose of this overview is to discuss the current evidence for ctDNA as a marker of response in metastatic CRC (mCRC) and to propose criteria for definitions of response to systemic therapies applicable in prospective clinical trials. We discuss the literature, which supports a new definition of ctDNA Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Finally, we discuss the challenges in preparations of the optimal trial design to establish the true clinical utility of ctDNA.

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe.

DESIGN

Document content analysis.

SETTING

European Medicines Agency.

PARTICIPANTS

Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether written information on a product addressed patients' commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports).

RESULTS

29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

A systematic review of neoadjuvant and definitive immunotherapy in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) require multi-modality treatment. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now standard of care in management of recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. However, its role in the definitive and neoadjuvant setting remains unclear.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted that included all articles investigating ICI in untreated locally advanced (LA) HNSCC. Data was extracted and summarised and rated for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Of 1086 records, 29 met the final inclusion criteria. In both concurrent and neoadjuvant settings, the addition of ICI was safe and did not delay surgery or reduce chemoradiotherapy completion. In the concurrent setting, although ICI use demonstrates objective responses in all published trials, there has not yet been published data to with PFS or OS benefit. In the neoadjuvant setting, combination ICI resulted in superior major pathological response rates compared to ICI monotherapy without a significant increase adverse event profiles, but its value in improving survival is not clear. ICI efficacy appears to be affected by tumour characteristics, in particular PD-L1 combined positive score, HPV status and the tumour microenvironment.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant heterogeneity of ICI use in untreated LA HNSCC with multiple definitive concurrent and neoadjuvant protocols used. Resultantly, conclusions regarding the survival benefits of adding ICI to standard-of-care regimens cannot be made. Further trials and translational studies are required to elucidate optimal ICI sequencing in the definitive setting as well as better define populations more suited for neoadjuvant protocols.

ctDNA-Response evaluation criteria in solid tumors - a new measure in medical oncology

In the metastatic setting, most decisions during systemic palliative therapies are based on the imaging-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), which is, however, known to be a suboptimal surrogate marker for the clinical outcome overall survival. Over the past decade, research has brought focus to the potential of circulating tumour DNA in cancer. However, at present, there is no generally accepted classification of quantitative changes during the treatment course, and prospective investigations can therefore not be validated. We here propose, for the first time, a response classification based on circulating tumour DNA measurements and its confidence intervals, a "ctDNA-RECIST" that has proven valuable in retrospective studies and goes along with the conventional RECIST classification. We aim to raise the topic for discussion and to encourage analyses of ctDNA data along this line.

Frequency and Characteristics of Trials Using Medical Writer Support in High-Impact Oncology Journals

IMPORTANCE

The practice of using medical writers to communicate scientific information has gained popularity, but it may affect how and what information is communicated.

OBJECTIVE

To assess characteristics of oncology trials that use medical writers and whether there is an association between the use of medical writers and trial success or the primary outcome evaluated.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study included oncology trials testing a tumor-targeting intervention that were published in The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, JAMA, JAMA Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine between May 1, 2021, and May 1, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Assistance of medical writers or no assistance.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes were the percentage of studies with medical writers, the percentage of trial successes reported with medical writers, the association between trial success and medical writer use, and the association between a primary end point and medical writer use.

RESULTS

Among 270 studies, 141 (52.2%) included a medical writer and 129 (47.8%) did not include a medical writer. Of the studies that included a medical writer, 83 (58.9%) were successful. Of the studies that did not include a medical writer, 64 (49.6%) were successful (P = .16 for difference). Studies with medical writers were less likely than studies without medical writers to have the end point of overall survival (15 [10.6%] vs 17 [13.2%]) and disease-free or event-free survival (16 [11.3%] vs 29 [22.5%]), whereas studies with a medical writer were more likely to have the end point of progression-free survival (32 [22.7%] vs 17 [13.2%]). Use of medical writer was associated with the conclusions being presented favorably in all studies (113 [80.1%] vs 89 [69.0%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.81 [95% CI, 1.04-3.19]), but when adjusted for other variables, there was no association (OR, 1.84 [95% CI, 0.92-3.72]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, trials using medical writers were more likely to report surrogate end points, such as progression-free survival, and favorable conclusions, but when adjusted for trial phase, randomization, and study funding, there was no association with favorable conclusions. These findings suggest that journals need heightened scrutiny for studies with medical writers and that authorship should be properly acknowledged.

Highlights from ecancer Choosing Wisely Nepal 2022: critical appraisal skills for evidence-based practice, 24th-25th September 2022, Kathmandu, Nepal

The ecancer Kathmandu 2022 workshop on the 24th-25th September 2022 was the first ecancer conference organised in Nepal, a Southeast Asian nation sandwiched between India and China. It was focused on critical appraisal skills for evidence-based practice and was organised in partnership with the Karnali Academy of Health Sciences and the Civil Service Hospital from Nepal, and the Queen's Global Oncology Program from Canada. The workshop emphasised the need for critical thinking in understanding clinical research, and also motivated the delegates to undertake meaningful clinical research relevant to the local setting. The sessions highlighted the features of a good clinical research, identify pitfalls in the reporting of clinical trials, implementation of the research into locally relevant practice and development of local clinical guidelines. Furthermore, the faculty also discussed how to write a good scientific paper, the do's and don'ts of a systematic review and meta-analysis, the role of peer-review and how to do one properly and what do editors look for in evaluating papers submitted for publication. The audience learned the importance of finding a good mentor and fostering local and international collaboration. The local faculty also highlighted their own personal journeys and how mentorship and global collaboration played an important role in their own academic career. The enthusiastic panel discussion was a highlight of the programme where the delegates learned about several important topics from the faculties, such as work-life balance, the role of mentorship in building careers and building networks.

Correlation between clinical trial endpoints of marketed cancer drugs and reimbursement decisions in China

Objective

This study aimed to assess whether different clinical trial endpoints in pivotal trials of cancer drugs were associated with reimbursement decisions in China.

Materials and methods

Cancer drugs marketed before June 30^th, 2021 with publicly available technical review reports for application of drug registration on Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE) website were reviewed. The trial design characteristics and relevant clinical outcomes [e.g., overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR)] were extracted from the technical review reports, while the reimbursement decisions were reviewed from National Healthcare Security Administration (NHSA) website. The differences in trial characteristics and clinical outcomes between drugs with positive reimbursement decisions and negative ones were compared by hypothesis test (Pearson's chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test). The correlation between different clinical trial endpoints and reimbursement decisions was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

Results

There were 112 cancer drug indications included in this study. Among these indications, 76 received a positive reimbursement decision, and the most common primary endpoints of them were PFS (42.1%) and ORR (30.3%). Taking PFS (OR = 7.333) and ORR (OR = 5.271) as the primary endpoints were more likely to receive a positive reimbursement decision compared with OS (P = 0.003). The proportion of drugs marketed with phase I (75.0%) and phase II (85.7%) clinical trials receiving positive reimbursement decisions are significantly higher than those marketed with phase III clinical trials (61.3%, P = 0.043). The magnitude of clinical benefit only had subtle influences (P_{risk benefit - OS} = 0.627, P_{risk benefit - PFS} = 0.087, P_{survival benefit - OS} = 0.545, P_{survival benefit - PFS} = 0.189) on the drug reimbursement decisions, however, the drug prices and clinical needs also made a difference on that.

Conclusion

This study found that, in Chinese drug price negotiations from 2017 to 2021, policymakers have focused more on meeting clinical needs and filling therapeutical gaps in National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL), while requirements for the selection of primary endpoints, clinical trial phases, and clinical benefits have been reduced. In the future, emphasis should be put on the use of surrogate endpoints and clinical benefits.

Assessment of the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence in the reimbursement decisions of new cancer drugs

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to describe the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence supporting reimbursement decisions of new cancer drugs and analyze the influence of trial characteristics and the cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) on the likelihood of reimbursement in Sweden.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were extracted from all appraisal dossiers for new cancer drugs seeking reimbursement in Sweden and claiming added therapeutical value between the years 2010 and 2020. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and logistic regression models were also used with the cost per QALY, study design, comparator, and evidence on final outcomes in the clinical trials as predictors of reimbursement.

RESULTS

All 60 included appraisals were based on trial evidence that assessed at least one final outcome (overall survival [OS] or quality of life [QoL]), although rarely as a primary outcome. Of the appraisals with a final decision (n = 58), 79% were approved for reimbursement. Among the reimbursed drugs, only half had trial evidence demonstrating improved OS or QoL. Only one drug had trial evidence supporting improvements in both OS and QoL. The average cost per QALY for reimbursed cancer drugs was estimated to be 748 560 SEK (€73 583). A higher cost per QALY was found to decrease the likelihood of reimbursement by 9.4% for every 100 000 SEK (€9830) higher cost per QALY (P = 0.03). For cost-effectiveness models without direct evidence of improvements in final outcomes, a larger QALY gain was observed compared with those with evidence mainly relying on intermediate and surrogate outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There are substantial uncertainties in the clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence underlying reimbursement decisions of new cancer drugs. Decision makers should be cautious of the limited evidence on patient-centered outcomes and the implications of allocating resources to expensive treatments with uncertain value for money.

Neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibition in non-small cell lung cancer: Is earlier unquestionably better than later?

•

Nivolumab was approved in the neoadjuvant setting in lung cancer.

•

The control arm of the CheckMate-816 trial was not the most common approach.

•

Both primary endpoints of the trial are not validated surrogates in this setting.

•

Post-progression therapy was suboptimal.

•

Trials moving a drug earlier should provide optimal treatment upon progression.

On March 4th 2022, nivolumab received regular US Food and Drug Administration approval, based on the CheckMate 816 trial results, for use “with platinum-doublet chemotherapy for adult patients with resectable NSCLC in the neoadjuvant setting”. This is the first neoadjuvant approval of a checkpoint inhibitor, a unique event in the history of lung cancer treatment. However, open questions remains. First, the co-primary endpoints of the CheckMate 816 trial (event-free survival and pathological complete response) are not yet validated surrogate endpoints in this setting. Second, the control arm was not reflecting the most common approach, being upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. Third, protocol changes were not plainly justified, questioning the analytic plan of the trial. Fourth and last, a subpar access to checkpoint inhibitor for patients upon progression may weaken overall survival results. Neoadjuvant strategies allow to study initial response under treatment, and constitute an encouraging therapeutic avenue. However, the best sequence of treatment is the key question in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant settings: is treating everyone upfront better than treating only patients that will eventually recur?Investigating optimal sequence strategy is even more critical within the checkpoint-inhibitor era, where patients with advanced or metastatic disease may present long-term advantage. Trials with optimal post-progression treatment are needed to help optimize our treatment algorithm, and spare toxicity for patients who don't derive benefit.

FDA validation of surrogate endpoints in oncology: 2005-2022

INTRODUCTION

The number of oncologic drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of surrogate endpoints is rising. However, many surrogates have not demonstrated a correlation with clinically meaningful outcomes like overall survival. We sought to investigate surrogate validation studies conducted by the FDA over the past 17 years.

METHODS

We reviewed analyses of surrogate outcomes published by the FDA from 2005 to 2022. Data extracted included the number of clinical trials included in each analysis, the associations of surrogate outcomes with OS or other surrogates, and the authors' interpretation of these associations.

RESULTS

Of the 15 surrogate analyses conducted by the FDA, only one demonstrated a strong correlation between a surrogate outcome and overall survival. 87% only included clinical trials submitted to the FDA in their analysis, and all were published from 2014 onwards.

DISCUSSION

The vast majority of FDA analyses of surrogate outcomes did not find strong correlations between surrogates and overall survival, raising concern about the use of such outcomes as endpoints in clinical trials. As most studies were based on limited data, further research is required to assess the true validity of surrogate outcomes.

POLICY SUMMARY

Drugs approved on the basis of surrogates that are not associated with clinically meaningful outcomes can cause significant harm to patients. Until surrogate outcomes have been thoroughly and robustly validated, they should be used with caution in drug approval decisions.

US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval Program for Nononcology Drug Indications Between 1992 and 2018

IMPORTANCE

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants accelerated approval according to surrogate measures of numerous drug indications for serious or life-threatening illnesses such as infectious diseases and cancer. Investigators, including the FDA, have evaluated the program's regulatory and clinical consequences in oncology, but evaluation of nononcology drugs is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the accelerated approval program for nononcology drug indications over a period of 26 years.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study used publicly available data on FDA nononcology drug indications granted accelerated approval from June 1992 through May 2018, with preapproval and confirmatory trials for approved drugs. Data were analyzed from February to April 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The study estimated the median time from accelerated approval to occurrence of regulatory outcomes such as regular approval conversion, postapproval boxed warning label changes, confirmatory trial completion, and confirmatory trial results publication.

RESULTS

The FDA granted accelerated approval of 48 drugs for 57 nononcology indications, including 23 (40%) HIV treatments, supported by 93 preapproval trials. Forty-three indications (75%) were converted to regular approval at a median time of 53.1 (95% CI, 38.7 to 70.2) months from accelerated approval. There were postapproval label modifications on boxed warnings in 27 indications (47%) with a median time of 248.6 (95% CI, 51.8 to not estimable) months from accelerated approval. Of the 86 required confirmatory trials, 17 (20%) had not fulfilled the postapproval requirements. The median time to confirmatory trial completion was 39.4 (95% CI, 30.7 to 47.9) months. Nine trials (10%) failed to verify clinical efficacy, but only 1 of 8 indications assessed (2%) was withdrawn owing to the failed confirmatory trial, which was 136 months after approval. Results were published in 56 completed confirmatory trials (65%), with the median time being 52.5 (95% CI, 35.6 to 82.2) months from accelerated approval to publication.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although the program expedited the approval of nononcology drug indications by a median (IQR) of 53.1 (26.8-133.2) months, safety-related label modifications were often added in boxed warnings after approval, and clinical efficacy was sometimes not confirmed. The study findings and long follow-up period suggest that comprehensive evaluation of such drugs may take more than a decade.

The role of immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical practice: an analysis of the treatment patterns, survival and toxicity rates by sex

PURPOSE

Our aim is to describe the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in clinical practice by providing the patient and tumor characteristics as well as survival and toxicity rates by sex.

METHODS

We used electronic health records to identify patients treated at the Cancer Center of the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland between January 1, 2017 and June 16, 2021.

RESULTS

We identified 5109 patients, 689 of whom (13.5%) received at least one dose of ICI. The fraction of patients who were prescribed ICI increased from 8.6% in 2017 to 22.9% in 2021. ICI represented 13.2% of the anticancer treatments in 2017 and increased to 28.2% in 2021. The majority of patients were male (68.7%), who were older than the female patients (median age 67 vs. 61 years). Over time, adjuvant and first line treatments increased for both sexes. Lung cancer and melanoma were the most common cancer types in males and females. The incidence of irAEs was higher among females (38.4% vs. 28.1%) and lead more often to treatment discontination in females than in males (21.1% vs. 16.8%). Independent of sex, the occurrence of irAEs was associated with greater median overall survival (OS, not reached vs. 1.1 years). Female patients had a longer median OS than males (1.9 vs. 1.5 years).

CONCLUSIONS

ICI play an increasingly important role in oncology. irAEs are more frequent in female patients and are associated with a longer OS. More research is needed to understand the association between patient sex and toxicity and survival.

Overall Survival Benefits of Cancer Drugs Approved in China From 2005 to 2020

IMPORTANCE

Of approximately 9 million patients with cancer in China in 2020, more than half were diagnosed with late-stage cancers. Recent regulatory reforms in China have focused on improving the availability of new cancer drugs. However, evidence on the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies authorized in China is not available.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the clinical benefits of cancer drugs approved in China, as defined by the availability and magnitude of statistically significant overall survival (OS) results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This mixed-methods study comprising a systematic review and cross-sectional analysis identified antineoplastic agents approved in China between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2020, using publicly available data and regulatory review documents issued by the National Medical Products Administration. The literature published up to June 30, 2021, was reviewed to collect results on end points used in pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was a documented statistically significant positive OS difference between a new cancer therapy and a comparator treatment. Secondary outcome measures were the magnitude of OS benefit and other primary efficacy measures in pivotal trials.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2020, 78 cancer drugs corresponding to 141 indications were authorized in China, including 20 drugs (25.6%) (for 30 indications) approved in China only. Of all indications, 26 (18.4%) were evaluated in single-arm or dose-optimization trials, most of which were authorized after 2017. By June 30, 2021, 34 drug indications (24.1%) had a documented lack of OS gain. For 68 indications (48.2%) that had documented evidence of OS benefit, the median magnitude of OS improvement was 4.1 (range, 1.0-35.0) months. After a median follow-up of 1.9 (range, 1.0-11.1) years from approval, OS data for 13 indications (9.2%) were either not reported or were still not mature. Fewer than one-third of cancer drug indications approved in China only had documented evidence of OS benefits (9 of 30 [30.0%]), whereas more than one-half of the cancer drug indications also available in the US or Europe had OS benefits (59 of 111 [53.1%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, almost half of cancer drug indications approved in China had demonstrated OS gain. With the increase of cancer drug approvals based on single-arm trials or immature survival data in recent years, these findings highlight the need to routinely monitor the clinical benefits of new cancer therapies in China.

Patient-centered trials in oncology: Time for a change

Patient-centered trials are pivotal to advancing the oncology field efficiently. However, in recent years, there has been a shift away from patient-centered approaches. In this commentary, we describe common non-patient-centric practices of contemporary trials, discuss their implications, and propose potential solutions to relocate patients to the center of trials where they belong.

Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology

Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

Sample size calculation for randomized selection trials with a time-to-event endpoint and a margin of practical equivalence

Selection trials are used to compare potentially active experimental treatments without a control arm. While sample size calculation methods exist for binary endpoints, no such methods are available for time‐to‐event endpoints, even though these are ubiquitous in clinical trials. Recent selection trials have begun using progression‐free survival as their primary endpoint, but have dichotomized it at a specific time point for sample size calculation and analysis. This changes the clinical question and may reduce power to detect a difference between the arms. In this article, we develop the theory for sample size calculation in selection trials where the time‐to‐event endpoint is assumed to follow an exponential or Weilbull distribution. We provide a free web application for sample size calculation, as well as an R package, that researchers can use in the design of their studies.

Clinical benefit of cancer drugs approved in Switzerland 2010–2019

Background

It is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool).

Patients and methods

An electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010–2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen’s Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression.

Results

In the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, P<0.001). There was no significant concordance between ASCO-VF and OLUtool (κ = 0.18, P = 0.12). Factors associated with substantial clinical benefit in multivariable analysis were HRQoL benefit reported as secondary outcome for ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO-VF and blinded studies for OLUtool.

Conclusions

At the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems.

Local Investigators Significantly Overestimate Overall Response Rates Compared to Blinded Independent Central Reviews in Uncontrolled Oncology Trials: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Several drugs gained market authorization based on the demonstration of improved progression-free survival (PFS), adopted as a primary endpoint in Phase 3 clinical trials. In addition, an increasing number of drugs have been granted accelerated approval, and sometimes regular approval, by the main regulatory agencies based on the evaluation of the overall response rate in Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials. However, while the overall survival is an unbiased measure of drug efficacy, these outcomes rely on the assessment of radiological images and patients’ categorization using standardized response criteria. The evaluation of these outcomes may be influenced by subjective factors, particularly when the analysis is performed locally. In fact, blinding of treatment is not always possible in modern oncology trials. Therefore, a blinded independent central review is often adopted to overcome the problem of expectation bias associated with local investigator assessments. In this regard, we have recently observed that local investigators tend to overestimate the overall response rate in comparison to central reviewers in Phase 2 clinical trials, whereas we did not find any significant evaluation bias between local investigators and central reviews when considering progression-free survival in both Phase 2 and 3 trials. In the present article, we have tried to understand the reasons behind this discrepancy by reviewing the available evidence in the literature. In addition, a further analysis of Phase 2 and 3 clinical trials that included the evaluation of both endpoints showed that local investigators significantly overestimate overall response rates compared to blinded independent central reviews in uncontrolled oncology trials.