The global landscape of drug development of trastuzumab biosimilars

Landscape of neoadjuvant therapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The recommended preoperative approach for HER2-positive breast cancer is unclear. We aimed to investigate the following: i) what is the optimal neoadjuvant regimen and ii) whether anthracyclines could be excluded.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in Medline, Embase and Web of Science databases was performed. Studies had to satisfy the following criteria: i) randomised controlled trials (RCTs), ii) enroled patients treated preoperatively for HER2-positive BC (breast cancer), iii) at least one treatment group received an anti-HER2 agent, iv) available information of any efficacy end-point and v) published in English. A network meta-analysis with a frequentist framework using random-effects model was used to pool direct and indirect evidence. Pathologic complete response (pCR), event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) were the efficacy end-points of interest, and selected safety end-points were also analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 11,049 patients with HER2-positive BC (46 RCTs) were included in the network meta-analysis, and 32 different regimens were evaluated. Dual anti-HER2-therapy, with pertuzumab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors, combined with chemotherapy was significantly superior to trastuzumab and chemotherapy in terms of pCR, EFS and OS. However, a higher risk of cardiotoxicity was observed with dual anti-HER2-therapy. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy was not associated with better efficacy outcomes in comparison with non-anthracycline-based chemotherapy. In anthracycline-free regimens, the addition of carboplatin presented numerically better efficacy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Dual HER2 blockade with chemotherapy is the recommended choice as neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer, preferably by omitting anthracyclines in favour of carboplatin.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.