Immunotherapy Efficacy in the Initial Lines of Treatment in Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Effect of Project Orbis participation by the Swiss regulator on submission gaps, review times, and drug approval decisions between 2020 and 2022: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Expedited market access for novel and efficacious drugs is warranted for patients. Since 2020, Swissmedic (The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products) has been participating in Project Orbis, a collaborative parallel-review programme launched by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to expedite patient access to cancer drugs. This programme allows regulatory agencies to remain independent in their decisions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the first 2 years of Project Orbis from the Swissmedic perspective.

METHODS

In this comparative analysis, we compared submission gap (time between submission at the FDA and Swissmedic), review time, approval and consensus decision rate, and the approved indications between Swissmedic and the FDA for marketing authorisation applications (MAAs) in oncology submitted to Swissmedic through Project Orbis (Orbis MAAs) or outside of Project Orbis (non-Orbis MAAs) from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021. Swissmedic review time was evaluated with a decision until June 30, 2022. For the decision comparison analysis, non-Orbis oncology MAAs submitted and evaluated from Jan 1, 2009, to Dec 31, 2018 (referred to as the pre-Orbis era) were also considered. Inferential statistics were done using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the 95% CI for the median was based on binomial distribution. For each hypothesis testing, the significance level was set to 5%. No correction for multiple testing was performed.

FINDINGS

We analysed the submission gap, review time, and regulatory decision for 31 Orbis MAAs and 41 non-Orbis MAAs during the Orbis era. The median submission gap was 33·0 days (95% CI 19·0-57·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 168·0 days (56·0-351·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p<0·0001). The median review time at Swissmedic was 235·5 days (198·0-264·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 314·0 days (279·0-354·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p=0·0002). Approval rates at Swissmedic were consistent between Orbis MAAs (20 [77%] of 26) and non-Orbis MAAs (31 [76%] of 41). The rate of consensus decisions between Swissmedic and the FDA was 21 (81%) of 26 for Orbis MAAs and 31 (76%) of 41 for non-Orbis MAAs. Swissmedic approval rates were lower for indication extensions than for new active substances for Orbis MAAs (13 [72%] of 18 vs seven [88%] of eight) and non-Orbis MAAs (17 [71%] of 24 vs 14 [82%] of 17). Divergent decisions between agencies were predominantly observed for indication extensions (11 [73%] of 15 divergent decisions). During the pre-Orbis era, Swissmedic approved 61 (88%) of 69 MAAs for new active substances.

INTERPRETATION

Submission gap and review time for oncology applications at Swissmedic were significantly reduced by participation in Project Orbis, and approval consensus decisions were increased between agencies. These findings suggests that participating in Project Orbis could lead to faster patient access to drugs.

FUNDING

None.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in gastrointestinal malignancies: an Umbrella review

In the Modern era, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been the cornerstone of success in the treatment of several malignancies. Despite remarkable therapeutic advances, complex matrix together with significant molecular and immunological differences have led to conflicting outcomes of ICI therapy in gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. As far we are aware, to date, there has been no study to confirm the robustness of existing data, and this study is the first umbrella review to provide a more comprehensive picture about ICIs' efficacy and safety in GI malignancies. Systematic search on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane library identified 14 meta-analyses. The pooled analysis revealed that ICIs application, especially programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitors such as Camrelizumab and Sintilimab, could partially improve response rates in patients with GI cancers compared to conventional therapies. However, different GI cancer types did not experience the same efficacy; it seems that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and esophageal cancer (EC) patients are likely better candidates for ICI therapy than GC and CRC patients. Furthermore, application of ICIs in a combined-modal strategy are perceived opportunity in GI cancers. We also assessed the correlation of PD-L1 expression as well as microsatellite status with the extent of the response to ICIs; overall, high expression of PD-L1 in GI cancers is associated with better response to ICIs, however, additional studies are required to precisely elaborate ICI responses with respect to microsatellite status in different GI tumors. Despite encouraging ICI efficacy in some GI cancers, a greater number of serious and fatal adverse events have been observed; further highlighting the fact that ICI therapy in GI cancers is not without cost, and further studies are required to utmost optimization of this approach in GI cancers.

Efficacy and safety of Nivolumab in patients with advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric cancers: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized care in oncology with improved overall survival in several cancer populations. Nivolumab has recently been approved for use in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers. We quantitatively summarized the efficacy and safety of Nivolumab use in patients with advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric carcinoma compared to standard chemotherapy.

METHODS

Systemic search of electronic databases was performed to analyze phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing Nivolumab versus standard chemotherapy in patients with advanced upper gastrointestinal cancers. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Data were pooled using random effects model via RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

Four RCTs with a total of 3369 patients and a median follow-up of 13 months were included. The patients' mean age was 61 ± 20 years, 74.6% were males, and 26% had ≥1% PD-L1 expression. Compared to the chemotherapy group, Nivolumab group had a significantly favorable OS and PFS [HR 0.81;95% CI (0.74, 0.89), p < .001], [HR 0.82;95% CI (0.69, 0.98), p = .03], respectively. Nivolumab significant effect was only in patients with ≥1% PD L1 expression [HR 0.72; 95% CI (0.58, 0.89), p < .001]. No statistical difference was detected between groups regarding serious adverse effects (AE) [OR 1.47; 95%CI (0.94,2.31), p = 0.09].

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to standard chemotherapy, the use of Nivolumab in patients with advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal, and gastric cancers is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival, with similar rates of AE and AE leading to death. The improvement in survival was significant in patients with ≥1% PD L1 expression.