Use and misuse of common terminology criteria for adverse events in cancer clinical trials

Assessing patient burden and benefit: A decade of cabozantinib clinical trials

Drug development is complex and costly. Clinical trial participants take on risks, making it essential to maximize trial efficiency and maintain participant safety. Identifying periods of excessive burden during drug development can inform trial design, ensure patient benefit and prevent harm. This study aims to examine all published clinical trials for cabozantinib to assess patient benefit and burden over time. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of interventional clinical trials of cabozantinib for solid cancer treatment. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted adverse event rates, median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival and objective response rate (ORR) for each included trial. We calculated frequencies of trial characteristics, cumulative grade 3-5 adverse event rates and cumulative ORRs. Out of 1735 studies, 54 publications were included that involved 6372 participants and 21 cancers. Of the 54 studies in our sample, 31 (57.41%) were single-arm trials and 23 (42.60%) had negative results. Trials among and within various indications had conflicting results over time. Cumulative risk to participants increased over time, and clinical benefit decreased. The findings suggest that the risk profile of cabozantinib increased from 2011 to 2016 and has remained elevated but stable while benefit has decreased over time. The use of non-randomized and single-arm trials is concerning, and more methodologically rigorous trials are needed. The results of trials for different indications are inconsistent, and empirical administration may reduce the drug's efficacy.

Effect of Melissa officinalis on Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Cancer Patients: A Randomized Trial

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a significant cancer treatment side effect that can influence both quality of life and treatment course. Melissa Officinalis (MO), due to its high content of flavonoids, has antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective properties.  Materials and Methods: The cancer patients diagnosed with CIPN attended a referral center in Sari (Iran). The hydroalcoholic extract of MO leaves was extracted by the maceration method. The control group received a placebo along with gabapentin as the standard treatment, and the intervention group received 500 mg Melissa officinalis 2 times daily for 3 months plus gabapentin. Patients were evaluated at the baseline and 3 months later, according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Effects (CTCAE) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (Integrated System for Quality of Life Assessment).  Results: A total of 40 patients were considered as group D (intervention group), and 35 patients completed the study. Out of 40 subjects in the placebo group (P), 3 patients could not tolerate the drug due to gastrointestinal disturbances. The final values of CTCAE showed a statistically significant difference (p=0.010). Indicators related to the quality of life in both groups showed a significant improvement. In the intervention group, the pain perception and diarrhea experience were significantly reduced. Conclusion: Quality of life indicators were improved by prescribing gabapentin with and without Melissa officinalis. The addition of Melissa officinalis to the chemotherapy regimen may improve diarrhea and pain perception.

Duchenne muscular dystrophy: promising early-stage clinical trials to watch

INTRODUCTION

Current therapies are unable to cure Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), a severe and common form of muscular dystrophy, and instead aim to delay disease progression. Several treatments currently in phase I trials could increase the number of therapeutic options available to patients.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to provide an overview of current treatments undergoing or having recently undergone early-stage trials. Several exon-skipping and gene therapy approaches are currently being investigated at the clinical stage to address an unmet need for DMD treatments. This article also covers Phase I trials from the last 5 years that involve inhibitors, small molecules, a purified synthetic flavanol, a cell-based therapy, and repurposed cardiac or tumor medications.

EXPERT OPINION

With antisense oligonucleotide (AON) treatments making up the majority of conditionally approved DMD therapies, most of the clinical trials occurring within the last 5 years have also evaluated exon-skipping AONs. The approval of Elevidys, a micro-dystrophin therapy, is reflected in a recent trend toward gene transfer therapies in phase I DMD clinical trials, but their safety and efficacy are being established in this phase of development. Other Phase I clinical-stage approaches are diverse, but have a range in efficacy, safety, and endpoint measures.

Intake and biomarkers of folate and folic acid as determinants of chemotherapy-induced toxicities in patients with colorectal cancer: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine is an oral chemotherapeutic drug showing antitumor activity through inhibition of thymidylate synthase, an enzyme involved in folate metabolism. There are concerns about the high intake of certain vitamins, and specifically folate, during chemotherapy with capecitabine. Whether folate or folic acid, the synthetic variant of the vitamin, impact treatment toxicity remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We studied associations between intake and biomarkers of folate as well as folic acid and toxicities in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving capecitabine.

METHODS

Within the prospective COLON (Colorectal cancer: Longitudinal, Observational study on Nutritional and lifestyle factors that influence recurrence, survival, and quality of life) cohort, 290 patients with stage II to III CRC receiving capecitabine were identified. Dietary and supplemental intake of folate and folic acid were assessed at diagnosis and during chemotherapy using questionnaires (available for 280 patients). Plasma folate and folic acid levels were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and were available for 212 patients. Toxicities were defined as toxicity-related modifications of treatment, including dose reductions, regimen switches, and early discontinuation. Associations of intake and biomarkers of folate and folic acid with toxicities were determined using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for age and sex.

RESULTS

In total, 153 (53%) patients experienced toxicities leading to modification of capecitabine treatment. Folate intake and plasma folate levels were not associated with risk of toxicities. However, use of folic acid-containing supplements during treatment (hazard ratio (HR) 1.81 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15-2.85) and presence of folic acid in plasma at diagnosis (HR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.24, 3.52) and during treatment (HR 2.31, 95% CI: 1.29, 4.13) were associated with an increased risk of toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests a potential association between folic acid and capecitabine-induced toxicities, providing a rationale to study diet-drug interactions and raise further awareness of the use of dietary supplements during oncological treatment.

CLINICAL TRIAL DETAILS

This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03191110.

Drug-induced atrial fibrillation. A narrative review of a forgotten adverse effect

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with an increased morbidity and mortality. There is clinical evidence that an increasing number of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular drugs, mainly anticancer drugs, can induce AF either in patients with or without pre-existing cardiac disorders, but drug-induced AF (DIAF) has not received the attention that it might deserve. In many cases DIAF is asymptomatic and paroxysmal and patients recover sinus rhythm spontaneously, but sometimes, DIAF persists, and it is necessary to perform a cardioversion. Furthermore, DIAF is not mentioned in clinical guidelines on the treatment of AF. The risk of DIAF increases in elderly and in patients treated with polypharmacy and with risk factors and comorbidities that commonly coexist with AF. This is the case of cancer patients. Under these circumstances ascribing causality of DIAF to a given drug often represents a clinical challenge. We review the incidence, the pathophysiological mechanisms, risk factors, clinical relevance, and treatment of DIAF. Because of the limited information presently available, further research is needed to obtain a deeper insight into DIAF. Meanwhile, it is important that clinicians are aware of the problem that DIAF represents, recognize which drugs may cause DIAF, and consider the possibility that a drug may be responsible for a new-onset AF episode.

Ventricular Arrhythmia in Cancer Patients: Mechanisms, Treatment Strategies and Future Avenues

Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the US. Despite the significant progress made in cancer treatment leading to improved prognosis and survival, ventricular arrhythmias (VA) remain a known cardiovascular complication either exacerbated or induced by the direct and indirect effects of both traditional and novel cancer treatments. Although interruption of cancer treatment because of VA is rarely required, knowledge surrounding this issue is essential for optimising the overall care of patients with cancer. The mechanisms of cancer-therapeutic-induced VA are poorly understood. This review will discuss the ventricular conduction (QRS) and repolarisation abnormalities (QTc prolongation), and VAs associated with cancer therapies, as well as existing strategies for the identification, prevention and management of cancer-treatment-induced VAs.

Comparison of chronic gastrointestinal and genitourinary toxicities between brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy for patients with prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

125I BT is an effective radiotherapy for prostate cancer. However, comparison data of GI and GU toxicities between BT, BT + EBRT, and EBRT-alone patient groups is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To define the GI and GU toxicities in prostate cancer to prevent adverse events after treatment.

METHODS

We searched published studies in PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases up to December 31, 2022. The endpoints were the RRs of GI and GU toxicities. Pooled data were assessed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Fifteen eligible studies were included into this analysis. LDR-BT had significantly lower RRs than LDR-BT + EBRT for acute GI (2.13; 95% CI, 1.22-3.69; P= 0.007) and late GI toxicities (3.96; 95% CI, 1.23-12.70; P= 0.02). Moreover, EBRT had significantly higher RRs than LDR-BT for acute GU (2.32; 95% CI, 1.29-4.15; P= 0.005) and late GU toxicities (2.38; 95% CI, 1.27-4.44; P= 0.007). HDR-BT had significantly higher RRs for acute GU toxicities than LDR-BT alone (0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.40; P< 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

The results implied that BT with and without EBRT can result in both GI and GU toxicities in patients with prostate cancer, with LDR-BT leading to a poorer urinary function than EBRT.

Improving infectious adverse event reporting for children and adolescents enrolled in clinical trials for acute lymphoblastic leukemia: A report from the Children's Oncology Group

Infections cause substantial morbidity for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Therefore, accurate characterization of infectious adverse events (AEs) reported on clinical trials is imperative to defining, comparing, and managing safety and toxicity. Here, we describe key processes implemented to improve reporting of infectious AEs on two active phase III Children's Oncology Group (COG) ALL trials. Processes include: (a) identifying infections as a targeted toxicity, (b) incorporation of infection-specific case report form questions, and (c) physician review of AEs with real-time data cleaning. Preliminary assessment of these processes suggests improved reporting, as well as opportunities for further improvement.

Rates of laboratory adverse events by course in paediatric leukaemia ascertained with automated electronic health record extraction: a retrospective cohort study from the Children's Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

Adverse events are often misreported in clinical trials, leading to an incomplete understanding of toxicities. We aimed to test automated laboratory adverse event ascertainment and grading (via the ExtractEHR automated package) to assess its scalability and define adverse event rates for children with acute myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study from the Children's Oncology Group (COG), we included patients aged 0-22 years treated for acute myeloid leukaemia or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (Atlanta, GA, USA) from Jan 1, 2010, to Nov 1, 2018, at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA, USA) from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2014, and at the Texas Children's Hospital (Houston, TX, USA) from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2014. The ExtractEHR automated package acquired, cleaned, and graded laboratory data as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 for 22 commonly evaluated grade 3-4 adverse events (fatal events were not evaluated) with numerically based CTCAE definitions. Descriptive statistics tabulated adverse event frequencies. Adverse events ascertained by ExtractEHR were compared to manually reported adverse events for patients enrolled in two COG trials (AAML1031, NCT01371981; AALL0932, NCT02883049). Analyses were restricted to protocol-defined chemotherapy courses (induction I, induction II, intensification I, intensification II, and intensification III for acute myeloid leukaemia; induction, consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and maintenance for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia).

FINDINGS

Laboratory adverse event data from 1077 patients (583 from Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, 200 from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and 294 from the Texas Children's Hospital) who underwent 4611 courses (549 for acute myeloid leukaemia and 4062 for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) were extracted, processed, and graded. Of the 166 patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, 86 (52%) were female, 80 (48%) were male, 96 (58%) were White, and 132 (80%) were non-Hispanic. Of the 911 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, 406 (45%) were female, 505 (55%) were male, 596 (65%) were White, and 641 (70%) were non-Hispanic. Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia had the most adverse events during induction I and intensification II. Hypokalaemia (one [17%] of six to 75 [48%] of 156 courses) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased (13 [10%] of 134 to 27 [17%] of 156 courses) were the most prevalent non-haematological adverse events in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, as identified by ExtractEHR. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia had the greatest number of adverse events during induction and maintenance (eight adverse events with prevalence ≥10%; induction and maintenance: anaemia, platelet count decreased, white blood cell count decreased, neutrophil count decreased, lymphocyte count decreased, ALT increased, and hypocalcaemia; induction: hypokalaemia; maintenance: aspartate aminotransferase [AST] increased and blood bilirubin increased), as identified by ExtractEHR. 187 (85%) of 220 total comparisons in 22 adverse events in four AAML1031 and six AALL0923 courses were substantially higher with ExtractEHR than COG-reported adverse event rates for adverse events with a prevalence of at least 2%.

INTERPRETATION

ExtractEHR is scalable and accurately defines laboratory adverse event rates for paediatric acute leukaemia; moreover, ExtractEHR seems to detect higher rates of laboratory adverse events than those reported in COG trials. These rates can be used for comparisons between therapies and to counsel patients treated on or off trials about the risks of chemotherapy. ExtractEHR-based adverse event ascertainment can improve reporting of laboratory adverse events in clinical trials.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health, St Baldrick's Foundation, and Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation.

Assessing cognitive toxicity in early phase trials - What are we missing?

OBJECTIVES

Novel therapies, such as, small protein molecule inhibitors and immunotherapies are first tested clinically in Phase I trials. Moving on to later phase trials and ultimately standard practice. A key aim of these early clinical trials is to define a toxicity profile; however, the emphasis is often on safety. The concern is cognitive toxicity is poorly studied in this context and may be under-reported. The aim of this review is to map evidence of cognitive assessment, toxicity, and confounding factors within reports from Phase I trials and consider putative mechanisms of impairment aligned with mechanisms of novel therapies.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was applied to the search of databases, including Embase, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov. A [keyword search was conducted, results screened for duplication then inclusion/exclusion criteria applied. Articles were further screened for relevance; data organised into categories and charted in a tabular format]. Evidence was collated and summarised into a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Despite the availability of robust ways to assess cognitive function, these are not routinely included in the conduct of early clinical trials. Reports of cognitive toxicity in early Phase I trials are limited and available evidence on this shows that a proportion of patients experience impaired cognitive function over the course of participating in a Phase I trial. Links are identified between the targeted action of some novel therapies and putative mechanisms of cognitive impairment.

CONCLUSION

The review provides rationale for research investigating cognitive function in this context. A study exploring the cognitive function of patients on Phase I trials and the feasibility of formally assessing this within early clinical trials is currently underway at the Royal Marsden.

Examining the Landscape of Prognostic Factors and Clinical Outcomes for Cancer Control

Prognostic factors have important utility in various aspects of cancer surveillance, including research, patient care, and cancer control programmes. Nevertheless, there is heterogeneity in the collection of prognostic factors and outcomes data globally. This study aimed to investigate perspectives on the utility and application of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes in cancer control programmes. A qualitative phenomenology approach using expert interviews was taken to derive a rich description of the current state and future outlook of cancer prognostic factors and clinical outcomes. Individuals with expertise in this work and from various regions and institutions were invited to take part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Four areas related to infrastructure and funding challenges were identified by participants, including (1) data collection and access; (2) variability in data reporting, coding, and definitions; (3) limited coordination among databases; and (4) conceptualization and prioritization of meaningful prognostic factors and outcomes. Two areas were identified regarding important future priorities for cancer control: (1) global investment and intention in cancer surveillance and (2) data governance and exchange globally. Participants emphasized the need for better global collection of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes data and support for standardized data collection and data exchange practices by cancer registries.

An evaluation of concordance between head and neck advanced practice radiation therapist and radiation oncologists in toxicity assessment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients

•

Show concordance in toxicity assessment between Head and Neck Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) and Radiation Oncologist (RO) for Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC) patients.

•

Describe the importance of timely treatment for NPC patients.

•

Underline the important role development of APRT in complementing the RO.

•

Different ways of data analysis to support the concordance study.

Background

Weekly toxicity assessments for patients undergoing head and neck (HN) radiotherapy are essential to ensure that acute side effects are appropriately managed in order for patients to complete their treatment in a safe and timely manner. The incorporation of Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) led treatment reviews has been reported for various subsites, but there is currently a lack of published literature regarding this role for patients with HN cancer. The purpose of this study is to assess the concordance of toxicity assessments performed during weekly radiotherapy treatment reviews for patients undergoing HN radiotherapy between the HN APRT and Radiation Oncologist (RO).

Methods

Twenty-three patients with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) under the care of 3 ROs were recruited from June to December 2018; weekly assessments were independently performed by HN APRT and ROs. The HN toxicity assessment was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Advanced Events v4.0. Both assessors were blinded to each other’s assessments. The percentage agreement of concordance and agreement level were interpreted by Cohen’s Kappa statistic (κ), with the ROs’ assessments deemed as the ‘gold standard’.

Results

The overall concordance for all graded toxicity assessments between HN APRT and ROs was 78.4%. Xerostomia, dysgeusia, pharyngeal pain and dermatitis assessment were evaluated as ‘Good’ with agreement ranging from κ = 0.608–0.640 between the HN APRT and ROs while dysphagia scored an ‘Almost Perfect’ agreement of κ = 0.834. ‘Moderate’ agreement between the HN APRT and ROs was observed for oral pain and mucositis assessment. A scoring discrepancy of 1 and 2 grades was observed in 21.2% and 0.4% for these two toxicities.

Conclusion

 There was high concordance in scoring of acute toxicity between the HN APRT and ROs. The results support the continuing involvement of HN APRT in weekly assessments for NPC patients.

Uracil-tegafur vs fluorouracil as postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage II and III colon cancer: A nationwide cohort study and meta-analysis

We conducted a population-based cohort study enrolling patients with Stage II and III colon cancer receiving postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with uracil and tegafur (UFT) or fluorouracil (5-FU) from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database from 2000 to 2015. The outcomes of the current study were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated by multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models. We compared our effectiveness results from the literature by meta-analysis, which provided the best evidence. Severe adverse events were compared in meta-analysis of reported clinical trials. In the nationwide cohort study, UFT (14,486 patients) showed DFS similar to postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (adjusted HR 1.037; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.954-1.126; P = .397) and OS (adjusted HR 0.964; 95% CI 0.891-1.041; P = .349) compared with the 5-FU (866 patients). Our meta-analysis confirmed the similarity of effectiveness and found the incidence of leucopaenia was statistically significantly reduced in UFT (risk ratio 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.67; I2 = 0%). Through our analysis, we have confirmed that UFT is a well-tolerated adjuvant therapy choice, and has similar treatment efficacy as 5-FU in terms of DFS and OS in patients with Stage II and III colon cancer.

Development of an Objective Scoring System for Endoscopic Assessment of Radiation-Induced Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity

Simple Summary

High-dose radiation therapy techniques have gained increasing interest in pancreatic cancer treatment, but toxicity to the upper gastrointestinal (GI) organs remains a major concern. We aimed to develop an objective toxicity scoring system to be used during endoscopic evaluation that allows for direct assessment of the stomach and duodenum before and after radiation treatment. Our toxicity scoring takes into account the pathological categories of erythema, edema, ulceration, and stricture to determine radiation-related GI toxicity. We assessed and validated the upper GI toxicity of 19 locally advanced pancreatic cancer trial patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). With future usage, we hope this scoring system will provide objective and reliable assessments of changes in GI toxicity during the radiation treatment of pancreatic cancer and for GI toxicity assessment during radiation therapy research trials.

Abstract

We developed and implemented an objective toxicity scoring system to be used during endoscopic evaluation of the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract in order to directly assess changes in toxicity during the radiation treatment of pancreatic cancer. We assessed and validated the upper GI toxicity of 19 locally advanced pancreatic cancer trial patients undergoing stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Wilcoxon-signed rank tests were used to compare pre- and post-SBRT scores. Comparison of the toxicity scores measured before and after SBRT revealed a mild increase in toxicity in the stomach and duodenum (p < 0.005), with no cases of severe toxicity observed. Kappa and AC1 statistics analysis were used to evaluate interobserver agreement. Our toxicity scoring system was reliable in determining GI toxicity with a good overall interobserver agreement for pre-treatment scores (stomach, κ = 0.71, p < 0.005; duodenum, κ = 0.88, p < 0.005) and post-treatment scores (stomach, κ = 0.71, p < 0.005; duodenum, κ = 0.76, p < 0.005). The AC1 statistics yielded similar results. With future usage, we hope this scoring system will be a useful tool for objectively and reliably assessing changes in GI toxicity during the treatment of pancreatic cancer and for GI toxicity assessments and comparisons during radiation therapy research trials.

Evolution of Hematology Clinical Trial Adverse Event Reporting to Improve Care Delivery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Reporting of adverse events on hematology clinical trials is crucial to understanding the safety of standard treatments and novel agents. However, despite the importance of understanding toxicities, challenges in capturing and reporting accurate adverse event data exist.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, adverse events are reported manually on most hematology clinical trials. Especially on phase III trials, the highest grade of each adverse event during a reporting period is typically reported. Despite the effort committed to AE reporting, studies have identified underreporting of adverse events on hematologic malignancy clinical trials, which raises concern about the true understanding of safety of treatment that clinicians have in order to guide patients about what to expect during therapy. In order to address these concerns, recent studies have piloted alternative methods for identification of adverse events. These methods include automated extraction of adverse event data from the electronic health record, implementation of trigger or alert tools into the medical record, and analytic tools to evaluate duration of adverse events rather than only the highest adverse event grade. Adverse event reporting is a crucial component of clinical trials. Novel tools for identifying and reporting adverse events provide opportunities for honing and refining methods of toxicity capture and improving understanding of toxicities patients experience while enrolled on clinical trials.

Improving symptom control and reducing toxicities for pediatric patients with hematological malignancies

The continuing improvement in pediatric cancer survival over time is largely attributable to the availability of intensive therapies. Increasing attention has been focused on addressing the physical and psychosocial impacts of cancer and cancer treatments. Evidence from adult oncology suggests that routine symptom screening and feedback to health care providers can improve patient-clinician communication, reduce distress, and improve quality of life and may even increase survival. Many questions remain regarding implementation of routine symptom screening in pediatric cancer care, including the best symptom assessment instrument and the reporter type and feasibility of integration with electronic health records (EHRs). Nonsymptom adverse events are also important, for both routine clinical care and adverse event reporting for patients enrolled in clinical trials. However, traditional mechanisms for reporting adverse events lead to substantial inaccuracies and are labor intensive. An automated approach for abstraction from EHRs is a potential mechanism for improving accuracy and reducing workload. Finally, identification of symptom and nonsymptom toxicities must be paired with prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. These strategies should be based on clinical practice guidelines that synthesize evidence and use multiprofessional, multidisciplinary expertise to place this evidence in clinical context and create recommendations. How best to implement clinical practice guidelines remains a challenge, but EHR order sets and alerts may be useful. In summary, although survival is excellent for pediatric patients receiving cancer therapies, more focus is needed on identification of symptoms and nonsymptom toxicities and their management. The EHR may be useful for promoting better supportive care through these mechanisms.

Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite several clinical trials and advances in understanding the genetic basis of biliary tract cancer (BTC), the addition of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) targeted therapy does not seem to enhance the activity of first-line chemotherapy (CHT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out a meta-analysis of available randomized clinical trials to assess the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-based first-line CHT plus monoclonal antibodies against EGFR (EGFR-mAbs) in advanced or metastatic BTC.

RESULTS

In the overall population, the pooled hazard ratio for overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival were 0.82 (95% confidence interval=0.64-1.06) and 0.88 (95% confidence intervaI=0.73-1.08), respectively. No differences were detected in objective response rate between the two groups. Patients treated with gemcitabine-based CHT plus EGFR-mAbs showed a statistically significant increased risk of grade 3-4 neutropenia, grade 3-4 thrombocytopenia and especially grade 3-4 skin rash.

CONCLUSION

The addition of EGFR-mAbs to gemcitabine-based first-line CHT does not significantly improve overall and progression-free survival, nor the objective response rate in patients with advanced BTC and increases the risk of hematological and cutaneous adverse drug events.

Clinical Trial Subinvestigator: An Emerging Role for Oncology Nurse Practitioners

Phase 1 clinical trials are essential to improving outcomes in cancer care. The investigational agents in these trials may be associated with adverse events that can contribute to symptom burden and declining performance status for trial participants. The emerging role for oncology nurse practitioners (ONPs) as subinvestigators offers a unique practice setting for advanced practice nurses. In this role, ONPs provide expert oncology care, are responsible for swift recognition and management of adverse events, and ensure adherence to the clinical trial protocol.

Adverse events reporting in stage III NSCLC trials investigating surgery and radiotherapy

Background

Current treatment options for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consist of different combinations of chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Treatment choices are highly individual decisions, in which adverse events (AEs) are relevant for decision-making. This study aims to analyse reporting of AEs in prospective stage III NSCLC trials, focussing on trials including radiotherapy and/or surgery.

Methods

PubMed was searched for prospective studies dealing with stage III NSCLC from January 1987 to April 2019. Meta-analyses were screened as a positive control. Pearson's Chi-squared test and smooth kernel distribution were used to estimate distributions. Data was resampled using bootstrapping.

Results

Out of 1193 initially identified studies, 119 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 had a surgical procedure in any study arm. Grade 3 and 4 AEs were reported in 94.12% and 92.44% of the included studies, respectively. Reporting of grade 5 AEs was provided in 87.39% of cases. Grade 1 and 2 AEs were less commonly reported at 53.78% and 63.03%, respectively. One study did not mention any AEs. Of the 31 treatment arms including any form of surgery, AEs were not reported in 10. Overall, 231 different AE items were reported, only 18 of them were included in at least 20% of the analysed studies.

Conclusion

Overall, AE reporting in stage III NSCLC was inconsistent and inhomogeneous. Studies including surgical study arms often reported only treatment-related deaths in regards of surgical AEs. Underreporting of AEs prohibits the extraction of patient-relevant information for decision-making and represents a suboptimal use of invested resources.

Adverse event reporting for stage III NSCLC is inconsistent and inhomogeneous. Surgical studies tend to underreport lower grade adverse effects. Patient-relevant information for decision-making is lost and invested resources are used suboptimally.https://bit.ly/3gLNIYy

Inferences About Drug Safety in Phase III Trials in Oncology: Examples From Advanced Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Safety is a central consideration when choosing between multiple medications with similar efficacy. We aimed to evaluate whether adverse event (AE) profiles of 3 such drugs in advanced prostate cancer could be distinguished based on published literature.

METHODS

We assessed consistency in AE reporting, AE risk in placebo arms, and methodology used for risk estimates and quantification of statistical uncertainty in randomized placebo-controlled phase III trials of apalutamide, enzalutamide, and darolutamide in advanced prostate cancer.

RESULTS

Seven included clinical trials enrolled a total of 9215 participants (range = 1051-1715 per trial) across 3 prostate cancer disease states. Within disease states, baseline patient characteristics appeared similar between trials. Of 54 distinct AE types in total, only 3 (fatigue, hypertension, and seizure) were reported by all 7 trials. Absolute risks of AEs in the placebo arms differed systematically and more than twofold between trials, which was associated with visit frequency and resulted in different degrees of uncertainty in AE profiles between trials. No trial used inferential methodology to quantify statistical uncertainty in AE risks, but 6 of 7 trials drew overall conclusions. Two trials concluded that there was no elevated AE risk because of the intervention, including the trial of darolutamide, which had the greatest statistical uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous comparison of drug safety was precluded by heterogeneity in AE reporting, variation in AE risks in the placebo arms, and lack of inferential statistical methodology, underscoring considerable opportunities to improve how AE data are collected, analyzed, and interpreted in oncology trials.

Safety of Influenza Vaccine in Patients With Cancer Receiving Pembrolizumab

PURPOSE

There is a concern that influenza vaccination could increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of our study was to determine the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients who received at least 1 dose of pembrolizumab during any influenza season from September 2014 to August 2017 and reviewed medical records for irAEs. The primary endpoint was the incidence of irAEs. We used multivariable logistic regression and cumulative incidence curve with competing risks for comparison.

RESULTS

Among 162 patients with cancer included in this study, 70 patients (43.2%) received at least 1 influenza vaccination. The vaccinated group was significantly older (P = .002) and received more cycles of pembrolizumab (P = .006). The incidence of any grade irAEs in the vaccinated group trended toward being lower (25.7% v 40.2%; P = .07) compared with the nonvaccinated group. Influenza vaccination was independently associated with fewer irAEs, with an odds ratio of 0.4 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.9; P = .03) in multivariable analyses. The vaccinated group was less likely to have irAEs compared with the nonvaccinated group (24.7% v 34.4% at 12 months; P = .05), with death as a competing risk. The median irAE-free duration in the vaccinated group was longer than the nonvaccinated group (not reached v 28 months; P = .037).

CONCLUSION

Influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy was not associated with increased irAEs. This supports the safety of influenza vaccination in this patient population.

Clinicians versus patients subjective adverse events assessment: based on patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE)

PURPOSE

Adverse events (AEs) assessment by clinicians is a standard practice in a clinical setting. However, studies have found clinicians tend to report fewer AEs, especially subjective AEs. We aimed to explore the difference of subjective AEs assessment between clinicians and patients based on PRO-CTCAE, and to discuss the necessity of incorporating patient into the evaluation of AEs.

METHODS

Between April and July 2019, two different questionnaires with the same subjective AEs were given to patients and clinicians in the Day Chemotherapy ward of Breast Center in the Fourth Hospital of HeBei Medical University. Patients completed a Simplified Chinese version of PRO-CTCAE, including six common subjective AEs of chemotherapy: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, pain, and constipation. Clinicians completed the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) with the same AEs. General information of enrolled patients and results from the questionnaires were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

384 paired questionnaires were collected. Clinicians reported less subjective AEs than patients, and the general agreement between patients and clinicians was poor. When considering the grade difference, we utilize weighted kappa coefficient to analysis, and agreement between patients and clinicians was poor (k < 0.4) regardless of the frequency, the severity and interfering with daily life of AEs, and the most discrepancies were within one point. Patients tended to grade severer than the clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that there were differences between clinicians and patients in subjective adverse events evaluation. Patient reporting of symptoms can be used as a supplementary method to incorporate the current approach to monitor subjective AEs, to improve the timeliness and accuracy of clinical evaluation of subjective AEs.

Endocrine therapies in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, pretreated, advanced breast cancer: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, many endocrine therapies have become available for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, pretreated, advanced breast cancer. Direct comparisons of these novel treatments to assess their added value, however, are lacking METHODS:: Our aim was to synthesize available evidence to compare all current endocrine treatments for hormone receptor-positive / human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer. We performed a systematic review to identify available randomized controlled trial evidence. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials. Two trials presented at international oncology congresses (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO]) were added to include the most recent evidence. A frequent network meta-analysis was used, and the surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) was calculated to determine the best treatment RESULTS:: In total, 32 trials and 12,726 patients were identified, including 27 arms. Compared with fulvestrant 500 mg alone, novel target inhibitors combined with fulvestrant or exemestane had significantly prolonged progression-free survival with hazard ratios ranging from 0.62 to 0.82. Fulvestrant 500 mg plus palbociclib 125 mg and exemestane 25 mg plus entinostat 5 mg similarly extended progression-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.64 and 0.62 with SUCRA values of 91% and 92%, respectively). The exemestane 25 mg plus everolimus 10 mg combination had the best clinical benefit rate (risk ratio: 1.84, SUCRA: 91%) and overall response rate (risk ratio: 6.05, SUCRA: 97%) CONCLUSIONS:: On the basis of this analysis, the 2 combinations of exemestane plus everolimus and fulvestrant plus palbociclib were the best treatment options.

Mapping child and adolescent self-reported symptom data to clinician-reported adverse event grading to improve pediatric oncology care and research

BACKGROUND

Clinicians are the standard source for adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology trials, despite the subjective nature of symptomatic AEs. The authors designed a pediatric patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for symptomatic AEs to support the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) (the Pediatric PRO-CTCAE). The current study developed a standardized algorithm that maps all possible Pediatric PRO-CTCAE response patterns to recommended CTCAE grades to improve the accuracy of AE reporting in pediatric oncology trials.

METHODS

Two rounds of surveys were administered to experienced cancer clinicians across 9 pediatric hospitals. In round 1, pediatric oncologists assigned CTCAE grades to all 101 possible Pediatric PRO-CTCAE response patterns. The authors evaluated clinician agreement of CTCAE grades across response patterns and categorized each response pattern as having high or low agreement. In round 2, a survey was sent to a larger clinician group to examine clinician agreement among a select set of Pediatric PRO-CTCAE response patterns, and the authors examined how clinical context influenced grade assignment.

RESULTS

A total of 10 pediatric oncologists participated in round 1. Of the 101 possible patterns, 89 (88%) had high agreement. The Light weighted kappa was averaged across the 10 oncologists (Light kappa = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81). A total of 139 clinicians participated in round 2. High clinician agreement remained for the majority of generic response patterns and the clinical context did not typically change grades but rather improved agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides a framework for integrating child self-reported symptom data directly into mandated AE reporting in oncology trials. Translating Pediatric PRO-CTCAE responses into clinically meaningful metrics will guide future cancer care and toxicity grading.

Unintended consequences of evolution of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Adverse events (AEs) on Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials are reported manually by clinical research assistants (CRAs). The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was developed to provide standardized definitions for identifying and grading AEs. The CTCAE has expanded significantly over its five versions, but the impact of CTCAE definitional changes has not been examined.

PROCEDURE

This study compared AE number and ascertainment among the first four CTCAE versions using a case vignette. Each CTCAE version was used to create a list of AEs and grades by two separate CRAs.

RESULTS

The CTCAE expanded from 9 categories and 49 AEs in v1.0 to 26 categories and 790 AEs in v4.0. CRAs independently selected different approaches to AE ascertainment-comprehensive and parsimonious. The number of AEs identified in the parsimonious approach was stable with 10-14 in each CTC version. The comprehensive approach identified 9, 20, 29, and 37 AEs in CTC versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0, respectively. Only approximately 65% of AEs were conclusively graded in versions 2.0 to 4.0 using the comprehensive approach.

CONCLUSIONS

CTCAE has increased in complexity. Although this increased complexity allows for more granular AE reporting, these data demonstrate potential unintended negative consequences of increasing CTC AE complexity, including the risk of varying approaches to AE capture. A comprehensive evaluation of CTC AE definitions and CRA reporting practices across COG institutions and AEs are needed to improve the accuracy and efficiency of AE reporting.

Antibiotic use is a negative predictor of the efficacy and toxicity of epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer

Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is closely associated with inflammation and chronic infection. Antibiotics are frequently prescribed for NSCLC patients in combination with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted treatment in the presence of infection. The association between antibiotic use and the efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) has not previously been thoroughly investigated. Therefore, the present study investigated whether antibiotics could affect the efficacy and toxicity of EGFR-TKI treatment, with the aim of restricting the use of antibiotics in combination with targeted therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC in the near future. All patients received treatment with EGFR-TKIs until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or other factors, including death, pregnancy or unwillingness to further receive targeted therapy, were observed. Patients were retrospectively divided into two groups: Group A, which was treated with EGFR-TKIs and antibiotics; and Group B, which was treated with EGFR-TKIs alone. Patients having used antibiotics 6 months prior to EGFR-TKI therapy were also included in the study. Antibiotic use negatively affected the median progression-free survival (PFS) following EGFR-TKI treatment in NSCLC compared with that in patients not treated with antibiotics; median PFS in Group A was 6.6 months, whereas median PFS in Group B was 10.1 months. Antibiotics also increased the toxicity of targeted therapy for advanced NSCLC. There were significant statistical differences between the two groups in the occurrence of the adverse events of diarrhea and dyspnea. In conclusion, antibiotics decreased the efficacy of first-line targeted therapy in advanced NSCLC and increased incidences of diarrhea and dyspnea. Large randomized studies are needed to identify the impact of antibiotic use on EGFR-TKI treatment for NSCLC.

Efficacy and safety of apatinib in treatment of osteosarcoma after failed standard multimodal therapy: An observational study

Recently, apatinib has been shown to be effective in treating sarcoma. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of apatinib in the treatment of patients with osteosarcoma after failed of standard multimodal therapy and to compare the therapeutic effects of apatinib on osteosarcoma between high-dose group and low-dose group.A total of 27 patients with osteosarcoma who received apatinib between January 2016 and August 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Among the 27 patients, the objective response rate (ORR) and the disease control rate (DCR) were 25.93% and 66.67%, respectively. The median of progression-free survival (m-PFS) was 3.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5-4.8 months), and the median of overall survival (m-OS) was 9.5 months (95% CI, 7.8-10.5 months). There was no statistically significant difference in ORR (36.36% vs 18.75%), DCR (63.64% vs 68.75%), m-PFS (4.3 months [95% CI, 1.8-7 months) vs 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.8-4 months]), and m-OS (9.5 months [95% CI, 7.8-10.5 months] vs 9.4 months [95% CI, 7.8-10.8 months]) (P > .05) between the high-dose group (the average dose was 659 mg/qd) and the low-dose group (the average dose was 516 mg/qd). Most of the adverse events (AEs) were in grade 1 or grade 2. The main AEs in grade 3 were hypertension, rash, weight loss, hand-foot syndrome, and diarrhea.Apatinib is safe and effective in the treatment of advanced osteosarcoma. We recommend that the initial dose of apatinib should be 500 mg/qd in the treatment of osteosarcoma.

Comparison of clinico-pathological characteristics and survival of recurrent ovarian cancer patients on seven different chemo-protocols

Despite growing prevalence of ovarian cancer (OC) in Pakistan, no literature evidence exists regarding its clinic-pathological characteristics, survival and compliance of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer on various chemo-protocols. An observational study was conducted by enrolling 251 recurrent OC patients on 7 different chemo-protocols, from a specialized cancer care hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, using convenient judgmental sampling. The study was conducted for a period of 6 months. Most of the patients were between 18 and 70 years of age, with IIIC FIGO stage and papillary serous histological grade. As per RECIST, improved partial response (PR) (63.3 %) and complete response (CR) (52.1 %) was observed in the CP (carboplatin + paclitaxel) arm, substantiated by improved median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in CP and CD (carboplatin + docetaxel) arms, respectively, yet with no significant differences in survival curves, PFS (p = 0.12) and OS (p = 0.22). Interestingly, the highest and the lowest patient non-compliance were observed in CG (carboplatin + gemcitabine) (81.6 %) and paclitaxel (4.5 %) arms, resp. As per the hazard model for survival, topotecan showed significant association with the therapy related events/deaths compared to other protocols. These data suggest that CP regimen exhibited improved clinical efficacy and decreased toxicity related non-compliance in recurrent ovarian cancer patients of Lahore.

Primary Fungal Prophylaxis in Hematological Malignancy: a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Several new antifungal agents have become available for primary fungal prophylaxis of neutropenia fever in hematological malignancy patients. Our aim was to synthesize all evidence on efficacy and enable an integrated comparison of all current treatments. We performed a systematic literature review to identify all publicly available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCT). We searched Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, and the www.ClinicalTrials.gov website. In total, 54 RCTs were identified, including 13 treatment options. The evidence was synthesized using a network meta-analysis. Relative risk (RR) was adopted. Posaconazole was ranked highest in effectiveness for primary prophylaxis, being the most favorable in terms of (i) the RR for reduction of invasive fungal infection (0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11 to 0.36) and (ii) the probability of being the best option (94% of the cumulative ranking). Posaconazole also demonstrated its efficacy in preventing invasive aspergillosis and proven fungal infections, with RR of 0.13 (CI, 0.03 to 0.65) and 0.14 (CI, 0.05 to 0.38), respectively. However, there was no significant difference among all of the antifungal agents in all-cause mortality and overall adverse events. Our network meta-analysis provided an integrated overview of the relative efficacy of all available treatment options for primary fungal prophylaxis for neutropenic fever in hematological malignancy patients under myelosuppressive chemotherapy or hematopoietic cell transplantation. On the basis of this analysis, posaconazole seems to be the most effective prophylaxis option until additional data from head-to-head randomized controlled trials become available.

Do current approaches to assessing therapy related adverse events align with the needs of long-term cancer patients and survivors?

The increasing efficacy of cancer therapeutics means that the timespan of cancer therapy administration is undergoing a transition to increasingly long-term settings. Unfortunately, chronic therapy-related adverse health events are an unintended, but not infrequent, outcome of these life-saving therapies. Historically, the cardio-oncology field has evolved as retrospective effort to understand the scope, mechanisms, and impact of treatment-related toxicities that were already impacting patients. This review explores whether current systemic approaches to detecting, reporting, tracking, and communicating AEs are better positioned to provide more proactive or concurrent information to mitigate the impact of AE's on patient health and quality of life. Because the existing tools and frameworks for capturing these effects are not specific to cardiology, this study looks broadly at the landscape of approaches and assumptions. This review finds evidence of increasing focus on the provision of actionable information to support long-term health and quality of life for survivors and those on chronic therapy. However, the current means to assess and support the impact of this burden on patients and the healthcare system are often of limited relevance for an increasingly long-lived survivor and patient population.

Toxicity and quality of life in published clinical trials for advanced lung cancer

BACKGROUND

In every report on incurable disease, clear presentation of toxicity and of quality of life (QoL) is of essential importance. This postulate was assessed on a series of publications on systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The analysis covered papers on original phase II-IV clinical trials published between 2013 and 2015 and included in the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Selected for analysis were 349 publications on 333 trials with a total of 78.977 patients. Only 33 trials (10%) dealt with small cell lung cancer. Most trials (56.5%) included only information on frequency and grade of specific toxic phenomena and did not provide data on the frequency of any serious toxicity. The ratio between the frequency of any grade ≥ 3 toxicity and response rate was often unfavorable, especially for second-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (3.0) and second-line treatment of small cell lung cancer (5.3). Assessment of QoL was mentioned in 68 (20.4%) trials, of which only 46 publications provided adequate data.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of publications on trials for advanced lung cancer do not offer adequate information for decisions in clinical practice. Presentation of toxicity should include information on the frequency of any serious toxicity. Quality of life should be monitored and reported in every trial of an incurable disease. Simple instruments for the assessment of QoL are strongly recommended, so as to alleviate burden to patients and to staff, avoid bias due to poor compliance and enable clear analysis and presentation.

Neuro-ophthalmic side effects of molecularly targeted cancer drugs

The past two decades has been an amazing time in the advancement of cancer treatment. Molecularly targeted therapy is a concept in which specific cellular molecules (overexpressed, mutationally activated, or selectively expressed proteins) are manipulated in an advantageous manner to decrease the transformation, proliferation, and/or survival of cancer cells. In addition, increased knowledge of the role of the immune system in carcinogenesis has led to the development of immune checkpoint inhibitors to restore and enhance cellular-mediated antitumor immunity. The United States Food and Drug Administration approval of the chimeric monoclonal antibody (mAb) rituximab in 1997 for the treatment of B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma ushered in a new era of targeted therapy for cancer. A year later, trastuzumab, a humanized mAb, was approved for patients with breast cancer. In 2001, imatinib was the first small-molecule kinase inhibitor approved. The approval of ipilimumab-the first in class immune checkpoint inhibitor-in 2011 serves as a landmark period of time in the resurgence of immunotherapy for cancer. Despite the notion that increased tumor specificity results in decreased complications, toxicity remains a major hurdle in the development and implementation of many of the targeted anticancer drugs. This article will provide an overview of the current cellular and immunological understanding of cancer pathogenesis-the foundation upon which molecularly targeted therapies were developed-and a description of the ocular and neuro-ophthalmic toxicity profile of mAbs, immune checkpoint inhibitors, and small-molecule kinase inhibitors.

Five years of EMA-approved systemic cancer therapies for solid tumours-a comparison of two thresholds for meaningful clinical benefit

OBJECTIVE

Several societies have proposed frameworks to evaluate the benefit of oncology drugs; one prominent tool is the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Our objectives were to investigate the extent of European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved cancer drugs that meet the threshold for 'meaningful clinical benefit' (MCB), defined by the framework, and determine the change in the distribution of grades when an adapted version that addresses the scale's limitations is applied.

METHODS

We identified cancer drugs approved by the EMA (2011-2016). We previously proposed adaptations to the ESMO-MCBS addressing its main limitations, including the use of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval in assessing the hazard ratio. To assess the MCB, both the original and adapted ESMO-MCBS were applied to the respective approval studies.

RESULTS

In total, we identified 70 approval studies for 38 solid cancer drugs. 21% of therapies met the MCB threshold by the original ESMO-MCBS criteria. In contrast, only 11% of therapies met the threshold for MCB when the adapted ESMO-MCBS was applied. Thus 89% and 79% of therapies did not meet the MCB threshold in the adapted and original ESMO-MCBS, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In most of the cancer drugs, the MCB threshold is not met at the time of approval when measured using both ESMO-MCBS scales. Since approval status does not translate into a MCB, stakeholders and decision makers should focus on the benefit/risk ratio of anticancer drugs to assure an appropriate allocation of resources in health care systems.