Ensuring Ethical Postprogression Therapy for Patients in Randomized Trial Control Arms

US Food and Drug Administration's Directive to Deal With Delayed Confirmatory Trials: Lessons From Pralatrexate and Belinostat for T-Cell Lymphoma

The FDA's directive to deal with delayed confirmatory trials: lessons from pralatrexate and belinostat for T-cell lymphoma.

A novel framework to assess haematology and oncology registration trials: The THEOREMM project

BACKGROUND

Methodological limitations affect a significant number of oncology and haematology trials, raising concerns about the applicability of their results. For example, a suboptimal control arm or limited access to best care upon progression may skew the trial results toward a benefit in the experimental arm. Beyond the fact that such limitations do not prevent drugs reaching the market, other assessment tools, such as those developed by professional societies-ESMO-MCBS and ASCO Value Framework-do not integrate these important shortcomings.

METHODS

We propose creating a novel framework with the scope of assessing registration cancer clinical trials in haematology and oncology (randomized or single arm)-that is trials leading to a marketing authorization. The main steps of the methods are (1) assembling a scientific board; (2) defining the scope, goal and methods through pre-specified, pre-registered and protocolized methodology; (3) preregistration of the protocol; (4) conducting a scoping review of limitations and biases affecting oncology trials and assessing existing scores or methods; (5) developing a list of features to be included and assessed within the framework; (6) assessing each feature through a questionnaire sent to highly cited haematologists and oncologists involved in clinical trials; and (7) finalizing the first version of framework.

RESULTS

Not applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposal emerged in response to the lack of consideration for key limitations in current trial assessments. The goal is to create a framework specifically designed to assess single trials leading to marketing authorization in the field of oncology and haematogy.

Improving Collection and Analysis of Overall Survival Data

Advances in anticancer therapies have provided crucial benefits for millions of patients who are living long and fulfilling lives. Although these successes should be celebrated, there is certainly room to continue improving cancer care. Increased long-term survival presents additional challenges for determining whether new therapies further extend patients' lives through clinical trials, commonly known as the gold standard endpoint of overall survival (OS). As a result, an increasing reliance is observed on earlier efficacy endpoints, which may or may not correlate with OS, to continue the timely pace of translating innovation into novel therapies available for patients. Even when not powered as an efficacy endpoint, OS remains a critical indication of safety for regulatory decisions and is a key aspect of the FDA's Project Endpoint. Unfortunately, in the pursuit of earlier endpoints, many registrational clinical trials lack adequate planning, collection, and analysis of OS data, which complicates interpretation of a net clinical benefit or harm. This article shares best practices, proposes novel statistical methodologies, and provides detailed recommendations to improve the rigor of using OS data to inform benefit-risk assessments, including incorporating the following in clinical trials intending to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of cancer therapy: prospective collection of OS data, establishment of fit-for-purpose definitions of OS detriment, and prespecification of analysis plans for using OS data to evaluate for potential harm. These improvements hold promise to help regulators, patients, and providers better understand the benefits and risks of novel therapies.

Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of immature survival data: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

New cancer drugs can be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of surrogate endpoints while data on overall survival are still incomplete or immature, with too few deaths for meaningful analysis. We aimed to evaluate whether clinical trials with immature survival data generated evidence of overall survival benefit during the period after marketing authorisation, and where that evidence was reported.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, we searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drug indications approved between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2018, on the basis of immature survival data. We systematically collected publicly available data on postapproval overall survival results in labelling (Drugs@FDA), journal publications (MEDLINE via PubMed), and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov). The primary outcome was availability of statistically significant overall survival benefits during the period after marketing authorisation (until March 31, 2023). Additionally, we evaluated the availability and timing of overall survival findings in labelling, journal publications, and ClinicalTrials.gov records.

FINDINGS

During the study period, the FDA granted marketing authorisation to 223 cancer drug indications, 95 of which had overall survival as an endpoint. 39 (41%) of these 95 indications had immature survival data. After a minimum of 4·3 years of follow-up during the period after marketing authorisation (and median 8·2 years [IQR 5·3-12·0] since FDA approval), additional survival data from the pivotal trials became available in either revised labelling or publications, or both, for 38 (97%) of 39 indications. Additional data on overall survival showed a statistically significant benefit in 12 (32%) of 38 indications, whereas mature data yielded statistically non-significant overall survival findings for 24 (63%) indications. Statistically significant evidence of overall survival benefit was reported in either labelling or publications a median of 1·5 years (IQR 0·8-2·3) after initial approval. The median time to availability of statistically non-significant overall survival results was 3·3 years (2·2-4·5). The availability of overall survival results on ClinicalTrials.gov varied considerably.

INTERPRETATION

Fewer than a third of indications approved with immature survival data showed a statistically significant overall survival benefit after approval. Notable inconsistencies in timing and availability of information after approval across different sources emphasise the need for better reporting standards.

FUNDING

None.

Lessons from ADAURA: Can we improve on a positive trial?

Although ADAURA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02511106) was a positive trial that produced a significant improvement in both disease‐free survival and overall survival, the limited crossover to postprotocol osimertinib and some other methodological issues detract from the cancer community’s ability to distinguish the benefits of timing of osimertinib versus overall access to osimertinib at a later point. Discrete refinements can be applied to global, randomized phase 3 trials to ensure their design optimally addresses the key clinical question while reducing disparities in best management practices based on resources across health care systems.

Reporting of post-protocol therapies in metastatic breast cancer registration clinical trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

As the treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often includes sequential lines of therapy, data on post-protocol treatment in clinical trials are valuable in the assessment of long-term outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the reported data on post-protocol therapy in clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of drugs for MBC.

METHODS

All initial and subsequent publications related to FDA approved indications for MBC between January 2000 and February 2023 were identified. Collected data included study design, patients' characteristics and whether reporting on post-protocol therapy was available. Differences in study design and population between studies with and without data on post-protocol therapy were evaluated.

FINDINGS

Forty-one indications for MBC were identified. Data were evaluated from 249 publications or abstracts, comprising 20,152 patients. Reporting of post-protocol therapy was available for 22 (53.7 %) indications. Reported data were often incomplete. Reporting has not improved over time with reported data in 50 % and 55.2 % studies between 2000 and 2010 and 2011-2023 (p value for the difference = 1.0), respectively. Studies with OS as their primary endpoints were associated with significantly higher reporting of post-protocol therapy, (p = 0.02). Other characteristics of study design and population were comparable between studies with and without data on post-protocol therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Data on post-protocol therapy in trials supporting FDA approval of drugs for MBC are available for only half of the indications. As subsequent lines of therapy may have a crucial role in patients' outcome, post-protocol reporting should be included in the regulatory submission and be made available publicly.