Are Surrogate Endpoints Unbiased Metrics in Clinical Benefit Scores of the ASCO Value Framework?

The impact of radiological assessment schedules on progression-free survival in metastatic breast cancer: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The impact of interval of restaging on the observed magnitude of benefit of progression-free survival (PFS) is undefined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating anti-neoplastic drugs for metastatic breast cancer which reported the restaging interval and hazard ratio (HR) for PFS were included. Data on study design and study population were collected. HRs and 95% confidence intervals for PFS and OS (overall survival) were pooled in a meta-analysis. Studies were categorized according to short (<9 weeks) or long (≥9 weeks) restaging interval. The differences in PFS and OS effect between trials employing short and long restaging intervals were assessed as subgroup analyses. Analyses were repeated for pre-specified subgroups.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine studies comprising 95 comparisons and 44,901 patients were included. The magnitude of PFS benefit was larger in trials which employed short compared to long restaging intervals, but this difference did not reach the pre-defined threshold for statistical significance (HR = 0.79 vs. 0.86, P = 0.15). Short restaging interval was associated with significantly higher magnitude of effect on PFS in pre-specified subgroups including non-first line trials (HR = 0.78 vs. 0.92, P = 0.04), trials with drugs replacing standard treatment (HR = 0.86 vs. 1.04, P = 0.02) and studies performed in exclusively human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive disease (HR = 0.72 vs. 0.90, P = 0.02). The magnitude of OS benefit was similar with short and long restaging intervals.

CONCLUSIONS

Shorter restaging intervals are associated with a higher magnitude of effect on PFS, but not OS. Awareness of the impact of the restaging interval on quantification of PFS is important for the design and interpretation of RCTs.

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models.

FINDINGS

In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.