Search

IMPORTANCE: The number of new genome-targeted cancer drugs has increased, offering the possibility of personalized therapy, often at a very high cost. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of molecular targets and therapeutic benefits of US Food and Drug Administration–approved genome-targeted cancer drugs based on the outcomes of their corresponding pivotal clinical trials. DESIGN AND SETTINGS: In this cohort study, all genome-targeted cancer drugs that were FDA-approved between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were analyzed. From FDA drug labels and trial reports, key characteristics of pivotal trials were extracted, including the outcomes assessed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The strength of evidence supporting molecular targetability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit for their approved indications was evaluated using the ESMO–Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Substantial clinical benefit was defined as a grade of A or B for curative intent and 4 or 5 for noncurative intent. Molecular targets qualifying for ESCAT category level I-A and I-B associated with substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS were rated as high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. RESULTS: A total of 50 molecular-targeted drugs covering 84 indications were analyzed. Forty-five indications (54%) were approved based on phase 1 or phase 2 pivotal trials, 45 (54%) were supported by single-arm pivotal trials, and 48 (57%) were approved on the basis of subgroup analyses. By each indication, 46 of 84 primary end points (55%) were overall response rate (median [IQR] overall response rate, 57% [40%-69%]; median [IQR] duration of response, 11.1 [9.2-19.8] months). Among the 84 pivotal trials supporting these 84 indications, 38 trials (45%) had I-A ESCAT targetability, and 32 (38%) had I-B targetability. Overall, 24 of 84 trials (29%) demonstrated substantial clinical benefit via ESMO-MCBS. Combining these ratings, 24 of 84 indications (29%) were associated with high-benefit genomic-based cancer treatments. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this cohort study demonstrate that among recently approved molecular-targeted cancer therapies, fewer than one-third demonstrated substantial patient benefits at approval. Benefit frameworks such as ESMO-MCBS and ESCAT can help physicians, patients, and payers identify therapies with the greatest clinical potential.

ObjectiveTo assess the clinical benefit and actionability of molecular targets for genome targeted cancer drugs recommended for clinical practice by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).DesignCross sectional study.Participants/settingGenome targeted cancer drugs recommended by NCCN guidelines in the advanced setting.Main outcome measuresMolecular target actionability was assessed using the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Scale for Clinical Actionability of Molecular Targets (ESCAT). Clinical benefit of genome targeted oncology therapies was evaluated using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Molecular targets at ESCAT category level I associated with studies showing substantial clinical benefit by ESMO-MCBS (grades 4-5) were designated as high benefit, and those linked to studies achieving an ESMO-MCBS grade of 3 were categorized as being of promising but unproven benefit.Results411 recommendations related to 74 genome targeted drugs targeting 50 driver alterations were examined. Most recommendations (346/411; 84%) were associated with clinical trials of various phases, but 16% (65/411) relied on only case reports or pre-clinical studies. However, clinical trials mostly comprised phase I or phase II (271/346; 78%), single arm (262/346; 76%) studies. The primary endpoint assessed in most trials was overall response rate (271/346; 78%) rather than survival. ESCAT tier I targetability encompassed 60% (246/411) of target recommendations, 35% (142/411) were classified as tier II or III, and 6% (23/411) had their relevance yet to be determined (tiers IV to X). When ESMO-MCBS was applied to 267 scorable trials, only 12% (32/267) showed substantial clinical benefit (grades 4-5) and 45% (121/267) were grade 3. When both frameworks were combined, 12% (32/267) of trials supported a determination of high benefit and 33% (88/267) indicated promising but unproven benefit. Of the 118 interventions endorsed by NCCN authors as preferred, 62 (53%) applied to treatments with high or promising but unproven benefit.ConclusionAccording to the ESCAT and ESMO-MCBS frameworks, about one eighth of genome based treatments for solid cancer were rated as likely to offer a high benefit to patients, whereas around a third were identified as offering a promising but unproven substantial benefit. Ensuring that NCCN recommendations are aligned with expected clinical benefits is crucial for promoting informed, evidence based, genomic guided treatment decisions.

IMPORTANCE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committees influence decisions relating to the regulatory approval of drugs in the United States. Outside of the field of oncology, prosponsor voting bias has been observed among members with financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs). OBJECTIVE: To explore factors associated with Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) recommendations and the influence ODAC members’ FCOIs on the drug approval process. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of 82 ODAC meeting transcripts between January 2000 and December 2014. Analysis was restricted to meetings at which votes were cast relating to oncologic drugs. The influence of methodology of trials supporting approval and frequency and type of self-reported FCOIs of voting members was explored using logistic regression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: ODAC recommendation for drug approval and subsequent FDA approval. RESULTS: Eighty-two transcripts of ODAC meetings between January 2000 and December 2014 were available for analysis. During the time period analyzed, ODAC members voted on 68 applications in 79 meetings (the remaining 3 meetings included voting questions regarding postmarketing safety or trial design). There was agreement between ODAC recommendations and final FDA approval; FDA approval was received for all 41 drugs that ODAC recommended approval. Additionally, the FDA approved 7 out of 41 agents that were not recommended for approval by ODAC (κ = 0.83). In 51 of 79 meetings, more than 1 trial was available to support the indication of a particular drug, and favorable ODAC recommendations were more likely when this was the case (odds ratio [OR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.19-2.78; P = .01). Availability of randomized data did not appear to be important with selected single-arm phase 2 trials leading to recommendations for approval, especially in rare diseases. There has been a significant reduction in FCOIs over time (31 of 77 voting members [40%] in 2000 vs 0 of 20 voting members in 2014 [0%]; P < .001). Recommendations for approval were made in 28 of 47 meetings with members reporting FCOIs while among meetings with no reported FCOIs, recommendations for approval were made in 13 of 35 meetings (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.46; P = .10). No significant association between ODAC recommendations and FDA approval was observed for members with FCOIs with the sponsor (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.97-1.46; P = .19 and OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 0.84-14.35; P = .09, respectively) compared with members with FCOIs with competitors (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.78-1.44; P = .72 and OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.28; P = .69, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Availability of multiple trials is associated with higher odds of ODAC recommendation and drug approval. Availability of randomized data appears less important. Declaration of FCOIs among ODAC members was frequent during the time period of interest but has decreased significantly over time. There is no apparent association between FCOIs and ODAC recommendations and subsequent FDA approval.

IMPORTANCE: The high cost of cancer medicines is a public health challenge. Policy makers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing that would cover both the prices of new medicines when entering the market and price increases after they are launched. OBJECTIVE: To assess launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the US compared with 3 European countries (England, Germany, and Switzerland). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation identified all new drugs that were approved for use in the US, England, Germany, and Switzerland with initial indications for treatment of adult solid tumor and hematologic cancers. Analysis included drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, and by the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic until December 31, 2019. Prices were adjusted for currency and inflation. Clinical benefit of drugs indicated for solid tumors was assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, correlations between clinical benefit and launch prices and postlaunch price changes for each country were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs. RESULTS: The cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) approved for solid tumors and 18 (28%) for hematologic cancers. In all countries, the lowest median monthly treatment costs at launch were greater in 2018-2019 vs 2009-2010: $14 580 vs $5790 in the US, $5888 vs $4289 in Germany, $6593 vs $5784 in Switzerland, and $6867 vs $3939 in England. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 of 65 (74%) cancer drugs had price increases in the US that were greater than inflation. Only 1 of 62 (2%) drugs in England, 0 of 60 drugs in Germany, and 7 of 56 drugs (13%) in Switzerland had a median price increase greater than inflation. There were no associations between launch prices or postlaunch price changes and clinical benefit in any assessed country. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During this economic evaluation study period, launch prices of cancer drugs were substantially higher in the US than in the assessed similar high-income European countries, a gap that increased in the years after approval. Cancer drug prices frequently increased faster than inflation in the US but decreased on inflation-adjusted terms in Europe. Price changes were not associated with clinical benefit in any country.