Search

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report.

African Americans (AAs) have a higher incidence of multiple myeloma (MM) than White patients. Mortality is also higher in AAs compared with White patients. AAs more commonly have immunoglobulin H translocations t(11;14) and t(14;16) compared with White patients. We sought to characterize the demographic representation in MM clinical trials and evaluate outcomes based on race and ethnicity. We conducted a pooled analysis of all trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to support approval of a MM therapeutic between 2006 and 2019. Demographic characteristics were analyzed descriptively. An age-adjusted stratified Cox regression model was used to evaluate the relationship between time-to-event outcomes and race and ethnicity. Nineteen global trials comprising 10 157 patients were pooled. White, Asian, and Black patients comprised 84%, 7%, and 4% of the dataset, respectively; Hispanic patients comprised 4%. The age-adjusted overall survival hazard ratio (HR) for Black compared with White patients was 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-1.05). The age-adjusted HR for US Black vs US White patients was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.66-1.02). For rest-of-world (RoW) Black vs RoW White patients, the HR was 1.31 (95% CI, 0.97-1.77). Black and Hispanic patients were underrepresented in the trials supporting FDA approval of MM drugs. Black patients were primarily enrolled in the United States. Outcomes in US patients were more favorable compared with those in patients in the RoW. Given the higher incidence of MM in AAs and the different disease characteristics, efforts should be made to improve representation of AAs in MM clinical trials.

Narrow eligibility criteria may contribute to underrepresentation of racial and ethnic subgroups in cancer clinical trials. We conducted a retrospective pooled analysis of multicenter, global clinical trials submitted to the U.S. FDA between 2006-2019 to support approval of multiple myeloma (MM) therapies to analyze the rates and reasons for trial ineligibility by race and ethnicity in MM clinical trials. Race and ethnicity were coded per OMB standards. Patients flagged as screen failures were identified as ineligible. Ineligibility rates were calculated as a percentage of patients who were ineligible compared to the screened population within the respective racial and ethnic subgroups. Trial eligibility criteria were grouped into specific categories for analysis of reasons for trial ineligibility. Blacks (25%), and Other (24%) race subgroups had higher ineligibility rates compared to Whites (17%). Asian race had the lowest ineligibility rates (12%) among the racial subgroups. Failure to meet Hematologic Lab Criteria (19%) and failure to meet Treatment Related Criteria (17%) were the most common reasons for ineligibility among Blacks and were more common in Black patients compared to other races. Failure to meet Disease Related Criteria was the most common reason for ineligibility among White (28%) and Asian (29%) participants. Our analysis indicates that specific eligibility criteria may contribute to enrollment disparities for racial and ethnic subgroups in MM clinical trials. However, the small number of screened patients in underrepresented racial and ethnic subgroups limits definitive conclusions.

ImportanceSingle-arm trials have allowed for transformative therapies to be made available to patients expeditiously. However, using single-arm trials to support drug approval presents several challenges that must be carefully considered.ObservationsBetween January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration granted 176 new malignant hematology and oncology indications based on single-arm trials, including 116 accelerated approvals (AAs) and 60 traditional approvals. Overall, 87 approvals (49%) were for new molecular entities or original biologics and 89 (51%) were supplemental indications. Response rate (RR) was the most common end point used to support approval in these single-arm trials (173 of 176 [98%]). Of the 116 AAs based on single-arm trials, 45 (38%) fulfilled their postmarketing requirement to verify clinical benefit, 61 (52%) are pending verification of benefit, and 10 (9%) were withdrawn from the market as of December 31, 2021. Most (56 of 61 [92%]) AAs based on single-arm trials pending verification of benefit occurred during the previous 5 years and have ongoing confirmatory trials as of December 2021.Conclusions and RelevanceSingle-arm trials have been a common development strategy to support regulatory approval as early-stage expansion cohorts with promising durable RRs have become more prevalent. In the appropriate context, single-arm trials using durable RRs can allow patients expedited access to novel therapies and will continue to serve a role in advancing drug development in oncology. However, single-arm trials have a smaller noncomparative safety data set, inability to use time-to-event end points, and other limitations that require careful consideration within the context of the disease and available therapies. The randomized clinical trial remains the preferred approach in clinical investigation.